Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 E TRAN COR CELL STE 05-15-00DATE' MAY 15, 2000 NO. 11 5-15-00 /'/~~~ ! nter-Com & TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR CELL SITE FACILITIES SUMMARY: On May 8, 2000, the Planning Commission directed staff to inform the City Council of their cottcerns regarding 125 feet high cellular antenna facilities proposed to be installed along the EaStern Transportation Corridor and recomme/tded that the City Council authorize the Mayor to se~td a letter of oppositio/t to the Transportation Corridor Agencies. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to the Transportation Corridor Agencies regarding the installation of cellular antenna facilities along the Eastern Transportation Corridor. DISCUSSION On May 8, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the information contained in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission directed staff to inform the City Council of their concems regarding the adverse visual impacts of the proposed 125 feet high cellular antennas and recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send correspondence to the Transportation Corridor Agencies opposing the installation of visuallY intrusive cellular antennas facilities. Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 8, 2000 kp:ccrepor~/tcacellsite.doc EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 8, 2000 i n t e r- C o m ,~~e/ DATE' MAY 8, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: · PLAN%TNG COMMISSION COMMU.~ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EASTERN TR2MNSpORTATION CORRIDOR CELL SITE FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission provide input as it deems appropriate. BACKGROUND At the April 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Bell requested information about the Eastern Transportation Corridor Cell Site Facilities. Attached is the staff report and attachments submitt~ by the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) staff to the Aesthetics Committee. At its meeting on April 26, 2000 the Aesthetics Committee expressed several concerns about the proposal. The Committee will be conducting a tour and revisiting this issue this month. Attachment: TCA Staff Report (color photo simulations will be available at the meeting) EB:etc cellsites TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 125 PACIFICA, IRVINE CA 926 ~ 8-3304 949/754-340D FAX 949/754-3467 MEMDRA ND UM April 21, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: F/ETCA Aesthetics C~ ' ETC Cellsite Facilities STAFF RECOMMENDATION · Approve the proposed desig-n of the cellsire tower and ~uipment building for eight locations along the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors (F,'TTC). BACKGROUND Since the opening of the Eastern Tollroad in October, 1998, there has been only limited cellular phone service along the Corridor with no sen-ice in sOme areas. The ETC Board of Directors has placed a high priority on implementation of reliable cellular service for the personal safety of patrons and public safety personnel. Cellular facilities are allowed on State Hie&ways pursuant to a Master License Ag-reement between the State of California and several cellular carriers. The authority of issuing individual Site License A~eements is delegated to each Caltrans District. Although facilities may be placed Mthin Cal~-ans.right of way access must generally be from the adjoining property. An exception to this license requirement would be a cellular facility located at a toll plaza where traffic is traveling slower and offroad parking exists. Nineteen potential sites on the ETC were ori~nally proposed and researched. Ei~t sites were u~ltimateLv selected in order to Provide seamless coverage (location map attached). As many as five carriers may b~ib~ated at each site initially with ultimate capacity for eight. SITE DESIGN In order to meet the technical requirements of all carriers the antennae facilities need to be mounted on tower structures. ~A ~,i.n monooole design Was originally proposed for each site. The Agency and The Irvine Company rejected that initial desig'n. Approval from The Irvine Company is critical to the build-out of the system since they control the access to six out of the eight sites. Alternative designs were conceptually prepared and reviewed with the goal of providing aesthetics consistent with both the natural surroundings and long term development of land adjoining the ETC. Significant design constraints that were considered are: lo o . A tower height to support the five carriers with capacity for expansion to eight. A single design concept for all sites to present a consistent theme along the toll mad and to minimize construction costs. Selection of a low cost maintenance material that integrated into the surrounding environment. Reduce the overall number of structures. Based on the above, The Irvine Company agreed to participate in the planning provided a master plan would be developed in order to avoid a profusion of antennae farms throughout the ETC. The Irvine Company hired Paul Zajfen (the architect who designed the toll plaza structures) to design a single structure to accommodate all the carriers' equipment. Since a very tall structure is technically required which could not be successfully,2mo ~ ,--~-~.~,~,o,~4~., Zajfen recommended a design wh_ich.treated, the tower as a piece of sculpture. A Cot-Ten steel was chosen as the material for_.iZsAm~ maintenance and earthtone color, The proposed tower is a 3-sided structure 123 fe~t.;all that gadually cuwes and closes to a st>ire. The tower is f£~ficated fi-om steel that is i'-ntended to develop a rusty patina and provides each site with a rustic, '~'-" ~.c~ my appearance. The adjoining equipment buildings have one curved face to mimic the curYed design of the toll plaza buildings but are clad in the rust patina steel to tie the entire tower/building desi=o-n together. Antennas and attachment hardware will be painted to match and integrate into the desig-n of the towers. ,. Serious cOnsideration was ~ven to alternative materials and designs in particular locations. These were rejected as too costly or impractical and a violation of one of the standard desigri objective. It is our opinion that no standard design fits perfectly into the context of the different sites and that the proposed design is the best overall solution. Attached are drawings and photographic simulations for Sites 2 and 19. O:engineer/filcs/ts/etc c¢llsit¢ fazililies.do¢ FOO~I ILL / EASTERS:;-7 TOLL ROADS '~' .. State Routes 241, 261 & 13,' \. ~ i ". 9.9 \ " SITE No. 2 x 'I Windy Pddg. e Toll Plaza SITE No. 3 '.~ SITE.No.6 ~__ VELAI,D 14A TIOhIAL FORES r o__ SITE No. f g IrvineRanch Ora~. SITE No. 7 SITE No. I 0 Tomato Springs Toll PJaza LEGEND Eastern Toll Road ~ Foothill T°ll Road J Toll Plaza Locations 112-99 7ree~y SITEVVo. 12 0 0 0 0 .? 0 0 0 n_ 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 '":~'.:'!.. '.. :' - . . · . ~'~5t¥~ 5.' ~--..'.~ - :.: ~. .. 5.~.: _ ~ .~ . .. . .