Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CUP 98-010DR 98-008 10-05-98DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1998 Inter-Com NO. 1 10-5-98 TO' FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 & DESIGN REVIEW 98-008 SUMMARY: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-010 and Design Review (DR) 98-008 are requests to establish a 60foot tail major wireless communications facility designed to look like a palm tree behind the Tustin Self-Storage building at 550 West 6th Street, and adjacent to the Santa Ana (1-5)Freeway. The property is located within the Planned Industrial (PM) Zoning Districa On August 24, 1998, the Planning Commission approved CUP 98-010 and DR 98-008. At the September 8, 1998 City Council Meeting, the Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the Conditional Use Permit attd Design Review. Applicant: Ms. Barbara Salto, Nextel Communications, Ina Property Owner: Tustin Self Storage Limited RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take action as deemed appropriate.. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant paid the application fees associated with the processing of these permits. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a major wireless communications facility for the company's cellular communication network. The facility is proposed to be a 60 foot high structure designed to resemble a palm tree and located on the south side of Tustin Self-Storage adjacent to the I-5 Santa Ana Freeway. The equipment necessary for operation of the facility is proposed to be located within the Self-Storage building. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9276, any ground-mounted wireless communication facility located outside the public right-of-way is considered a major facility and subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. On July 13, 1998 and August 24, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this application. Although staff recommended denial of the project at both meetings, the Commission conditionally approved the project by adopting Resolution No. 3601 (Attachment A). The Commission felt that the applicant's willingness to provide additional palm tree clusters adjacent to the facility was sufficient to mitigate the potential visual impacts of the facility. A copy of the staff reports for the July 13 and August 10 Planning Commission meetings has been City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-010 and [ October 5, 1998 Page 2 -008 ~ included in Attachment B. A copy of the minutes from the July 13 and August 10 Planning Commission meetings has been included in Attachment C. Surrounding uses include: the Boys and Girls Club, a church, and a condominium complex to the west; single-family residential to the north across 6th Street; mixed industrial and commercial uses to the east; and the I-5 Santa Ana Freeway to the south. There are two other major wireless communications facilities in the immediate vicinity, one at 622 South B Street, approximately 750 feet to the east, and the other at 600 West 6th Street, approximately 850 feet to the west. Both facilities are unadorned monopoles with antenna support structures mounted at the tops of the poles. DISCUSSION Project Description The proposal, consists of the installation of a 60 foot tall monopole, with fifteen (15) 1 foot by 4 foot antenna panels. The facility is intended to look like a palm tree, with "fronds" clustered around the antenna elements and the "trunk" painted brown. There are a few such facilities operated throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties, with the closest one to Tustin being a "monopalm" operated by LA Cellular on the south side of SR-22 at the Glassell Street offramp in Santa Ana. The equipment required to operate the facility is to be located within a space inside the self-storage building. The facility is proposed to be located near the southeast corner of the building and approximately 12 feet north of the freeway right-of-way and 12 feet south of the building wall. The facility would be at least 300 feet south of the 6th Street right-of-way. Project Site Characteristics Tustin City Code Section 9276 includes development criteria related to screening, site selection and Iocational criteria for wireless communications facilities. The screening guidelines require that facilities be located in areas that minimize their intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-mounted facilities should only be located in proximity to existing above ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles. In addition, the site selection order of preference identifies that wireless facilities be primarily located on existing structures; and secondarily located where existing topography, vegetation, or other structures provide the greatest screening. As a last choice, the facilities shall be located only on vacant ground without significant visual mitigation only in commercial and industrial districts. Further, the site selection guidelines require applicants to provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating facilities in accordance with the order of preference. The monopalm is proposed to be located 360 feet from the residential properties across 6th Street to the north, and is more than 100 feet from other major wireless facilities. However, there are no other structures, utilities, or trees of comparable heights in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility. The applicant has provided written documentation of their site selection process. In particular they examined the possibility of creating a stealth, building-mounted facility or co-locating the facility. According to their correspondence, none of the adjacent buildings offered adequate height for the signal to clear the SR-55/I-5 freeway interchange and neither of the adjacent facilities were suited to co-location (Attachment D). City Council Report Appeal of CUP 98-010 and D October 5, 1998 Page 3 008 'Ii Overconcentration and Visual Intrusion For wireless communication systems to provide sufficient service, a number of facilities must be located within a service area and mounted high above the ground to overcome topographic constraints. As a result, the primary issues associated with wireless communications facilities are the potential for overconcentration and visual intrusion. The proposed facility is not within 100 feet of another facility as required by Tustin City Code Section 9276. There are two facilities in the vicinity of the project site, approximately 750 and 850 feet from the project site. The proposed facility is located in an industrial area, is partially visible to residentially zoned or used property, and will be camouflaged from view so as to minimize its appearance as an antenna structure. During the Planning Commission hearings, the applicant worked to limit potential visual intrusion that could result from the facility. To lessen the potentially awkward appearance of a single sixty foot tall structure, the Planning Commission included conditions to provide two clusters of palm trees adjacent to the wireless facility. The palms would be of the same type as the facility (Date Palms). One cluster of palms would consist of one (1) forty foot palm tree and two (2) fifty foot palms. The other cluster would consist of two (2) fifty foot palms and the sixty foot monopole facility. Conditions were also included to ensure that the condition and appearance of the palms would be monitored so as to maintain the effectiveness of the visual screening. Photo-simulations have been included as Attachment E to show how the facility is expected to appear. CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES The following options are available to the City Council: . Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, including any additional conditions as deemed appropriate; 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Assistant ~ \ BE:Cup98010appealccreport.doc Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachment: A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3601 B - July 13, 1998 and August 10, 1998 Planning Commission Reports C - July 13, 1998 and August 10, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes D - Site Selection Justification from Applicant E - Photo-simulations LOt \TI 0 N MAP LoC. AT~ o ~ J L S~x T'H sT~rET 8 g ~n BO 400 -1 r ' L ,(,tO 620 6.,'0 650 6~_2 EL CAM/NO I~L A/A 602 604 668 642 o i 660 662 664 NO 80ALE ATTACHMENTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3601 2O 2~ 2,-. RESOLUTION NO. 3601 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-008 AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 60 FOOT HIGH MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 550 WEST 6TH STREET. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao Be Co Do That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 98-010 and Design Review 9.8-008 was filed by Nextel Communications to establish a major wireless facility located behind the building at 550 West 6th Street. A 60 foot tall monopole structure disguised as a date palm tree would contain fifteen (15) 1 foot by 4 foot antenna panels. That the proposed facility is consistent with the requirements of Tustin City Code Section 9276 et seq., relating to wireless communications facilities. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on July 13, 1998, and continued to the August 10 and August 24, 1998 meetings by the Planning Commission. That modification, maintenance, and operation of a major wireless communication facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of th, e subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: 1) The proposed facility, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to, or have a negative effect on, surrounding properties in that the proposed facility will be located behind a building in an Industrial zoning district, consistent with site selection criteria in Tustin City Code Section 9276(F)(2)(a)(3), which identifies placement in commercial and industrial zones as a preferred l0 20 23 24 26 -2? 28 29 i "Resolution No. 3601 Page 2 Bo F, location for such facilities. Consistent with the Ioca'tional guidelines in TCC Section 9276(H), the facility will be iocated in the Planned Industrial District and will not be located within 100 feet of any existing, legally established major wireless communication facility nor within 300 feet of residentially zoned or used property. 2) The proposed facility, as conditioned, is compatible with uses in the surrounding area in that the placement of five (5) additional date palms will minimize the visual intrusion on the surrounding community. Scheme 1, as modified by the Planning Commission to include a cluster of two (2) fifty foot tall date palms and one (1) forty foot tall date palm, and a cluster of two (2) fifty foot tall date palms and the sixty foot tall monopalm will help to make the wireless facility appear more natural and less out of place. Consistent with TCC Section 9276(F)(1), the facility will be screened from view and will be located in close proximity to trees of comparable heights. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed facility will not impair the ordedy and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole, in making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: , . Height, bulk and area of buildings. Setbacks an~! site planning. 3. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. o Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. , Appearance and design relationship of' proposed improvements to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thorOughfares. o Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted bY the City Council. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 1) pur. suant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. " 2O 24 25 2? 29 Resolution No. 3601 Page 3 Go That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. il. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 98- 010 and Design Review 98-008 authorizing establishment of a major wireless communication facility at 550 West 6th Street, subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 24th day of August, 1998. /f_ES~ PONTIOUS Chairperson '~LIZAB E'i-k~A: BiNsACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3601 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of August, 1998. Planning Commission Secretary GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.5 (1) 1.6 EXHIBIT a CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL CUP 98-010 AND DR 98-008 AUGUST 24, 1998 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped August 24, 1998, .on file with the .Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modification to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. Design Review ai~proval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit. The applicant shall sign and retum an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to the issuance of any permits. All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issUance of any building permits for this. project, subject to review and approval of plans by the Community Development Department. Any public improvements damaged by the applicant adjacent to this project shall be repaired and/or replaced by the applicant as determined by the Engineering Division and shall include but 'not be limited to curb, gutter, street paving and drive apron. Design Review approval shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director on August 24, 2003. The Director may recommend to the City Council modification to the existing conditions or impose new conditions as part of such review to protect the public health, safety, community aesthetics and general welfare. SOURCE. CODES (2) (3) (4) STANDARD CONDITION CEQ. A MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY EQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Exhibit A- Resolution No. 3601 Conditions of Approval CUP 98-010, DR 98-00~ Page 2 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. Except as otherwise stated in Condition 1.2, Design Review approval shall remain valid for a period not to exceed the term of the lease on the subject property, including any extension thereof. A copy of said lease shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any permits. If the lease is extended or terminated, notice and evidence thereof shall be provided to the Community Development Director. Upon termination or expiration of the lease, the facilities shall be removed from the subject property. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 2.1 At building permit plan check, the applicant shall submit three (3) complete sets of architectural, electrical and mechanical plans with the necessary structural calculations, specifications and details complying with the Uniform Building Code, other related Codes, City Ordinances and State and Federal Laws and regulations. The structural calculations and specifications shall be prepared by a California registered civil or structural engineer. The engineer's license number and license expiration date shall be indicated on the report. (1) 2.2 All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall com~iy with the City of Tustin Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting and storm drains shall comply with on-site improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the attention of the Building Official and request for approval shall be submitted in writing prior to any approval. (6) 2.3 At building plan check, the applicant shall .submit three (3) sets of landscaping and irrigation plans identifying the existing and proposed landscaping, planting details, and modifications to the existing irrigation system. The plan shall be prepared consistent with the City's landscaping and irrigation guidelines. SITE PLAN/ELEVATIONS (4) 3.1 The number of antenna sectors shall be limited to the number shown on the approved plans. The location and configuration of the antenna facility shall be restricted to the location and configuration shown on the approved plans. Exhibit A- Resolution No. 3601 Conditions of Approval CUP 98-010, DR 98-008 Page 3 (4) 3.2 (4) 3.3 NOISE (1) 4.1 The installation of the facility shall be consistent with scheme 1 identifying the date palm trees planted in two tight clusters. A minimum of two (2) fifty foot tall date palms shall be provided in the right cluster, and two (2) fifty foot tall and one (1) forty foot tall date palms shall be provided in the left cluster. A 6 foot tall wrought iron fence shall be installed around the wireless facility to prevent unauthorized access to the facility, subject to final approval of the Community Development Department. The applicant shall prepare a preliminary report within 90 days of completion of the project demonstrat!ng conformance with national standards for safe human exposure to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency installation. Said report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. The condition of the palm trees is to be monitored by the Community Development Director. If the height, style or condition of the trees serves to lessen the visual mitigation of the communication facility, the Director can require that the trees be trimmed, altered, moved or replaced to ensure that the facility will be scre6ned and located in close proximity to trees of comparable heights. All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and that public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. FEES (1) 5.1¸ Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. Ao Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. Exhibit A- Resolution No.' 3601 Conditions of Approval CUP 98-010, DR 98-008 Page 4 Bo Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS JULY 13, 1998 AND AUGUST 10, 1998 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: JULY 13, 1998 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 7275 DERIAN AVENUE IRVINE, CA 92614 A'i-i'N' BARBARA SAITO TUSTIN SELF STORAGE LIMITED 4 VENTURE #310 IRVINE, CA 92618 550 WEST 6TH STREET PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHICH STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY. RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT COMMUNICATION FACILITY A MAJOR WIRELESS That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3601 denying Conditional Use Permit 98-010. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional use Permit to establish a major wireless communications facility for the company's cellular communication network. The facility is proposed to be a 60 foot high structure designed to resemble a palm tree and located on the south side of Tustin Self-Storage adjacent to the I-5 Santa Aha Freeway. The equipment necessary for operation of the facility is proposed to be located within the Self-Storage building. Pursuant to Tustin City Code SectiOn 9276, any ground-mounted wireless communications facility located outside the public right-of-way is considered a major facility subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Surrounding uses include: the Boys and Girls Club, a churc, h, and a condominium complex to the west; single-family residential :to the north across 6th Street; mixed industrial and Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-008 July 13, 1998 Page 2 commercial uses to the east; and the I-5 Santa Aha Freeway to the south. There are two other major wireless communications facilities in the immediate vicinity, one at 622 South B Street, approximately 750 feet to the east, and the other at 600 West 6th Street, approximately 850 feet to the west. Project Description The proposal consists of the installation of a 60 foot tall monopole, with fifteen (15) 1 foot by 4 foot antenna panels. The facility is intended to look like a palm tree, with "fronds" clustered around 'the antenna elements and the "trunk" painted brown. There are a few such facilities operated throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties, with the closest one to Tustin being a "monopaim" operated by LA Cellular on the south side of aR-22 at the Glassell Street offramp in Santa Ana. The equipment required to operate the facility is to be located within a space inside the self-storage building. The facility is proposed to be located near the southeast corner of the building and approximately 12 feet north of .the freeway right-of-way and 12 feet south of the building wall. The facility would be at least 300 feet south of the 6th Street right-of-way (Attachments A and B). DISCUSSION Proiect Site Characteristics Tustin City Code Section 9276 includes development criteria related to screening, site selection and Iocational criteria for wireless communications facilities (Attachment E). The screening guidelines require that facilities be located in areas that minimize their intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-mounted facilities should only be located in proximity to existing above ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles, in addition, the site selection order of preference identifies that wireless facilities be primarily located on existing structures, secondarily be located where existing topography, vegetation, or other structures provide the greatest screening. As a last choice, the facilities shall be located only on vacant ground without significant visual mitigation only in commercial and industrial districts. Further, the site selection guidelines require applicants to provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating facilities in accordance with the order of preference (Attachment C). The monopalm is proposed to be located 360 feet from the residential properties to the north, and is more than 100 feet from other major wireless facilities. However, there are no other structures, utilities, or trees of comparable heights in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility. The applicant has provided written documentation of their site selection process. In particular they examined the possibility of creating a stealth, building-mounted facility or co- locating the facility. According to their correspondence, none of the adjacent buildings offered adequate height for the signal to clear the SR-55/I-5 freeway interchange and neither of the adjacent facilities were suited to co-location (Attachment C). Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-008 July 13, 1998 Page 3 Overconcentration and Visual Intrusion For wireless communication systems to provide sufficient service, a number of facilities must be located within a service area and mounted high above the ground to overcome topographic constraints. As a result, the primary issues associated with wireless communications facilities are the potential for overconcentration and visual intrusion. With respect to overconcentration, the proposed facility is not within 100 feet of another facility as required by Tustin City Code Section 9276. With respect to visual intrusion, the proposed facility is located in an industrial area, is partially visible to residentially zoned or used property, and will be camouflaged from view so as to minimize its appearance as an antenna structure. Attachment B includes photographic renderings which show how the facility is expected to appear from three vantage points: 1) the view facing south on Pacific Street; 2) the view facing northeast from the southbound Santa Aha Freeway (!-5); and 3) the view facing west from the northbound Santa Ana Freeway. These three perspectives provide the most common views of the proposed facility from the public rights-of-way. However, these photos also demonstrate that the height of the proposed facility, combined with a general lack of palm trees or other structures of similar height in the immediate vicinity, will appear awkward and unbalanced. If it is the intention of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed facility, a condition of approval could be included requiring that the applicant plant additional palm trees of a similar height immediately adjacent to the facility to provide additional screening. As an alternate, the Planning Commission could require the applicant explore the option of disguising the facility as a different type of tree, such as a eucalyptus, that exists in greater numbers on and around the project site. The maximum height allowed in the Planned Industrial district is 50 feet. TCC Section 9276(I) allows the City to consider wireless facilities that exceed the maximum height permitted within a zoning district by up to ten feet. While this application is within that maximum limit, other wireless facilities in the general vicinity are more effective at limiting their visual impact to the general public. Examples include: , 1671 E! Cam,no Real. A tower element on the Key Inn was raised up to 47 feet in height.' This provided the height necessary for the operation of the wireless network while disguising the facility to look like a part of an existing building. . 600 West 6th Street. The 60 foot tall monopole facility is surrounded by a number of trees the height of the facility or taller, helping to divert attention from the facility itself. . 2721 Michelle Drive. The 60 foot tall monopole facility is sited behind a eucalyptus tree of a comparable height to the facility; thus screening its view from the Santa Ana Freeway. , 36 Auto Center Drive. The 60 foot tall monopole facility at the Tustin Ranch Road/Santa Aha Freeway interchange is surrounded by light standards of similar heights. The monopole is going to be replaced with a building-mounted facility on one of the MacPherson buildings in the Auto Center. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-008 July 13, 1998 Page 4 . E.B. SR-22 Freeway at the Main Street/Glassell Street interchange in Santa Aha. The monopole facility is designed to look like a palm tree. To further camouflage the facility, several live palm trees of similar heights were planted immediately adjacent to the monopole to provide a "cluster" appearance. In addition, the base of the equipment is screened from the public right-of-way by hedgerows along the freeway on-ramp. o N.B. Santa Aha Freeway at the Culver Drive interchange in Irvine. A tower that mimics the design themes of the adjacent office building was constructed to house a stealth wireless facility. . S.B. Santa Ana Freeway at the Jeffrey Road interchange in Irvine. A monopole facility is situated in front of a row of tall Eucalyptus trees, and is visible from the Santa Aha Freeway. However, the monopole is painted forest green and effectively blends into the row of trees. Health and Safety Issues In the past, there have been community concems related to possible health risks associated with the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radio frequency radiation (RFR) from wireless communication facilities. However, the EMF and RFR exposure levels from cellular facilities fall well below the safety thresholds set by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) and the Amedcan National Standards Institute (ANSI). As a condition of licensure, the FCC requires all wireless providers to comply with the ANSI standards. While staff is recommending denial of the project, if it is the Planning Commission's intention to approve the project, a condition could be included requiring the apPlicant to provide a preliminary report within ninety (90) days of project completion demonstrating conformance with national standards for safe human exposure to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation. ANALYSIS In determining whether to approve this Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed facility will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the neighborhood or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the city. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings: 1) The location and configuration of the proposed use is not consistent with the City's adopted screening guidelines (Tustin City Code Section 9276(F)(1)) for wireless communications facilities, which require placement in areas that will minimize the aesthetic intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-mounted facilities should only be located in close proximity to eXisting above ground utilities, such as electrical towers, utility poles, or light poles of comparable heights. The lack of utilities of comparable heights and styles would make it difficult to adequately screen the proposed wireless facility from the adjacent residential properties across 6th Street. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-008 July 13, 1998 Page 5 2) Trees common to the areas surrounding the project site primarily include eucalyptus trees, and those on the project site generally do not exceed thirty feet in height. In these settings, a sixty foot tall palm tree will be as visible and appear as awkward an out of place as a sixty foot tall unadomed monopole wireless facility. 3) The lack of screening materials, including structures and landscaping allows for unobstructed visibility of the proposed facility from the Santa Aha Freeway. Senior Planner BE:cup98010pcreport Attachments: A - Location Map B - Submitted Plans C 'Site Selection Justification from Applicant D - Resolution No. 3601 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: AUGUST 10, 1998 SUBJECT: · CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-008 APPLICANT:' NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 17275 DERIAN AVENUE IRVlNE, CA 92614 ATTN: BARBARA SAITO PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN SELF STORAGE LIMITED 4 VENTURE #310 IRVINE, CA 92618 LOCATION: 550 WEST 6TH STREET ZONING: PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 'THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHICH STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional use Permit to establish a major wireless communications facility for the company's cellular communication network. The facility is proposed to be a 60 foot high structure designed to resemble a palm tree and located on the south side of Tustin Self-Storage adjacent to the I-5 Santa Ana Freeway. The equipment necessary for operation of the facility is proposed to be located within the Self-Storage building. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9276, any ground-mounted wireless communications facility located outside the public right-of-way is considered a major facility subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-00~' August 10, 1998 (Continu. Page 2 At the July 13, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item. A number of issues were raised as .to the visual impacts of the proposal. Concerns were expressed by the Commission related to the lack of other structures or palm trees of a similar height to the proposed wireless facility in and around the project site. The consensus was that a 60 foot high palm tree would likely appear as awkward and out of place as would an unadorned 60 foot tall wireless facility. The Planning Commission continued the item to August 10, 1998 to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore alternatives and refinements to the proposal. The applicant has undertaken two courses of action to attempt to address the concerns raised at the July 13 meeting: 1) The applicant has prepared Plans showing additional landscaping for the Tustin Self Storage site; and 2)' The applicant is exploring the possibility of moving the facility to a location that could provide more effective screening. The July 13, 1998 Planning Commission report is included as Attachment E to provide a complete discussion on all other aspects of the application. DISCUSSION PALM CLUSTERS The applicant is proposing to provide five (5) additional date palm-type trees clustered around the wireless facility. The additional trees would be of a similar type and at least 40 feet in height, and could potentially diminish the visual impact of a single, 60 foot tall palm surrounded by eucalyptus trees. The applicant has provided photo-simulations taken from the southbound side of the Santa Aha Freeway showing two different clustering patterns (Attachment C). Scheme 1 includes two (2) 50 foot tall and three (3) 40 foot tall palms placed two clusters of three trees each, including the monopalm. Scheme 2 includes three (3) 50 foot tall and two (2) 40 foot palms with the monopalm spaced out along the back of the Self-Storage bUilding. Color landscape elevations showing the palm tree clustering have also been provided. If the Commission desires to approve the project with the additional trees, Scheme 1 would be preferred. The applicant has provided written documentation of their site selection process. In particular they examined the possibility of creating a stealth, building-mounted facility or co-locating the facility. According to their correspondence, none of the adjacent buildings offered adequate height for the signal to clear the SR-55/I-5 freeway interchange and neither of the adjacent facilities were suited to co-location (Attachment D). Planning Commission Report CUP 98-010 & DR 98-008 August 10, 1998 (Continue,.. Page 3 Based on the revised plans and new information, the following options are available to the Commission at this time: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3601 denying the project; or, . Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the project with the additional trees, Schemes I or 2, as appropriate, for consideration at the August 24, 1998 meeting. Assistar~t PI~ ~/ / BE:Cup98010pcreportcontinue.doc Attachment: Daniel Fox, AICP Senior Planner A- Location Map B - Submitted Plans C - Revised'Photo Simulations D - site Selection Justification E - Planning Commission Report Dated July 13, 1998 F - Resolution No. 3601 ATTACHMENTC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1998 AND AUGUST 10, 1998 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak INVOCATION: Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Howard Mitzman, Chairman Scott Browne Douglass Davert Steve Kozak Leslie Pontious Staff Present: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) No Public Concerns were expressed. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE Planning Commission IV July 13, 1998 Page 7 Condition 6.2 added as follows: All uses and operations on the site shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Speakers used in conjunction with the menu board shall be oriented so as to project sound away from the adjacent residential development. A final noise analysis shall be prepared based on the final working drawings to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Said noise analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. The height of the two sound walls shall be reviewed and evaluated as part of the noise analysis, and raised to the maximum height feasible to achieve noise mitigation. Condition 8.1 changed to read: Hours of operation of the restaurant and drive thru lane shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to Midnight on Friday and Saturday. Motion carried 3-2. Chairman Mitzman and Commissioner Browne were opposed. The Public Hearing closed at 8:44 p.m. The appeal process was explained. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 a request for authorization to construct a major wireless communication facility at 550 West Sixth Street located within the Planned Industrial District (PM). APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN SELF STORAGE LIMITED RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3601 denying Conditional Use Permit 98-010. Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report. The Public Hearing opened at 8:46 p.m. Barbara Saito, applicant, thanked staff, presented photos of facilities mentioned in staff report, stated that the project meets the City's ordinance and stated that three real trees could be added to the landscape. Chairman Mitzman inquired if the original request has changed to add three live trees. Barbara Saito responded that her proposal would be one stealth and 2 or 3 live trees. Planning Commission July 13,-1998 Page 8 Commissioner Browne inquired if the applicant had gotten the property owner's approval for the additional trees. Barbara Saito stated that she had not but would not be able to continue with the project if the property owner did not approve. The Director noted that a phone call was received from Jeff Thompson, a resident who had concerns with visual intrusion. Bradley Evanson noted that additional trees were not proposed in the original submittal however, a subsequent resubmittal identified the potential for additional trees although quantity and location were not specified. Commissioner Browne asked if the .hearing would have to be renoticed for the change~ The Director indicated that if the Commission wished, they could direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with conditions to be brought back to another meeting. Commissioner Davert asked if the additional trees were significant mitigation. The Director responded that staff would still recommend denial of the proposal because it is not appropriate and is intrusive of the area and requested the Commission's direction. Commissioner Kozak suggested the Cai Trans right of way as a location. Barbara Saito indicated that the right of way is closer to residential uses. Commissioner Pontious inquired if the applicant spoke with the Boys and Girls Club since they have indicated an interest in pursuing a site at their location and asked if the hearing be continued so the applicant could pursue an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club. Barbara Saito responded that they had not but if the hearing were continued, she would pursue location at the Boys and Girls Club. Commissioner Davert stated his concern about the Commission getting involved with contract negotiations. Chairman Mitzman suggested a 30 day continuance for a formal proposal for more trees. Commissioner Kozak requested the applicant to provide proof of property owner approval and renderings. Commissioner Davert asked if the applicant was under time constraints. Planning Commission M; July 13, 1998 Page 9 ~S Barbara Saito stated she would be able to provide the necessary information in time for the next meeting's packet. Commissioner Davert asked staff if two weeks continuance was enough time to complete the packet for the next meeting and if a variance would be required if a more suitable location were found but is within 100 feet. The Director responded that a variance would not be required since the ordinance is written as "should be located" but staff has identified that they would prefer not within 100 feet. Commissioner Davert asked what staff would suggest as an alternative. The Director indicated that staff stated it would be acceptable to blend the monopole more into the area by following the eucalyptus streetscape. Commissioner Davert asked what direction should be given to the applicant. The Director asked if the applicant were to provide cluster palms would that be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Davert asked if the Commission could approve the additional palms at this meeting. The Director responded that staff did not have a resolution of approval to provide the Commission at this meeting, Chairman Mitzman and Commissioner Pontious stated that they would like the applicant to approach 'the Boys and Girls Club about location. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Kozak seconded, to continue the hearing to the August 10, 1998 meeting. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Davert was opposed. The Public Hearing closed at 9:24 p.m. The Commission recessed for five minutes. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-015 a request for authorization to establish instructional sessions, as a temporary use, for in-line skating in the parking area in front of the Chick's Sporting Goods. The project is located at 2771 El Camino Real within the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Mixed Used. APPLICANT: PONITE WEST/CHICKS SPORTING GOODS PROPERTY MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Browne INVOCATION: Chairperson Pontious ROLL CALL: Browne, Davert, Jones, Kozak, and Pontious Commissioners Present: Chairperson Leslie Pontious Vice Chair Steve Kozak Scott Browne Douglass Davert Paul Jones Staff Present: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Associate Planner Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) No Public Concerns were expressed. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. Planning Commission IV" August 10, 1998 Page 4 PROPERTY OVVNER: ROGER DE YOUNG FAMILY, L.P. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing opened at7:06 p.m. Karen Peterson, Associate Planner presented the subject report. Devin Sloan, applicant, stated that beer and wine sales are an integral part of the business and there have been no incidences at their other locations. Commissioner Kozak inquired if the other locations had the same hours for sale of alcoholic beverages as proposed for this location. Devin Sloan stated that their other facilities operate on a 24 hour basis. Daniel Fox noted that 6:00 a.m.. to 2:00 a.m. are hours mandated by the state. The Public Hearing closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he is comfortable with the resolution as presented and will vote affirmatively. Commissioner Kozak moved to approve the project while limiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to 12:00 p.m. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Browne seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3606 approving Conditional Use Permit 98-013. Motion carried 3- 1_. Commissioner Pontious was opposed. Commissioner Jones abstained. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 AND DESIGN REVIEW 98-008 a request to construct a major wireless communication facility at 550 W. Sixth Street. The project is located within the Planned Industrial (PI) district. APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PROPERTY OVVNER: TUSTIN SELF STORAGE LIMITED Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Planning Commission Mir August 10, 1998 Page 5 The Public Hearing opened at 7:13 p.m. Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report. Commissioner Browne inquired why Plan 1 is preferred over Plan 2. Bradley Evanson responded that a cluster of palm trees is more common as shown in Plan 1. Barbara Saito, applicant, thanked staff and stated that she had been in contact with the Boys and Girls Club and they are interested in entering into a lease agreement. The Public Hearing closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Davert stated that he liked the monopalm and the applicant did a great job. Commissioner Jones stated that he did not see an advantage to the City and the area is already overloaded with antennae and encouraged the applicant to investigate other sites. Commissioner Kozak stated his desire to approve Plan I and replace the two (2) forty foot trees with two (2) fifty foot trees but did not want to preclude the applicant from pursuing discussions with the Boys and Girls Club. Commissioner Jones moved to deny the project. The motion died for lack of a second. Barbara Saito inquired if pursuing an alternate site would be part of the resolution. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that would be inappropriate and should be considered separately. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kozak seconded, to request that staff prepare and return a resolution of approval to the Commission at the 'August 24, 1998 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98-161 a request to subdivide a four (4) acre site into two (2) numbered lots for conveyance purposes only. The project is located at 715-765 El Camino Real, 120-250 Sixth Street within the Central Commercial/Parking Overlay (C- 2, P)/Multiple Family Residential (R-3)/Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. OVVNER: · CHARLES AND PATRICIA FORD APPLICANT: DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY ATTACHMENT D SITE SELECTIO.N JUSTIFICATION Nextel C,","nrnunications 17275 D ~,venue, Irvine, CA 92614 (714) 862-..,0 Fax (714) 862-23'13 June 3, 1998 Brad Evanson City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: CUP 98-010 and DR 98-008 550 West 6:~' Street Dear Brad: Enclosed are the revised site plans and elevations for the above mentioned project per your request on May 14, 1998. Also. enclosed is the title report. The plans reflect the existing easements on the property as well as the drainage swale at the rear of the property. The swale is off-site, presumable owned by Cai Trans as they are the ones who built it. Your requested dimensions are shown on the plans. Finally, enclosed is a map indicating the existing and proposed sites within or surrounding Tustin. There is a site near 17:~' and 1-55 proposed on a rooftop that will be submitted soon. (I was unaware of this site.) The remaining proposed sites may not be in the City's incorporated area. It is unclear why the staff does not support the 'proposed project based on my understanding of the code requirements for a major wireless facility. I believe we meet the requirements as follows: Site Selection Order of Preference: The third level of preference indicates locations where existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. The selected site has an existing 23' building. This building provides absolute screening to the adjacent residential parcels across 6TM Street. A person would have to be over 400 feet from the monopalm to begin to see it due to the building blocking the view. At this distance, only a few homes along Pacific Street will have visibility from their front yards. As to the freeway visibility,, the monopole has been designed to be a "monopalm". As a commuter drives north along I-5, the existing onsite trees will screen, the base of the facility, while the trees on adjacent northerly parcels will provide background screening.' As a commuter drives south along I-5, circumventing the 1-55 interchange will probably be the most important concern, however, the on-site trees Will provide screening to the base. As to the portion of the facility above the existing building, it is not uncommon to see palm trees in the skyline. When this site was determined to be a viable site for Nextel, I visited ihe City and spoke with Scott Reekstin as to its compliance with the new ordinance. Scott had been involved in the writing of the ordinance and attended the public hearings. He said that the facility would be required to be "stealthed", and that the largest concern over visual th impact would be to the 6 Street neighbors. We discussed colocation on either the PBMS facility or the Airtouch facility, both located on 6t" Street. Neither of these sites seemed suitable because the overall height would be increased to add Nextel's antennas. City of Tustin June 3, 1998 Page 2 There are two properties on 6TM Street that have more vegetation than the proposed property. One is are the end of 6TM Street, where PBMS has built their facility. The zoning code prohibits a second facility from being installed within 100 feet of the existing facility. There is no available location on said site that meets the distance requirements. The second property is the Boys and Girls Club. The only available location on this site would reduce the play yard by 1200 square feet, our normal lease area for a monopole and equipment shelter. Neither propeAy owner was approached due to these constraints. The Site Selection Order'of Preference does not preclude a facility from being installed in the location proposed. Nextel has provided mitigations that decrease the impact of the facility from all views. Other Cdteria and Guidelines: The proposed facility does not include any signs or other advertising devices. The attendant radio equipment will be installed inside the existing building. There are no residences within 300 feet of the proposed facility. Additional Locational Guidelines for Major Wireless Communications Facilities: As mentioned the proposed facility is not within 300 feet of a residence or residential zone. The proposed facility is not within 100 feet of an existing, legally established major wireless communication facility. The proposed facility does not exceed 10 feet over the maximum permitted height of the zoning district. Although meeting the guidelines does not guarantee approval of the conditional use permit, I believe that Nextel has responded to the City's requests for justification of the proposed facility, to its requests for screening, and to its Iocational requirements. It is unclear to me where a major wireless facility would be more suitable in this area and still meet Nextel's coverage requirements. As a note, you had earlier requested the coaxial cable be undergrounded to the pole. Initially, I thought we were unable to do so because of the proximity of the pole to the building. However, we can comply with your request. The coaXial Cable will be housed in a 18"x6" chase down the face of the building, under the walkway and ground to the pole. _ You have also requested palm trees to be planted to mitigate the height of the monopalm. At this time, the located for the additional trees has not been determined so a note has been shown on the plans to install additional palm trees. Please deem this application complete and schedule the project for public hearing. Please feel free to call me at (714) 862 - 2342 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely,  . MUNICATIONS INC. ~Saito~.. ~bsos~s.~?86 , Agent ATTACHMENT E SUBMITTED PLANS AND P H OTO-S IM U LATIO NS ,4 ; .~ IdZXTF..L C~g'UClCATII3~, SITE; ~D~SS: D~~,' ~LE S~ McFADDEN 5786 'I~~ DESIGN (;ROC;F 550 W. 6TM S~ET :i.,,.i, 'I'USTIN,' CA 92680 I · NO0 02' ~0=W 2~1 ?~* SITE: McFADDEN 5786 ADDRESS: 550 W. 6TM STREET TUSTI~, CA 92680 p=_fO, WENG: SITE PI.AN ~' EXISTI~IG BUILDING H~GHT NEXTEL CO4~4~ICATI01G, ll~.. 17~7~ i)F. RldvN IRVII(. CALIFORNIA 9~14 ,SITE: McFADDEN 5786 ~,DDRES~;: 550 W. 6TM STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 PROPERTY LINE ilI