HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-00 PC PACKET AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 10, 2000
Tustin Legacy Update 6:15 p.m., City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and
Pontious .
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for'Items not on the agenda.)
At this time members of the public may address the
Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO
• action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by
law).
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY
MATTER, • PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS
LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR
REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING
CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO,
ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR
FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FORTH E RECORD.
IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE
CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARYAT
(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
DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF
THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF
THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST
SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
. FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
ACTION.)
Planning Commission Agenda
April 10, 2000
Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of the March 27, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Use Determination 00-003 and Conditional Use Permit 00-006 a request for the
Planning" Commission to determine whether professional, instructional,
motivational, and/or seminar schools should be conditionally permitted within the
Planned Community Commercial zoning district and to establish a professional-
instructional facility within an existing commercial center. This project is located at
1131 E. Main Street, Suites 109 and 209, within the Planned Community
Commercial(PC-Comm)zoning district.
APPLICANT: VISION QUEST INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES
ATTN: SUSAN BROWNING
PROPERTY
OWNER: BOB FREVILLE
RECOMMENDATION .
That the Planning Commission-adopt Resolution Nos. 3722 and 3723 approving
Use Determination 00-003 and Conditional Use Permit 00-006.
Presentation: Bradley Evanson,Assistant Planner
3. Conditional Use Permit 99-027 and Design Review 99-036a request to
establish a major wireless communications facility. This project is located at 1421
Edinger Avenue within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan "Technology Center'
zoning district.
APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
ATTN: DEBRA OKANO
PROPERTY
OWNERS: TUSTIN PACIFIC COMMERCE CENTER, LP
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3721 denying Conditional
Use Permit 99-027 and Design Review 99-036.
Presentation: Brad Evanson,Assistant Planner
7
Planning Commission Agenda
April 10, 2000
Page 3
STAFF: CONCERNS:
4. Report on Actions taken at the April 3 2000 Cily Council Meeting.
Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community De�elopment
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
ADJOURNMENT:
A`regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on April 24, 2000 beginning at
7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers;300 Centennial Way, Tustin,
1 I G!'I Yt 1
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:- 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kawashima
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and Pontious
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
No public concerns were expressed.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. , Minutes of the March 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting.
• 2. Conditional Use Permit 99-012 and Design Review 99-017 a request to
construct a major wireless communication facility. The project is located at 15201
Woodlawn Avenue, within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (Technology
Center)zoning district.
The Director noted for the record that the applicant was not present and that the applicant
would be notified of the appeal period.
Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve both
items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3. Conditional Use Permit 00-002 a request to modify the shared parking program
to allow the establishment of a fifty (50) seat restaurant-within an existing retail
commercial center. This project is located at 13771 Newport Avenue, #12 within
the Planned Community Commercial (PC-Comm)zoning district.
APPLICANTh TUSTIN PLAZA CENTER, LP
PROPERTY OWNER: ATTN: SCOTT FRASER
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3720 approving Conditional
Use Permit 00-002.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
Page 2
The Public Hearing opened at 7:02 p.m.
Bradley Evanson,-Assistant Planner presented the subject.report.
The Director recommended modifications to Condition 3.2 so the applicable laws at the
time of the application will apply.
Commissioner Pontious moved Commissioner Davert seconded, to. ,adopt
Resolution No. 3720•approving Conditional Use Permit 00-002 modified as follows:
'Condition 3.2 ,should read "No outdoor seating- shall be ' permitted unless a
separate conditional use permit is approved consistent with the then current
provisions of the Tustin City Code." Motion carried 5-0.
The public hearing closed at 7:06-p.m.
4. Conditional Use Permit 99-025 a request to allow the stockpile-of quarry rock on
private property. This project is located on the southwest corner of Harvard
Avenue and the OCTA/SCRRA railway. This project is within the Public and
Institutional (P & 1)zoning district.
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF ORANGE, PUBLIC FACILITIES S
AND RESOURCES
ATTN: DACE DILLON
PROPERTY
OWNERS: THE IRVINE COMPANY
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3718 ' approving an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 99-025.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:07 p.m.
Lori Ludi, Associate Planner presented the subject report.
Commissioner Davert suggested adding language that would allow Zoning
Administrator to grant another extension should one be necessary. The Director stated '
that the Condition actually allows the applicant an additional 90 days subject to review
and approval by the Community Development Director, versus having to-go to the
Zoning Administrator. The Director proposed changing the conditions to allow for a
time extension of 120 days beyond August 31, 2000. .
Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3718 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-025• modified as
follows: -
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
Page 3
Condition 2.2 should-read "...An extension up. to 120 days may be granted
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director."
Motion carried 5-0.'
The Public Hearing closed at 7:12 p.m.
REGULAR BUSINESS
5. General Plan, Conformity Determination a request to determine that the
proposed location for lease of a 950'square foot area for counseling services at
C.E. Utt School is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The project is
located at 13601 Browning Avenue-within the Public and Institutional (P M)zoning
district.
APPLICANT:, COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY
PROPERTY
OWNER: TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recommendation
., That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3719 determining that the
proposed location for lease of a. 950 square,foot area located at C.E. .Utt School for.
physical and occupational.therapy services for physically disabled school.age is in
conformance with the Tustin General Plan.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner_ Pontious seconded, toadopt
Resolution No. 3719 determining that the proposed location for lease of. a 950 .
square foot area located at C.E. Utt School for physical-and occupational therapy
services for school age children is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan.
Motion carried 5-0.
C
STAFF CONCERNS:
6. Report on Actions taken at the March 20, 2000 City Council Meeting
Presentation: Elizabeth A: Binsack, Director of Community Development
In response to a question raised by the Commission, Director explained Fee Weaver
policy which was established about-three years agog to encourage development in the
Old Town area.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
Page 4 .
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Commissioner Davert
- Thanked staff for distributing a copy of the Tustin Legacy RFP.
Thanked staff for their efforts in eliminating auto auction flyers.
Commissioner Pontious
Thanked staff for prompt graffiti removal on Nisson Road.
Chairperson Kozak
- Thanked staff for prompt graffiti removal ori Holt Avenue and noted that the
contractor did a good.job.
Suggested that staff contact the management company'of Tustin .Plaza to
encourage employees to park in'the rear of the center.
The Director indicated she would contact Tustin Plaza and noted'#here were no
current parking problems
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn the
meeting.at 7:25 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0.
An informational workshop on the Tustin Legacy is- scheduled for 6:15 prior to the 7:00
p.m. meeting. The,next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on April
10, 2000 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
ITEM{ #2
Y `o\4
,jbp
e ortto the
Planning Commission
DATE: ' APRIL 10, 2000
SUBJECT: USE'DETERMINATION 00-003 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
00-006
APPLICANT: SUSAN BROWNING
VISION QUEST INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
1131 EAST MAIN STREET, #109
TUSTIN, CA 92780
PROPERTY
OWNERS:- BOB FREVILLE
113.1 EAST MAIN STREET, #202
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION: 1131 EAST MAIN STREET, #109 AND #209
ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-COMM)
ENVIRONMENTAL ,
STATUS: THIS- PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
PURSUANT TO -SECTION, 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ,
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH " AN INSTRUCTIONAL.
FACILITY WITH -SHARED PARKING IN AN EXISTING OFFICE
BUILDING LOCATED AT 1131 EAST MAIN STREET, #109 AND
#209.
RECOMMENDATION,
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3722' and 3723 approving Use
Determination .00-003 determining that Professional, Instructional, Motivational and/or
Seminar Schools are conditionally' permitted uses within the Planned Community
Commercial (PC-Commercial) retail/office center bounded by Newport Avenue, Bryan
Avenue and Main Street, and Conditional Use Permit .00-006 to allow an instructional
facility in conjunction with. retail sales within the Planned Community Commercial (PC-
Commercial) retail/office center.
Planning Commission Report
UD 00-003, CUP 00-006
April 10, 2000
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval to establish an instructional facility in conjunction
with retail software sales at 1131 East Main Street, Suites 109 and 209. In March 1975,
the Planning Commission approved Use Permit '75-5 which established Planned
Community Commercial District Regulations for the properties located within the
triangular-shaped area bounded by Newport Avenue, Main Street and Bryan Avenue,
including the project site. The District Regulations allow for retail and office uses. To
accommodate the applicant's request, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission consider a Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit.
Properties surrounding the center are developed with residential uses to the south and
commercial uses to the southwest across Main Street, residential uses to the east and
commercial uses to the northeast across Bryan Avenue, and commercial uses to the west
and northwest across Newport Avenue (see Attachment A- Location Map).
USE DETERMINATION
Thea •
applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission make a determination that
professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools are an appropriate use
within the Planned Community- Commercial District. When these district regulations were
established in 1975, no specific commercial, office or educational uses were identified in
the resolution of approval (see Attachment B'- - Section 2 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1434). In interpreting the Planned Community Commercial District
Regulations, staff has authorized uses that are similar to those allowed within the C-1
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district which allows retail uses, service businesses and
office uses. Existing uses within the center include a number of restaurants, a hair salon,
a market, a veterinary facility, medical offices and a variety of retail uses. On May 10,
1. 1999, the Planning Commission approved Use Determination 99-001 determining that
Music Schools were conditionally permitted within the center.
1n accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9298(6), the Planning Commission. may
make a determination as to whether an unlisted use should be permitted, conditionally
permitted or prohibited within a specific district. In determining whether to approve the
Use Determination, the Planning Commission must consider whether or not the proposed
use is:
a) Consistent with the overall intent of the planning unit;_and,'
b) Consistent with other listed permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the
planning unit.
Planning Commission Report
UD 00-003, CUP 00-006
April 10, 2000
Page 3
Given that this Planned Community is similar in nature to the C-1 Zoning District,
professional, instructiorial, motivational and/or seminar schools are consistent with the
variety of commercial and office uses allowed in the C-1 Zoning District and would be
consistent with the intent of the planned community. The C-1 Zoning District permits,
business schools and photography studios and conditionally permits figure modeling
studios, music schools, nursery schools, and. social halls. These uses are similar to
professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools in that they involve
individual and small group gatherings and classroom settings. Parking requirements for
many of these uses are calculated at a ratio of one (1) space for every three (3) seats.
The City's Engineering Division hasprepared a parking demand analysis for this proposal
and also determined that the use is similar to social halls, music schools and business
schools (Attachment D - Parking Demand Analysis). Staff recommends that professional,
instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools be conditionally permitted in this
Planned Community and subject to a parking requirement of one (1) space for every three
(3) seats within the facility to ensure adequate review of associated potential impacts.
An approval of the use determination can be supported by the following findings:
1 The intent of the Planned Community-Commercial District Regulations 'is to
provide for a variety of commercial, office, and group assembly uses similar to
those listed in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district such as figure
modeling studios, music schools and social halls.
2) The proposed use is consistent with the overall intent of the Planned Community
Commercial District Regulations which encourage a variety of commercial, office
and group assembly uses in,that professional, instructional, motivational and/or
seminar schools typically offer services that are compatible with and potentially
beneficial to existing businesses within the district.
4
3) The proposed use is consistent with. conditionally permitted uses that would be
allowed in the district such as figure modeling studios, music schools, or social halls
that provide for group assembly uses or educational services within studio,
classroom or conference hall settings. These types of facilities typically do not
generate more traffic or noise otherwise associated with other retail and service
uses in the area. To ensure compatibility, professional, instructional, motivational
and/or seminar schools would be reviewed on a case by case basis by the
Planning Commission-as conditionally permitted uses.
4) The proposed use is similar in nature to business schools and social halls which
require one (1) off-street parking space for every three (3) seats within the facility.
Requiring professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools to comply
with an,off-street parking requirement of one (1) parking space for every three (3)
Planning Commission Report
UD 00-003, CUP 00-006
April 10, 2000
Page 4
seats within the facility ensures that there are sufficient parking facilities to
accommodate such uses.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Project Description
The proposed software training facility would be located 'in an 863 square foot office suite
on the second floor of the office building at the east end of the center (see Attachment C -
Submitted Plans). Vision Quest's business office and retail facility operates in an 863
square foot suite on the first floor of the same building. Businesses within the building
include: business consultants, a chiropractor, and a law office. Other businesses within
the center include Tommy's Sushi, Universal Healthcare Supplies, Koki's -Japanese
Steakhouse, Tustin Formal Wear, and Hair by Lenore hair salon.
The applicant is proposing to operate a software retail facility from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday and offer training services and seminars to their customers and
clients. The seminars would accommodate twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) .participants
and are primarily conducted after 5:00 p.m., with three (3) or four (4) seminars per month
occurring during business hours. Software training programs accommodating
approximately fifteen (15) participants would primarily occur off-site, but would
occasionally be offered on-site. The facility consists of a 485 square foot room shown with
seating for thirty (30) persons, a 220 square foot .room shown with seating for two (2)
persons, and a conference room with seating for ten (10) persons.
The proposed facility occupies a suite within an office building. Parking ratios for office
uses in the Planned Community-Commercial zoning district are calculated at a ratio of one
(1) space for every 300 square feet of floor area. As an office use, the subject suite is
allocated three (3) spaces within the common parking facilities. Throughout the City of
Tustin, parking ratios for.places of assembly are-generally calculated at one (1) space for
every three (3) seats within the facility. The City's Engineering Division has reviewed this
application and prepared a study of the potential parking impact for the proposed use (See
Attachment D). The applicant's submitted floor pian identifies a potential maximum of.
forty-two (42) seats for people that may be attending',a combination of training sessions
and seminars at any one time.
According to the parking standards, an instructional facility for forty-two (42) persons would
require a total of fourteen (14) parking stalls. A current parking summary for the center
indicates that there are five (5) surplus parking stalls within the Parking area. Combined
with the three (3)stalls already allocated to the suite, there would be a shortfall of six (6)
parking stalls needed to accommodate the applicant's proposed level of service. As such,
shared parking would be required to meet the parking requirements. In reviewing the
application,, the Engineering Division has determined that due to the majority of the
Planning Commission Report
• UD 00-003, CUP 00-006
April 10, 2000
Page 5
seminars and training sessions occurring after 5:00 p.m., the proposed use can be
accommodated by shared use of the existing parking facilities. Condition No. 3.1 of
Resolution No. 3723 has been included to limit the maximum number of persons within the
training facility to forty-two (42) seats and persons at any one time. Any increase in
seating or change in hours of operation would need to be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to the increase. Additionally, should the City become aware of
a parking problem at the project site, Condition No. 3.3 would require the applicant to
cease operations or limit the number of attendees as deemed appropriate by the
Community Development Director until the matter is resolved. .
A decision to approve this request may be supported by the following findings:
1} The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to nor have a negative
effect on surrounding properties in that the parking demand analysis prepared by
the City's Engineering Division demonstrates that the parking demand of the
proposed use can be accommodated by 'the available parking facilities.
Additionally, should there be a problem with adequacy of parking in the future, the
• applicant shall cease operations or limit the number of attendees as deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director until the issue is resolved.
2) The parking demand analysis demonstrates that no substantial conflict will exist in
the peak hours of parking demand for the center and the parking demand for
existing and proposed uses can be accommodated on-site.
3) The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding area. The
project site. is located in a Planned Community Commercial district in a building
occupied by service. and professional office uses. As conditioned, the limited
number of attendees and hours of operation is appropriate for the proposed
i
location.
F
7
f
t
0,Aj
J'I�,v/ansO Karen Peterson
Assis ant Pla-n-n& Senior Planner
BEIPcreportlCup00006pereport.doc
Attachments: A. Location Map
B. Resolution No.. 1434 - District Regulations
C. Submitted Plans
D. Parking Demand Analysis
E. Resolutions 3722 and 3723
•
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP.
-- LO GAT[0 N MAP
C
3 GGT
. f.
4 /
/ rJJ�S T7 1 t;C,
v
mAIH STREET /
n n \
m o
0
ar5
r ?
• fossa m 0' � ��e /,O Q•
1 4 N G ,/,2
v�
� fJSBa ��'s`�r �o p� `� ��. i�632j8 •V //SOC�� JJ�j Q !\J^Jsf\
V4 '34 .O JO 4� O •Q/ `
JJ
JrsJ
ti�0~
j 0 O
` a
• r
NO SCALE
• e
ATTACHMENT S
RESOLUTION NO. 1434
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
hEbULU1'iUN NU . 14.44
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CON1MISSION OF THE CITY .
OF TUSTIN GRANTING A USE PERMIT ON APPLICATION NO.
U.P. 75-5, OF VALENTI--COELHO CORP.
d 13542-13742 NEWPORT AVE.
The Planning Commission of the 'C. (Newport,Bryan,Main triangle)
5 hereby resolve as follows:.
g 1. The Planning Commission find:.
follows :.
.7
a) That a proper application (No. U.P. 75-5) was
g filed by the Valenti-Coelho Corp. for a Use
Permit to authorize the construction and mainte-
g nance of a retail sales and office complex in
the Planned Community (Commercial) District on
10 the property bounded by Main, Bryan and. -Newport
Avenue.
1�
b) That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held on said application.
13 c) That establishment, maintenance and operation
of the use applied for will not, under the
x i circumstances of this case, be detrimental to
1 the health, safety, morals , comfort, or general
15 welfare of the persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced
16 by the following findings :
17 1} Said use is in conformance with Tustin Area.
General Plan and Zoning ordinance of the city.
18 •
2) Perimeter screening and landscaping are
19 provided to assure aesthetic compatibility.
20 3) 'Street systems have been designed to
accommodate subject use.
21
d) That the establishment, maintenance and operation
22 of the use applied for- will not be injurious or
detrimental to the property and improvements in,
. 23 the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to
the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and
24 should be granted.
25 e) Proposed development shall be in accordance with
the development policies adopted by the City
26 Council Uniform Building Codes as administered
by the Building official,. Fire Code as adminis--
27, tered by the Fire Chief, and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City
28 Engineer.
29 f) A Negative Environmental Declaration has been
filed for the project and is hereby approved.
-
2% The Planning Commission :hereby grants a Use Permit,
31 as applied for, to allow the development of a
commercial and office complex, subject to the
32 following' conditions :
'.. 1
f
X a) Conformance with a master sign plan for all
tenant identifications, as submitted, with 1
2 uniform colors of ivory (82 6) , brown (814)' and
rust (815) for under canopy signs with conformance
with Tustin Sign Code for complex identification
f sign.
b) Submitted and approved by staff of landscape
5 plans to .include irrigation, walkways, perimeter
walls, and parking lot designs.
c) The limitation of proposed future restaurant •to
7 a 100 seat capacity.
8 d) Staff approval of precise development plans in I
accordance with the approved plot plan and
9 elevations.
10 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
kcommission, held on the 1.0th day�-, of Ilarch, 1975.
I3 CHAZRNIAN--OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION
14 c'
16 PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY
17
18
:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ATTACHMENT C
SUBMITTED PLANS
VlHt . IV
lNTEGRA7°ED TECHNRLOQIES, /NZ:.
Vision Quest Conference & Training Center
Intent of Use .
Vision Quest is planning to use 863 square feet of office space to demonstrate the use
of the software programs we sell. This is primarily a marketing effort whereby we invite
target customers to come to our facility to seam about. the programs we sell and how
they would be of benefit to them. When publicizing one of these events, we typically use
the terms seminar or training, when in fact the event is actually a demonstration of our
products much as any retailer might demonstrate any given product.
Our current hours of operation are from 8:00am to 10:00pm Monday through Saturday.
Most of the seminars we conduct occur after 6:00pm. However, on. occasion, they may
occur during normal business hours. Additionally, we typically only hold 3 or 4 of these •
events in any given month. Each event typically involves less than 25 people with a
target of no more than about 35 participants. Each event lasts between.2 to 4 hours.
When we.sell a software program that requires training to be provided by Vision Quest,
instruction usually occurs at the customer's site. However, on rare occasions, Vision
Quest will provide training at our facility. Training sessions for software programs would
be limited to 1 5.students or less due to the complex nature of the material.
5 '
PARKING. TAB U LA'TI O N
13522 NEWPORT "ENUE`
OFFICE 19,193 S.F.Q 1/300 S-f- 60.64
MEDICAL 1,607 S.F. G 611000 S.F. 10.64
1311 E. MAIN STREET
OFFICE 71920 S.F. 011300 S.F. 26.40
MEDICAL (CHIROPRACTIC) 2,280 S.F. 0 6/1000 S.F. 13-68,
ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2,400 S.F. 011300 S.F. 8.00
RETAIL 18,475 S.F. 0 11200 S.F. 92.37
RESTURANTS - _
TONY'S SEA LANDING 118 SEATS'a 113 SEATS 38.33
TOMMY'S SUSHI' 62 SEATS 0 113 SEATS ,27.33
THAI BBQ 88 SEATS G 113 SEATS 29.33
• KOKPS TEPPAN 38 SEATS 0 113 SEATS 12.66
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED2� 0_58
TOTAL PARKING.PROVIDED 32§.00
blET PARKING SURPLUS 5-42
s
_ J
uu
O Q
a a
Total 863.3 .SgFt vision Quest Integrated Technologies, Inc.
1131 East Main Street
Tu California 92780
711W.4932 •
485.1 SgFt
16.5 -�
220.5 SgFt
29.4 49.8 SgFt T
U107.9 SgFt
� 13
~ 7.5 17
14- 8.3
Total 863.3 SgFt Vision Quest Integrated Technologies, Inc.
1131 East Main Street
211 1 f LOU�� Tustin, California 92780
(� I 714.573.4932
v \ �rr,ytitr� TOFFICEBUILDING �t \ \
' �-.��;a-J�i�a�h y�20 OOD S F r,' •giK,r;r `�, '\' � '. \ ���
\ Mary���'>��•� r 7��� \ q
�9
ANIMAL HOSPITAL \
' I , 2,400 S.F.
EXISTING RETAIU NMS" xaaasa'ssw
RESTAURANTS \
i i i I I 1131 E IMIN 3T. \\
EI � iI FIs 1o20Ds.F
I 071C,`BUILDING •r
a a
MAIN STREET
i
,ATTACHMENT' D
PARKING DEMAND. ANALYSIS
Inter-Com
DATE: MARCH 8, 2000
TO: BRAD EVANSON, ASSISTANT PLANNER
FROM: �T DOUG ANDERSON, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER -TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT: 1131 E. MAIN STREET, #109, VISION QUEST INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES
CUP 00-006 AND UD 00-005
Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division. has reviewed the 1ST submittal for
the request to establish a software retailing and training facility at 1131 East Main Street
and has prepared the following comments:
1. As stated in the applicant's "Intent of Use" and site plan, the office space will
occupy the first floor and the training occupies the second floor. The current
operating hours are 8:00 am to 10:00 pm with the majority of their training
seminars occurring after 5:00 pm. Based on this information, the proposed first
floor office space parking requirements would•follow City standards (1 space/300
S.F.).
The parking for the training seminar area would be similar to a "social hall" or
"lodge". As such, the parking requirements would be.1 space/3 seats. Based on
the site plan provided, this would amount to approximately 14 parking spaces
(versus 3 parking spaces if the area was office space). However, a majority of
the tenants in the building would be closed when the training seminars would
occur (after 5:00 pm). This would allow training seminar attendants to park in
spaces not used by the closed businesses.
The applicant has indicated that "on occasion" training seminars occur during
business hours. In observing the site, it appears that the existing parking could
easily accommodate the additional vehicles without significantly impacting other
tenants.
Therefore, . parking for the software retailing and training facility would be
accommodated within the existing parking spaces and.no additional spaces are
needed.
2. The estimated number of trips for this proposed project is identified on the
attached table. The estimated total weekday trips = 80; AM trips- = 1; and PM
trips = 36. '
The capacity of Main Street and Bryan Avenue is based on the City's General
Plan. The General Plan identifies both these streets as secondary arterials with •
a capacity of 25,000 vehicles per day. Currently, Main Street carries 8,300
vehicles per day and Bryan Avenue carries 6,900 vehicles per day. The addition
of the proposed project' will not significantly impact the capacity of the two
roadways surrounding the project site — less than a 1% increase in the traffic
volumes on Main Street and Bryan Avenue.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposedproject. if you
have-any questions, please contact Joanne ]tagaki, of my staff or me.
Attachment
F'
ll:klb/S:1Doug&TrafficTevelopment Review11131,E.Main St.-Vision Quest.doc
TRIP GENERATION FOR
1131 E. MAIN STREET; #109
VISION QUEST INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES
CUP 00-006 AND UD 00-005°
First floor- 863 S.F. office (Land Use: 710)
Second Floor- 863 S.F. training/seminar area
(based on number of attendees identified by applicant)
First Floor- General Office,
per 1000 SF ross floor area
'Avg. Rate Entering Exiting Total
Weekday. 11.01 5 5 10
AM Peak 1.56 1 0 1
PM Peak 1.49 0 111 1
Second Floor- Training Area
35 attendees
Entering Exiting Total
Weekday 35 35 70 •
AM Peak 0 0 0
PM'Peak 35 0 35
First Second Combined
Floor Floor Total
Weekday 10 .70 80
AM Peak 1 0 1
PM Peak 1 35 361,
JUlb/Doug/Development Review11131 E.Main St.-Vision QuestAs
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NOS. 3722 AND 3723
' RESOLUTION NO. 3722
z
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
3 TUSTIN, APPROVING USE DETERMINATION 00-003 TO ALLOW
PROFESSIONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL AND/OR SEMINAR
4 SCHOOLS AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE PLANNED
5 COMMUNITY—COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED
BY USE PERMIT 75-5 FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY NEWPORT
6 AVENUE, BRYAN AVENUE, AND MAIN STREET.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
s
g 1. The Planning.Commission finds and determines as follows:
10 A. That a proper application for Use Determination 00-003 was filed by Vision
Quest Integrated Technologies, Inc. to request a Use Determination from
11 the Planning Commission for establishment of a professional/instructional
12 school at 1131 East Main Street, #109 and #209 more specifically
described as Assessor's Parcel No. 500-162-03.
13
B. According to the Planned Community—Commercial District Regulations
14 established`under Use Permit 75-5, professional, instructional, motivational
15 and/or seminar schools are not listed uses in the district regulations and
require a Use Determination by the Planning Commission in accordance
16 with Tustin City Code Section 9298(8).
17
C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application
18 on April 10, 2000, by the Planning Commission.
19 D. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not impair the orderly and
20 harmonious development of the area, the present or future development
therein,.or the occupancy as a whole.
21 .
22 E. The Planning Commission finds that approval of the use determination to
allow professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools in the
23 Planned Community- Commercial district can be supported by the following
findings:
24
25 1) The intent of the Planned ' Community-Commercial District
Regulations is to provide for a variety of commercial, office and
26 group assembly uses similar to those listed in the C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial zoning district such as figure modeling studios, music
27 schools and social halls.
2s
2) The proposed use is consistent with the overall intent of the Planned
29 Community Commercial District Regulations which encourage a
variety of commercial, office and group assembly uses in that
professional, . instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools
typically offer services that are compatible. with and potentially
beneficial to existing businesses within the district.
t Resolution No. 3722 -
April 10, 2000
Page 2
3
4
3) The proposed use is consistent with conditionally permitted uses that
5 would be allowed in the district such as figure modeling studios,
6 music schools, or social halls that provide for group assembly uses
or educational services within studio, classroom or conference hall
7 settings. These types of facilities .typically do not generate more
traffic or noise otherwise associated with other retail and service
8 uses in the area. To ensure compatibility, professional, instructional,
9 motivational and/or seminar schools would be reviewed on a case by
case.basis by the Planning Commission as conditionally permitted,
10 uses.
'' 4) The proposed use is similar in nature to business schools and social
12 halls require one (1) off-street parking space for every three (3) seats
within the facility. Requiring professional, instructional, motivational
13 and/or seminar schools to comply with an off-street _ parking
14 requirement of one (1) parking space for every three (3) seats within
the facility would ensure that there are sufficient parking facilities to
• 15 accommodate such.uses.
16 F. That this project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class
17 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
. 18 G. That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-
19 element of the City of Tustin Genera[ Plan and has been determined to be
consistent:with the Air Quality Sub-element.
20
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Determination 00-003 to allow
21 professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools as conditionally
22 permitted uses in the Planned Community- Commercial Designation established
by Use Permit 75-5 for the area bounded by Newport Avenue, Bryan Avenue, and
23 Main Street.
24
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular
25 meeting on the 10'h day of April, 2000.
26
27
STEPHEN V. KOZAK
29 Chairman
29 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
I Resolution_No. 3722
April 10, 2000
2 Page 3
3
4
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
6 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
7
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned,' hereby certify that I am the Planning
B Commission Secretary of the Planning .Commission of.the,City of Tustin, California; that
9 Resolution No. 3722 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin ,
Plan ning,Commission, held on the I0th day of April; 2000.
10
11
12
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
13 Planning Commission Secretary
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
Y# 23
24 '
25
26
27
28
29 J
RESOLUTION NO. 3723
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
3 TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-006
AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHARED PARKING
4 PROGRAM AND A PROFESSIONAL-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITY AT
5 1131 EAST MAIN STREET, #109 AND #209
6 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
I: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
8
A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 00-006 was fled by
9 Vision Quest Integrated Technologies, Inc., to establish a professional-
10 instructional facility at 1131 East Main Street, #109 and #209, more
specifically described as Assessor's Parcel No. 500-162-03.
�1
B. According to Use Determination 00-003, approved by the Planning
12 Commission on April 10, 2000, professional, instructional, motivational
13 and/or seminar schools are conditionally permitted in the Planned
Community - Commercial (PC-Comm) District Regulations established by
14 Use Permit 75-5 for the area bounded by Newport Avenue, Bryan Avenue,
15 and Main Street.
16 C. That the proposed site is within the Planned Community (PC)
Commercial/Business of the General Plan land Use designation that
17 provides for professional, instructional, motivational and/or seminar schools.
18
D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application
19 on April 10, 2000, by the Planning Commission,
20
E. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the professional and
21 vocational training facility will not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the
22 persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor
23 be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the
neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of'
24 Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings:
25
1) The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to nor
26 have a negative effect on surrounding properties in that the parking
demand analysis prepared by the City's Engineering .Division
27 demonstrates that the parking demand of the proposed use can be
28 accommodated by the available parking facilities. Additionally,
should there be a problem with adequacy of parking in the future, the
• 29 applicant shall cease operations or limit the number of attendees as
deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director until
the issue is resolved.
Resolution No. 3723
Page 2
s 2) The parking demand analysis demonstrates that no substantial
a conflict will exist in the peak hours of.parking demand for the center
and the parking, demand for existing and proposed uses can be
accommodated on-site.
6
3) The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with the
7 surrounding area. The project site is located in a Planned
8 Community Commercial district in a building occupied by service and
-professional office uses. - As conditioned, the limited number of
9 attendees and hours of operation is,appropriate for the proposed',
location.
10
} „ F. That this project is categorically exempt pursuant to .Section 1.5301 (Class
1) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
12
G. That the project has been reviewed,for cdn'sistency with the Air Quality Sub
13
element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be
is consistent,with the Air Quality.Sub-element.
15 If. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 00-006 to, i
16 establish a shared 'parking program and a professional-instructional facility on
property located at 113.1 East Main Street' #109 and #209,, subject to the
17 conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto.
lg
,9 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 10th day.of April, 2000.
20
21
22
t 23 STEPHEN V. KOZAK
24 -Chairman
25
26
27
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
28 Planning Commission Secretary
� I Resolution No. 3723
.. Page 3
2
3 ,
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
5 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
6 CITY OF TUSTIN )
7 1, 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
8 Resolution No. 3723 was duly passed' and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
9 Planning Commission, held-on the 10th day of April, 2000.
10
12 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning.Commission.Secretary ,
13
s .
14
15 _
16
17
18
19
20
'• 21 -
22
1
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A •
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP 00-006
APRIL 10, 2000
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed use shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the
project date stamped April 10, 2000 on file with the Community Development
Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of
Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of
Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during
plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the
Tustin City Code and other applicable codes.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be
complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
project, subject to review and approval by , the Community Development
Department.
(1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits are issued
within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial tenant
improvements are underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request
is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days
prior to expiration.
(1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-006 is contingent upon the applicant and
property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form
as established by the Director of Community Development.
(1) 1.5 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 for this project.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
(3) 2.1 Four (4) complete sets of construction plans shall be required for any proposed
tenant improvements. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Title
24 disabled accessibility requirements shall be complied with as approved by the .
Building Official. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to
and approved by the Community Development Department.
(1)(3) 2.2 Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes, City, state and federal laws and
regulations to include:
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
(2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PCICC POLICY
*** EXCEPTIONS
• Exhibit
Resolution No. 3723
April 10, 2000
Page 2
1998 California Building Code
1998 California Mechanical Code
1998 California Plumbing Code
1996 California Electrical Code
City of Tustin Security Ordinance
(3) 2.3 In accordance with Conditional Use Permit 00-006, occupancy shall be limited to
42 persons. Notwithstanding other occupancy limitations, access to two exits from
the suite is required for areas on the second floor where occupancy exceeds forty-
nine (49) persons in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Exits shall be
shown on the plans. The maximum suite occupancy shall be posted in the building
and on the plans.
(3) 2.4 All exit doors shall swing in the path of travel.and be equipped with State Fire
Marshal approved panic hardware. Identify these on the plans.
(3) 2.5 Vehicle parking, primary entrance to the building, the primary paths of travel,
cashier space, sanitary facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones shall all
be accessible to persons with disabilities. Show these, including any existing or
proposed hand icapped-accessible parking stalls and the path' of travel from the
• stalls to the building entrance on the plans.
(5) 2.6 As required by California Business and Professional Code, plans shall be stamped
and signed by the person responsible for preparation.
(3) 2.7 The plans submitted into plan check shall show restroom facilities for both sexes
and shall indicate that toilet facilities in the restrooms shall be accessible to
persons_with disabilities.
USE RESTRICTIONS'
(2) 3.1 Based on the approved floor plan and the parking demand analysis prepared by
the City's Engineering Division dated March 8, 2000, the total number of seats
within the training facility in Suite #209 shall be limited to a maximum of forty-two
(42). No increase in the number of seats shall occur without approval from the
Community Development Director.
(2) 3.2 Based on the parking demand analysis prepared by the City's Engineering Division
dated March 8, 2000, hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday. No changes in the hours of operation shall occur
without approval from the Community Development Director.
(2) 3.3 If, at any time in the future, the City is made aware and• concurs that a parking problem exists at the subject site as a result of insufficient on-site parking
availability, the applicant shall cease operations or limit the number of attendees
as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director until the issue is
resolved.
Exhibit
Resolution No. 3723
April 10, 2000
Page 3
3.4 No congregation in the parking area or outside walkways is permitted in
association with the proposed use.
*** 3.5 The subject property shall be maintained in a safe, clean and sanitary condition at
all times. The applicant is responsible for collection of any trash associated with
seminars/training programs or their participants.
*** 3.6 No temporary signs or other forms of advertising or attraction may be placed on
the site without approval from the Community Development Department.
SIGNS
(1) * 4.1 All signage shall be addressed under separate permits and shall comply with the
requirements of the Tustin Sign Code and the Master Sign Program for the Tustin
Plaza Center.
FEES
(1)(5) 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.
A. Building plan check and permit fees, including any applicable permit
penalties to the Community Development Department based on the most
current schedule.
B. Orange County Fire Authority plan check inspection. fees to the
Community Development Department based upon the most current
schedule.
(1) 5.2 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.
ITEM #3
porno the
Planning Commission
DATE: APRIL 10, 2000
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-027 AND
-DESIGN REVIEW 99-036
APPLICANTS: HOLLY SANDLER DEBRA OKANO _
J.L. HARE ASSOCIATES AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
17581 IRVINE BLVD.#216 12900 PARK PLAZA DRIVE
TUSTIN, CA 92780 CERRITOS, CA 90703
PROPERTY
OWNER: DELA GABLEBERGIJOHN QUINTON
TUSTIN PACIFIC COMMERCE CENTER,'LP
1451 QUAIL STREET,#210
' NEWPORT BEACH,-CA 92660. ,
• 4
LOC_ ATION: 1,421 EDINGER AVENUE
ZONING: PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN
'(TECHNOLOGY CENTER)
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 ESTABLISH . A MAJOR WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning-Commission adopt Resolution No. 3.721 denying Conditional Use Permit 99-027
and Design Review 99-036.
.BACKGROUND
Th'e applicant is requesting approval to establish a major wireless communication facility for the
AT&T Wireless Services cellular communication network. The`proposed facility is comprised of
a "Cityscape" unipole fifty (50) feet in height. The applicant's`initial proposal was for a sixty (60)
;. foot tall monopole facility'at.-the subject location, their second proposal.was for a forty-five (45)
foot tall "Slimline Unipole", and the current proposal is.for a fifty (50) foot tap,"Slimline Unipole".
Planning Commission Report
CUP 99-027 and DR 99-036
April 10, 2000
Page 2
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 approval of
a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
Tustin City Code Section 9276 includes development regulations related to screening and site
selection for wireless communications facilities. The screening regulations require that facilities
be located in areas that minimize their intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-
mounted facilities should only be located in close 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 or secondarily be
located where existing topography, vegetation, or other structures provide the greatest
screening. As a last choice, facilities should be located on vacant ground without significant
visual mitigation only in commercial and industrial districts. Further, the site selection.criteria
require applicants to provide written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating
facilities in accordance with the site selection order of preference.
The project site is located within the "Technology Center" zoning district of the Pacific Center
East Specific Plan which provides for general research and development, light industrial, and
accessory office and commercial uses. Surrounding uses include railroad tracks, a flood control
channel and the City's Service Yard to the north and Edinger Avenue and industrial/office uses
to the east, west and south (see Location Map - Attachment A). There are no other major
wireless communication facilities existing in the immediate vicinity. However, on March 13, .
2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a.sixty (60) foot tail monopole disguised
as a pine tree on Woodlawn Avenue, approximately 1,800 feet to the southwest of the project
site.
Project Description
4
The facility is proposed to be located within an office complex consisting of two (2) thirty-two
(32) foot tall buildings, behind the western-most building (Attachment B — Submitted Plans).
The unipole would be situated approximately seventy (70) feet north of the rear building wall
and two (2)feet from the rear property line. Section 4.5.F.3.c of the Pacific Center East Specific
Plan (PCESP) requires a minimum ten (10)foot rear yard setback; the location of the proposed
facility does not meet that standard. The proposal would require submittal and approval of a
variance request. Findings would need to state that there are special circumstances related to
the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the .project site that preclude .
compliance with the zoning standards which deprive the.property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity. The applicant has not filed an application for a variance. The facility
would be approximately 280 feet north of the Edinger Avenue right-of-way.
The fifty (50) foot tall unipole would accommodate three (3) vertically attached antenna arrays,
contained within a four foot by nine and one-half (4 x 9 %Z) foot enclosure at the top of the
facility. Two (2) square -hood parking lot light fixtures would be mounted approximately five (5)
feet below the bottom of the antenna enclosure. The maximum height allowed in the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan area is 50 feet; this proposal meets that standard. The applicant has
provided photo-simulations (Attachment C — Photo Simulations) that depict the proposed
unipole from several angles, including perspectives from Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. •
Planning Commission Report
CUP 99-027 and DR 99=036
April.10, 2000
Page-3
The applicant has attempted to lessen the visual impact of the proposed facility by designing the
facility to resemble the parking lot light standards within the subject area parking lots. However,
the existing parking lot lights are approximately twenty-eight (28) feet in height and the proposed
facility would then be approximately twenty-two (22) feet taller than the lights, with a nine (9) foot
long cylindrical bulge at the top of the facility. Additionally, the proposed facility would be
approximately twenty(20)feet taller than the adjacent office buildings.
The equipment necessary for operation of the facility would be located in a 322 square foot .
equipment shelter located within an 822 square foot enclosure at the northwest corner of the
parking lot, approximately two (2) feet from the rear property line. As with the unipole, the
placement of the enclosure and shelter does not conform to the minimum ten (10) foot rear yard
'setback in Section 4.5.F.3.c of the PCESP and would require submittal and approval of a
variance request. The, enclosure would be a six (6) foot tall precast concrete wall with an
aggregate gravel finish that would match the material used for the trash enclosure to the east of
the lease area. The combination of the walled enclosure with a pre-fabricated shelter inside the
enclosure would present a disorderly and disjointed appearance.
Site Selection Justification
Attachment D contains the applicant's rationale for the proposed facility and documents their
efforts to comply with the Site Selection Order of Preference for wireless communication
facilities (TCC Section 9276). The proposed project location is desired by the applicant to
provide better coverage for users living or working in the surrounding area and to mobile users
traveling the SR-55 Freeway and nearby roadways. The coverage in this area is currently weak
and the applicant has received complaints of dropped calls from customers.
The applicant examined the possibility of creating a stealth, building-mounted facility. According to
their documentation, only one of the adjacent buildings was of adequate height to provide suitable
coverage, however, the building owner was unwilling to negotiate acceptable lease terms (see
Attachment D). Given the average thirty (30) foot height of buildings within the project vicinity,
one building mounted facility or microcell would not provide sufficient coverage. Although two or
more,building-mounted facilities could provide sufficient coverage, the applicant wishes to pursue
t
one ground-mounted facility since it would be more cost effective.
According to the applicant, their original proposal of a sixty (60) foot tall monopole facility would
i provide the most efficient coverage for the area. However, following discussions with their
engineering staff and determining that demand was such that'a compromised facility installation
was better than no facility, the applicant determined that a fifty_(50) foot tall facility would provide
sufficient coverage.
DISCUSSION
Project Site Characteristics
The unipole is proposed'to be located approximately 600 feet from the Tustin Meadows residential
" development to the northeast and approximately 1,000 feet from the Renaissance residential
} development to the northwest. The unipole would also be at least 1,000 feet from any other major
Planning Commission Report
CUP 99-027 and DR 99-036
April 10, 2000
Page 4
wireless facility. There are no other structures, utilities or trees of comparable heights in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed fifty (50) foot tall facility. The trees throughout the project site
are twenty (20) to thirty (30)feet in height, the buildings on the project site are thirty-two (32)feet in
height, and ,the existing parking lot light standards are approximately twenty-eight (28) feet in
height.
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 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 would be visible from public view
on the Red Hill and Edinger Avenue rights-of-way.
With respect to overconcentration, the proposed facility is separated from other wireless facilities
by a minimum of 100 feet as required by TCC Section 9276. Regarding visual intrusion, the
proposed unipole is to be located where there are few other structures, utilities, or trees of
comparable heights in the immediate vicinity, including the light poles that the facility is
designed to resemble. Other wireless facilities in the general vicinity are more effective at
minimizing their visual impact to the general public. Examples include:
1671 EI Camino Real: A tower element on the Key Inn was increased to 47 feet in •
height to provide sufficient coverage while disguising the
facility as a part of the building.
600 W. 60' Street: The 60 foot tall monopole facility is surrounded by a
number of trees that are the same height as the facility
which diverts attention from the monopole.
550 W. 6h Street: The 60 foot tall monopole facility is designed as a palm
tree. To camouflage the facility, several live palm trees of
similar heights are planted around the facility. The
equipment at the base is enclosed within the adjacent self
storage building to screen it from public view.
SR-22 Freeway/Main Street: The monopole at the Main' StreetiGlassell Street
interchange is designed as a palm tree. To camouflage the
facility, several. live palm trees of similar heights are
planted around the facility. The equipment at the base is
screened by hedgerows along the freeway on-ramp.
1-5 Freeway/Culver Drive: On the east side of the freeway, a tower that duplicates the
design theme of the adjacent office building houses a
stealth facility.
i
1-5 Freeway/Jeffrey Road: A-monopole facility is situated in front of a row of tall
Eucalyptus trees and is visible from the freeway. However,
the monopole is painted forest green and effectively blends
into the row of trees.
Planning Commission Report
CUP'99-027 and DR 99-036
April 10, 2000
Page 5
Unlike these examples, the proposed unipole would be visible from Red Hill and Edinger
Avenues due to the lack of screening materials, similar utility structures, or landscaping. The
photographic renderings show the expected appearances from both Red Hill Avenue and
Edinger Avenue (Attachment C). These perspectives provide the most common views of the
proposed facility from the public rights-of-way. The photographic renderings demonstrate that
the height of the proposed unipole in contrast with the lack'of adjacent utility structures or
vegetation of similar heights would have a negative visual impact. The potential visual intrusion
of the unipole is not consistent with the screening requirements for wireless communication
facilities and would be a detriment to the surrounding area.
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 proposed location of the facility is not consistent with the Site Selection Order of
Preference within Tustin City Code Section 9276(1=)(2). This section requires facilities to
be located primarily on existing structures and secondarily where existing topography,
vegetation, or other structures provide the greatest screening. The proposed 50 foot tall
monopole would be a freestanding structure located adjacent to a building that is
approximately thirty (30) feet in height in an area where no vegetation or other structures
would provide screening.
2) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Additional Locational Guidelines within
Tustin City Code Section 9276h(4) which states that major wireless communication
facilities should be encouraged to locate and or co-locate on properties which are
located within the Industrial (M) Zone and the Planned Community-Industrial (PC-IND)
zoning districts. The proposed site is located in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan
"Technology Center' zoning designation which provides for general research and
development, light industrial, and accessory office and commercial uses.
i
? 3) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Screening Criteria and Guidelines within
Tustin City Code Section 9276(F)(1). This section requires wireless communications
facilities to be located in areas that will minimize their 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 and the lack of landscaping
on the property does not allow for screening of the proposed wireless facility from the
adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 99-027 and DR 99-036
April 10;2000
Page 6
4) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Other Criteria and Guidelines within TCC-
Section 9276(F)(3). This section requires operational equipment be located within a
building, enclosure or underground vault that complies with the development standards for
-the underlying zoning district. The proposed equipment building is located within and is
visible beyond a separate equipment enclosure that does not comply with the ten (90) foot,
rear yard setback for the Technology Center within Pacific Center East (PCESP Section
4.5.F.3.c), and would require submittal and approval of a variance request. Additionally,.
the combination of a walled enclosure and a separate shelter building would present a
disjointed appearance.
5) The proposed wireless facility would impair the orderly and harmonious present and
future development of the area. In addition to the buildings to the south, east and west
of the site, there are several vacant lots in the vicinity.of the proposed site to the west
and south, which would be adversely impacted by the proposed monopole. The
proposed monopole does not comply with design review criteria in Tustin City Code
Section 9272 as follows:
• The proposed location lacks any-physical buffer for adequate screening;
• The design and form of the structure is a cityscape unipole with a vertical antenna
enclosure which will be visible above surrounding structures and visually intrusive in
the given setting;
• The height and size of the structure is visible over existing structures and from two
major right-of-ways;
• The general appearance of the proposed structure is not compatible with or visually
integrated into surrounding structures;
• There is a lack of mature landscaping for screening;
• The physical relationship of the proposed structure is not in scale with the existing
structures within the surrounding area; and,
• The proposal does not comply with the City's adopted development guidelines for
major wireless communication facilities.
6) The monopole structure would be visible from two major transportation right-of-ways
which does not comply with the Section 3.2, Urban Design Concept, of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan. The design objectives within the Specific Plan state that
special emphasis should be given to the.relationship of structure and building forms
oriented toward the visibility opportunities from the SR-55 Freeway, Edinger Avenue and
Red Hill Avenue.
7)• The Pacific-Center East Specific Plan promotes the'removal of unsightly and cluttering
elements, including the undergrounding of overhead wires and utility poles: Section 3.2
of the Specific Plan refers to "other elements" that are similar to aboveground utilities,
including wireless communication monopoles, which should be examined with a view
toward improvement of design and elimination of these unnecessary elements to
improve the visual clarity of the area.
Planning Commission Report
CUP 99-027 and DR 99-036
April 10, 2000
Page 7
8) The proposed location, height, scale, visibility, and lack of screening of the monopole
structure does not comply with the following goals within the General Plan for the
character development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area:
11.2 Create a cohesive architectural image of_attractive streetscape through
implementation of development standards and design guidelines to unify the
area.
11.3 Promote building forms that relate to the scale and character of surrounding
development
B-rarft%y C. Ev so Karen Peterson
Assistane Senior Planner
Attachments: A- Location Map
B-Submitted Plans
C- Photo Simulations
D - Site Selection Justification
• E- Resolution No. 3721
BE1PcreportlCup99027pcleportdenial.doc
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
E
l
' - LOCATION MAP,`rr�
�L
r- I'
1
a
i
:t
�L
F G m
. V U
EDINGER AVENUE
n N n
Zn
N N ry r r n
PACIFIC 8FLL
WDUSTRIAL DRIVE" _
• x
15151 n n
O q
^ 15101 Ut
15181 = W
7
• t K
z uuo.e
o �
w
15201
ATTACHMENT B
SUBMITTED PLAINS
PBoPoem AT&T U ummm Project Data:
PROPOSED AT&T `\ P/Alalq ._ "" a n "w''metro n r, "mow max• .
Trs'ize Tnuw.exaTrn
PROPOem wTiT IP N VMYaLE :w�a iolamms�u w,a�man uwu ev r e.q�r dowa
QYEfi T N BRBE FOR/."Plrn.l l
� '�•, -- J \ xEnxr oP ara wi w DELOMTNE• .soma:�•ur r,.•�>—.
uaou.E wxrruulxa m wMwrue irwae.,w 2�''Im was.m.aQ,�m m.,a„r...�.. ua"r.Tan�
\ .wa m uaxr PDrnn�a TD s
A TJOm1lq PMpNo UNtia WTCN ay v ,��n 2 mxwr.w u...ie onm
m([�
let
fl Io nnw t r!4 �� rleoma rwui.aon Iw2wT lR�em 0 1mm�L '��"^�""��
PPOF000 iT►T.- -0 �� '•nM ..f' �Il.xa _— —_. rlr.r:Y:. " ��� '
PLEASE AREA wl RECECAsrCCM NULam VW4
PROPOBm AT&T
W HIDE ACCESS
AND UTRM
EweE11ENf ani DI ., to\ '"a' \�Fl �ii W—
I i.'•ue-o�iw im �
lora aae,,��•, roar � �+•��I�a� i
\ mr w.wworrrn^e arm uaa w,n ua
I\ b�w�wWSrA lwr. -nllrl> rv.l
w
I�aR� •i� 'r%/ �'
`\`\
F'\ y b Project Team: me Dace:
MIME
s _ w.w e.uowrwr.wgx.. �'YO \ ``�* 4 ti :\ e'..ff,.. .:r.... ®Q •...r
��—
O APA 4eo-2e6ae
- i wcwr.e russet � ` o' diva—'
I' ,uir`w'wrrr,`0.o:;rn"""°°°.:'n`..�
'D TA
ro. J
r/ :�.we: mm r.arq.cu ®AT&T
~i��NrJrlry w�NO[n�Il 21W _ . `\ `�\�` ��� /� /�V M m.mri mi I• _
�sl�µav"ingm-�n+"'e�°eml mei i I W �Inr iawn o IK wa �
TusnN
M L M - aL "o M S tee. rd, e w
NORTH 0890
Mm.w�La..,.Iw.u w.Aa..r.. ronw a as wsrurw..Alm,d ac� :::.�.�..�::�:..=_ •
Wr ... '4• : LK wnniG,mW�vur,s uwr y. \_ _ _
1421 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
mersR A
w'nrn�KLpn ` / 7kbMt CA.927M
THIS IS AN UNMANNED PUBLIC URLRY �.
ua<wa'm,ws,w vaw,,,"'""""`•'41"O1 - /\ SUBSTATION FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROP. (TTS
SITE SfTE PLAN
VICINITY MAP SP-1
SITE PLAN SCALE: t" = 40'— TDamaa Cuide Map 8aak Page 8301 A-8 1 d a
-J—'l - µvMMC1111tCA,M1C
. _. a e>]v�cxf Cd �rl%IW�mule'_... 11¢ie, '- e.Me f011 OYbV11 C��•���•�
aAaaremle9 wlw Nmrrot m.c wiavaaume, �®d;4•
am#cat�ell 61 m.ul meneu¢xaLL Inoue avllrM.a m axmrus rtaW+r w
_-. _ e�''Om"nm ung +eanrw�wml (�.mi�,"°•�na �
/ .mnu�i w•.n n""sm
vv,•n.+s
m xu
1 ! \
nefx ro�• I ' !
I lex lroe m r.a amv
wlna\av1111.own m�r.em mev
I ro wml m rnml
1 flnaeue - moeosm am uue®® L
I earraxa k
m u+asuR.ee.
1 I 9 laa9e Oate:
I
I RaN�lo�:
°
I
/ QATg'
—D=NO 2 STORY OIR —J/
• WARD}IOUSE Du1DINO - lnrrmxy
�M
i
i 7U MN
CHH
1131 D]e10ER A\'L
lOSfeL�v27eO
SITE DERAIL
SME'DETAIL > 1 a9Fi
. ITnroem�nTuxurms /-
MO1 T N ebe em ul OYHWL
1o01R a pow/e06awn/r
- uo�maWrtFm�II¢eale w�l� .
®IM MfwFY mwrz v>n N
fIC10®�NaVa i` t' ��y
. I p
r 1�� � wm`,n•-,-a•
nloraecn
wa mm '
E
arm awu r�ro�rwxi�*[ wnr.wue .. �„syse�wra3 �loarnv"nx�wc
uum nlcwlro wml �O�rz '01'O'''
m iNMl!l�Gawl2 wNL TO WTgmT1W1
SOUTHWEST ELEVATION Q.,.,T.,.,
weearm�m a x uveas '
rraoeco mrrxul.dc Issue Dale:
M eller Im NI Wfn/ll �u
01'[11 T Il64rr Im AM a1rE1.1lL Ir3wT a rrM FI ermwllYE
x�e1Rd Ad Fr 110®eMTM —W Cff m.111w— ArYle10f13.
IM mr-TolyEl-Mp lntirl0 MIo4Mw�a1r1O Wftll Q �.
mrlM rMrW laar
Q nw.waw
_ Y
l r '
wolaem ru.uo � p
umr m.a m - 4 rTwwzm r.lrvo AT&T
ca
V vea irk
r -all
wra.Iwru1.� ®.swrlr
nw cam n mu.. ararr,,l.ul
•Tlr.as. a� w.`w 'TU811N
...1 _ 1431 E➢31QA AYE
...rmroem rxr�xr .+a.mn�.�w I.gar�
' _ raw wra�wr.mewn rn.cwru�wr�nO°"
EIEVAlI0H5
m num ewanere w.0
SP-3
NORTHEAST ELEVATION 3 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 12 s or a
ATTACHMENT C
PHOTO SIMULATIONS
• 5
r,
4 _
{(
. 'i�
lY`CM1�i1rfL}JF•��-•d•C/S - i"' I •2} J i;i{ t'
�, ,-�,Te�1lM+IIT;'• , t � `'` �}L �'
its
•a
t, r'','rtk W
-h r J•. :. i f F,ap w- .w + va �,� ...�
X.
_•5�ti -7- \ t rF r i•� is fr ;•_°. �a��i
✓` � � �' a�FSr •ori.` �' ` i • h �'� 3.� t '' 7 ��
..xb�ng' r rtx.-�
'3ti sir}� 1.,.r < r - ♦F ffi
,is
�,-��'}*�i� *�,. �..t �+� ` � iS]mss„�J. •' �F r -„� � �t ��'
'�• ,.,cC y� +. S r.- r •� 14 {y r. t ? f �� r I.� ^i.'w I
sa.�<t�-ji •f'r" _ 4 ��l r�.y1�.i,i�i+ f ��ii d � i - ..H �-�'+ -
�{ Sd � .•t 777 f'. J
g r
FPO a
C
ON
%64
��l �{"..rr E'j isF11—I
fit
lr,e a L w'sr i -
Aj
_s rte+.�E. �• I �� a i r w* . � �}� �..
'.mow r t �„?�YC�9'I'.� j3 '' •i c. �. �s' w�{
trt
�� r�.:)� lam' :4:. - •J�! � � it (r.. [ S -
li7-. ;7 � •'kl���'- ` �•'i �ir'r'= ".i fk�'' '✓-��i js " � t` � � 't 1
/ -sem N �' '�j.",� .3:.r J i ✓S'f.}.}�L r•
�M` _� �Syit'r% 'S '1L4ti�l+y �'• �• 3 S y 4'Yd...- ``" _
Md., �a
a
L,/lr=l t�r K � .Ktb � tt sq ��r!L[',-tl'.t.'9}1(✓Jj1 3 L_
•,tip i �,� - r �, µ r „%p�h�'f'•�,��a�} :
��W •� tK f vis.--it��� ��> � Ir��'^J rt ,h� ��\s r-
r Y� s'.ti k 31 �-Y. � �iv f v � .%.t"�' 19•i"'t it i- s I
'�c j+�ti f��� t.� Z � ;r� k ��nt. I ti�f �,,,�•,..1 \ 1 d F� N� ..,
tY�r�t t+ t ii ThrrP ry ry r iilS4 "w t i
—.'
n�� .tC` •rid 4 � + :�. tkl � �'`i x ' I+r`� rsj'v. 1- 1 1 ;ty '� - �+ 7'S
"�lC' ,`rt4� �� '�`� ;��.'.v ti/[/s�-} _�r� y G I r�sr ry _E{ ♦r3 a 2 qy q�i1.7 k ,v,r,s.f7( ( � d �s. 1i- �.r :�� �4�'1
.t � ,�s�����¢�1.5 l'� :;5. CIJ']L'�r Jtl'I�fN el yes �'� )-^1 � },•..0 iY irtW) � 1 -.� r I 4 (',h�L��ia.Y
.kID'- \
1 �`.o r t s r �i � . ��i'•3 � y � r '^ ''( t ,•, x r ! 's t ., r_ rr:��
i r} Yf `�' •y �_tLtL�..����fJ�• .•• t,��l�� 1's f'i 4a+t Y R r -,!� .r ( r l���CC�'pC
�� '�-k i- A. �"S� ✓ f r ••i' •-d ,� ri�r �.::..'S� -t s���`:( i I.M r \'� ip
�,�Ft.
si } 1:srf1 i r'.l..r - 5•_.� s ! �r t /. ��'�x G ' I
Z'I r 9; r��flasL•=�.�i'fti I�p •I 1__•1 nlCi�`l�'� �7 as�r�S^ t ti sY?:;+ �[iL.L1 ,} j. -�
-VMIR", o ,ate
�
1!�T•t 1 MIR
nut a i�'�`- `• t .n Fr- -'" ® - __
.. t°'Fk slns7 °
�r''tt a'�a�� ,,, •i^r... ,tl ' t t,.tiv �� � `s�� r'�yFs Qi`a4 a��'�' �i�s���,•x i_,.�� ixsr�, r� � � r yr
t y\.`r+�ua'" ...r5r � -,.,_. x jl�,y.K"f^t-fir � `�Iw�� t�Ay$�}7�l'f�t rsy, s s .�y�'! y .' �-'j�• � er .I
r ^• c p� '*' '•. c '! L cr+ �{�� e5'+.Y4a£'�m L r��-�,(x.� 5-' k rj d �7 ��1.
Z ��. r q" r Fi.,,'� i r� y+ . (^ �rr♦ t,l.Htr•�" i �'. �, -* ':i.. ss t ry %.
'r��s ter':. i 1 i Yti U: ` t' tz, }w•L 4 �t+ 'kil••rF ¢1C,+ '+f'.�,�r +R'ti'!.*y kAr nr rraf F k^ r1 k.:
S-fit. -{.}.: ti'1';f �1 1.1 ;m1 �'r#.'7}Sri ka i+,zte uq Y.$a�4 at' ° ��,��`ktv�'�L�I�n ae ii°•.(�"7p�;,`ro i..e., c Lt��.rf `M �. rF�x r_ a ° r•a"i
;<F _ r � � .;..G� t� �� �r�� Tyr ,d• r rt �'� ,v,,�, ariv"s S ,M .Iv` s` '
y '� 4 f ...�.. �•�• x;,,� �.,�w .c. �ys5t s.`a4 �Y^T •'fds _ �n••-r"i, �t''r�,r f. r! ^,{
,�FrfN �•"+. .R s � � _ :r t w.. y�� ,s��A6nx � r��a ,k'k` �' '�"�1 F•..' t '
r'r. ;
"T. ' y 4`fi ,,t"'`•�1:i i,�'•7�.JYE:r:.i r. .i.
",�i N k z'Jr� I••f..l{»"• y 'c a.••�„`+':�1
ae'w. w-.•ypyy5,,,,7 t�?''a r iu+rai�i +flk�t1; .a.r" rra. 'ti)� •).0. �.v..+...�AFxly 6•...A h�Nr; _ ,�,(..-us..-r.f 3 .s i-.
'! A a.. r •}.* t ?gin 1 s r�.i �M1a s11 yts4 `R .n �'"ti i y t o .�.
ty. _ w » sYr r._ '1"'�ik.",P{4'9�ti•a 1 t - h ;3 r.. r r
1
i ,�.y ..e:,. t" .:,+� � •�'�•x v` � r ° �, ( �° �' ro t• R s �" d� w e r
'4� f � �M { r yPsa Y''� `}rw.at sr' �+-A�''d`t 3i1S'-i'`r� '`w� "'t�i.:� s�-,i -t•1 � ''i 'F ���'i S. e' IAF a ''r--cw
r .s.• ,. d .. .. ' i •k:. �. M,�:.'� �'rk,:}�-Fay..r.�s +:. 6 ......,z _ _1.€ra^'.._..:._...w �. ,:;�:'y ��,w�ra."�-.�'a3',c'�
\ �t� � �a'jf / 1}Sri, t t t ♦. tt �
/.. .�tl Ali T•S / _�.• '
�
�
i
�.L�c
rc3r{�,
L.. 1 Tri 'mr. �•�"� .�-, � ��r •s � f r•.^ � ,� r t�5�+�:
c�h L/'ttK t't� /�+a��ty9��.►'f`'4 a`.�� ` e - - I FYI a?.'��,F
-
F 4.
EYA•
y1 � z.r
♦\•1 11�i tFl .� .�. `�r'JJ1j 1�.1 x
�,�OWN?
'4 1 r { 11� !I 11IILL IIII II� 4 f
F 3 !^rg'ati
;fir l,.•, r1 �1� 3DF'�t
5 J� pI .1 cif"*'���• } N
.J.
zi
Y �Yay-'� ��.. 1 ✓3 �. -S " fir. ��"..Y� � -r ;•� y w - •, � � a!'
l`�5�6 �7' \,♦ rJ1S ti`�� 1 �,y.. rA 1 Ty _ x� Xa.
1 TS lJ t� ""T p4"J. • rl + 1. / L! -
Gln r^�4ti..1 ".�', < ,r 1l .! ,�, � ..�L:�,.._�.rr:•.m'1�t` .�t1� ~ter! ,.
''•' �� li.,al a'-.. � �ky syl� Y�.-[.1. �'F�i ��NSi�S..r L,1`��n�5 < - .. ;
,.W .1 "��F .a� r �<•♦♦...r �1f.�.tifeGc4.. -♦ fi E..
, `.fit ° �.�1 jPJ+IC{1�iL��,yi ir`�`1 T'�� �� 1`.,•27';4 l i � .. '
��,... + - s ,., • a, f't aa-�•-e,l..�.1�? 1 -' S C♦ .� �fr"aka
....
VIZ.
�I�IIII'
4�
-'� ��� + ''1 - ,,"moi r�1`�" r 3�'S1. '� ,.� ,�S 4S 1 a �' r� a"`•'�"L �<F ; i5� �J�
!� ` S. � ! `� -��. �s .;? ��-'lLd r Aly"�'
tw j'� �✓�� \i�V 1 r �• �� �ry�
♦ `' 1 ! M f x v 7 of
iti'i,'••':d�^i+�fti$1ry ,��tL��+w f ..L .-�-. a
.3
Vp
J
I
7
9Sy� a� �JSlD iik � '� - ?'•
y °
Y s 4
7
t
:m
m _
o
1
_ 9 + i + h f >j •M e� ` J ,fir.
t.A
l YI !! l=�s(,. SbA
L.) I� JI )y•
1 f f '', Livl �f
i F "j I'111 Jll 'T l la �r,I XFl f`�ir>� Riv
-'f i i Xr. ! ` � •r r ;,.;W �F t� { '�f i4{'� 5+�\
>� 1 � , - t1f �}'. )[ � ri1'E �a5 r � ��I!•1 �-rte (� Ilt , 41 ` z;j,"
' � µ� �� >��t1't r,"'j�� �,�f•'`"r F I :�� �•�i���1 1 � z ,wr�
�F..� .� t�'`�-?'a,rr � { i_,7�y,}� ` �,y� f�I 4' /r•.. +•''�Lti
�'- '-�"— - �- �• I x�,`'rr,.s'aa,�R` — 4�.,: .�� v ..:�.r�r_r���y,yi -�
tt Y ._l_ Gf - r �.c•�r^^""'.,,'g",Z� 1 y"`+� X Vii.t t'ti'"s. `;.1, F't 1�x " r —'•+ ,�- '�r
ro� x , - •. ,s w ,fir tat*f y .{ r ti lw'h' ." '� )d5 w 'i i. F'f' f '�'__ ,/ + [
1 .ob• r � c i[r�F � ,, I � Y ,..r a.. + r + � >x o! � + 4 y. r
^' - t .'!! , '7 �, Zl � k �� Y {t �I e3•' �., I,•;aY1 1 — .p fr�'.
L et' rr I .,f r�.I+ „�, r,. j I��. 4 .Kw r�� r. �•E Flr •�!e 4a. 4.. ,J 1�'r' ��.. + ,.
ATTACHMENT D
SITE SELECTION JUSTIFICATION
ATS T
AT&T Wireless Services
P.O.Box 6028
Cerritos,CA 90702-6028
(562)924-0000
March 6, 2000
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Dear Ms. Binsack:
Thank you for your review and consideration of our application for a
communications facility in the City of Tustin. We have reviewed staff's concerns
and correction suggestions and wish to make the following response in the same
order and numbering system used in Exhibit A of your February 8 letter. •
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
1. Sites were reviewed and eliminated within the search ring
according to the order of preferences listed in the Tustin City Code Section
9276(F)(2)(a). Existing buildings and facilities were explored first. The
following buildings were considered and then eliminated for the reasons noted.
a. Sites on existing buildings or facilties:
_Alternative 1 - Sun Acrylics 1_221 Edinger
Building is two story and less than 30 feet high. It is not tall enough for roof
mounted antennas. A site fess than 45 to fib feet will not provide the needed "
coverage.
Alternative 2 - Spartan Plastics
Building is two story and less than 30 feet high. It is not tall enough for roof
mounted antennas. A site less than 45 to 60 feet will not provide the needed
coverage.
CUP 99-027
1421 Edinger Avenue
March 6,2000
Alternative 3 — Pacific Commerce Center . 1421 Edinaer
The property is zoned PC-Industriai which is compatible with the proposed use.
The proposed site is not visible from residential properties; it is set back from the
road 'next to the railroad tracks and an industrial storage yard. The stealth, 50'
Light pole/ Cityscape pole combination would be screened from view by the
existing'office building and not be seen from Edinger Avenue.
Alternative 4 - City of Tustin Maintenance Facilitv. 1472
Service Road
One story building, much to low for roof mounted antennas. A 45 to 60 foot
monopole would be required to meet the 'specified coverage objective. The
parking lot is completely utilized so there does not appear to be space for a
monopole and equipment.
Alternative 5 - Supp-ort Services Facilitv. Tustin Unified
School District. 1302 Service Road
The building on site is two stories and, therefore, too low for roof mounted
antennas. There doesn't appear to be space for a monopole and related
equipment in the parking lot.
Alternative 6 -The Barn. Corner of Red Hill and Edinger
Restaurant site. An installation on the building would not provide the needed
height of 45 to 60 feet. Building a new structure/monopole on the property did
not seem aesthetically prudent. Owner was unresponsive and did not -return
phone calls.
.Alternative 7 - Dot Printer Fulfillment Distribution Center,
1702 Edinger
The distribution center is a one story development. To achieve enough height to
provide adequate coverage in the identified area we would need to install a 45 to
60 foot monopole (depending on location) on the property. We also felt the site
was too close to and within view of residential properties.
Alternative 8 - Pacific Gulf Business Center
All buildings are one story and much too low for roof mounted antennas. Site is
on the edge of the search ring and does not appear to be a good site for a
monopole. Parking lot is heavily utilized so space for equipment and monopole
would be difficult.
Alternative 9 - Pacific Bell Building 1172 Edinaer
The three story Pacific Bell building is located southwest of the proposed site.
The optimum plan would have been to install antennas on masts approximately
15 to 20 feet above the roof (60 feet) of the building.
CUP 99-027
1421 Edinger Avenue
March 6,2000
•
However, the potential Landlord was, for the most part, unresponsive and we
could not come to terms on the Lease. After several rounds of negotiation
Pacific Bell continued to insist on the right to."terminate the agreement for any
reason or no reason whatsoever, upon written notice to Licensee (AT&T)". They
also insisted on rental rate adjustments each term and the new rate was to be
determined by Pacific Bell alone. AT&T would not normally make a significant
financial investment (installation of a communications facility) under such terms.
Alternative 10 - Action Wholesale Products
Building is two story and less than 30 feet high. It is not tall enough for roof
mounted antennas. A site less than 45 to 60 feet will not provide the needed `
coverage
Alternative 11 - Micro Center 1100 Edin er
Building is two story and less than 30 feet high. It is not tall enough for roof
mounted.antennas. A site less than 45 to 60 feet will not provide the needed
coverage. . Parking lot is crowded during business hours and did not seem to
have room for a monopole and equipment.
Alternative 12 - Williamson and Schmid 15101 Red Hill
Avenue .
Two and half story building at the comer of Industrial and Red Hill. The building
height is better than the surrounding buildings but the taller Pacific Bell building
would block much of the transmission toward Edinger Avenue. This building is
also on the far southeast edge of the search area so a communications facility at
this location would compromise the coverage objective.
Alternative 13 - Marconi Museum-
Building is two story and less than 30 feet high. It is not tall enough for roof
mounted antennas. A site less than 45 to 60 feet will not provide the needed
coverage. Site is also outside the search ring.
Other Alternatives Considered
Firestation ## 37 14901 Service Road
The County of Orange prohibits the installation of wireless facilities within 500
feet of their communications facilities so roof-mounted antennas were not
possible. Regardless of those terms, a 45 to 60 foot monopole would be
required to meet the specified coverage objectives.
Parkinq Area at Tennis Courts on School Lane
The property is adjacent to a residential area. A 45 to-60 foot monopole would
be required to meet the specified coverage objectives.
CUP 99-027
1421 Edinger Avenue
March 6,2000
•
b: When no suitable existing structures were found within the
search ring, the next set of code criteria, to find an area where '"topography,
vegetation or existing buildings provide visual screening" were considered.
The requested site, 1421 Edinger Avenue was chosen because the existing
office building provides visual screening so that the stealth, 50' Light pole/
Cityscape pole combination would not be visible from the adjacent right-of way
(Edinger Avenue). The site is also bordered by a railroad track to the rear and an
industrial storage yard on one side. There is no residential property nearby.
The possibility of a building mounted facility was discussed with the property
owner. A building' mounted facility is a much more invasive procedure which
changes the architecture of the building and could cause structural and roof
problems. The preference of the property owner was the proposed light pole.
The selected site at 1421 Edinger Avenue was determined to be the best option
by AT&T Wireless Services as it most closely meets the criteria considered in -
selecting sites and:
Y the proposed site is centrally located within the coverage area to adequately
• serve portions of Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue;
Red Hill & Edinger
.Tustin, CA
1£iszzEL"'777G��� ,,i VOm1
S r$x 3 � lM �1 '� 5�•-I `f N. F -, l'C"' wt Y - ��./�
'y�Y-w., � ••i,`� arts Pte•..=..rA krC"� -f-r-+ .i- r'� -fir• rL ..r. IV hr4'
.lr u r•.,,.
•r <� "t''rx4'a x.rf�y,-.-a2'.';-ti r��'4Y''.�i�{�a'14w-r�"L..`:."-s�kr"•'r..t•'L.ra�,h.c.aa-2'"':>"'�:.�i".y'*"r`.r3Y•'^,..4v.��.a,YF�.,1�s P�t,� '
~"Yg ' F•1�.v�0l"a""�'?J�.^-_til.'d3,yS.Y�J.•�.K;-r�L�.�"=±{"'y"`y•+ti msiys�.-^��,r�Ar Nham, -fa�-'�'T
'--
-
y-i .t-�_+� - -..- !•i:i ac►' 92
�'y T .rt 4n L� is e- 'r,3' ,k''-moi" ❑��'�. . ..'�'`-Y--'K � °y�
T+4�yiSTJ�+ -�'"�.``. r,�- .� "• t. "" w.r a' "eF .�+ .r-�� � w
s y _t tI ti.''r'_•4 Y 2eG '1.. "7s:� .. �Ter5v 2�. �,n,.•a 4„r+ -! 4-sY' t.
•v '� .rt'.++,v -ti '+4.,•Jc+.+. `ztaY s�G'.^r- -"R4 FIp-s.
R^c { r ...+ *r z.w _ :-ri"r?-i`i s ✓ '�rL�U 1 - s: �,y r'} Yr .t. �.,,�xc
;c a "'.�.� .-• ti Y t _ i a` a."�t.+t.+�..rs. 'i."�+.- "FL r
Y1f�-15.A1 k1iTi1. 4�rsav^ r mz
r ✓i -r C �JCk^ars L!•i~ -7'''2�r.4 ,�Y -.-UK � ,m u,; 1I ' • ' �r
M Y y
n r y.r'v ° '? e {A• Y�.'.. i �. r r,` -".0 t ' >��•ft. C r �-.Ji.r L $' i 7n' _yy*moi^-"r_r
'.r•� '�
/+E-.�::.•_•.��o'<p;a':v?^7s �,c`;;' rt4:�[:::.y.�: - ray`.- - ..
`*- - _ r s •�J _ :r f � iaf r rs s:-� .�,�,
w.5- `�'f1 lJ fsFL f y _ :i N:.•'i.-� - � t.6 r +£':1 r 4 S•�.v t
CUP 99-027
142I Edinger Avenue
March 6,2000
• the proposed site provides adequate space for the installation and operation
of the AT&T Wireless Services facility and the.Landlord is willing and able to
lease space;
mg- g p- yyJ ij, s4 },(d J A 1 ,!• flS9 ,.� ..}•^?Y�.,f ¢�Y F 'yw"-zC"`„-SI a1�•r� $_' "l
i s 5 N -�t
00
.•�dR`.L+a� ,�ti _ e _ r sf F_ r.-t.3.u'sa'i+T,`r�.{. �r�.�-•'y�'
e�
R
^��'"?��"�'-�`'�s�l,�r�r�"s^''"�wr��5-.t'a'r 7 �f r tp y,r✓•f -�,r'y -- N i, -'��-✓��' „'�,r"� �Er"p'����♦�-. °JE
"y:
^i a� -•r. -� ze n ! � x� ��F�•y�„ie�..•.+�-r -ter•'•ac1.�'"`
.f':
r ra - • -• r • a. r - -
- - r r •r ^a - • r - • - r - • rr- - _ •�
v '�� t - �- z-,�'r R - .yrs—S4.��+�rr=.8 ;��� f.', h�u,.'.re�,; S�� '•�` �-,�_ � y�� r_ �;1
q�`^'. Y/a-
-P / _ r'L5 i-nR i r+ C• .�`�4bl tir., 1 •� a...''`�•§ 4' ,'y' ZT 3^C_ r IFE.
s Y -ems i"rs ✓. �.� t ? - t+. L.- �� r� 4 r t �' _jci r£ •� Fe_i, x• 1..
t.l-."' s, -as a_f tiz�'"r r�ss�"+,�" �c"•'"G".`�.,,- a�S a ffi
� zt'
r Z v,,"�> ati„�'4. `''�`�, ;'. ' 3�`�'
ME
+'S' �•,ice' ♦ 6 F P r r 1. � -�-r � ' +^ ..+. r• 'sY--4
v-- °a �" aya y-
ta'g��!']�`��. ON W
y"'�"hr �r,�rr..
SC i � '' � S+F �
S , krR, }. 41 r� J , --M,4 ~ 5F3re•: tit s` '9 sk_„�. t
:s.`" '-. 1 rY 4.4 'LS - �%rL !n ro t 4 r t �- '� tti• \� _'+
f? S,4� a i{ �•� � �"� �•vdi � �t may..• r �"'°��
`r'g1�'.Y;• 4 i 1417'
�,{. �� �`r'F"i h 'i 1Y`+• �7 ��4 �'�e�ir-RJ.a.+rC =-� .ry`.R�� .
1°yF S s ,s •
!„r� f is -°•F„ - tC �T a' .. -t.
t U \ �'�
tF.'mss"--
` _ .3'�ee l �+� u E� t,,-. rr��+, al.�` �3,{{�}' Y,.:sh -.s_,- kP.rS ,�.,. '•"s �.
� _. � 1,l � )g ��._r�:r µ�, �M1��i a. ` 4' 1 r •�i
+� � �•_ �x• �-. t Ir. � ��� �r' !fart la .+1.
t x'-- 54_,+ � t? 3M t�-a� ae..-:,e-,««-pm �,_,� t t, ke•.--..-•, �.� N-_ r
wr
LIM
'94 1 {
as
r A 1g iR
' _ e}r ..•s_G zr � "F ; •�r. �,,. "ti ,�'�v, 4.'d
.<
t r _ ! �r•.i.j•� ���� �,�.Ar.�,�sv,{„ Mr
R"� `+...,.
..� "4�'; n r s- ss:,
.Mf
10`
- 7-•S.�G� 1' +r�t. .-'+r'r t: 4 �.R � }1 S .rte---_
�b � 4 '.. ��'V�1 � S •1 �^k ��v�� ��
k-a �_ rr-� w rac`r'+- .,�--sem+... :-�-• f�"',,�.'� x '� «-,rAr�ro �•Y � 3 i rr
nxt,»,.meg L`*"s.� a f:t.FR a rt' '�`t !'"nr•7� `' t - �p •.-„"'"- 'Y"'- r'a..".�.r"""'
-
�a .,J''.'� f ]".y v as'.ck4Rie, '4• 5i°" ,�'+-�- _.F 5, '+- c
'�� .•F'-�4—�1i1-! .i T +' �'�'Y•^e "f�.� 'xaj -,.T
+.... ��c. _+'". �-.ti~t � �A ,�^-• ��.. ,y� y,,,'.' "5 '�;'i meq''^ r Sr `' �
,r y- r J �rit t'3,-.✓. � .v r•C.+�rf Z{� �'l�rr�- r s"',�' �+„t`T �s-i +e,.r r - - q
q
M ' -... g-,.r6 r,ti i �v4t-
�5 RMttiWORYrvye':FnF „ ?,.-5'd'�3�. �
•.� r•+� .r+v •b,°.."S A.rg 'Y.a "� ,.xr�F-'�`, A
OR
R�;y'•s„
CUP 99-027
1421 Edincer Avenue
March 6,2000
C. Sites on vacant ground without significant visual
screening were not considered.
We wish to pursue the proposed monopole/light standard facility as we feel it
best meets the City's siting criteria and our coverage objectives. Continuing with
the items listed under Current Planning Division:
2. Future generator— All references to the need for a future generator
and pad have been eliminated from the application and site plans. A generator
will only be used short term in cases of emergencies such as a power outages
and the like.
3. Parking — A parking summary showing adequate parking as
required by PCESP is located on the site plans, Sheet SP-1 .
4. Adjacent buildings — The location of doors and windows and
distances between the buildings and our proposed communications facility are
shown on the site plans, Sheets SP-1 and SP-2.
5. Underground Utilities — All utilities and cable runs are routed •
underground.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SITING CRITERIA
We were asked about the possibility of building two microcell facilities
rather than one macrocell. Our radio'frequency engineer offered the following
information.
Microcells would not work for the following reasons:
• A 25' installation would not provide enough height to get above- the
clutter. At 25' the antennas would have to shoot through the clutter
(buildings, foliage, .etc.) and would, therefore, not effectively provide
the required coverage.
• Microcells are low powered. A typical microcell operates at 1 Watt
ERP versus a typical macrocell which can operate at 40 to 100 Watts.
This means that a microcell will not be able to provide adequate
coverage to our customers as the received signal strength of their
mobile phone would not be strong enough to adequately place and
receive calls.
i
CUP 99-027
1421 Edinger Avenue
March 6,2400
® A microcell's capacity (the amount of customers it can accommodate)
is significantly smaller than that of a macrocell. A typical macrocell
provides only one sector which could accommodate 19 channels, while
a typical macrocell provides for three sectors at 19 channels per sector
or a possible 57 channels.
It is our belief that microcells on the light poles at the Pacific Bell building
would not provide the needed coverage. If we build microcells at that
location, we would surely need to build more microcell facilities in the
surrounding area to provide our customers with the equivalent coverage,
call quality and capacity of one macrocell facility.
PROJECT GOALS
AT&T Wireless Services is- currently reconfiguring its cellular/digital
network within the Tustin area to meet the increasing demands for wireless
services. .As our existing network reaches maximum capacity, additional in-fill
sites are necessary to off-load calls from the existing cell sites and fill in areas
not receiving signal coverage due to blockage caused by topography, buildings
and various other obstructions. These existing physical objects, including
buildings, hills, and landscape materials, affect cellular signals; therefore,
antennas must be placed above these objects to have a clear line of sight to the
coverage area. However, increasing antenna heights can often be problematic.
For instance, if a new site is built at the same or higher elevations than existing
sites in the area the signal output by the new site can interfere with the existing
network by overlapping signals.
SEARCH AREA
Site selection for the proposed cell site began with the identification of the
search area by AT&T Wireless Services. Radio Engineering. The search area
-included an area of approximately 1/a mile radius centered along the intersection
x_ of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue. From there, a preliminary survey of the
City's Zoning and General Plan Land Use maps was conducted and field surreys
were performed to qualify specific sites for detailed feasibility analysis.
An initial site feasibility analysis was prepared for each 'of the selected
alternative sites. All sites are ranked based on' their consistency with the
previously discussed criteria and on the City of Tustin Code, Site Selection Order
of Preference.
CUP 99-027
1421 Edinger Avenue
March 6,2000
Installation of the proposed communications facility at 1421 Edinger Avenue is
expected to achieve the following primary goals: Increase the network's capacity
and enhance coverage to meet the demands for cellular service on Edinger
Avenue below the 405 Freeway and Jamboree, Red Hill Avenue between
Valencia and Walnut Avenue and between Valencia up to the 5 Freeway.
SUMMARY
In summary, the installation of an AT&T Wireless Services communications
facility of 1421 Edinger Avenue will provide the necessary coverage to serve
wireless customers working and commuting in the immediate coverage area.
The proposed cellular facility has been carefully sited to minimize visual impacts
to the surrounding businesses and residences.
Originally a 60 foot monopole with a full array of twelve antennas was requested
by our engineering department. The 60 foot monopole was determined to be the
best configuration, to fulfil the design objective to cover the specified areas of Red
Hill and Edinger. Upon further consideration and jurisdictional input, our
engineering department has been able to reengineer the site and reduce the
needed height. We are currently proposing a 50' Light pole/ Cityscape pole
combination to match the existing light poles on site. The need for coverage and
capacity in the area is so significant that a compromised communications facility
installation is deemed getter than no installation at all.
9
DISCUSSION OF '
Alternative 1:Sun Acrylics 1221 Edinger
Building • story and less than 30 feet high. not enough f• ••
mounted antennas. A site less than 45 to 60 feet will not provide the needed
coverage.
r
W. • �Y V µ ... ;e4�E4 a c
i
;7^ - .:.��_r- .. .___..�.�`,.' _....�• ....".-.ate. - - �_
a i '4 •
y r - ' �st`--�t`�bw{e-�»�'r'.flr •'+ +G.- si s�:�t �i •;'��x� �T -_' .�.ti;
�•`�.-�e^^�5ri�'��'#'+t,�`'*.,�e �'^+!�a•,s a�4 `� _ ��_ �i�f,.,=.� 1 �,'+� �"r�,w e�c'�'
�''. T' a*G••� -"' 'Y zu"# H,~..'�'= a"u"s.xs'.2 frr11 ia�, a`4 : ... ^'+ 11'I: . �f•tFs: i f es. '• s4r. ,-riy
16
41
�+ f� �`:rte;r `��R�J'"•�`a��=. � i" �� •w n. t_i ;. ,�� �s'`"a`�_ ,
+ r �i �����'" •>�-:. tet►._ x � Yui f �i`ss•`�. t�.,.
-- : 4..+[. - �,xf�`\FI'`a�`. .'. •f; �'. -'tea;,�7'�•:,�ti=S -��r,;`
` - _r_.. •� fx ill }�. ,:; ;��y"i. �:� �4��•'i er �i•^�"i
! 5;-�r �.�a 1,h �43.�ti!Ss a.`'j•"•iJ�..+ �y�fr'`t�t•.;�'r
a +.�• .cry,._
- n
r �-4�` +"sv,����t--n ��•i_:`�F[ry��)�Cd�'.�,1`f�i�! ��w - ` Ps f.1�. :-Yl - 3 ® �•.`�„`
1� + `fie` r � }y , ;•";' ''` f. { w a Iii/ fir(. �.
-
^�
+: i r y4 : 41�..M • — 3 ,l LL .'S�+' t m,ryy+` 11�ti± 'L ,
194 y r
- ' - fit~ .'�� _ •. . _ . .• 'rii
W
�• f �. I pF�i s•N-�F � V �f y ] -� .2 3 '� 4 S + ! r
-
,, _.•'tttS?�sc5t�"ux_�- ll�. �
• O ,�.
Tt.
_- ....-. �" ..... �, --.._ � .._.+5+'-_��.-.''sem�_��•rc��...-.•4..,. .—e�`r
_ _ =- '^� _"•.—" - �-��rY'yam'.
Alternative 4- City of
One • building; to 60 •• monopolewould be required to ''
t the
specifiedcoverage objective. parking • is completelyutilized • therei!'
• appearto be space for • ••• and equipment.
.P i'•. y��;: :*�+- ��'��n4 v fir' �, � �; }.
low
t ei -� Y h- ♦ '�a�mYn
r = - - a �r T sP4 l•��A` ` r'�x 4-�'4.c'�4'
I� w t '��f. ��'.., ,.$ JAi C ��.h ].ti��•s�"t^Sfµ��$n�. -1 �`d r h�f �� G
.n
It �'� »7 `f 3' "�fi�, u" '\��"w.F'vs}h�.e+��,.✓t� _ T ,,�� -'" �� �.#r— yam:
7 r - 1•• oy7 ^ _ c y, 1 1F"� j f'.� �'�i"r.'k'a Y a f�..�lY��s" �'�� �c lr v.
k �'!. .,Y ' ' ��'f' i•f .E. iy [J14 ..,i��4�, F�,�'.S�yy AF l ;3 f �rx_s�
�� � � w��`Y! z..'� 1'z..'s ,�'�h t r�(y�r��•;}F "r E��' 3^a� � � .a„�� �_ j �� .. %�'
C I S�� "S• --F�f,.r,'L]�° til I.*�-l�' \JK �!` s731�-fi�''•� F �S '` f_`,��„ .f�+i rt � ��,M
t s f .�sf� '� �''���w� T Ta° ^fi. � �'?: � � • �� ,_{=� x:. '.."r ;} it;
tY �C 1 1
�;• rr ,�. � �Fes':,�,,;���((
jty et�ff]' .
� 1 M1. —'C• ��CJ{ELS' r'$�+"��.'
� � ,y acs •G d h.�3r{:
k :I�1 {Y+ `y�.�i��f�"'� «.. IfS�A�r•=i'r"..- r 's}„r].
wV
. __,- ��; r,."" `:� d -��,aIty*� y ,� I �j•'7,j' i s�- r�.c�i'nft�`"�
ti y. .mob�b
i", t.. " U
ifnt a�
M„tii� 'eep zkC�.rsf r� Lh`rc-+\%.,.:irli:t
Alternative • —.TheBarn, Comer of • Hill and. • •-
Rest
urant site. An installation on the building would not provide the needed
height of t6-60 feet. Building z new - i ••• - on pro*pe • i not
seem aestheticaily prudent. / / • notreturn.,phone
t ��,ti-y�t� •• 'i-,�EP?ff� �r=�� �li`F,• ��'r�� F'•.C'��I !
--•it -5L � �I��1 •tri: + J
f� :—. 'Ike``•7-1� 9f �r�, t `� F�Sa ' � rS'+.I1
��• +i�. J �.,i Lw�'�/� �'^i�y� -.. 'L'—.'- •'� �?J�i arT. ` _ �is't'�'zie:
i:' a
• J r�� .. {�t, ., t L f 1 ,�-\3 i., , ','15. C�c' vim,�ti e�.�i ,ua �.�r-
ti•kx� :� 1 3 '`/ "�ti&•t„s�•�'r ,�' i y� I. z f 'f�, y ��}..a-, f .,�"r ���L•-�'•'-^--f��
Oki
Sr� 1,7
:rr I
B
^C-A1
irk F !y y' p`, _ ` •� ,i ,
1u ? a f r
wn
i:” -�T •#f � ms's..' y- ,
mo
6111-11
-let.
`c ��? t5 ,n , times \iL•'i t ; .11 s
�. ^' Ir _.'•' 'R�.n t a Hvl. L9�� .� \ /:' y�!�{. r+' 4 � ,� �J{�? �.. - -
41,
:'�'
f.' , 1.'1"� '� {kl:✓��! '
'vl �,{c ��{ t #�,� { �����r sr i 1 rla � � _i :�r^ 41;•:.
_-
r�
Wo'
T.7aG r rte. '"'": ��r %•rG �"y Yeti'+"' y �^� -t. '.'s"at.
Alternative acific Gulf _
All buildings - • - • r •• low for •• • -r e is
'on the -••- of.the search ring and dobs notappear to be a •••r for
monopole. • lot is heavily utilized so space for -r r - • • •r• -
would •- difficult.
iijjjjjjjj
�x �'1 rte L•S`s �'*r rw�- - �«'�p;t' +,., �=� i . 3 1111, i Y f.
,fit '�/y.,ti• r". l � �,� i�'t a fi.,.! r I v..f � ` i4 �i'`ti' I r
-�.ti_:� _�n^'�er-...�._ '_'"y. _ter• , , ' ~ ice 'J�
�ti•
Alternative 9: Pacific Bell Building, 1172 Edinger
The three story Pacific Bell building-is located southwest of the proposed site.
The optimum plan would have •been to install antennas on masts approximately
15 to 20 feet above the roof(60 feet) of the building. However; the potential
Landlord was, for.the most part, unresponsive and we could,not come to terms-on
- -- the Lease. After several rounds,of negotiation Pacific Bell continued-to insist on
the right to "tenninate the agreement for any reason or no reason whatsoever,
upon written notice to Licensee (AT&T)". They also insisted on rental rate
adjustments each term and the new rate was to be determined by Pacific Bell
alone. AT&T would not normally make a significant .financial investment
(installation of a communications facility) under such terms.
77
• I
Alternative Adtion WholesaleProducts ,
Building • story and lessgh. It is not • gh for ••
mounted antennas. • site less than 45 to 60 feet will notprovide - needed
coverage.
Alternative • Center 1100, • ge
Building is two story and. less,than 30 feet high. not 'edough for ••
mounted antennas. A site Ies&,than 45 to 60 feet 011 not, provide the .needed
coverage.,
,, lLj4' `,;-.•�-r,... tis �_,�;L,� ,.��' z-�1�`: ��
t- s4 4 � � Sy4. � � ff •,L �Y.�
YE. `• ., ,� �� st. 4,'_, iiia ' , ���� x
^ 1' ~`itt b N L� � 5.•L., vs+r _ 1V.. y _ L � �"�.T _ _ I,_ f ♦ L:� .'�.
a;• T i r--'' F
• �'-;� 'L��Y"7 _ eft p�l� V. �
.ice:;5f�•• r3:
Alternative 12 —Williamson and Schmid 15101 Red Hill Avenue
Two and half story building at the corner of Indr,strial and Red Hill. The building
height is better than the surrounding buildings but the taller Pacific Bell building
would block much of the transmission toward Edinger Avenue. This building is
also on the far southeast edge of the search area so a communications facility at
-- this location would compromise the-coverage objective:
--..:t, r ..e'er
- • _ _ ..�.''fid .ire
"':";+max bra ►y:
�s
4 '
Alternative • Museum• • is tw6storyand less than 30 feet, high. •t tall enough for ••
mounted antennas. • site less, than 45 to .! feet will notprovide - needed
coverage.- Site is also outside the search-ring.
Other . • -
Parking Area at Tennis Courtson .•
The property is adjacent to a residential area. A45 t660 foot monopole would be
required to meet the-specified coverage objectives.
Bob
_--7�S�ra-r....��f}{t �.swr I y't —:u� 'icy_-;.� � • I1j,.fi,{ a�.1 �,'.
it � � '" r 'y.x., � �:�,µ„�..,�,-`w' F t-. �(t,� —c 4 �.r•-+��v-+ —�:rs_? k Ga,G=
-
. -. � ??fir � ,. { f � - f�-i - Is"',a _�:..cy.+�`��.., %i*r�":T���-`•Y�^.K'.�''.- -- },:
i '"^�+r�ry +w "� F4 �F��' '�! 4 n'h ' - r ~�G'a' .�..`t�'��.—r,r�� '+t �i •.�.
.t. � --+-�.� "+.���` n '� !if w � -`• '^-, `-! Lys'.-�
u1 L?�� �..�h c � x�t wry. �� Z.�\� �, � I�Ta f'J,�• -.
�ry
ru��._�r.�brinbFrs.imrq�v � -
Sys. k 1
r ,
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO. #21
i k 1.
1
2 RESOLUTION NO. 3721
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
4 OF TUSTIN DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-027 AND
5 DESIGN REVIEW 99-036 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO
ESTABLISH A MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
6 FIFTY FEET IN HEIGHT AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AT 1421
EDINGER AVENUE.
7
s The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
9 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:.
10
A. That a proper application, for Conditional Use Permit 99=027 and
11 Design Review 99-036 was filed by AT&T Wireless Communications
to establish a major wireless facility located behind the building at
12 1421 Edinger Avenue. The facility includes a 50 foot tall monopole
13 structure containing three (3) vertically attached antenna arrays
contained within a four foot by nine and one-half (4 x 9 Y7) foot
14 enclosure at the top of the facility. Mounted approximately five (5)
1'
feet below the bottom of the antenna enclosure are two (2) square- •
hood parking lot light fixtures.
16
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said
17 application on April 10, 2000 by the Planning Commission.
1s
C. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation 'of a major
19 wireless communication facility will be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or
20 working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be injurious or
21 detrimental,to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of
22 the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as
evidenced by the following findings:.
s _
f 23 1osed The proposed location of the facility} p p is not consistent with the
24 Site Selection Order of Preference within. Tustin City Code
Section 9276(F)(2). This section requires facilities to be
2s located primarily on existing structures and secondarily
26 where existing topography, vegetation, or other structures
provide the greatest screening. The proposed 50 foot tall
�7 monopole would be located adjacent to a building that is
approximately thirty (30) feet in height and in an area where
28 no vegetation or other structures would provide screening.
29 •
Resolution No. 3721
CUP 99-027, DR 99-036
Page 2
1
2) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Additional
2 Locational Guidelines within Tustin City Code Section
3 9276h(4) which states that major wireless communication
facilities should be encouraged to locate and or co-locate on
4 properties which are located within the industrial (M) Zone
and the Planned Communitydndustrial (PC-IND) zoning
5 - - districts. The proposed site is located in the Pacific Center
6 East Specific Plan "Technology Center" zoning designation
which provides for general research and development, light
7 industrial, and accessory office and commercial uses.
8 3) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Screening
9 Criteria and Guidelines within Tustin City Code Section
9276(F)(1)]. This section requires wireless communications
10 facilities to be located in areas that will minimize their aesthetic
11 intrusion on the surrounding community. Ground-mounted
facilities should only be located in close proximity to existing
12 above ground utilities, such as electrical towers, utility poles, or
light poles of comparable heights. The lack of utilities of
13 comparable heights and styles and the lack of landscaping on
14 the property does not allow for screening of the proposed
wireless facility from the adjacent properties and public rights-
15 of-way.
16 4) The proposed facility is not consistent with the Other Criteria
17 and Guidelines within TCC Section 9276(F)(3). This section
requires operational equipment be located within a building,
'g enclosure or underground vault that complies with the
39 development standards for the underlying zoning district. The
proposed equipment building is located within and is visible
20 beyond a separate equipment enclosure that does not comply
with the ten (10) foot rear yard setback for the Technology
21 Center within Pacific Center East (PCESP Section 4.55.3.c),
22 and would require submittal and approval of a variance request. In
addition, the combination of a walled enclosure and a separate
23 shelter building would present a disjointed appearance.
24 5) The proposed wireless facility would impair the orderly and.
25 harmonious present and future development of the area. In
addition to the buildings to the south, east and west of the
26 site, there are several vacant lots in the vicinity of the
27 proposed site to the west and south, which would be
adversely impacted by ' the proposed monopole. The
28 proposed monopole does not comply with design review
criteria in Tustin City Code Section.9272 as follows:
29
Resolution No. 3721
CUP 99-027, DR 99-036
Page 3
1 i' 0 The proposed location lacks any physical buffer for
2 adequate screening;
3 • The design and form of the structure is a cityscape
unipole with a vertical antenna enclosure which will be
4 visible above surrounding structures and visually
intrusive in the given setting;
5 The height and size 'of_ the structure is visible over
6 existing structures and from two major right-of-ways;
• Th'e general appearance of the proposed structure is not
compatible with or visually integrated into surrounding
g structures;
• There is a lack of mature landscaping for screening;
9 • The physical relationship of the proposed structure is not
10 in scale with the existing structures within the
surrounding area; and,
11 • The proposal does not. comply with the City's
adopted development guidelines for major wireless
12 communication facilities.
13
6) The monopole structure would be visible from two major
14 transportation right-of-ways which does not comply with the
1s Section 3.2, Urban Design Concept, of the Pacific Center •
East Specific Plan. The design objectives within the Specific
16 Plan state that special emphasis should' be given to the
relationship of structure and building forms oriented toward
17 the visibility opportunities from the SR-55 Freeway, Edinger
1s Avenue and Red Hill Avenue.
19 7) The Pacific Center East Specific.Plan promotes the removal
20 of unsightly and cluttering elements, including the
undergrounding of overhead wires and utility poles. Section
21 3.2 of the Specific Plan refers to "other elements" that are
similar to aboveground utilities, including wireless
22 communication monopoles, which should be examined with
23 a view toward improvement of design and elimination of
r these unnecessary elements to improve the visual clarity of
24 the area.
25 -8) The proposed location, height, scale, visibility, and lack of
26 screening of the monopole structure does not comply with
the following goals within the General Plan for the character
27 development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area:
28 91.2 Create a cohesive architectural image of attractive
29 streetscape through implementation of development •
standards and design guidelines to unify the area.
Resolution No. 3721
CUP 99-027, DR 99-036
Page 4
• '
2
11.3 Promote building forms that relate to the scale and
3 character of surrounding development.
4 D. Pursuant to Section ' 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and,
s =- general appearance of the proposedfacility will impair the orderly.and
6 harmonious development of the area, the, present or future
development therein, or`the occupancy as. a whole. In making such
7 ' Andings, the Commission has considered at least the following items:
8 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings.
9 2. Setbacks and site planning.
3. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination.
10 4. Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing
11 structures in the neighborhood.
5. Appearance and design relationship of proposed
12 improvements to existing structures and possible future
structures'in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares.
13 6. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City
14 Council.
S15 E. This project is exempt from the requirements of the California
16 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to. Section 15270 which
states that-CEQA does not-apply to projects rejected or-disapproved
17 by a public agency.
18 II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit No. 99
10 027 and Design Review 99-036 requesting the establishment of a major
wireless communication facility fifty feet in height and. related equipment at
20 1421 Edinger Avenue.
21 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning. Commission of the City of Tustin, at,a
22 regular meeting on the 10th day-of April, 2000..
3 23
24
25 STEPHEN V. KOZAK
26
Chairperson
27
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
28 Planning Commission Secretary
• �9
- r
Resolution No. 3721 -
CUP 99-027, DR 99-036
Page 5
' •' STATE OF'CALIFORNIA ) _
2 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
3 CITY OF TUSTIN. )
4
.I, ELIZABETH A.. BINSACK, the'undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
_ 5 Commission Secretaryof the Planning Commission of the City of-Tustin, California;.
6 that Resolution No. 3721 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9 0th day of April, 2000.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
10 Planning Commission-Secretary
12
13
14
15 •
16
17
18
19
20
21
F 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ITEM #4
port to the
Planning Commission
DATE: APRIL 10, 2000
y SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA, APRIL 3, 2,000-
PRESENTATION:
, 2000'PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA--APRIL 3, 2000
to
4
: ACTION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 3, 2000
7:04P.M. CALL TO ORDER
GIVEN INVOCATION - Mr. Bill Stevens, Salvation Army Church
PRESENTED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Boy Scout Troop 36
COLORS
ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL
. PRESENTED PROCLAMATION -- (1) Week' of the Young Child, April 9-15;
(2) Alison Noll, .Daughters of the American Revolution
National! Essay Award, and (3) Fabie Combs, Former Vector
Control Representative.
PUBLIC INPUT
RON BEAULAC: REPRESENTING YOUTH ATHLETIC NETWORK, PROVIDED
AN UPDATE ' ON THE AFTER SCH06L PROGRAMS AT
HEIDEMAN AND BESWICK SCHOOLS.
NONE PUBLIC HEARING - None
CONSENT CALENDAR { ITEMS 1 THROUGH 17 )
APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2000 REGULAR
MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of
March 20, 2000.
ITEM NO. 2 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA— MARCH
(CUP 99-012) 27, 2000
WAS APPEALED All actions of the Planning Commission become final
BY SALTARELLI unless appealed by the City Council or member of the
public.
Recommendation: Ratify the, Planning Commission
Action Agenda of March 27, 2000.
APPROVED . 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION • OF
PAYROLL •
Recommendation; Approve Demands in the amount
Action Agenda—City Council April 3, 2000 -- Page 1
of $3,357,006.90 and ratify Payroll in the amount of
$4061099:47.
ADOPTED 4, RESOLUTION NO.. 00-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-22 CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN RECORDS
Recommendation. Adopt Resolution 'No. 00-22
authorizing the . destruction of police records as
permitted by . law as recommended by the Police
Department.
APPROVED 5. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (THROUGH THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OR DESIGNEE) AND THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager 'to
enter into 'a Memorandum of Agreement by and
between the United States of America (through the
Secretary of the. Army or designee) and the City of
Tustin,providing for the Army to dedicate at no cost to
the City of Tustin. additional roadway right-of-way
along . a. .segment of Barranca Parkway as
recommended by Redevelopment staff.
APPROVED 6. COOPERATION AGREEMENT N0. '2
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to execute
Redevelopment Cooperation Agreement No. 2 among
the , City of Irvine, City of Tustin, and Tustin
Community Redevelopment Agency as recommended
by the Assistant City Manager.
ADOPTED 7. RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL,OF•THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
F
NO. 00-14 CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE
r MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - DATED
.JANUARY 1, 1999 BETWEEN THE CITY-AND- THE
TUSTIN- MUNICIPAL. ,EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
-REGARDING THE LAYOFF POLICY
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-14
amending-the 'Memorandum of Understanding to.add
a new ayoff policy negotiated with the Tustin
Municipal Employees Association as recommended by
Personnel Services.
Action Agenda—City Council April 3, 2000— Page 2
ADOPTED 8. RESOLUTION NO. 00-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-3.6 CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL LANDSCAPE '0
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT AREAS FROM JULY 1, 2000 — JUNE 30,
2001
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-16-
approving the plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for the annual
landscape maintenance services for the Assessment
District areas subject to City Attorney approval as
recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
Services.
ADOPTED 9. RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-3.7 CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THE GENERAL FUND
AREAS AND CITY/WATER FACILITIES FROM JULY 1,
2000 --JUNE 30, 2001-
Recommendation:
001Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-17
approving the plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for the annual
landscape maintenance services for the General Fund
areas and City/Water Facilities subject to City
Attorney approval as. recommended by the Public
Works Department/Field Services.
APPROVED 10.LEAVE OF ABSENCE — ROMAN LOPEZ
Recommendation: Authorize extension of a medical
leave ,of absence for Roman Lopez due to an off-the-
job injury until October 26, 2000 or until he is fully
released by his doctor to return to work as
recommended by Personnel Services.
APPROVED 11.CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC
STUDY FOR THE NEWPORT AVENUE EXTENSION /
SR-55 RAMP RECONFIGURATION PROJECT (CIP NO.
7130)
Recommendation: Approve the Consultant Services
Agreement with LSA Associates to provide traffic
study related services for the Newport Avenue
Extension / SR-55 Ramp Reconfiguration Project (CIP
7130) for a not-to-exceed fee of $14,000 and •
authorize execution of the Consultant Services
Action Agenda —City Council April 3, 2000— Page 3
Agreement by the Mayor and City Clerk subject to
approval by the City Attorney as recommended by the
Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
ADOPTED 12.RESOLUTION N0. 00-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-21 CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE LOCATION OF
CERTAIN ALL-WAY CONTROL INTERSECTIONS
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00.21
authorizing the installation of all-way stop controls at
Myrtle Avenue and Second,Street as recommended by
the Public Works Department/Field Services.
RECEIVED 13.CENSUS 2000-UPDATE
AND FILED; Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as
POTTS REQUESTED recommended by the Community Development
EXPLANATION RE: Department.
LONG FORM FROM
CENSUS BUREAU
ADOPTED 14.RESOLUTION NO. 00.19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-19 CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A
- CDAM GRANT APPLICATION TO OFFSET PLANNING
COSTS' ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLOSURE AND
REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-19
approving the' following actions: (1) Authorize the
filing of an application to- the California Trade and
Commerce Agency for $118,958 in California Defense
Adjustment Matching Grant funds to offset the City of
Tustin's existing Office of Economic Adjustment grant
cash in-kind matching obligation in support of
continuing reuse planning implementation activities;
s and (2) Appoint the Assistant City Manager or her ,
authorized , representative as the agent to apply,
approve, sign and execute in the name of the City of
Tustin any documents necessary to secure this
requested CDAM grant. funding, in the event that
funding is awarded under that program, as
recommended by,Redevelopment Agency staff.
i ADOPTED 15.RESOLUTION NO. 00-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-20 CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE WORK OF
IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION
Action Agenda —City Council April 3, 2000 — Page 4
OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DRILLING OF
MAIN STREET WELL NO. 4 (PROJECT NO. 6103)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00.20
accepting said work and authorizing the recordation
of the Notice of Completion and direct the City Clerk
to: (1) Release the Labor and Materials - Bond not
sooner than thirty-five (35) days after the date of
recordation of the Notice. of Completion; and (2)
Release the Faithful Performance Bond not sooner
than one year after the date of recordation of the
Notice of Completion as recommended by the Public
Works Department/Field Services.
ADOPTED 16.RESOLUTION NO. 00-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 00-25 CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE COMPENSATION
OF UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00.25
providing for implementation of a compensation
program for unrepresented management employees
consistent with direction provided by the City Council
as recommended by the City Manager.
APPROVED 17.SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION — CIP FUND
Recommendation: Appropriate $252,000 from the
unappropriated reserves of the Capital Improvement
Fund and apply to the following accounts: $93,150'—
Project. No. 1032, Major Building Maintenance;
$66,350 -- Project No. 1033, Fuel Tank Removal and
Replacement; $90,300 — Project No. 1538, Jamboree
Road Irrigation System;- and $2,200 — Project No.
7159, East Tustin Landscape Replacement as
recommended by the Finance Department.
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 18 THROUGH 19 )
APPROVED STAFF 18.F1NAL REPORT ON THE "EVALUATION OF
RECOMMENDATION PRIVATIZATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITY OF
TUSTIN MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM"
The final report on ,the "Evaluation of Privatization
Opportunities for the City of Tustin Municipal Water
System" evaluates the current operational functions of
the City's water system and discusses the feasibility
of privatizing the entire water system or various
functions of the system. The types of privatization
opportunities that were investigated involved
Action Agenda —City Council April 3, 2000 — Page 5
complete -sale, , long-term leases, operation and
maintenance agreements, and task-specific contracts.
Recommendation: Refer the final report on the
"Evaluation of Privatization Opportunities for the City
of Tustin" prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. _to
the Audit. Committee for review and comment as-
recommended by the Public Works Department.
POLICE PRESENTED 19.DISCUSSION — TUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
DISPLAY OF MEMORIAL_ .
PROPOSED MEMORIAL
AND OUTLINED Councilmember Doyle has requested that this item be
FUND RAISING added to the agenda.
CAMPAIGN
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
PUBLIC INPUT
RON BEAULAC: COMMENDED .THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: FOR
THEIR SUPPORT OF THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
ONNALEE ELLIOTT: EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO RE-ORGANIZING THE
WATER •SYSTEM AND. LACK OF AGRICULTURAL
• WATER RATES.
OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS
DOYLE: REPORTED SANTA COP FUND ' RAISING CASINO
NIGHT EVENT WOULD BE HELD ON APRIL ST[i:
POTTS: NOTED HIS LOTH ANNIVERSARY AS A
COUNCILMEMBER AND STATED HE WOULD BE
ABSENT FOR THE APRIL 17TH MEETING.
REQUESTED A PROCLAMATION FOR THE TUSTIN
HIGH SCHOOL DANCE TEAM RECOGNIZING THEIR
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
SALTARELLI: WISHED COUNCILMEMBER POTTS A HAPPY
BIRTHDAY.
REQUESTED THE CITY EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF
` REVIEWING THE NEED FOR AGRICULTURAL WATER
RATES.
r
Action Agenda -City Council April 3, 2000 — Page 6
THOMAS: REPORTED HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE
SEDONA DEVELOPMENT REGARDING GATING THEIR
COMMUNITY AND HAD FORWARDED THE LETTER 'TO
STAFF FOR RESPONSE.
REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE WHATEVER
ASSISTANCE THEY COULD TO THE RESIDENTS
REGARDING THE RAWLINGS 'WAY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL SITE PARKING ISSUES.
REQUESTED THE COUNCIL SET A DATE FOR A JOINT
MEETING WITH'THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
-REPORTED SPEED LIMIT VIOLATIONS IN THE
VICINITY OF PIONEER DURING SCHOOL HOURS.
DOYLE: REQUESTED PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CHIEF
DEPUTY CITY CLERK'S RETIREMENT.
WORL_EY: REPORTED SHE HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM
RESIDENTS THAT MEDIA ONE WAS STATING TUSTIN
RESIDENTS WERE NOT A PRIORITY. STAFF
RESPONDED THAT-THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES SHOULD
BE. ADDRESSED AT THE MAY 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
MEDIA ONE'S FRANCHISE RENEWAL.
-REQUESTED A STATUS REPORT ON RESULTS OF THE
LEMON TREE PARK WORKSHOP.
COMMENDED THE TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL DANCE
TEAM FOR THEIR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
REQUESTED THAT' THE TUSTIN LEGACY`
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDER PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS
TO ENABLE CHILDREN' TO WALK TO AND - FROM
SCHOOL,
F
R -
DENIED - -CLOSED SESSION —At 6:00 p.m., the City Council
MORALES CLAIM convened in closed session to consider the claim of
-Maximiliano Mateo Morales, Jr. A,copy of the claim can
-be obtained from the City Clerk.
8:15 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the City
Council is scheduled for Monday, April 17, 2000, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way.
The Mayor's Reception will be held in the Community •
Center immediately following the meeting.
Action Agenda--City Council April 3, 2000— Page 7
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APRIL 3, 2000
8:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
POTTS ABSENT ROLL CALL
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH .3 )
APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2000 REGULAR
MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency
Minutes of March 20, 2000.
APPROVED 2. COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 2
Approval is requested to enter into a new
Redevelopment Cooperation Agreement with the City of
Irvine for redevelopment of portions of MCAS Tustin
• within the City of Irvine.
Recommendation: Authorize the Chair of the
Redevelopment Agency to execute Redevelopment
Cooperation Agreement No. 2 as recommended by the
Assistant City Manager.
APPROVED 3. AUTHORIZATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID
AS CORRECTED TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF A
BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE ' FINANCING
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND UPDATED FISCAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF MCAS TUSTIN
David Taussig & Associates, Inc. will assist the Agency in
developing implementation mechanisms to facilitate the
financing of a new backbone infrastructure system for
reuse and redevelopment of MCAS Tustin, and an
updated fiscal impact analysis to evaluate recurring
municipal operations and maintenance costs for the
project, compared with revenues generated by the
project.
Recommendation: Authorize the Executive
Director to execute an Agreement with the firm of David
Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency April 3, 2000—Page I
Taussig. & Associates, subject to approval by the City
Attorney, to provide financial modeling services for the .
purpose of identifying the most efficient and effective
means of financing costs for the required new backbone ij
infrastructure. system associated with the reuse and
redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan as
recommended by the Redevelopment Agency staff.
NONE OTHER BUSINESS
NONE CLOSED SESSION - None
8:3.6 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for. Monday, April 17,
2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300
Centennial Way.
f
tie
Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency April 3, 2000—Page 2