Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 JUNE 8 2021 PC MINUTES ITEM #1 MINUTES VIDEO CONFERENCING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2021 6:00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION: Chair Mason All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mason Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Chu, Higuchi, and Mello None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Hurtado Hurtado confirmed there was no public input. Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 25, 2021 May 25, 2021 Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the May 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Mello, to approve the Minutes of the May 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Adopted 2. ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 2020-0001 Reso. Nos. 4429 & 4430. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Seth Hiromura Steve Benos Steelwave LLC GVI-SW Bell Owner, LLC 3335 Susan Street, #250 900 N. Michigan Ave., #1450 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Chicago, IL 60611 LOCATION: 1382 BELL AVENUE Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 11 ENVIRONMENTAL: A Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Article 6 of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. REQUEST: 1. To rezone the property located at 1382 Bell Avenue from PC-IND District to PC-IND/BUS Zoning District. 2. Apply the Tustin City Code parking standards for offices exceeding 25,000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission- 1. ommission:1. Adopt Resolution No. 4429 recommending that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration prepared for ZC 2020-0001 is adequate for the proposed project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4430 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1514 for ZC 2020-0001 to change the zoning designation of 1382 Bell Avenue from PC-IND to PC-IND/BUS and to apply the Tustin City Code parking standards for offices exceeding 25,000 square feet. Beier Presentation given. Kozak Kozak asked for clarification on the occupancy of the building and the length of the lease with the Sheriff's Technical Division. Beier Staff has been informed that the lease is intended to be long-term and it is a private agreement between the property owner and the County as a tenant. Since the lease is a separate action, it does not directly link to the zone change presented to the Commission. Mello Mello asked for clarification between the Traffic Analysis' level of service (LOS) versus VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) and which one the City uses since the City does not have any adopted (VMT) guidelines. Reekstin In response to Mello's clarification question, Reekstin stated that the City uses VMT thresholds and LOS in analyzing potential traffic impacts in the environmental analysis for the project. Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 12 Hurtado Hurtado confirmed public input was not received regarding this item. Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Higuchi, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4429 and 4430. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2021-0008; DESIGN REVIEW Reso. No. (DR) 2021-0006 4432. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Dino Romeo Charlie Christensen Smartlink Group Public Storage Properties IV, Ltd. 3300 Irvine Avenue, #300 701 Western Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Glendale, CA 91201 LOCATION: 14861 Franklin Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. REQUEST: To construct and operate a stealth major wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot high mono-eucalyptus with associated equipment contained within a storage unit adjacent to the mono- eucalyptus facility. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4432 approving CUP 2021-0008 and DR 2021-0006, to construct and operate a sixty (60) foot high major wireless communication facility consisting of a stealth mono-eucalyptus and associated equipment contained within a storage unit adjacent to the mono-eucalyptus facility. Dove Presentation given. Mr. Romeo The applicant, Dino Romeo, also provided a presentation. Chu Chu asked staff about the lease terms of the existing wireless facility and the remaining number of years on the lease. She also asked the applicant to clarify the reasons AT&T is not able to co-locate. Chu asked for clarifications on the following: 1)ATT&T currently does not have a master lease agreement and is it possible for AT&T to obtain a master lease agreement now?; 2)why the mono- Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 13 palm is not co-locatable; 3) the branches of the mono-palm only cover the top of the antenna and why AT&T would not be able to screen new antennas; and 4) the height that would be available to AT&T and why it would not be sufficient to fill the coverage gap. In the event AT&T is able to work out an agreement and the current mono-palm is not able to serve the needs of AT&T, and if there is a mono-eucalyptus facility, can AT&T accommodate another carrier? Willkom Per Willkom, staff would need to research the information regarding the remaining years of the lease and provide a response to the Commission. Romeo Romeo's response to Chu's question on the master lease agreement(that is not in place for the mono-palm) is that it would be between AT&T and SBA towers. He further explained that Nextel is a subsidiary of Sprint and they are located on the tower, but they do not own the tower. The tower company that owns that tower is SBA and currently AT&T and SBA do not have a master license agreement (on a nationwide level). They have been in communications for the last year, but unfortunately, no agreement is in place and nothing has been filtered down to the Los Angeles market at this time. Romeo also mentioned, in terms of the priority of those reasons Chu mentioned as to why AT&T cannot co-locate, it is not primarily because of the master lease agreement. The height is not tall enough to fill the gap in coverage. The two (2) main pillars of the zoning for his team are: (1) can it fill the gap in coverage? and (2) Is it the least obtrusive means? For the site in question, the mono-palm is approximately sixty (60) to sixty-five (65) feet in height and there are separation requirements such that AT&T needs ten (10)feet below the bottom of the carrier above before they can add their antennas. The Nextel antennas are approximately fifty (50) feet above ground. The highest AT&T would be able to place their antennas, is at forty (40)feet which is not high enough to fill the gap in coverage. Currently, the height is sixty (60) feet for the mono-eucalyptus. The forty (40) feet above ground location on the mono-palm would not work. The mono-eucalyptus is better to co-locate on because the branches extend all the way down to fifteen (15) feet above grade and allows another carrier to co-locate without defeating concealment measures thus meeting the City's stealth requirements. Whereas with the mono-palm, they would not meet the City's requirements. Higuchi Per Higuchi, in alignment with the Strategic Plan passed by the City Council, he stated he was supportive of communication facilities. Mello Mello asked staff if the City currently has a tree ordinance requiring a permit prior to removal of any trees. He also asked if there is any requirement ever to add trees to the landscape plan to provide additional screening or does the City not consider this normally. He commended staff and the applicant for the presentations. Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 14 Dove In response to Mello's questions, Dove stated the following, in general: The City does not have a tree ordinance; however, the City would not allow any type of commercial or industrial use to remove landscaping without providing a landscape plan ahead of time and the City would not want to see any trees removed. The trees on Tustin Ranch Road are City trees and the only trees that might be trimmed would be the pine trees on the site. If the applicant was going to make changes to the landscaping, they would have to ask the City first. The City would not be supportive of tree removal. If the mono-eucalyptus is approved, the City would want those trees to remain. The City probably would require adding trees to the landscape plan if there was not a decent level of tree coverage. There is not a lot of room to add trees along the Tustin Ranch side due to the many utilities on the elevation and some trees that are planted. Dove said she did not feel the City would need to require the applicant provide trees for this application, but in other situations, the City very well might. Mason Mason asked about the maintenance of the stealth eucalyptus (i.e. how often is it inspected to ensure that it is maintaining its stealth characteristics amidst the building?). She also mentioned the public's concerns with radio frequency emissions (to ensure that prior to and post installation testing is done). Mason asked for an overview of what was learned from Commissioner Mello's question. Romeo In response to Mason's questions, Romeo stated that AT&T typically maintains their sites twice a month, along with a utility coordinator on-site once every six (6) weeks to run the generator (back-up power source). Reekstin In response to Mason's last question, Reekstin stated that Federal law does not allow the City to regulate these types of facilities based on any types of emissions, but there is a condition that requires testing. In general, well known organizations have determined that radio frequency emissions are not harmful to the public. Reekstin added that some members of the public have expressed their concerns, but it has been determined that there are no impacts to the public and also the distance of this facility, in particular, from many sensitive uses, would also mitigate that. Chu Chu referred to the eleven (11) letters mailed to residents of the Peppertree community and if there were any responses received by City staff. She indicated that she went to the American Cancer Society website and searched information on radio frequencies and she felt there was not enough information to determine there is no harm to the human body by the radio frequencies. Chu would like to see just one (1) facility at this location, not two (2) and for the old mono-palm facility to be terminated. Dove Dove confirmed there were no responses received from the Peppertree community. Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 15 Daudt In response to Chu's concerns, Daudt reiterated Reekstin's previous comments in that the Commission is pre-empted, under Federal law, from considering any potential health impacts from radio frequency emissions. The issue is certainly subject to debate, but as far as what the Commission's task is, it is a land use matter and as long as the applicant is meeting the Federal Government's guidelines, that is the beginning and the end of the Commission's consideration of potential impacts related to the radio frequency emissions. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed public input was not received regarding this item. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Higuchi, to adopt Resolution No. 4432. Motion carried 4-1. Chu opposed the item. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Chu Chu had no concerns. She thanked staff for their thorough presentations. Mello Mello had no concerns. He thanked staff for facilitating these conversations and helping the Commission with providing responses to issues of concern. Mello attended the Memorial Day Remembrance at Veterans Park. Higuchi Higuchi attended the Tustin Area Man and Woman of the Year event at the Santa Ana Elks Lodge on June 4, 2021. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the meeting agenda items. He participated in the Tustin Police Department Virtual Open House on June 5, 2021. Many thanks to all of TPD for keeping the community safe. Mason No concerns. 7:04 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 22, 2021. Minutes—Planning Commission June 8, 2021 — l" a g e 16