Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/26/1995� t � JUNE .2691995 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California r , , rr •, D. Wd Meyer I•r Schad . n. n Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 F- Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium Tht City of 'Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. ciTy OF. ]DIAMOND BAR PLANNING Co,VMSSJONAGENDA Monday, June 269 1995 - Next Resolution No. 9541 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P -M_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice ROLL CALL* Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 1. Chairman Bob Huff) David Meyer, 2. MATTERS FROM THE I AUDIENCE/PUBLIC CO S: address the members of the Planning the time and place for the general Public to e public an opportunity This is any it t is within their jurisdiction, allowing the s la Card Commission on , em that . Please com lete a .0wic hearing and non -agenda items minute �,Th�ereis at five �rde to speak on non-public hearing o_&6LfOrm is volun 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are The calendar items May be removed from the agenda approved by a single motion. Consent Cal by request of the Commission only. 3.1 Minutes of June 12, 1995 4. OLD -BUSINESS- None 5. NEW BUSINESS: None 5.1 Replacement Of City Entry Signs commission review the ATION: Staff recommends that the, Planning RECOMMEND ents which will be forwarded to City proposed City entry signs and prepare COMM Council for consideration. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ' This is a request to operate all unmanned 6.1 Conditional Use Permit No, 95-3. tion facility with a 70 ft. monopole ity substation for a cellular cOmmTampublic util shesThe o equipment will be housed within all with antennae and microwave di underground vault. 1 Property Location: 21450 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar C Applicant: AirTouch Cellular, 3 Park Plaza, Irvine, CA 92714 91765 Property Owner: Robert Wendler, 21450 Golden. Springs Drive, Diamond Bar CA A RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission o e the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public hearing. P n 7• PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: S. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9• ADJOURNMENT; July 10, 1995 9 . MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1995 . CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Huff. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Chairman Huff, Huff. Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Commissioners Meyer, Schad and Also Present: Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Planning Intern Holly Rider; Public Works Department Administrative Assistant Tseday Aberra; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 8, 1995 and May 22., 1995. C/Meyer stated the May 22, 1995 minutes should be corrected as follows: Page 4, Paragraph 2, line 13, delete redundant "for the preparation" and change "ordinance to "resolution" in line 14, so the sentence .(beginning on line 12) reads: "He further stated that there should be no mistake that his recommendation for the preparation of this resolution was to . prohibit development on the grassy knoll." With respect to the May 8, 1995 minutes, C/Fong requested the following changes: on Page 14, Paragraph 1, line 2, change "to,, to "and" so the sentence reads: 11C/Fong suggested with respect to lots 3, 4 and 5 that the designer and consultants recheck their design on the shear keys. C/Fong suggested the following changes for the minutes of May 22, 1995: on Page 10, Paragraph 1, Line 12, change 11offf to "adjacent to" so the sentence reads: "In addition, there should be more details and analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the shear key located on the northwest boundary adjacent- to the Las Brisas development. On Page 10, Paragraph 1, last sentence, June 12.® 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission change "by" to "for" so the sentence reads: "Any remedial grading stipulated by the City should be self - supported for the development and be supported by any additional investigation. Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following sentence be inserted into Paragraph 1 on Page 11 as sentence 2: "However, he also recognizes this is a transition area." A'motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes for May 8 and May 22, 1995 as amended. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Presentation on Neighborhood Traffic Study. Public Works Department Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra, stated the Public Works Department has undertaken a Neighborhood Traffic Management Study. This study is a response to residents' requests to mitigate or resolve various traffic -related problems in the area bounded by Pathfinder road, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Brea Canyon Road. Instead of addressing each resident's concern on a case-by-case basis, the Traffic and Transportation Commission and the Department of Public Works determined it would be best to address the problems of.the area as a whole and in a systematic fashion. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is being conducted by DKS Associates, the City's Traffic Engineering Services consultant. The goal of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is (1) to identify traffic -related problems such as cut - through traffic, speeding, and parking, (2) attempt to identify the specific location, nature, and cause of the problems., and (3) to develop a neighborhood traffic management plan to resolve the identified problems in a systematic manner. Approximately 592_ residents in the study area were sent questionnaires in March and May of 1995. Approximately 58 residents responded to the March questionnaire and 38 responded to the May questionnaire. Two. workshops were conducted with residents at the April June 12, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission 14 and June 8, 1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission meetings. in order of importance, the primary problems residents identified were excessive speeding, school -related traffic, combination of traffic -related noise and parking, cut -through traffic, and truck traffic. The solutions residents proposed to their neighborhood problems were the . installation of stop signs and the enforcement of a 25 MPH speed limit of residential streets. During the June 8, 1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission received and reviewed the results of the study . The commission had previously recommended to City Council that Fountain Springs Lane and Cold Springs Lane be returned to 25 MPH prima facia as residential streets. The Commission determined that the study should be completed prior to them making any further mitigation recommendations. In addition, the Commission requested that the study include recommendations and costs for both short term and long term solutions to the traffic problems. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AA/Aberra stated the City has, over time, received numerous requests for stops signs, cul-de-sacs, etc. in various locations within the study area. The City determined there was a pattern of concern with respect to speed, cut -through traffic and truck traffic in the designated area. Rather than considering each request on a case-by-case basis, the City and the Traffic and Transportation Commission decided to look at the entire area as a whole. The next step is to see what short term and long term potential solutions will be proposed by 'DKS Associates. The Traffic and Transportation Commission will review the study when it is presented to them in July and determine what recommendations for mitigation, if any, should be recommended to City Council. If the DKS Associates study concludes there is a need for stop signs in the area, the .city will not necessarily install stop signs. She stated her understanding is that stop signs are not necessarily utilized as a satisfactory means of decreasing speed. According to studies, stop signs may tend to have the reverse effect when motorists view them as an unnecessary nuisance. To date, no recommendations have been forwarded to the City Council from the Traffic and Transportation Commission. In response to VC/Huff, many residents from Fountain Springs Lane, Cold Springs Lane and Castle Rock Road have voiced their concerns about the cut -through traffic to the Country Hills Towne Center. The center has been invited to participate in the study and some preliminary recommendations have been made by DKS Associates and the June 12, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission residents regarding the shopping center driveway on Fountain Springs Lane. C/Meyer stated that, in his opinion, the cut -through traffic in the -neighborhood is an indication that 'the arterial highway system is non-functional. He cited the problem in the Rolling Knoll Road area. If Diamond Bar Boulevard functioned at a normal capacity it would relieve the need for motorists to cut -through the neighborhoods. He further stated it is ludicrous to have a signal at a T -Intersection with numerous warning signs and no -right -turn at certain hours. In an effort to eliminate the cut -through traffic the residents have been penalized. 2. Review of Fiscal Year 95-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code. AA/Aberra stated that the California Government Code require's the Planning Commission to review public works projects proposed for 'the ensuing fiscal year and determine compliance with the City's General Plan prior to the adoption of the CIP Program by the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX finding conformity with the contemplated General Plan and recommending City Council Approval of the Fiscal Year 1995-1996 CIP. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Project is approved for the current fiscal year and the project will begin immediately after the July 4, 1995 holiday. The project will include the resurfacing and widening of Grand Avenue at Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard, as well as the traffic signal synchronization at these intersections. With respect to Item #21, Athletic Field Lighting for Lorbeer Jr. High School, AP/Searcy stated this is part of the City programs reciprocal agreement with the school 'district. CDD/DeStefano joined the Planning Commission meeting. In response to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStef ano stated the Peterson Park Concession Stand Improvements (Item #22) involves $10,000 which has been set aside for a shade structure. This is in addition to the capital improvements completed during the past year which were as a result of prior CIPS. Approximately $200,000 is being received by the City as a result of the Safe Parks Act (Prop A money) for the athletic field lighting for Lorbeer Jr. High School. The Safe Parks Act fund is the same pool of money that is June 12, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission being utilized to assist in the construction of Pantera Park. CDD/DeStefano stated that an agenda item the City Council is considering tonight is the acceptance of the right-of- way ight-of-way from Calvary Chapel. This item is directly related to the improvement project for Grand Avenue. CDD/DeStef ano, responding to C/Meyer, stated he would return to the Commission later in the evening with information regarding the left -turn pocket issue for Grand Avenue. Responding to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStefano stated Item 14 is for Phase I construction of Pantera Park. Regarding Item #8, CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/ Flamenbaum that this type of undergrounding does not occur within the sidewalk area. It normally occurs within the asphalt paved area a few feet outside of the curb and gutter. CDD/DeStefano reiterated the Planning Commission's issue .of whether the proposed projects are consistent with the Draft General Plan. CDD/DeStefano left the Planning Commission meeting and returned to the City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. ADR No. 95-7 is a request to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. (Approved May 2, 1995) Property Owner: - Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Applicant: Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite B, Diamond Bar. Property Address: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Applicant for Appeal: Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. AstP/Lungu stated the site is approximately 27,330 net square feet. The project site is located with a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates". The site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square Feet (R-1-20,000). It has a draft General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). June 12, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission At the April 10, 1995 public. hearing, the appellant, Ronald Everett, discussed the following concerns: 1. The potentially adverse effects that this expansion.. will. -, have, on the surrounding properties; and 2. That the expansion will conflict with the Housing Element and Resource Management Element of the Draft General Plan. He quoted Goal 3 of the Housing Element stated that "it talks about property values and residents' quality of life". However, the first objective states: Maintain and encourage the improvement of the quality and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. The Resource management Element is also quoted by Mr. Everett as "the protection of views for existing development and retaining opportunities for views from dwelling units". However, Section 1.1.7 reads: To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling units, structures and landscaping be sited in a manner which: *Protects views for existing development *Retains opportunities for views from dwellings This portion of the Resource Management Element does support the maintenance of existing vista to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Sodhi has satisfied the Los Angeles County Code for height and setback requirements. At the April 10, 1995 public hearing, a meeting between the two property.owners and Pete Volbeda, the project's architect, was arranged for April 19, 1995. At the april 19, 1995 meeting, however, no agreement was made that would satisfy both Mr. Everett and Mr. Sodhi. On April 24, 1995 the public hearing was continued without discussion to April 26, 1995. On April 26, 1995 the public hearing was again continued without discussion to May 2, 1995. On May 2, 1995 the Community Development Director approved Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. The approval included the following conditions: The tower roof line shall have a pitch of 4:12; June 12, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission 2) The tower roof line shall be consistent with the structure's main roof line in pitch and height; 3) The structure height shall not exceed 27.5 feet above finish grade. On May 12, 1995 Mr. Everett filed a request for the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. c Thee appellant resides in a single story structure. He is concerned that the applicant's addition will obstruct the evening view that exists from his porch and the front rooms of his home. Mr. Everett is also troubled that the proposed second story will inhibit the potential view from a " possible second story addition he is contemplating. The 'applicants proposed second floor addition is 1,155 square feet. AstP/Lunqu continued that a field survey indicated that the view in question will be minimally impaired by the addition of a second floor. The two structures are approximately at the same elevation located across Rocky Trail Road. Currently, the view from the front of the single family residence located at 2618 Rocky Trail Road is impaired by several tall trees. If these trees were removed, the existing structure at 2619 'Rocky Trail Road inhibits any view of the topographic features of the canyon below. Therefore, the addition of a second story will limit the "sunset" views minimally (by a few minutes daily). There are no oak trees at the project site. Existing landscaping will be destroyed during the site's development. As a result, the applicant is required to submit a landscape/irrigation plan for review and approval by the City. The proposed quantity of earth movement for this project is limited to 25 cubic yards of fill. The fill is located west of the structure, in the rear yard and is not directly beneath the structure. The City's Building Official conducted a preliminary review of this s project and his comments are attached to the staff* report for the Commission's review. AstP/Lungu concluded that Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 has been approved by the Community Development Director for a two story addition with a reduced roof line and roof pitch. The purpose of the appeal is to omit the second floor of the addition. Staff has visited the site and determined that the views from 2618 Rocky Trail Road will be insignificantly altered. The view is primarily "sunset" views which will be reduced a few minutes daily. The appellant will continue to have a viewshed from the rear (east) of his June 12,,.1995 . Page 8 Planning Commission structure. The proposed project, as approved by the Community Development Director, is in conformance with the design standards and guidelines for the City, and has been approved by the Architecture Review Committee of "The Country Estates". The environmental evaluation shows that the'-prop&sedproject is Categorically Exempt according to the guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Community Development Director's approval and deny the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7, and sustain the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, PI/Rider stated the difference in elevation between the applicant and appellant's homes is between 5 and 10 feet. AstP/Lungu, in' response to Chair/ Flamenbaum indicated the homes in the area range between 4,000 and 8,000 square feet. most of the homes in the area have been rebuilt over time which is usual to dwelling structures in "The Country Estates". In response to C/Schad, AP/Searcy stated the appellant's privacy is not an issue with respect to the proposed addition. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated the applicant's front yard setback is 20 feet. AP/Searcy stated the appellant's front yard setback should be a minimum of 20 feet. Approximately 100 feet separates the two dwelling units. AP/ Searcy, responding to VC/Huff, stated the criteria for view is whether there is an impact. In his opinion, the impact is subjective as to whether it is dramatic or not. Staff has used balance the rights of both property owners by using experience and common logic in weighing whether the applicant's right to construct within building code affects the appellant's right to preserve a quality aesthetic view. Staff has determined that since the applicant's proposed structure height is so f ' ar below the maximum allowed the applicant has done everything possible to minimize the impact to the view enjoyed by the appellant. Responding to C/Fong, AstP/Lungu stated the proposed construction will be over an existing foundation and cellar area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open. June 12, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond nd Bar, stated that he has been encouraged by his family and neighbors to address his concerns. He indicated he believes there is . a significant turning point_ of setting rules and guidelines for remodeling and expansion that are significantly different than the new development that has been occurring for the last couple of decades in Diamond Bar. He stated this is his purpose for getting the facts and issues before the Commission and before the community and work toward a reasonable resolution that will benefit all of the residents of Diamond Bar. Mr. Everett referred the Commission to his letter of May 11, 1995 addressed to the Community Development Director. Regarding Page 2 of the staf f report, he stated he is concerned with the phrase "To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling unit structure and landscaping be sited in a manner which protects views for existing development and retains opportunities for views from dwellings". He indicated his second concern is to maintain and encourage the improvement of the quality and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. He again stated this is as important with 'respect to remodels as compared to new development. He stated he holds that this property and the plans proposed have a 6,000 square foot improvement for the existing floors. He supports the first two floors of ' remodel and expansion. In his observation, the exclusive criteria for remodel and expansion is what meets code. He stated that, In his opinion, the code is only a starting point. It is a minor, but necessary requirement consideration. The proposed General Plan is very significant. An additional consideration is reasonable expectation from a neighbor. With respect to Page 3 of staff's report, the second paragraph under Analysis talks about his concern for the second story edition will impair current and potential sunset views. In addition to the sunset view, he is concerned with the developing ridgeline view from his second story. He presented photographs from his property toward the project site. Stating his desire to maintain the ridgeline view, he cited the photograph taken from the roof of his garage. He stated that ten feet of additional elevation on top of the existing roof line of the project site will eliminate any view. He further stated that the sunset is a -non-issue at the horizon. He referred the Commission to the second paragraph, second sentence, under Analysis on Page 3, which states "currently, Mr. Everett resides in a single story structure." He indicated this needs to be corrected because he has a two story house. He further stated that as soon as he is relieved of the expenses involved with having several children,- he intends to expand his second story to the front and to the garage. With regard to the last item on Page 3, "the proposed June 12, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission second floor addition is 1,155 square feet, he stated it is important to note that 1100 square feet is approximately 80 percent of the total project site width. It is not just one-fourth of the proposed property expansion. The added 'elevation of 10 feet wipes out his total view - . fro - m - any 1. location- on his lot Mr. Everett continued to Page 4 of staff's report citing the view from his home is impaired by several tall trees and the minimal impact of this project to his home. The trees are deciduous. Therefore, one-half to'two-thirds of the year, in his opinion, there is no obstruction of his view because of the trees. He stated that the trees protect him from smog and the blinding suns of summer. He invited the Commissioners to visit his property so they could see that a 10 foot addition of the project site overlaps his property on both ends. He stated he is the only one that is affected and it is not a surprise. He reiterated that it is not only the sunset view, it is the developing ridgeline that is important to him from his second story expansion. With respect to the cellar at the project site, he stated this is the most significant element of impact, integrity and legal issue for the community of Diamond Bar. The cellar has never been a consideration at 2619 Rocky Trail Road. He indicated he thinks this is an unreasonable, unfair, unnecessary and unexpected change in order to exploit a multi-million dollar view at the applicant's site by taking the structure from two floors to three floors at the expense of his home. In addition, it creates a risk and exposure to other residents of Diamond Bar with respect to loss of value and the integrity of the proposed General Plan implementation for other remodels and expansions. The applicant's home has always been a two-story house. The real estate listing stated, at the time the present owner purchased the house,. stories - two, basement - no. The ground level has been the living area for three previous residents. He referred the Commission to page 2 of the May 2, 1995 Administrative Development Review Hearing minutes which states that "The two story house was built including a ground level of a master bedroom suite, family bedroom with fireplaces, an additional bedroom, an office and exercise room and laundry". The transcript says a family bedroom and not a family room and, in his opinion, this may . be germane. He stated three families have lived in the family room on the lowest level, the ground level, the first floor. Mr. Everett stated that, in summary, he believes that if the objective of the ADR is as stated on Page 3, first paragraph under Analysis, the weighing of these facts together with the reasonable expectations of neighbors, June 12, 1995 Page 11 Planning Commission other residents, and the evidence in good judgement, that for the benefit of all Diamond Bar residents, that the proper disposition or resolution is to modify Draft Resolution 95 -XX, as prepared for the Planning commission tonight, to approve this project, as well as any other project like this project, for the existing two floors only as proposed in ADR 95-7 for 2619 Rocky Trail Road and deny any additional levels to a third story or any additional vertical height increase 'above the primary roof line that exists today and is estimated to be at about 1,013 1/2 feet above sea level. Responding to VC/Huff, Mr. Everett stated he took the picture from his garage to simulate what the view would be from a proposed second story addition to his property. In response to C/Schad, Mr. Everett indicated the view from all of the windows in the front of his house is the sunset view. C/Meyer asked Mr. Everett if he enjoyed any dramatic view from his property other than in the direction of the project site. Mr. Everett responded that he can see the mountains and east to the rising sun from the rear of the house which overlooks the canyon. Mr. Everett, responding to C/Fong stated he would lose his westerly view. There is a vacant lot to the north of his property which may eventually be built out. He has a commanding view of Mt. Baldy, Mt. Cucamonga and the area to the east. The potential view to the south is blocked by development. In his opinion, any addition to his current second story will not impact the view from. the project site. In response to VC/Huff, Mr. Everett stated he did not know the height of his house to the roofline. He estimated it to be approximately 1,022 feet which is about the same height as the proposed project site. Pete Volbeda, architect for the project stated he is surprised that they are before the Commission tonight. He indicated that immediately after the initial ADR hearing, he accompanied Mr. Sodhi to the site and they determined that by standing in the driveway of Mr. Sodhils property, they could see a house behind trees across the street. He -further stated they could not understand Mr. Everett's complaint. He pointed out that when Mr. Everett builds his second story addition it will block as much of Mr. Sodhils sunrise view as it will block Mr. Everett's view of the sunset. Currently, there are no windows on Mr. Everett's second story which face the project site. In addition, Mr. Everett stated that the proposed addition will reduce property values in the June 12, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission area. Mr. Volbeda stated that any time additions are completed in this area of "The Country Estates", the property values increase. He pointed out that in the approximately 20 building projects he has completed in "The Country Estates", the project goes to the legal height , limit of - 35 feet from - I ave I rag e I - finish grade. The project owner made a great effort to minimize the height increase since this project proposes to build five and one-half feet below the limit. The Community Development Director suggested the project be lowered to 27 1/2 feet. The applicant does not agree with the ruling and would like to have the Planning Commission approve the project at the originally proposed height of 29 1/2 feet. In his opinion, Mr. Everett's proposal that the applicant add to the first floor only is not feasible. In fact, the applicant could add additional area to the second floor and still be under the height envelope and within the intent of the proposed General Plan. Mr. Everett has presented that he is acting on behalf of the neighbors and the community. However, there has been no petition received for this ADR. Twenty-two area residents were notified of this project and only Mr. Everett has responded. It seems that Mr. Everett expects none of his view to be blocked. Any buyer of property in "The Country Estates" must assume that at a point in time, residents will build on surrounding properties. In accordance with the General Plan, these properties could be built to a height of 35 feet. In this instance, the applicant is proposing to build under the height limit and the Planning staff supports the proposal. Mr. Volbeda requested that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and approve the project as presented. A. C. Kaushal, 1245 S. Mahogany Court, Diamond Bar stated he is a licensed Real Estate Broker. He has been practicing his real estate profession in Diamond Bar for approximately nine years.. In addition, he is a consultant for the Sodhi project. In his many visits to the project site, he has determined that the project will not disturb Mr. Everett's views. Mr. Everett has good canyon views from the back (east) of his property. He believes Mr. Everett has contradicted himself by stating he has deciduous trees on the west side of his house and at the same time is concerned about his sunset view. He also stated that the deciduous trees are on his property to protect his house from the glaring rays of the sun. At the same time he is saying he would like to see those rays. In his opinion, the project should be allowed. The project is within the codes. The applicant has cut the height of the project and also attempted to work with Mr. Everett. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. June 121 1995 Page 13 Planning commission AP/Searcy stated that with respect to Mr. Volbeda's request to the Planning Commission to approve the application as submitted to the Community Planning Director, the applicant did not -submit an appeal of the Planning Director's decision. What is before the Planning Commission this evening is whether to grant the appeal by the appellant or to sustain the action by the Community Development Director. in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated the project site currently incorporates a cellar area which, by code, is habitable. AstP/Lungu stated the existing cellar contains a master bedroom suite, a family room with fireplace and one additional bedroom. C/Meyer stated this is a circumstance that is indicative of working with a set of development standards that the City would like to throw out and which is one of the reasons the City incorporated. To date, there is not a foundation available to create the development standards that would reflect division for Diamond Bar. If a General Plan is not passed, there is no Development Code. Therefore, the City must deal with the rules that have been established and that the City accepted when it incorporated. He stated he visited the project site and the neighborhood is developed with two story homes which are larger than the proposed project. The development of "The Country Estates" was based on building on the ridgelines. Mr. Everett's house would be the biggest offender under most hillside development standards. His property is right on top of the hillside and he has development opportunities to build * up to 35 feet. Therefore, his would be a significant structure on top of a knoll or ridgeline. These are the issues that the City has determined to avoid in any future development standards. In terms of a view, it is difficult to determine "view" when there is no definition of "view". To some extent, the definition is subjective as to whether it is measured from the finish grade or from the ridge beam of a structure. Buying property in hillside development is advantageous and can provide a view of surrounding area and the views afforded from property can add a great deal of. value to the property. The relationship between the two properties under consideration is not unusual throughout the neighborhood and "The Country Estates". He indicated that from his perspective, the view from Mr. Everett's house is to the east rather than to the west. The panoramic view to the east is worth preserving. In terms of equal application of the Development Code that the City has, Mr. Everett possesses the - structure that the applicants are attempting to build on their property. He stated he sees nothing unusual about the proposed project. The project will have some impact as a consequence of urbanization. June 12, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission C/Meyer stated that, in his judgement, the view from Mr. Everett's property is not being impacted because the view is to the east. Although Mr. Everett made a very eloquent case, viewshed is not a private domain. The development --proposal :approved by the -.-Community Development Director is as sensitive to the impact of the surrounding area as can be made given the existing development standards. He stated he does not support the appeal. VC/Huff stated he agrees with C/Meyer's comments. Mr. Everett was indicating that the codes should be a starting point. Codes work both for and against a property owner because it allows Mr. Everett to build up to a 35 foot level which would give him a similar view to what he enjoys now. He indicated he viewed the property and just as Mr. Everett's view will be impacted by the proposed project, the applicant will be impacted when Mr. Everett elevates his property. This places the City in the position of having to determine who's view is most important. The truth is, they are both important. The City does not have objective criteria, it is subjective. He stated that it is also his opinion that Mr. Everett's primary view is to the east. If he -wishes a perennial view of the sunset it would have been better for him to reside on the other side of the street. That is not to say that one view is better than the other. At this time, Mr. Everett enjoys two views. It is fair to say that any property can be developed at any time, such as the property to the northeast of Mr. Everett which is currently undeveloped. The land outstrips the value of the smaller homes that were originally built in the area. Cellar as opposed to basement has*a legal meaning to the City and these are the guidelines under which development in Diamond Bar is considered. The builder is making a good faith effort by reducing the height of the -structure which will help preserve some view for Mr. Everett. He stated he does not support the appeal. C/Schad stated he concurs with VC/Huff and C/Meyer. The City does not have a Development Code and therefore must work within the legal means available at this time. The visibility factor is serious and depends on each individual point of view. In this instance, Mr. Everett has an equal opportunity with the applicant to increase his structure. He stated he would not support Mr. Everett's appeal. C/Fong stated he does not see any reason to deny the applicant and concurs with the other Commissioners. Mr. Everett has equal opportunity to develop his property. Mr. Everett lives in an urban area where others have the right to build and a compromise is called for. If the City of Diamond Bar had a Development Code, C/Fong stated June 12, 1995 Page 15 Planning Commission he believes it might not allow building where Mr. Everett's dwelling is located. The City would encourage building on the hillsides and not on the ridge tops. The City would preserve the ridge tops. Los Angeles County continues to allowridge top building and the ridge tops and valleys are being lost. When Mr. Everett bought the property there were no controls to restrict the surrounding development. In this case, C/Fong stated he feels the applicant is making every effort to give Mr. Everett as much view as possible. He further stated he sees no reason grant denial of this project. A notion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to sustain the Community Development Director's approval of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. chair/ Flamenbaum stated he is tired of the mansionization of the country. C/Fong stated he agrees with Chair/Flamenbaum. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Review of Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code, continued: Responding to previous Planning Commission questions, AP/Searcy stated the Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Project is included in the current fiscal year. This project includes improvements related to the Calvary Chapel and the proposed Grand Avenue Hospital improvements as conditioned by the Planning Commission. The undergrounding will occur before the sidewalks are constructed. This is also a part of the current year budget. Both school districts have a reciprocal agreement with the City. The Lorbeer Junior High School improvement will allow the City access to larger acreage and additional time for use of the school facilities. The primary use will be for AYSO and football league. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX finding conformity with the June 120 19 1 95 Page 16 Planning Commission contemplated General Plan and recommending City Council Approval of the Fiscal Year 1995-1996 CIP. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 11 Rob Searcy Associate Planner Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT and PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION 5.1 June 22, 1995 June 26, 1995 PSP 95 - 2 Advisory Architectural Review for proposed City Entrance Signs Major City Entrances City of Diamond Bar Staff Report In accordance with Section 112.13 of the Sign Code, official city monument signs located at City limits shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for an advisory architectural review prior to installation. City Staff requests Planning Commission review of proposals for installation of City entrance signs at the western City limits along Golden Springs at Calbourne and a replacement sign to be located along Grand Avenue at the 60 Freeway. As directed by the City Council, the staff has prepared several entry sign design options. A subcommittee of the City Council has reviewed the proposals and recommends the installation of new City entrance signs at the two locations referenced and the replacement of the existing signs located at other major City entrance points. Attached to this summary report are several sample conceptual drawings for review. The subcommittee prefers sign concept sample no. 1 as the new entrance sign. Planning Commission Staff. Report page 2 Concept No.1 utilizes design characteristics and building materials found within the existing entry signs and the recently approved replacement identification signs for the City parks. Staff recommends the installation of concept no. 1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the entry signage alternatives outlined within the attached report and provide the City Council with comments and recommendations on a preferred entry sign design. Attachment: Draft City Council Staff Report JDS:dbm CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: TO: Honorable Mayor and. Member . s of the City Council FROINI: Terrance L. Belanger, City Manger SUBJECT: City Entry Signs ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff isseeking City Council. direction on the design to use for City Entry. signs proposed to be installed stalled at two sites in Diamond Bar. Also, if a new design is selected, shall staff, replace the three existing entry signs with the new design? RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and comment on the conceptual City Entry, Sign, designs and direct staff appropriately. FINANCIAL SUADlARY: It is estimated that, depending on the design selected, the cost to design, construct and 4P install each City Entry Sign will be between $1,300 and $6,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Five sites in the City of Diamond Bar have been identified- as appropriate locations for City Entry Signs. These sites include: 1' West City limits at Golden Springs and Calbourne 2. Northwest City limits at Grand Avenue and 60 Freeway 3. North City limits at Diamond Bar Blvd. near Temple Avenue 4. East City limits at Grand Avenue and Longview 5. South City limits at Diamond Bar Blvd. near Brea Canyon Road. Each of these sites are entry ways into the community on major boulevards that are heavily travelled and have landscaped center medians on which to construct the entry sign. Three of the above, sites already have entry signs in place. Two sites, West City limits at Golden Springs and Calbourne, and Northwest City limits at Grand Avenue and the 60 Freeway, do not presently have entry signs. With the recent completion of the landscaped center median at Golden, Springs and Calboume, these two sites are now ready to have entry signs installed. (Note - there was once an entry sign at Grand Avenue and the 60 Freeway, but it was damaged in an auto accident and had to be removed.) In order to provide the City Council with an option on the type of entry sign to install, ,,tnf-F hnq developed several conceptual drawings for review. City Council Report City Entry Signs Meeting Date: Page 2 ]BACKG.ROUND/DISCUSSION: (continued) The drawings were reviewed by the City Council Entry Sign sub -committee that was in place at that time (the sub -committee has since been disbanded). The sub -committee selected design sample "1" as their preference. That preference and all the conceptual drawings were then forwarded to the City Council for review. Since that time, the City Council has approved the plans and specifications for monument signs to be placed at the City's parks. The City Council may wish to consider a design similar to the park monument signs for the City Entry Signs with the verbiage "Welcome to Diamond Bar" in place of the name of the park. The sample conceptual drawings included in this packet include: 1. First choice of the sub -committee - Metal Diamond Bar sign mounted on low profile river rock base. 2. Second choice of the sub -committee - Metal Diamond Bar sign mounted on high profile river rock base. _ 3. Narrow, profile metal Diamond Bar sign protruding from top of stone monument wall. 4. Metal Diamond Bar sign mounted on pole that rises above river rock base - Can support banners,. 5. Wide profile metal Diamond Bar sign protruding from top of stone monument wall. 6. Three dimensional pyramid shaped monument with metal or concrete "Diamond Bar" 7. Sample of approved park monument sign. Park name would be replaced with "Welcome to Diamond Bar" 8. Copy of photo of existing entry sign. Staff is seeking City Council direction on the design to use for the proposed construction of entry signs at the two available sites. The options available that the City Council mayy wish to consider include: 1 Select one of the conceptual designs and direct staff to develop plans and specifications for the construction of the two new City Entry Signs. 2. Direct staff to install two new City entry signs that are consistent in design to those already in place. 3. Direct staff to remove the three existing City Entry Signs and replace them with the design .selected by the City Council. 4. Re-establish the City Council Entry Sign sub -committee to study the available options in more detail and to bring back a recommendation to the City Council. 143 MMI 1114 Bob Rose Community Services 'Director a1 a1 V ri 0 U I A is u z W 44 O N U O A U U) S4 .ri w I 04 co U) j y 7Z> Ao. j y ►�N /�•` u:- „ Imo' "moi`.. _.. - • 1 .rte � � • fir 1 1 \ V 1 f Mll 0 6 '95 14:09 5r11V'tYJGCi > r � a c � _, ly� ul •F� .a o c H W 0 N ro E r .� U r P .—i (a . cd 3A P-4 3 s~ 4' 3 ,O U) X }.i •ri 0 A W U � 4-) z a o a u U >~ N U 0 t` r4 CJl 1 ttt ul •F� .a o c H W 0 N ro E r .� U r P .—i (a . cd 3A P-4 3 s~ 4' 3 ,O U) X }.i •ri 0 A W U � 4-) z a o a u U >~ N U 0 t` r4 CJl XM H3noialv ESICNBM NOVOI z 0 O t9 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6.1 REPORT DATE: June 5, 1995 NEEETING DATE: June 26, 1995 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 APPLICATION REQUEST: This is.. a request to operate an unmanned public utility s6stalloh4dr- cellular a'dommunication facility .. - —: , t'.*1"­'t� '- antennae - f and �mit'-; 1 with a 70 ft. monopole'wi an nnae :microwave r -dishes: - The radio equipmentwill behoused .awithin an underground vault. PROPERTY LOCATION: 21450 Golden Springs Drive APPLICANT: AirTouch Cellular 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 PROPERTY OWNER: Robert Wendler 21450 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is CO (Commercial/Office) and the site is located in Zone C -2 -BE (Neighborhood Business Zone).. The use is conditionally permitted within the zone pursuant to section 22.28.150 of Title 22 of Planning and Zoning Code. Surrounding the subject site to the north, south, east and west are the overpasses of the State Route 57 (Pomona Freeway) and State Route 60 (Orange Freeway). The CalTrans maintenance yard is located immediately to the southeast of the site and extends south along the property line.. The Gateway Corporate Center overlooks the site from a distance of over 400 feet. The closest residential development lies almost 600 feet from the project site. As cellular service increases there is a need for the expansion of the cell sites. These locations have R-1 largely focused in proximity to the SR 57 & 60 freeways to serve mobile users. The distances between sites is a function of topography and height since the transmissions are made at very low power levels to ensure that no harmful effects are produced for persons standing, working or living near the facility. The unmanned repeater facility is designed to receive FM radio signals, process the impulses and to boost and transmit the signal to its destination within the cellular system. The cell sites, which are unit components of the cellular system, are connected by digital microwave and landline services. The cell sites, which transmit the signals, are chosen by engineers to maximize the coverage of the cellular area. The telephone lines allow the user to talk .through the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Microwave is used to increase the cellular, system's reliability factor and provide a redundant network. Microwave cannot be cut by contractors or destroyed by weather factors and thereby allows for the continual use of the system should conventional phone systems go down or be disrupted. Currently there are five (5) known repeater stations operating in the City of Diamond Bar. All of these repeater stations are located adjacent to or nearby the freeways. There is a radio repeater and two cellular repeater stations currently operating at the high school. One cellular facility and the radio repeater facility have 60 ft. high monopoles located on-site while the remaining cell site is located on the gymnasium roof. In addition to the two monopoles above, a third monopole is located at the National Self Storage facility on Prospectors Road and the Planning Commission approved a repeater station in 1992 at 23555 Golden Springs Drive for construction on an existing office building. There is an additional cell site developed on the Radisson Hotel roof approved as a right of zone. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: The provision of cellular communication in this area by the applicant, AirTouch Cellular, is conducted via transmission over three existing sites located at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane, the Diamond Bar High School and a site to the west in the City of. Industry. The' applicant states that the primary purpose of this site is to offload cellular traffic especially during morning and evening peak hours from the surrounding cell sites and to enhance service in the surrounding area. The proposed project will complete the link for this segment of the service area. AirTouch has historically made. efforts to find locations for repeater stations that capitalizeon existing development to construct repeater stations. This site however was unable to construct the transmitting equipment on the existing office facilities or nearby hotel. Because of the trajectory of the signal required to link with the existing cell sites in the system this location and design schematic was proposed for development. Project The application requests approval to locate a cell site, including a 60 ft. steel monopole with three antenna arrays (21 total antennae) and three microwave dishes, three 16 ft. whip antennae and an underground equipment vault, at an existing two story office building on a .69 acre site. The proposed 60 ft. height conforms with the height of other approved monopoles within the City. Because of the grade differential between the freeway, the area adjacent to the freeway and the area available for the projectd, this height is desired by the applicant to deliver the required level of service. The 60 ft. monopole is proposed for the storage area located on the eastern elevation of the office building adjacent to the CalTrans maintenance yard and exposed to the south bound SR 57 freeway. The monopole will extend approximately 19 ft. above the highest of the two overpasses and 45 ft. above the lower overpass. STRUCTURE APPROXIMATE ELEVATION Northbound 57 to Westbound 60 Transition 648 Northbound 57 to Eastbound 60 Transition 622 Proposed Monopole Slab 607 Top of Proposed Monopole 667 The applicant has proposed an underground 25'X 11' vault for locating the repeater equipment and related fire suppression equipment. The vault, located on the eastern portion of the site with the majority of the site obstructed from view of Golden Springs Drive, will require approximately 4,125 cu. ft. of excavation for placement at this location. The proposed location and design reduce the probability of creating objectionable aesthetics related to above ground storage facilities. With this design, the visibility from the freeway is also mitigated. The applicant is however proposing to construct a new storage shed to replace the current one and is proposed for construction immediately adjacent to the existing office building. " Traffic generated by the proposed project will be minimal and will not exceed 24 total trips per year. This calculation is based on the presumption that maintenance of the proposed facility will not exceed one incoming and one outgoing trip per month. Based on the projected number of trips generated by the existing two story mixed use office building (6,000 -sq. ft.), the project's impact to the cumulative traffic generation will not be significant. Issues The primary concerns that the staff sought to address are health, compatibility and aesthetics. Research has not found there to be any evidence to support concerns by a few lay persons that the use of cellular phones and microwaves can cause ill health. The project does not propose the use of any technologies in a manner that exceeds or creates a situation that can cause adverse health effects. The project has to be compatible with the land uses within the commercial zone and not in conflict with the nearby residential zone. A possible issue was interference with existing television, radio, satellite reception, or other cable communications. The frequency that the cellular phones use is extremely high on the FM band (which contributes to the relative weakness of the signal). Because of the location of the frequency on the band, there can be little or no interaction with uses at lower frequency bands. 3 i A review of the Code Enforcement complaints does not support any findings that problems have occurred. Additionally, the Federal Communication Commission (FFC) has established parameters of service which seek to protect the integrity of different forms of communication and this use is subject to those regulations. The aesthetics and visual impacts associated with this project revolve around the 60 ft. steel monopole. The monopole is the primary focal point of this project. The monopole will be visible on.the project site, from the adjacent neighborhood, from the freeway overpasses and from Gateway Corporate Center. The 19 ft. of exposure over the highest overpass with the proposed cover displaying the "Walnut Pools" logo would increase the attention to the structure. The Planning Commission has approved three previous monopoles and has found that the aesthetics are not increased when including this type of antennae array enclosure. The Commission has however -approved this applicant for a canopy enclosure for the facility perched atop Diamond Bar High School. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to withdraw the signage in consideration of the visual impacts and in the absence of an allowance for such signage within the Sign Ordinance. Conclusion: The City has approved four permanent cell sites and one temporary site. Three monopoles have been approved by the Planning Commission with an average height of approximately 60 ft. The Planning Commission has expressed a concern that many of the cell sites were being selected for convenience rather than to reduce'the visual impacts of this type of development., The Commission has required the applicant to demonstrate the necessity for the site and to establish the need for the type of facility being proposed., The Commission has requested that applicants make every effort to exhaust alternative designs and locations in order to reduce impacts. The applicant has stated that this location is the optimum location to continue service to the existing cell sites in order to expand the capacity of the system and to maintain adequate levels of service. The applicant 'states that this location meets the intent of the Commission's concerns to find locations that balance the provision service with the aesthetic impacts. This location is situated in the center of freeway overpasses and extends 19' above the highest overpass. The visual impacts will be limited primarily to freeway travelers not residential neighborhoods, schools or other sensitive uses. Staff does not have adequate technical information as of the date of this report to determine that this is the optimum site for service provision. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City, after concluding review of the initial study, has determined that a Negative Declaration be prepared for this project. 4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 5, 1995 and all property owners (9) within a 500 radius were mailed notices of the public hearing. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the Proposed General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of Government Code Section 65360. 2. That the proposed project will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. 3. That the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the proposed project. 4. That the subject site for the proposed project is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed used. 5. That the proposed site is adequately served by Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. It has good visibility, easy access, and adequate parking for the proposed project. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public hearing. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACETY ENTS: Application Initial Study Negative Declaration Plans 9 Record Owner CITY OF DIAINIOND BAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERK& APPLICATION Applicant Name Wendler, Robert AIRTOUCH CELLULAR (Last name first) (Last name first) Address 21450 Golden 3 Park Plaza Springs Drive -" City jZi amend Rar, CA _ _ ; ` Triri n.- WHO Phone( ) Fl,one( ) ( 714) 222-7615 r-7!:72- 95 -ca 3 Case' GGf I-Iqs:=� Date Rec'd 3. 2 Feet �"TrP Receipt# I -'I (GCC By Applicant's Agent IL1rhards Mn i_ng Wilkes (Last name first) 6529 Riverside Ave. #115 8a �TAxsirlA 92506 Phone( 909) 276-8010 NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the pros sling of this case. (Attach separate sheet; if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request. Signed record owners) . Date 1 -a0? -- Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify underpenalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name Joe Ric] (Applicant Signed ING WILKES Date a o2 2 SS' v(Applicant o gen Location 21450 Golden Springs Drive (Street address or tract and :et number) Zoning C-2 HNM I I Previous Cases N/A Present Use of Site Commereial 13uildinct Use applied for Cellular Antenna Facility ( SEE ATTACHED) Project Size (gross acres) 400 sQ . f t . + Project density Domestic Water Source Company/District LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)/ parcel(s) Lot commencing at intersection of South line of Golden Springs Dr. (per HDM 45-8) with NW line of Orange Frwy thence West on the SD 5 line '�(1C F,c+ i hcrino RF. nn A r_urve concave to SW (R=750* feet) 193.27 feet thence�lE om SD NW line Section 16 -Township 25 Range 9. Area devo to structures Landscaping/Open spm Residential Project: and (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density (Units/Acres) Parking Required Provided Standard Compact Handicapped Total CONDMONAL USE PERMU BURDEN OF PROOF In: addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:- I. ot:1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of.persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. SEE ATTACHED B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, pa.rlring and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features pmscn'bed is this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. SEE ATTACHED C. :That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. SEE ATTACHED RICHARDS MUTING WILKES ATTACHMENT TO C.U.P. APPLICATION AIRTOUCH: LEMON SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AirTouch proposes to Install the following within a small leased area behind the existing commercial building: A 60 -foot monopole with 21 cellular antennas, 3 microwave dish antennas; and 3 whip antennas. • ' A 25'X I l' sub -surface vault to enclose equipment. This site will improve AirTouch cellular telephone service in the area. A. The Lemon Cell Site is located in a developed commercial area, behind an existing commercial building (Walnut Pools). The property is a triangular-shaped parcel at the convergence of State Highways 57 and 60, and adjacent to a CAL TRANS yard. It is literally encompassed by highway improvements. The closest residential development is over 600 feet away, and it is isolated from other commercial development. Therefore, any potential impact to the surrounding areas is subordinate to the freeway infrastructure, and we do not believe this small facility will adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare. Although the 60 -foot monopole structure might be visible to some drivers on the freeways, we do not believe the structure will have a negative effect based on the following: 1. The monopole will be approximately the same height as the freeway overpasses in the immediate vicinity. 2. The freeway convergence is very busy, and many drivers that may otherwise see the monopole will likely be attentive to driving. B. The area required for the above -ground components is about 40 s.f. The portion of the property to be used for the installation is of sufficient size. C. The facility requires no municipal services. (staff use) PROJECT NUMBER(s): _ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: AIRTOUCH- CELLULAR- -- -- - - -. doe- Richards, RICHARDS MUETING WILKES 3 Park Plaza x 6529 Riverside Ave. 4115 eno?XSs Anxrss Irvine CA 92713 Riverside. CA. 92506 (714)222-7676 (909) 276-8010 PHONE/ PHONE/ 1. Action requested and project description: r+tra '4: r ani-cnna i nci-al l ni-i nn ( GRT? AT'TArT-TRn 2. 3a. 3b. 4. Street locationof'prqject: 21450 Golden Springs Dr. Present use of site: Commercila building Previous use of site or structures: Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: Other related permitlapprovals required. Specify type and granting agency. (;f a t a P _ iT r _ 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y (N) If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: 8. 9. Number of floors: Present zoning: C-2 Covered by structures, paving: 4 0 0± s . f . Landscaping, open space: Total Area: 10. Water and sewer servicer N/A Does service exist at site? If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? Water Sewers Domestic Public Y N Y N Y N Y N If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how -will these services be provided? Residential Projects: N/A 11. Number and type of units: 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES No If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? Non -Residential projects: N/A 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) 6'nn 'ef �4-/ 14. Number and floor area of buildings: % �ZbE', pct5 J' ��' 15. Number of employees and shifts: Zg4 7 -16% 4 -AIA -- 16. Maximum employees per shift t/ Ate/ �S 17. Operatinghours: 18. Identify any: End products . Waste products Means of disposal 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive ma'ttedeh9 YES If yes, explain ' .��.' .i .'..'.. : ... �.`�..•..:+.-L �9y..'..a.::.G�"..:.st�rr-ca.aa..•� :r�.���r..: s...a...��.�..se..:.wr.r..w..r•w.t.....sa+-+sw..•.i-.r..a......r:.�� 20. Do your operations require any'pressur ed tanks? (NO) ' If yes, explain 21. Identify_any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on -sits- N/A _ 22. Will delivery or -shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest Highway? YM O) If yes, explain B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION I. Environmental Setting Project Site SEE ATTACHED a. Existing uselstructures b. Topography/slopes *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f. Culturallhistorical resources --_ g. Other 2. Environmental Setting — Surrounding Area SEE ATTACHED a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): b. Topographylslopes *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f.- Cultural/historical resources g. Other 3. Are There any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES ( NO If yes, type and number: • 4. Will any nahn-al'watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES (NO) If yes, explain: * Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES (NO If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? YES NO If not balanced, where will. dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES (NO ) If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES (NO ) Distance to nearest fire station: 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: P'r a_r Noise to be generated by project: 9. Fumes: N/A Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? 10. What energy -conserving designs or material, will be used? ._,,/A CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and . that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date signature For. AIRTOUCH CELLULAR RIGJ ` KDS MUETING WH ICES ATTACHMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION LTi JUCH: LEMON SITE En*tnmental Setting - Project Site The 114cel on which the cell site will be located is developed in commercial use. There are no n4kikal features or resources on the parcel. Envi%nmentIil Setting - Surrounding Area The Noperty is a triangular-shaped parcel at the convergence of State Highways 57 and 60, kha adjacent to a CAL TRANS yard. It is literally encompassed by highway . im`PrQ�Wments. The closest residential development is over 600 feet away, and the parcel is isOhted from other commercial development. There are no natural features or res0Wk,es on the surrounding parcels. ENVIROM ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1.. Name of Applicant: AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (714) 222-7676 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: RICHARDS MUETING WILKES 6529 Riverside Ave.. #115, Riverside, CA. 92506 (909)276-8010 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: 3-27-95 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: 3-27-95 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): Diamond Bar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): Variance! Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: Development Review YES NO x _X�-- X (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) H. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all 'yes' and "possibly' answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: X a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 'overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on oi• off the site? X f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream bank's or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: X a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: X a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? X C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? ' X__ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? Xf. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES NO POSSIBLY X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? X C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? X d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in 'a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of my. unique rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in R barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? X d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: X a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: X 2. Significant now light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: X a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. - Will the proposal result in: X a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? .... .. ....r.. ........ ..._...rte .t..... •tom. ii ......�..r ..r. r..ur� 4 .. .. ........... .. •. r... -..r.. r_..r..�..�lr,.: i YES NO POSSIBLY 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: X R. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? X b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: X a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human • population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: X a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - X _X___ X X ' X X. X X 13. TransportationlCirculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. d. e. f. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the'need for new or altered governmental services in any of.the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? YES NO POSSIBLY 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: X a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: X a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: l }` a.. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive SEE ATTACHED site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: X R. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: X a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. 1hfa.ndatory Findings of Significance? X a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, flu=tea to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Z.... .. _ ..... ..._... .. .. YES NO POSSIBLY .x b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? RICHARDS MUETING WHYCES AIRTOUCH: LEMON SITE 18. Aesthetics ATTACHMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Although the 60 -foot monopole structure might be visible to some drivers on the freeways, we do not believe the structure will have a negative effect based on the following: 1. The monopole will be approximately the same height as the freeway overpasses .in the immediate vicinity. 2. ,The freeway convergence is very busy, and many drivers that may otherwise see the monopole will likely be attentive to driving. M. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effeci.in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO required. Date: Signature• Title:/ZI? For the City of Diamond Bar, California NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 Applicant: Airtouch Cellular 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 Proposal: This is a request to install a cellular facility within a small leased area behind an existing commercial building. The project includes the erection of a 60 foot monopole with 21 cellular antennas, 3 microwave dish. antennas, and 3 whip antennas. Also a 25' x 11' sub -surface vault to enclose equipment is proposed to be installed at the site. Location: 21450 Golden Springs Drive Environmental Findings: The proposed project as determined by the Planning t> commission of the City of Diamond Bar, will not have a significant effect on the environment. This conclusion is based on the attached environmental checklist. Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Negative Declaration No. 95-3 Explanation of Checklist Responses 1. Earth. (a -g) Explanation: The grading that will take place to house the 25' x 11' equipment vault is minimal, and will not disrupt the existing conditions. Mitigation Measures: No. mitigation measures are required. 2. Air. (a -c) Explanation: The proposed project will generate short-term pollutants. These pollutants will be generated locally by construction equipment emissions and dust from grading activities. The project's developer is required to protect against windblown soil erosion during grading and emissions from construction equipment. Combining protection measures required in the Uniform Building Code and SCAQMD Rule 403, these impacts will be regulated. Additionally, this project does not propose components which will create additional emissions, changes in the air quality, produce objectionable odors, or alter the movement or temperature of the air. . Mitigation Measures: Existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to an insignificant level, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. Water. (a -i) Explanation: The project does not propose additions of more impervious surface to the project site. Therefore the project will not create alterations to the course, deposition, quality, or quantity of water, nor will it expose people or property to hazards such as flooding. Miti ,ation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4. Plant Life. (a -e) Explanation: The project does not propose the addition of any landscaping as a part of this project and will not introduce new or non-native plant life or reduce native plants from the project site. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5. Animal Life. (a -d) Explanation: The project does not propose components which will change the diversity or reduce the number of animals or the quality of their habitat on the project site or in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6. Noise. (a,b) Explanation: The site's development will result in the generation of noise for the short-term only. The short-term construction noise will be generated locally during the construction of the sub- surface equipment vault. The existing ambient noise is generated by dailyfic on State Routes 57 and 60, and on Golden Springs Drive. The site is within the 6�mmunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour (draft General Plan 1995 Figure IV -3, page IV -16). The project will not create significant sources of noise from the exterior components of the project within the proposed equipment room. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. . 7. Light and Glare. (a) Explanation The project will not add additional lighting to the project site therefore the project will not create significant amounts of light and/or glare. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 8. Land Use. (a) Explanation: The project is an expansion of an existing commercial site. MitigationMeasures: No mitigation measures are required. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Explanation: The project is an *addition to an existing commercial structure and does not require a significant increase in the rate of use of any natural resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 10. Risk of Upset. (a,b) Explanation: The proposed project may involve the temporary storage of fuel and oil for utilization by construction equipment. The risk of spillage and/or leakage of small quantities of fuel and oil is remote. This potential exists at any construction site. The project will not involve the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances nor interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project's developer is required to comply with existing regulations to protect against risk of spillage and/or leakage of toxic materials. Mitigation Measures: Due to the project's small scale and existing regulations in effect, it will not result in a significant risk of upset or health hazard. 11. Population. (a) Explanation: The project is not an on-site employment intensive land use and will not alter the distribution, rate of growth or density of population. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 12. Housing.(a) Explanation: The project isnot an on-site employment intensive land use and will .not alter the distribution, rate of growth or density of population. I Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 13. Transportation/Circulation. (a -f) Explanation: This project will require maintenance visits to the site no more than once a month therefore no significant impacts to traffic or circulation will be generated by this. project. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 14. Public Services. (al -a6) Explanation: This service will not create additional demand on public services as the project is located on an existing commercial site. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 15. Energy. (a,b) Explanation: See item number 9. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 16. Utilities. (a) - Explanation: The project is located on an existing commercial site and will not create an additional demand for public utilities. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 17. Human Health. (a,b) Explanation: The proposed project may involve the temporary storage of fuel and oil for utilization by construction equipment. The risk of spillage and/or leakage of small quantities of fuel and oil is remote. This potential exists at any construction site. However, the proposed project does not create any health hazard or potential health hazard at the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 18. Aesthetics. (a) Explanation: This project is located behind an existing commercial structure, on a triangular shaped parcel at the convergence of State Routes 57 and 60. The area is encompassed by highway improvements which will camouflage the 60 foot monopole from most drivers. The undercrossing of the southbound SR 57 on-ramp is 17'-0" from Golden Springs Drive. The proposed project will not significantly contribute to the obstruction from view of any scenic vistas or view corridors. Mitigation Measure No mitigation measures are required. 19. Recreation. (a) Explanation: See item number 11. Mitigation Measure No mitigation measures are required. 20. Cultural Resources. (a -d) Explanation: There are no known.cultural resources on the project site or in the vicinity of the site. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 21. Mandatory Findings. (a -d) Explanation: The project site is located on an existing commercial site therefore the addition of this project to the site will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. Mitigation Measures; No mitigation measures are required. � .� `s--�-� '�`=� Agenda Item 6.1 — CUP No. 95.3 Plans found in project file. File reviewed by ono and is ready for nning File re by foand is ready r destruction by City Clerk