The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/24/19957:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Board Room 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Cbairman Vice Chairman Comnvssioncr Commissioner Commissioner Bruce ii i i , m •r Huff #, Wd Meyer I•i Sebad Franklin Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. 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 The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Auditorium teas and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, July 24, 1995 Next Resolution No. 95-11 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Bob Huff, David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: . This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 3.1 Minutes of June 26, 1995 4. OLD BUSINESS: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: 5.1 General Plan Conformity Report for Vacation of Right -of -Way (Gona Court) Pursuant to Government Code §65402 0 6.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3. This is a request to operate an unmanned public utility substation for a cellular communication facility with a 70 ft. monopole with antennae and microwave dishes. The radio equipment will be housed within an underground vault. Continued from June 26, 1995 Property Location: 21450 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: AirTouch Cellular, 3 Park Plaza, Irvine, CA 92714 Property Owner: Robert Wendler, 21450 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. 7.. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 9. ADJOURNMENT: August 14, 1995 .MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Huff called the meeting to order at 7:10 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 Commissioner Fong. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Vice Chairman Huff, Commissioners Meyer, Schad and Fong. Absent: Chairman Flamenbaum Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStef ano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of June 12, 1995. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes as presented. The motion . was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum OLD BUSINESS— None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Replacement of City Entry Signs. CDD/DeStefano stated in accordance with Section 112B 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 June 26, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission along Golden Springs at Calbourne and a replacement sign to be located along Grand Avenue at the SR 60. 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. Five conceptual drawings were rendered for the City's entrance signs by a city engaged architect. In addition, the City has the option of retaining the existing design or creating an identification sign similar to the City park's identification signs reviewed by the Planning Commission in May, 1995. The City Council's subcommittee recommends sample No. 1 as the new entrance sign. Staff.recommends the installation of concept No. 1. The intent is to mount the existing entry signs diamond on -a three foot rock base. The sign height would be approximately 10 to 11 feet. 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 c ti preferred entry sign design. C/Schad stated he prefers design No. 5. He is concerned that design No. 1 might be subject to vandalism. He further stated the current diamond is a mass of rust. C/Fong indicated he prefers the banner type sign (sample No. 4). C/Meyer stated he is disappointed that the Planning Commission's role relative to the review of signs to be used for public purposes is limited to review and comment. In other cases with respect to the sign ordinance, the Planning Commission reviews, analyses, makes recommendations and concludes with a decision. He further stated the biggest disappointment is that the City, rather than , leading by example, chose to violate its sign ordinance by erecting the current signs. The City has established regulations for everyone to follow except the City. In his opinion, the city should hold itself to scrutiny with respect to the ordinances it adopts. He indicated there are a number of communities throughout California that use precast concrete signs that he believes are exemplary. He would like to see this type of sign utilized for identifications signs for Diamond Bar. He referred the Commission to the City of Pomona signs as an example. He suggested that the Planning Commission table the item, direct staff to bring back a modification of the sign ordinance to give the Planning Commission the same authority to consider public signs as it has to consider privately owned June 26, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission signs, and that the signs be erected in compliance with the City's regulations. VC/Huff stated he likes the concept of a banner sign although he is disappointed with the balance of the sign. The problem with the banners is the height and restricted view. In response to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStef ano indicated the current signs are approximately 20 feet high. With the exception of the park sign, the concept samples would exceed the height of the current sign ordinance. The Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to the City Council for an alternative sign and that the sign be reduced in height to conform with the sign code. VC/Huff commented that it is curious that the City has exempted itself from the process. and height on its signage. He indicated he is in favor of having the Planning Commission make the final determination. Responding to VC/Huff, C/Meyer stated many communities invoke the same criteria for public and private sectors. All Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. In addition, the City Council can bring the item up for appeal. VC/Huff stated he would support the concept to abide by the rules of,the community. A smaller sign would be preferable due to cost and potential vehicle damage. He stated he would like to see designs that are more, to the scale of the sign ordinance. If the City Council ignores the Planning Commission request, he recommends concept sample No. 1. *As an alternate, he prefers concept sample No. 4. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to table the item. C/Fong stated his concern that a median monument sign is a potential traffic hazard. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the sign ordinance that would. provide the same discretionary review before the Planning Commission for public signs, as well as private signs and that the restrictions currently placed on median signs be held to the current design criteria for the private sector. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll.call: June 26, 1995 Page 4 Planning commission, AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum C/Meyer recommended that the Planning Commission advise the City Council subcommittee to research the existing monument signs utilized by other communities throughout the southern California area. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3. A request to operate an unmanned public utility substation for a cellular communication facility with a 60 foot monopole with antennae and microwave dishes. The radio equipment will be housed within an underground vault. Because C/Meyer"s business is located at the site under consideration for this project, he -recused himself and left the dais. AP/Searcy stated 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 current site is developed with a two story office building and is approximately .69 acres. This project will encompass no more than 600 square feet. 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 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. Currently, the are five 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 Diamond Bar High School. The applicant has a site at Diamond Bar High School and at the corner of Golden June 26, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission Springs Drive and Torito Lane. The repeater station also links to a site in the City of Industry. The provision of cellular communication in this area by the applicant, AirTouch Cellular, is conducted via transmission over the three existing sites. The purpose for the proposed 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. AirTouch has historically made efforts to find locations for repeater stations that capitalize on existing development to construct repeater stations. This site was unable to construct the transmitting equipment on the existing infrastructures surrounding this project, such as the Radisson Hotel and the existing adjacent Office building. The. application requests approval to locate a cell site, including a 60 foot.steel monopole with three antenna arrays (21 total antennae) and three microwave dishes, three 16 foot whip antennae and an underground equipment vault, at an existing two story office building on a .69 acre site. The proposed 60 foot 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 project, this height is desired by the applicant to deliver the required level of service. The 60 foot 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 feet above the highest of the two overpasses and 45 feet above the lower overpass. 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 project number of trips generated by the existing two story mixed use office building (6, 000 square feet), the project's impact to the cumulative traffic generation will not be significant. 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. A review of the Code Enforcement complaints does not support any findings that problems have occurred. Additionally, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has established parameters of June 26..'1995 Page 6 Planning commission 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 foot 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 feet 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 approved this applicant for a canopy enclosure for the facility perched atop Diamond Bar High School. Staff recommends 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. . 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 feet. This location is situated in the center of freeway overpasses and extends -19 feet above the highest overpass. The visual impacts will be limited primarily to freeway travelers not residential neighborhoods, schools or other sensitive uses. The 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. Responding to C/Fong, AP/Searcy stated the existing monopoles are located at the National Self -Storage on Prospectors Road (approximately 75 feet high) and Diamond Bar High School (two monopoles approximately 60 feet high). CDD/DeStefano stated staff's recommendation is that the item be continued. VC/Huff declared the public hearing open. Joe Richards, Richards Mueting Wilkes Planning & Engineering, 6529 Riverside Avenue 4115, Riverside stated his firm represents AirTouch Cellular on this matter. He introduced Marie Lamb, AirTouch Radio Frequency Group and Eric Mears, Real Estate and Site.Development Group. He stated that the applicant has no objection to the deletion of the sign from the application. He indicated the applicant, would like,,, resolution of this item during this meeting. He presented a supplemental report to the Planning Commission and asked that they review the document. June 26, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission CDD/DeStef ano requested the Planning Commission not comment on the document since the Commission and staff had not had an opportunity to review and comment on the material. This would be an appropriate topic for the supplemental staff report and discussion for the July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, meeting. Mr. Richards summarized arized the supplemental report for the Commission. He stated the proposed site will permit offloading.from the three existing sites and improvement of reception. He indicated that because I the motorists are preoccupied negotiating the interchange, the proposed monopole would have minimal visual impact. He further stated that the Radisson Hotel building is too high for the proposed facility. A notion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to -continue conditional Use Permit 95-3 to July 24, 1995. C/Fong requested the applicant to provide a photograph of the proposed site and monopole simulation from the SR 57 north to the SR 60 west overpass. Mr. Mears responded that the location was too dangerous for obtaining such a photograph. CDD/DeStefano stated staff would direct the applicant on the alternatives for meeting the* request. C/Fong further requested the applicantprovide locations from which the photographs were taken and that the perspectives of the proposed monopole by verified. The motion was approved 3-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C/Meyer returned to the dais. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Schad,, Fong, VC/Huff None Meyer Chair/Flamenbaum CDD/DeStefano, responding to C/Meyer stated the General Plan is before the City Council. The next public hearing discussion is July 11, 1995 to determine whether to adopt the General Plan that evening or put the matter to the voters. If the General. Plan is put to the vote of the citizens, the Council will determine the form and fashion. Responding to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStefano stated the Planning Commission could proceed with several of the code amendments previously discussed. A General Plan * is not required to be in effect in order to enact some of the amendments. The City Council approved the fiscal 1995-1996 budget which included the Development Code project*. Staff will agendize a work June 260 1995 Page 8 Planning commission program for the Planning Commission to begin the process. He encouraged the Commissioners to provide staff with any additional comments regarding their top ten list of concerns for the Development Code. In response to C/Fong, CDD/DeStefano stated specific aspects of the General Plan could be taken to the voters. The major concern is the identification of the items of dispute. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None Vice Chairman Huff declared the meeting adjourned- at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefand Community Development Director Attest: Robert Huff. Vice chairman AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report July 17, 1995 July 24,. 1995 General Plan Conformity Report for Vacation of Right -of -Way (Gona Court) Pursuant to Goverment Code §65402 Gona Court southerly of Golden Springs Drive City of Diamond Bar City of Diamond Bar The City of Diamond Bar has received a request from the Cross Keys Homeowners Association to vacate Gona Court southerly from Golden Springs Drive to its cul-de-sac approximately 425 feet southerly. This property was dedicated to public use with the recording of Tract No. 34157 and is fully improved. The width of the street right-of-way in this area is 64 feet. There exists public utility, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities within the property. The City Engineer has found ' no benefit to the public in retaining the street easement over this property. However as there exists public utility, street light, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities, it is necessary, in the vacation of this property, to reserve easements as necessary for these facilities. In accordance with Section 65402(a) of the Government Code, no real property shall be disposed . of or street vacated until the Planning Commission reports on conformity of the location, purpose and extent with the General Plan. Gona Court is not shown in the Draft General Plan nor on the Master Plan of Highways as a primary or secondary highway and the design and dedication of this street for circulation purposes is for specific service to the adjacent properties which are all members of the homeowners association. City of Diamond Bar July 24, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report (July 17,1995) Page 2 of 2 This proposed vacation is in conformance with the Draft General Plan. There is little or no probability that taking this recommended action will be detrimental to or interfere with any future adopted General Plan. Additionally Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code requires that the City Council find that the right-of-way is not useful as a non=motorized transportation facility (bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian way). Gona Court does is not shown in the Draft General Plan to be planned nor required for bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian use. Therefore the property is found: • not to be required for general public access or circulation; and • not to be any longer needed for the present nor for the prospective use of the general public which use cannot be served by the reservation of a public utility and public services easement-' • not to be useful as a non—motorized transportation facility.' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),'this matter is categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution finding and reporting that: 1) pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, the location, purpose and extent of the vacation of this property is in conformance with the Draft General Plan; and further recommending that, 2) as required by Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council find that Gona Court is not useful as a non—motorized transportation facility. PREPARED BY: George A. Wentz Director of Public Works/City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map Planning Commission Resolution q, a•n � _ �.G i DILILSGN Cr QIRRIER RD CpyT �, 200 •..i 1�� P\�r�' '"' � '�' ? PQ`s a r O•y F Z < � J LYCOMIN 20700( STtu6900 r e b _ neeuornu e� _`20100 ° 1ETT GACELz O CT = �V O Bi 9��Q 'k4. Oy pe` SPRING ' o, Ci�4Ri0)RP Doff R n S k°y W 4? �, 4 yc ss �,.Ot.�l•� o o.�' cc >_ y • �j'OR 'Si`�j�F4H:R9 N ,��CIMMTOrti ST S )'�CDo J•� D4y�R�9-;`Cp�JT �_ pR.� ramr� cLAKON s .1\� F`='^*-+rt�Y•c`.• ,.>,. Nf'".<o RE, rc� SDR O MISSIONARY ."k. Y q� a RIDGE RD a A \`�; zosno:t.:. OOF RD ° RD CRO SAF?'R,L ,C �'.. �if�•.P,j,^JT� r.. .:..,.,..1�;-t•,�,.4_ ��i � QUAIL AUf1 Win •'Y' f�. p :OR_,�„� O RIM DRN q 3Y F OR ti, 8 1 � ,y'o 11� � �.'.:� r ''_'• � r °- � tH z Rry, �y ° (y cxl AFz CYN HDA ? ick. „� 1 >) CRE WMtN i ,.WfCt 4-.�k$?-d4 . v CT •.:a:' C4 c g0 $EDF CH C � p: uq .•' ► y ?'�W � y� oaMMRO VD BAR yC� �sOVi' K . rS N� y a yo�o��R � ' A715 S °R OA°o ,rpN 4�0 v� RD RIDGE RI y!�p�i9 ii o q� y \F ap Q4R. z 4 �2PyQ, yo�iEyAkka o ¢ GLE`4 PEAK COVE l \ ?s �oo�ysaoo` sr o 2u`.°� a i D 0R sT 9 r<�'N' RD P y�'1BlG �,,,��.a gUNN\NQPaFp�a O �Po f',po s PQ\�G-___ FS I )) ggtDF UB TO% D_R CEN' r ,qn . R 4 INT Ro 5 w y3 z �JO iG 1 60 - S cP ;I Al OP FC ti CH C � p: uq .•' ► y ?'�W � y� oaMMRO VD BAR yC� �sOVi' K . rS N� y a yo�o��R � ' A715 S °R OA°o ,rpN 4�0 v� RD RIDGE RI y!�p�i9 ii o q� y \F ap Q4R. z 4 �2PyQ, yo�iEyAkka o ¢ GLE`4 PEAK COVE l \ ?s �oo�ysaoo` sr o 2u`.°� a i D 0R sT 9 r<�'N' RD P y�'1BlG �,,,��.a gUNN\NQPaFp�a O �Po f',po s PQ\�G-___ FS I )) ggtDF UB TO% D_R CEN' r ,qn . R 4 INT Ro 5 w y3 z �JO cP OP FC ti RESOLUTION NO. PC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA FINDING THAT THE VACATION OF A -PORTION OF GONA COURT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. WHEREAS, vacation of a portion of Gona Court, a street now in use for public purposes, is requested by the Cross Keys Homeowners Association, for the purpose of establishing a private street and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar has considered the matter of vacating a portion of Gona Court, the location and extent of which is generally shown as the "area to be vacated" on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and; WHEREAS, Section 65402 of the Government Code of thd State of California requires that no street shall be vacated until the location, purpose and extent has been reported upon by the planning agency of the city as to conformity with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1 The Planning Commission 'hereby finds that the vacation of that portion of Gona Court as generally shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, as the "area to be vacated", along with the reservation and exception of an easement for public utilities and public services purposes over that portion of Gona Court to. be vacated is in conformance with the Draft General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar. Section 2 The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the portion of Gona Court to be vacated, as generally shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, as the "area to be vacated", be found to not be useful as a non -motorized transportation facility as required by Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1995 BRUCE FLAMENBAUM ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary Attachments: Exhibit "A" STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1, James DeStefano, do hereby certify that I am the secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, California and that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: Ayes: Noes:' Absent: VIVOWWRW James DeStefano, Secretary �N Vll., i -N, :,71 -.. �, - . - �1. tM,; 1 im , 17v --47 OY -0- 7-- Y w NZ, Aot OZ, IP 1' .�, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 6.1 July 20, 1995 July 24, 1995 Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 This is a request to operate an unmanned public utility substation for cellular a communication facility with a 76 foot high monopole with antennae and microwave dishes. The radio equipment will be housed within an underground vault. 21450 Golden Springs Drive AirTouch Cellular 3 Park Plaza. Irvine, CA 92714 Robert Wendler 21450 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 On June 26, 1995 the Planning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on the proposed project due to the late submittal of requested information. The Planning Commission requested that staff review the submitted information and bring back a report. Additionally, the Commission requested that the applicant take a photo of the northbound SR 57 transition to the westbound SR 60 transition, to provide a key to the'submitted photos and to verify the representations of the photos as accurate. The 'requested information has not been received by the staff as of the date of this staff report. On June 26, 1995 the applicant has submitted an informational packet to the City to establish the need for this monopole at this site. Data contained within the report by the applicant seeks to establish the volume of calls which are routed through the existing system. These calls are transmitted from one cell site to the next in order for efficient and effective service to be provided. The'existing system operates at approximately 98 percent efficiency with a fail rate of 1-2 percent. This fail rate Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 Page 2 July 20, 1995 includes calls which are unable to be transmitted to the next cell site and calls which are not able to be initiated. For example, the Golden Springs Drive (at Torito Lane) site handled approximately 6200 calls per day during the period extending from February 14 to June 21, 1995. The rate is approximately 1 percent. The interchange area is problematic, especially during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods because of the freeway capacity and the number of cellular calls being placed during these times at this location. The proposed additional cell site would expand the capacity of the system in this area. The applicant selected the subject site for a number of reasons. The applicant felt that the site is isolated and is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses and is over 600 ft. to the nearest residential development. Additionally, the overpasses of the SR 60 and SR 57 freeways frame the site from adjacent properties. The applicant states that the choice of this site reduces the visual impacts related to the project as opposed to other sites. The greatest opportunity to see the monopole is offered from the freeways. The number of commuters that traverse the City everyday far exceed the total- population of ' the City. Although this fact be known, the applicant theorizes that the speed of commuters on the freeway and negotiating the transitions between freeways will greatly reduce the amount of attention that the project would generate than if placed at other locations. Additionally, this site has allowed the applicant to reduce the monopole design from a stated potential 90 height to the 76 foot proposed height. The applicant has reviewed the possibility of other sites within Gateway Corporate Center, primarily the Raddison Inn. The applicant has concluded their review and states that the project is not feasible at this location. The applicant concludes that development of the site would require vertical separation of the proposed project and the existing L.A., Cellular site currently constructed on the roof of the Raddison. The requisite vertical separation would exacerbate problems for the facility, which is already too high for required communication to their other cell sites, and the applicant surmises that that type of design would create interference with other sites in the area. ANALYSIS: The rapidly growing cellular telecommunications industry is presenting local governments with unique challenges and, issues primarily related to the placement of cell sites and the retention of local aesthetic values. The current cellular technology operates by linking a wireless network of radio wave transmitting devices (portable phones, car phones and pagers) through a rapidly developing grid of cell sites. The cell site transmits a caller from. one site to another maintaining an uninteruppted call. If a caller is out of range or the nearest antenna is at capacity the call fails. The growing use of cellular communication has created the need for an increase in the number of cell sites across the nation. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently opened another portion of the airwaves and sold $ 8 billion of airwave rights. These airwave rights were divided geographically into 99 licenses and sold to numerous telecommunication companies nationwide. More licenses will be sold by the Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 Page 3 July 20, 1995 FCC later this year. In December 1984 approximately 400 cell sites existed across the nation. In December 1994 the number of cell sites had grown to 18,000. The industry estimates that there will be a need for up to 100,00 sites by the end of the decade. Cities and Counties across the nation are becoming increasingly concerned with the placement of cell sites within their community. Residents are concerned with this newest assult to and blighting influence upon communities. Local governments have responded by establishing siting moratoriums in order to provide the necessary time to develop placement standards appropriate for this land use. This applicationbefore the Commission requests a monopole of up to 76 feet in height. The City has reviewed and approved several applications for cell sites since incorporation. In addition, the City has developed policy and set forth its desire to protect aesthetic values in place within the community. Several key documents and policy statements reinforce this philosophy. The Draft General Plan calls for the retention of "country living", superior land use planning, protection of views, preservation of scenic areas, undergrounding of utilities, etc. The City has adopted low scale monument signage; maximum 35 foot high buildings (in many zones), and utility- company undergrounding of overhead utility lines. CONCLUSION: The use of a- cellular transmission site is permitted --within the zone subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 22.28.150 of Title 22 of the Planning and Zoning Code. In the opinion of the staff, the application -for a 76 foot high tower is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan and existing policy of the City. The applicant has selected a site to increase the level of service provided for customers within and passing through the City. This location was selected in order to connect the existing cellular sites in the City and in the adjacent area. The applicant states that this site will bridge the gap that currently exists to handle failed and dropped calls. The applicant states that this site is appropriate because of its isolation from residential development (over 600 ft.) and the character of development which surrounds the site. The interchanges enclosing the site are traveled by great numbers of people during the course of a day, but the applicant feels that the nature of the overpasses actually decreases observation of the development because of the speed and attention required to negotiate the transitions. Staff concludes that the proposed 76 foot high monopole cell site project, as presented, is not consistent with the Draft General Plan nor existing City policy. Development of this project is incompatible with and will erode the aesthetic qualities of the community. Providers of cellular .telephone service have successfully located cell sites within the the City in locations that do not clutter the landscape: Devices located in our City have been attached to existing buildings, screened and designed to blend with the surrounding environment. Absenta willingness by the applicant to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 Page 4 July 20, 1995 the proposal in order to provide a compatible location and design, a denial of the request is appropriate-.- PUBLIC ppropriate: 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, 65361 and OPR extension letter. 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 reopen the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 Page 5 July 20, 1995 PREPARED BY: James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Robert Searcy, Associate Planner Attachments: - Planning Commission Staff Report prepared for June 26, 1995 meeting. - Supplemental Report prepared by. the applicant, dated June 26, 1995. r AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FRE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER.: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar (PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 6.1 June 5, 1995 June 26, 1995 Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3 This is.. a request to operate an unmanned public utility substation for, cellular a"communication ;facility with a 70 ft. monopole with antennae and :microwave dishes: -The radio equipment will be housed within an underground vault. 21450 Golden Springs Drive AirTouch Cellular 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 Robert Wendler 21450 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91.765 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 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. r 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 capitalize on 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 K 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 APPROXMIATE 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 wealmess 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 a 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. ENVMONMENTAL 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. RECOWMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public hearing. Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTAC [rvM iTS: Application Initial Study Negative Declaration Plans Record Owner MY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERIN& APPLICATION Applicant Name Wendler-,� -Rohert AIRTOUCH CELLULAR (Last name first) (Last name first) Address 450 -2 _ 1 Golden 3 Park Plaza Springs Drive Ci -rxri non Cao Pqs-:� Date Reed -q5' Feet Receipt# F1 v6r) BY Applicant's Agent Richards Mbeting Wilkes . (Last name first) 6529 Riverside Ave. #115 92506 Phone( P*.-,or4( ) (714) 222-7615 Phone( (909) 276-8010 NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing ofany change of the principals involved during the proc.-essing of. this case. (Attach separate shed' if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of pirtnersbipsJointventures, 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 Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name Joe Richards RICHARDS MUETING WILKES (Applicant Agent) Date 2) Signed (Applicant o-gen Location 21450 Golden Springs Drive (Street address or tract and lot number) ZoninLy C-2 HNM Previous Cases N/A Present Use of Site Commercial Buildin.g. - Use applied for Cellular Antenna Facility (SEE ATTACHED) ProjectSize (gross acres) 400 sa-ft. Project density LEGAL DFSCRIP bN (all ownership comprising the proposed lots)/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 295 feet thence SE on a.curve concave to SW (R=750•feet) 193.27 feet thence�lE ori SD NW line Section 16 Township 25 Range 9. Area devo to structures Landscaping/fin space Residential Project: and. . (gross am) (No. of lots) - Proposr3 density (Units/Acres) Parking Required Provided Standard Compact Handicapped Total • CONDMONAL USE PER11Z[T BURDEN OF PROOF . In- addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the PIanning Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare ofpersons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other person's 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, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescn'bed is this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said = with the uses in the surrounding area. SEE ATTACHED C. :That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or stre—ets of sufficient width and insroved as necessary to carry the Idnd and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. SEE ATTACHED RICHARDS MUETING 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 V 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 Joe Richards; RICHARDS MUETING WILKES 3 Park Plaza K 6529 Riverside Ave. 17115 xDDRM Irvine. CA 92713 Riverside, CA. 92.506 (7141222-7676 (909) 276-8010 �or� i rxaxE 1. Action requested and project description: CUP .for cellular antenna installation (SEE ATTACHED) .2. Street locationof'project: 21450 Golden Springs Dr. 3a. Presentuseofsite: Commercila building.- 3b. uilding.-3b. Previous use of site or structures: ' 4. Please list all previous cases (f any)lie ated to this project' 5. Other related permitlapprovals required. Specify type and granting agency -qt- a fi p P _ ri _ r 6. Are you planning future phases'of this project? Y (N) If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: - Covered by structures, paving: 4 0 0± s . f . Land -,=ping, open space: Total Area: 8. Number of floors: 9. Present Toning: C-2 10. Water and sewer service: NSA Domestic Water Sewers Public Does service exist at site? Y N Y N If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? 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.) 14. Number and floor aof building : rea 15. Number of employees and shifts: AL 17 16. Maximum employees per shift: 17. Operating hours: 1�ti T�!ES 18. Identify any: End products . Waste products AtW Means of disposal 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive mate' 7, YES C.../ If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any*pressurized tanks? (NO) If yes, explain y'- S' 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-site. N/A 22. Will delivery or- shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES O) If yes, explain B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Environmental Setting Project Site SEE ATTACHED a. Existing uselstructures b. Topographylslopes *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f. Cultural/historical resources g. Other 2. Environmental Setting — Surrounding Area SEE ATTACHED a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): b. Topographylslopes *c. Vegetation' *d. Animals 7 *e. Watercourses f: Culturallhistorical 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 natural'watercourses, surfacce 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 ) .. I - 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: 'PraszwAv Noise to be generated by project: 4. Fumes: N/A ' Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? 10. What energy -conserving designs or material, will be used? --t4LA CERTIFICAMV: 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. 3 -A 9- �� Data Signature For. AIRTOUCH CELLULAR RIGlAttDS MUETING WRXES LTi JUCH: LEMON SITE EnAWnment11 Setting - Project Site T}1e pArcel on which the cell site will be located is developed in commercial use. There are no naltlral features or resources on the parcel. Envikl6nmental Setting - Surrounding Area The E'ieoperty is a trianwlar-shaped parcel at the convergence of State Highways 57 and 60, khd adjacent to a CAL TRANS yard. It is literally encompassed by highway imPKIWments. The closest residential development is over 600 feet away, and the parcel is r'0!4tted from other commercial development. There are no natural features or resou!k6s on the surrounding parcels. ENVIROn, fENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background Name of Applicant: AiRTOUCH CELLULAR -2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (714) 222-7676 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: Joe Richards RICHARDS METING WILKES 6529 Riverside Ave.. '115, Riverside, CA. 92506 (909)216-8010 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: 3-27-95 5. Date of Environmental checklist Submittal: 3-27-95 6. Lead Agency (Agency ReTuired Checklist): DiamondBar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): S. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): YES NO Variance: Conditional Use Permit: x Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: Development Re -view (Aaach Completed Environmental Information Form) II. 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 o'r 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 inteermittentlyflowing Rater as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? . X S. Exposure of people or property to geologic hnards such as . earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. fir. 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 s. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or tie 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? X f. 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 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 acetic 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 s 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 s. 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 nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, .or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident s�ies? 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 a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: X R. 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 r --.•sources? ... .. ...�.. .... •. � �. •.e..r .lr. .t.. St....t.•..� ..�� ..u. .w G: .. .i'1.•• �.... .. ._ . .. . ....•...... ��... r..•...J .. . YES NO POSSIBLY 10. Risk of Upset.. Will the proposal result in: X a• 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. NTIU the proposal affect: X a. Existing housing, or cieatr a demand for additional bousing? 13.`= TransportationlCirculation. tiYill the proposal result in: X a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? X_ C. Substantial impact on existing trznsportation systwms? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. X_ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f• 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-nP.,-.d for new or alt-emd governmental services in any of the following areas: X 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? ' X. 4• Parks or other recreational facilities? X 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X 6. Other governmental services? YES NO POSSIBLY 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: X R. 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 R. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X R. Creation of any health hazard or potential health - (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: 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 a. An impact upon the quality of 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 arca. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? X a. Does the proposed project have the potential to deb^;ade 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, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or r --.strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elimi.naFw important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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? x d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dirxtly or indirectly? . RICHARDS MUETING NVa-KES 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 game 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 ENVIRON1IELWAL 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 effect in this case because the mitigation meassres described on the attached sheet have bees °incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATM 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: `G1tin PA 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 The 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 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. Mith nation 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 ag .,ainst 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 mi an 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. Mitigation Meas 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) Exp a ation: 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 daily c on State Routes 57 and 60, and on Golden Springs Drive. The site is within the 6 bCommunity 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. Mitia-ation Measures: 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 ig-not an on-site employment intensiveland use and will .not alter the distribution, rate of growth or density of population. 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 Measures: 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 Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 19. Recreation. (a) Explanation: See item number 11. Mitigation Measures: 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. a �— �''� < z •e. ^3 s Z� v v >j � � 7P ? "^- 2 i GPp�D I �i i I i < z •e. ^3 s Z� v v >j � � 7P ? "^- 2 i GPp�D I �i _ � •e. Z� v v >j � � 7P ? "^- 2 i GPp�D 1 3 n i z Cb E- B i _ GGGG e//7 ? z ��_� I i - N- fIL p s = c �Oan of p Z sNQ^:iI; N �u a `' SLI �� N t Y b OZrJ X Z S Q C L` ¢ 61 CY 's z 3'�S'c `O�RRE r 'z < - LJ <"'! . a/'�• 5 - 5_!�-s_ Ste_<u ��a c> - =__i IL 0 F- F \ `ry < a,, _ L L c.) I � W �� an I Hca 3's � � �! - L✓ ZOWOW Q Z QO ( 4 y p (L = <. _az b� c I W i 000 W G ! O O 1 O C a cy— � m m 0 Oml L Q N E LL C5 O z Ov cn LL1 n Z I N � � _a g.A r I i I N I o 12AI a Z R. g,N .m gm N = i { V Q V Z N� / o 09 WIT C01,0010 JI -- T- ' r VI H18ON 1 Lel ;� W 3nta z 80n:3 Z QI Gam. 4:1� h z:u Q I, w I .. I n-. t �:a 3-S 7 S 6 .11 II. ae-71 ili AL im O N - ow aW$ Oa0 o C O Kz 3 s a. IN fr0- eoZ .Z 2 O Y ( Baa au � s� ms�e�ue 4 •sT 1 @m.oafd It AIRTOUCH CELLULAR LEMON / WENDLER CELL SITE DIAMOND BAR 0 HIGH CALL VOLUMES • FREQUENCY OF "BLOCKED" AND DROPPED CALLS (LACK OF, AVAILABLE CHANNELS) GREATER SIGNAL STRENGTH REQUIRED AT HWY 57/60 INTERCHANGE NEED TO DOWN -LOAD CALLS FROM EXISTING SITES IMPROVE SERVICE TO COMMUNITY The daily volume of calls for the existing Golden Springs site generally ranges between 4500 to 7500. Seven to eleven thousand calls are processed through Brea Canyon, and Rowland Heights handles the highest volume at 14,000 to 22,000 per day. Of the total volume, about 1- 2% fail to be initiated (access blocked due to unavailable channel) or are dropped as the mobile customers reach the fringe of the cell transmission area i.e. no available channel to pick up the call. The number of blocked and dropped calls will increase as more mobile customers come on line. The proposed site will "down load" calls from the aforementioned existing sites, open more channels, and improve service to our customers, including those in the City of Diamond Bar. In addition, it will provide a stronger signal at the interchange. AIRTOUCH CELLULAR LEMON/WENDLER CELL SITE DIAMOND BAR SUMMARY OF DAILY CALL DATA SITE GENERAL RANGE OF GENERAL GENERAL VOLUME RANGE OF RANGE OF FAILED CALLS DROPPED CALLS GOLDEN SPRINGS 4,500 - 7,500 5-20 40-70 ROWLAND HEIGHTS 14,000 - 22,000 5-20 100-400 BREA CANYON 7,000 - 11,000 5-20 100-300 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR LEMON / WENDLER CELL SITE DIAMOND BAR • ISLAND OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND ZONING, SURROUNDED BY OVERPASSES 0 REMOVED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES 0 NOT VISIBLE FROM RESIDENTIAL AREA MOTORISTS PREOCCUPIED WITH ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC ® ALLOWS USE OF 60 FOOT MONOPOLE (WOULD REQUIRE 90 FOOT) The proposed cell site is located in the storage area behind an existing commercial/office complex (Walnut Pools). The parcel is zoned C-2- BE (Neighborhood Business Zone), and literally surrounded by freeway infrastructure. The cell site is located about 600 feet from residential uses, and the monopole will not be visible from nearby residential areas. The monopole will rise above the freeway and the overpasses, however, it is our opinion that most motorists are preoccupied at this busy interchange, and will seldom notice the structure. Furthermore, because this is a commercial area, the monopole will not seem out of place. This location also allows us to reduce the monopole from the preferable a 90 feet to 60 feet. AIRTOUCH CELLULAR LEMON / WENDLER CELL SITE DIAMOND BAR RADISSON ROOFTOP IS TOO HIGH, SIGNAL WOULD INTERFERE WITH OTHER SITES IN AREA OUR ANTENNA ARRAY MUST BE VERTICALLY SEPARATED FROM EXISTING ROOFTOP INSTALLATION Staff has asked us about the possibility of locating this site on the Raddisson Hotel rooftop with an existing L.A. Cellular installation. While AirTouch is not opposed to co - location of facilities, it is not possible in this particular instance. First, the Radisson rooftop is actually, too high, and transmission from a rooftop site would interfere with other AirTouch sites in the area. Secondly, our site must be vertically separated from the L.A. Cellular array to avoid interference. Therefore, our antennas would have to be elevated above the roof line, which may create a visual impact. ; cz ,..... ... ... .... ......... ... .... ..... ..... ---- .... ... " -- .... .... - -- ... ... f ........._ ... ... ... ... CD 0, . O Opp O � O QO pO O r- <D pOp oOo LC1 `c!' M N cz I . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... ...... ...... cc U— C) Ic: ..... : ............. ...... ...... cra r cc MW W PC tn 0 PC LL - Cl) CO Cfl =1 rt cli W CD E wi p 4 MW W PC tn 0 PC CN F Fn o 0 a PC tn ® ON �o Po � Na CY 7-P rH po" ............ . . . . . . . . .. cO . CD C=) C) CD CD 6 O O O O CD C) C=) (Z) O C:) 0O CD CD CM CD C) � 55:1 CRJ cli C%l cli cli rH po" ER i J J a r -i vj 0 a/ ON w®' w P A0' rl V I C Cl) CD CD CD Cl O LJ p O O O O O O O cc: 00 1+ CO LO d C7 N *^ a r -i vj 0 a/ ON w®' w P A0' rl V I N o •° o a� �o 0 i ON Rdih i �I "O kn O ON R� ,CO O � CIN 4> � N p O'\ r -q ZL . ............... ...... . 23 : ......: ..... .. .... :•. ...... ..... ...... . CD ......: ..... .......: ....... ..... Q ... : co LL CD cc LLQS. . N. . . . . . . N CD cn N O N CD N �.! �I "O kn O ON R� ,CO O � CIN 4> � N p O'\ r -q 3 2 U v Cal NMii tn cz � rA O � � tn 9 �W File revs a by on and is reedy for destruction by City Clerk