Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/14/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air -Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Fong. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Ruzicka, and Commissioners, Fong, McManus and Schad Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson, and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of December 9, 1996. VC/Ruzicka made a motion, seconded by C/Schad, to approve the minutes of December 9, 1996 as presented. Without objections, the motion was so ordered. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No. 96-14 is a request for an unmanned, wireless telecommunications transmission facility involving a co - location with an existing monopole owned by AirTouch Cellular and located at Walnut Pools. Project Address: 21450 Golden Springs Drive (south side and south of the SR 60). J.,,. Applicant: Cox California PCS, Inc., 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 Owner: Evelyn Wendler, 21450 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C��j';'jl,;y U SP/Johnson read the staff report into the record. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No. 96-14, Findings of Faet'and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Goldenberg opened the public hearing. Adan Madrid, Land Use Planner, JM Consulting Group, Inc., 3760 Kilroy Airport Way #/440, Long Beach, CA, 90806, representing Cox California PCS, Inc., stated he read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval with the exception of two conditions recommended by staff. He asked that Conditions 5.(h) and 5.(i) be eliminated because they have no logical relationship or nexus to the identified impacts of the proposed project. The proposed project involves placement of the proposed antenna array on the existing monopole and the placement of six equipment cabinets, at grade. He further stated that it is the applicant's opinion that such conditions do not serve to protect public interest from the identified project impacts because they require 'improvements to those portions of the property that are not effected by the project. He .indicated that the applicant believes the 'issue of aesthetics is being remediated to a level of insignificance by LJ painting the existing monopole and antennas as well as, the proposed antennas. (He exhibited a six inch piece of pipe painted glossy gunmetal gray). In addition, the proposed antennas will be placed at a level below the existing AirTouch antennas. The applicant is proposing to remove Air -Touch's existing antenna screens which will allow light to pass through the antennas. The proposed equipment cabinets will be located within a block wall enclosure designed to match the existing building's exterior. The proposed unmanned antennae will not create additional traffic, parking demands or solid waste, nor will it adversely impact existing on grade improvements. He cited passages from staff's report to bolster the applicant's theories. He stated that in his opinion, Conditional Use Permits are not intended to be used as a vehicle for requiring onsite improvements that have no direct relationship to the project. Rather, it is his understanding that a Conditional Use Permit is a vehicle to insure that uses are conditioned to insure proper integration into the existing environment. He also asked the Commission to consider rewriting Condition 5.(g) to read: "In the event that the site is abandoned by the applicant, the applicant shall remove the facility within 90 days.". He concluded stating the applicant agrees with the balance of conditions as stated in the Resolution. Chair/Goldenberg closed the public hearing. CDD/beStefano responded to Chair/ Goldenberg that the applicant has applied for a discretionary permit from the City I of JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION k pry„ Diamond Bar which means that the Planning Commission is under no obligation to approve the proposed project. The applicant has requested 'the Commission's approval based upon the applicant's proposal. Staff has recommended the Commission's approval based upon the applicant's proposal, staff's analysis of the proposal, and staff's recommendation which incorporates conditions of approval. Staff's recommendations include conditions which are adverse to the applicant's interest. It is reasonable to secure property improvements during the discretionary permit process. It is reasonable to require the property owner to provide for parking improvements that meet the needs of and respond to the Code with respect to parking space allocations, including handicapped spaces. It is reasonable to require the applicant to improve the property's aesthetics with respect to landscaping, walls, enclosed trash facilities, etc. which are required by Code and necessary to enhance the property's appearance. The project site contains the highest structure within the immediate area and consists of equipment that is visible from the freeway corridor and Golden Springs Drive. Although the site is not specifically adjacent to residential neighborhoods, it is visible to the i' existing residential neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed conditions should be incorporated within the project and should be a part, of the Commission's deliberation and approval. The proposed conditions of approval are consistent with numerous projects brought before the Planning Commission wherein a discretionary permit was requested and wherein property improvements were necessary to bring the facility to current' Code. Staff believes there is a reasonable relationship between the additional proposed facility and the property improvements requested of the applicant. CDD/DeStefano concluded stating that the Planning Commission has the discretion to accept or change the proposed conditions of approval. RECESS: Chair/Goldenberg recessed the meeting at 7:32 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Goldenberg reconvened the meeting at 7:48 p.m. C/Fong asked for an explanation of "future maintenance problems" included in condition 5.(g). CDD/DeStefano indicated staff is concerned about the project falling into a state of disrepair or obsolescence. C/Fong proposed that Condition 5.(g) be reworded to incorporate language that allows the city to determine, with the applicant's acknowledgement, that the facility has reached obsolescence and needs to be upgraded or abandoned and removed rather than relying upon the discretion of the applicant. JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 11 Mr. Madrid stated that the applicant will continue to use the proposed site as long as it' 'is useful to the network. The proposed equipment is very expensive and represents an asset to the applicant. If the, city is concerned that the applicant will abandon the site due to obsolescence, the applicant is willing to agree to a condition' of approval stating the applicant will, at 'regular intervals, notify the City of Diamond Bar that 'the facility continues to be functional and fully utilized. CDD/DeStefano confirmed to C/Fong that as a'result of project analysis and field review, staff determined that the proposed "flat gunmetal gray" is appropriate to' mitigate the visual impact of the monopole. C/Fong stated he believes staff Is recommended conditions will serve to upgrade an unsightlylocation. The city is pro- business and strives to be reasonable with respect to conditions, it imposes. At the' same time, the- city does not wish to negatively impact the visual aesthetics- of'the community. He indicated that in his opinion, it is fair and reasonable for staff to 'recommend conditions that offset or compensate; for the visual impact presented by the proposed project. He asked Mr. Madrid to reconsider his position with respect to Conditions 5.(h) and 5:(i)': VC/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns regarding the proliferation of antennas in the City: He asked how many antenna sites are currently located within the City and,how many sites can the City accommodate,' how many installations can be located at one site, how many companies currently operate in Diamond Bar and how many companies does the City anticipate it will grant this type of permit.Do the companies pay a fee for operating within the City? Will there come a time when the City can no longer hide or camouflage these facilities? Does Walnut Pools receive a fee for accommodating this installation and if so, how much do they receive? Does AirTouch Cellular receive a fee for this project? He stated that Diamond Bar is at the vortex of the communications system. He suggested that the City establish a master plan for considering approval of proposed telecommunications facility installations. He asked how many installations the Walnut Pools site can accommodate. C/McManus asked Mr. Madrid what he estimates to be the cost of the proposed tenant improvements. Mr. Madrid stated that absent any unforseen situation or consideration which might cause an increase in the amount the improvements would cost approximately $4,000. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that staff has reviewed the site and believes it is appropriate to extend the landscape area as outlined within the report. The applidant JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION will provide drawings to comply with the Planning Commission's conditions of approval and staff will work with the applicant to resolve any related issues. Staff is not privy to the agreement between the property owner and the applicant. Financial benefit should not enter into the decision making process. Staff is primarily interested in the city's physical appearance and its related land uses. Therefore, staff is not aware of whether the applicant or property owner will install the improvements. C/McManus asked what recourse, if any, the applicant would have in the event the costs of improvement substantially exceeded the anticipated $4,000. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission may add a condition which allows for discretion at the staff level to deal with any unforseen characteristics of the site or assign a maximum dollar amount. Mr. Madrid stated that if the Planning Commission issues an ultimatum that Cox California PCS, Inc. accept the proposed conditions or no approval will be granted, Cox will agree to comply with the proposed conditions of approval in order to complete the network, provide service to its customers, and fulfill their FCC licensing agreement. C/McManus stated he seeks an equitable relationship with the applicant. C/Schad asked Mr. Madrid if his company will provide its own power. Mr.' Madrid said he believes the installation will take power from AirTouch's onsite electrical panel. Cox will agree to underground any electrical lines it brings to the site. Mr. Madrid responded to C/Schad that the antennas are approximately two inches thick, six inches wide and six feet high. He stated that although the applicant would prefer to have the antennas located at the same height on the tower as AirTouch Cellular, the proposed location will satisfactorily accommodate site needs. Due to the existing elevated freeway interchanges, the proposed installation location is sited as low as possible. He stated that it is highly unlikely that another telecommunications transmission facility could be located on the pole lower than the Cox installation. , Chair/Goldenberg stated he is concerned about how many sites will be located within Diamond Bar's city limits, how high the installations will be, and what will be the city's aesthetic impact. He indicated that surrounding cities are imposing moratoriums with respect to additional cell sites. He referred to a January 3, 1997 Walnut Independent article that JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION discusses the item. He told Mr. Madrid that if Cox wishes to tell Diamond Bar the city's demands are too stringent, he has no problem with.the Planning Commission imposing a moratorium with respect to this project. Mr. Madrid said that his client will comply with the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that due to rapidly changing technology he cannot conclude that no additional antenna arrays can be co -located on the monopole at the Walnut Pools site. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Fong seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No. 96-14, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval listed within the resolution with the provision that "should any unforseen conditions arise that render the project economically onerous, staff will negotiate a satisfactory resolution with the applicant". In addition, Condition 5.(g) shall be changed to read as follows: "In the event of any future maintenance problems, abandonment of use, or .changes in technology which render the above mentioned facility and screening structure obsolete, the applicant shall, upon notification by the' City of Diamond Bar, repair,_ replace or remove the screening structure and/or facility within 90 days." The motion was carried 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: C/Schad thanked staff for providing a copy of the publication "Wireless Communication" in the Commissioners packet. He reiterated his concern that Diamond Bar does not _have a Tree Ordinance. VC/Ruzicka reiterated his concern for a master plan with respect to installation of wireless telecommunications transmission facility sites in the city. VC/Ruzicka stated he feels that although the Planning Commission meeting minutes reflect the gist of what is discussed, observations and important comments are omitted. He further stated he is not requesting verbatim minutes. However, much is left to the imagination. He asked if the City Council receives a full accounting of the Planning Commission's deliberations in addition to the meeting minutes. He indicated he wonders if the City Council fully understands the sometimes vexing and convoluted process the Planning Commission goes through to reach its determinations. He said he has talked to Council Members on numerous occasions and the Planning Commission has even been reversed on an issue that is, in his opinion, very important., In that instance, he does not believe the Council got the sense of what the Planning Commission was driving at if the only record, of the deliberation is the meeting minutes. He said that, if JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION I necessary, he believes this is an item that should be agendized for a future meeting. C/Fong asked about the status of the empty tree wells along the westerly portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard south of Pathfinder Road. CDD/DeStefano stated tree wells were placed along that portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard as a result of the sidewalk improvements. No trees were installed in the wells because sufficient landscaping exists on adjacent property. The city's Community Services Department annually allocates monies to replace broken, wind damaged and vandalized trees located within tree wells. Chair/ Goldenberg expressed his appreciation for the quality of the Planning Commission's minutes. He asked if tape recordings of the minutes are retained. CDD/DeStefano stated the City Council retains tape recordings of its meetings for two years. The Planning Commission has retained tape recordings of meetings since the city's incorporation. The tapes are available for public consumption. j Chair/ Goldenberg asked that discussion of wireless sites be agendized for a future meeting. He requested that staff forward the Planning Commission's findings to the City Council for consideration. CDD/DeStefano stated staff will include a survey of surrounding cities in the report and recommendation with respect to the wireless telecommunications transmission facility installation discussion. Additionally, Commissioner's questions and general information regarding revenue derived from site installations will be included in the staff report. C/Schad announced Planetfest 197 will be held at 1700 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica, on Saturday, February 1, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Status of L.A. Cellular site at Diamond Bar High School. CDD/DeStefano stated the temporary pole located at Denny's Restaurant on Brea Canyon Road was removed. The facility located at the Diamond Bar High School football field site has been energized and the site mitigation measures are completed. The L.A. Cellular temporary power pole was removed. The remaining NexTel temporary power pole is slated to be removed within the next two weeks. The Walnut valley School District visited the site and approved the installed mitigation measures. i JANUARY 14, 1997 2. PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION II�,WiI�'111! CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the city respondedlto at least 25 calls for service that involved damage to trees as a result of the recent windstorm. Development code Update. CDD/DeStefano referred the Commissioners to the informational piece within their packets that responds to inquiries raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated the city's General Plan is the primary tool used to assist in authoring the various section's of the Development Code. Currently, staff and the consultant are reviewing the administrative section land the Tree Ordinance. Staff anticipates the Development Code Town Hall Meeting will be scheduled for late February or early March, 1997. A report summarizing the public comments received within the approximately 250 survey responses will appear in February issue of The Windmill publication. The next meeting with the consultant is scheduled for two weeks from the meeting held earlier today. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that with respect to. the document entitled "Issues Raised by General Plan Strategies", 1.2.5, sentence 5 should read "Pad size, not parcel size should also be a limiting standard." C/McManus asked for clarification of 3.2.3. CDD/DeStefano stated that one of the Significant Ecology Area Technical Advisory Committee's strong recommendations was to not permit property owners to erect physical barriers to wildlife movement. Solid fencing may be installed on the pad perimeter. However, fences constructed on property lines will afford wildlife passthrough. He referred to ;"The Buyers Awareness" Buyer Awareness Package and as an example, cited split rail fencing commonly used in the area. Responding to C/Schad, CDD/DeStefano asked the Commissioners to refer their questions and suggestions to staff for transmission to the consultant. Commissioners will receive the 1989 version of the Tree Ordinance, copy of the 1992 version with background material, and information related to the 1997 version of the Ordinance. He indicated staff anticipates the Tree Ordinance will be a topic of discussion at the next Town Hall Meeting. CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to VC/Ruzicka's concerns regarding information transmitted to the City Council, the current system provides that a complete Planning Commission meeting packet is furnished to the City Council the same day it is distributed to the Commissioners. Council Members peruse the information contained therein. U�on conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting, a memorandum highlighting agenda items, actions, and votes taken by the - -- -� - - - - .. .. ---°, u� �-- wm,.du�a�u�6�ldm:�;-... - 3..y�'c�--=.-. .�. ,_.�., �x•��wwm,�u. rm�mw��. - — - -- �- - - �- - — -� JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission is forwarded to the City Manager and the City Council. Occasionally Council Members will make inquires regarding specific items. If a case is appealed to the City Council, or if a case, upon recommendation, is referred to the City Council, the Council receives the entire history of the case. Council Members are aware that meeting tapes are available for their use. The Council discusses with staff the cases that are coming before them and generally focuses on the land use issues. He further stated he has observed that the City Council greatly empowers the Planning Commission and strongly believes in the Planning Commission process and strongly recognizes the decisions and recommendations made by the Commission. This Council respects the value, judgement, and experience represented on this Planning Commission. The Council sometimes receives information different from that provided the Planning Commission because information is presented differently by the applicant. With respect to meeting minutes, the city generally operates under a policy and philosophy to provide action minutes rather than verbatim minutes for budgetary reasons. This policy may, from time to time, and with certain agenda items, change with direction from the City Council or Planning Commission. The Planning Division generally takes its direction from the City Clerk. The manner in which the City Council manages its minutes through the City Clerk is similar in format to other city Commissions. VC/Ruzicka thanked CDD/Destefano for his explanation. He stated he wants the City Council to continue to respect the Planning Commission's decisions and be aware that a lot of thought and consideration goes into making the decisions. He cited the case of the City Council Is -reversal of the Planning Commission's decision with respect to the University of Phoenix sign permit denial. In that case, there was only one Council Member who agreed with the Planning Commission vote. He wondered whether there may have been a miscommunication because he read the minutes and believes some important questions were left out. CDD/Destefano stated he is personally aware that some of the Council Members struggled with the issue. The Council reached its decision as a result of their review of -the related materials, discussion with the applicant, and public hearing discussions. It is rare that the City Council reverses a Planning Commission decision. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: In addition to the Schedule of Future Events provided in the Planning Commission packet, Chair/Goldenberg suggested that Commissioners participate in the January 30, 1997 Parks Master Plan public hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Heritage Park. JANUARY 14, 1997 V' PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSIION Chair/Goldenberg confirmed that all five Planning Commissioners will attend the March 12-14, 1997 Planner's Institute in Monterey. CDD/DeStefano asked Commissioner's -to contact staff if they require flight 'reservations. ADJOURNMENT: At 9:17 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, C/Schad moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn the meeting to January 28, 1997. There being no objections, Chair/Goldenberg adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, n JaWedrs, DeStefano Community Development Director 3t�est : l Michael Goldenbe g Chairman