Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/22/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:08 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/McManus. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg and McManus. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson, and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Craig Clute stated his concerns regarding the Heritage Tract Neighborhood Traffic Study's definition of "through traffic" and elimination of the red curbing on the west side of Fountain Springs _ Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and the Country Hills Towne Center driveway. C/McManus asked Mr. Clute for the two definitions of cut -through traffic. Mr. Clute responded to C/McManus that the traffic study indicates that all Country Hills Towne Center traffic is "expected" traffic in the neighborhood. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 8, 1997. VC/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/McManus, to approve the minutes of April 8, 1997 as. presented. The motion was approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9 (pursuant to Code Section 22.20.100) is a request for the co -location of a telecommunications facility by two service providers on a residential property and a request for an amendment to Tract Map 42584, removing a APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION restriction from said map prohibiting vehicular ingress and egress to Armitos Place. Continued from March 25, 1997. Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner resident to the proposed facility is the applicant who is Darrin Drive and Armitos Place) Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc. 18200 Von Responding to C/McManus, Jim Marquez, Cox Communications, Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA stated the antennas are not visible to residences. 92612 and Pacific Bell Mobile Therefore, the additional landscaping will mitigate any Services, 5959 W. Century Boulevard, opportunity for visual impact. A berm will have no Los Angeles, CA 90045 Property Owners: Eric and.Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin C/Fong asked if the antenna will create visual impact for Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SP/Johnson presented the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96I-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution. SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that requests for antenna(s) in excess of the three proposed antenna would be subject to the public hearing process. A condition of.,"' approval proposes the top of the antennas will be six feet below the top of the hill. Jeff McHaddad, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, explained why the carriers chose the proposed site to co -locate their antennas. He presented slides showing antenna placement below grade and indicating the lack of visual impact to neighboring residences. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project and delete the condition requiring construction of a berm. He indicated the carriers held a public meeting to address citizen's concerns. Mr. McHaddad responded to C/McManus that the closest resident to the proposed facility is the applicant who is approximately 150 feet from the facility. Responding to C/McManus, Jim Marquez, Cox Communications, stated the antennas are not visible to residences. Therefore, the additional landscaping will mitigate any opportunity for visual impact. A berm will have no I additional mitigating effect. C/Fong asked if the antenna will create visual impact for the residences east of the proposed site. Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that the nearest residence is 150 feet from the proposed installation. i APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION Landscaping will camouflage the site thereby eliminating, any visual impact. Mr. McHaddad responded to C/Fong that the proposed antennas are 6 inches wide. Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. McHaddad reiterated that the demonstration pole indicates the maximum antenna height. He stated his understanding of the restriction removal precludes the applicant from conducting activities in addition to those allowed under the CUP and existing zoning. The owner is providing split rail fencing around the entire property. The applicant will provide security fencing around the facility. VC/Schad indicated he would like for the applicant to ground the security fence. Mr. McHaddad explained to VC/Schad that some of the native walnut trees may have to be thinned to provide line -of -site transmission. A condition of approval indicates the applicants will provide ongoing maintenance for the site. The applicants intend to provide drought tolerant landscaping such as holly oak. A 200 AMP panel with a one 20 AMP breaker will be provided at the site. Water will be provided to the site for vegetation maintenance only. Anthony Greer, Cox Communications, responded to VC/Schad that each carrier uses approximately 300 watts of power. Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing. Craig Clute asked the applicant to explain how the landscaping will be irrigated until it takes hold and to what extent the trees will be thinned, cut or removed. He warned the residents to be concerned about visual impacts. He asked if the site property could be sold, divided or improved at any time. He stated his concerns regarding EMF health risks. He asked what kind of backup system will be provided for the facility. Chair/Ruzicka stated that because he is also -concerned about safety risks with respect to EMF's, he contacted The Environmental Protection Agency, The National Institute of Health, The National Institute of Environmental Health Services, Federal Communications Commission, and The Motorola Consortium. He further stated that all EMF studies indicate there is no information available that EMF's are dangerous to humans. Robert Zirbes stated he reviewed the project plans. He indicated that although he agrees with the majority of APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION staff's conditions, he feels a four foot high berm may distract from the aesthetic qualities. Responding to C/McManus, Mr. Zirbes indicated he believes the additional landscaping would be warranted without the berm. Mel Davis stated that he spoke against the project at the February Planning Commission meeting. With the current revisions, he is still opposed to the project. He indicated he is concerned about a potential proliferation of antennas at the site. He asked who will provide the ongoing landscape maintenance for the site and if the neighborhood residents will be expected to pay for the maintenance. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the proposed facility. Armando Gonzales stated he feels the revised proposal addresses the visual impact concerns of the neighboring residents. He said he has some concerns about the future use of the site and, the controlled growth 'of communication devices. He indicated he hopes the City will be more active with respect to the overall subject of communication device installations.y Frank Schabarum, JM Consulting Group, asked that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented. 'He indicated that the planting and ongoing maintenance! of the project site landscaping is provided by the property owner, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications. Dr. Jerrold Bushberg representing Pacific Bell Mobile .Services, concurred with Chair/Ruzicka's statement regarding EMF's. The current FCC standard which will become effective September 1, 1997, applies to all existing as well as, new facilities,- and provides a 50 fold safety margin. The proposed facility utilizes approximately one microwatt which is about 1000 times less than the standard. Dr. Bushberg responded to VC/Schad that the effective radiated power of the systems proposed for PBMS is about 300 watts. Collectively; the radiated system power is about 900 watts. The system must provide a minimum signal to insure minimum, quality strength of the signature at the fringe of the curvature. Currently, there are no antennas that allow multiplexing. Dan Noland told the Planning Commission about a public safety incident that occurred in the area of. the proposed site.- He favors the proposed communication facility, APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Mary Ewen stated she is concerned that the project installation will cause a negative precedent. She asked that the Planning Commission consider a moratorium against antenna installations while the City considers the matter. She does not believe the installation will benefit the City. She asked the transmission direction of the antennas. Tom Jackson stated he believes the project presents no adverse visual impact to the surrounding residences and that the best possible technology should be made available to the citizens. Bill Rafferty approves of the project and feels that Diamond Bar should have improved technology available to accommodate public needs. Robin Stone stated she and her husband believe the proposed project will benefit the Diamond Bar area and presents no safety risks to her children or to the families that live in her'' community. The low impact project design as revised will present no adverse aesthetic impact to thei surrounding residents and visitors to'the area. The location of the site will provide critical cellular phone needs. Helen Arlene Britt said she feels the City and the applicants have worked to' accommodate the resident's needs. She believes the revised plans are an improvement over the previous plans ;which incorporated a barn structure. She stated that EMF studies have not been completed and she is concened that a proliferation of antennas may present a public safety concern. She asked that the City provide for the installation of allergy free plants. Mrs. Britt responded to CjGoldenberg that she has reservations and concerns. -However, she can accept the revised project because the applicant has made an effort to do the right thing. Mr. Greer indicated the an�ennae are pointed up and down the 60 Freeway and away from homes. Mr. Marquez stated cellulkr installations are no more considered a commercial use than cable television or telephone installations. The proposed installation will benefit subscribersand e�ergency services. He asked that the Planning Commisson approve the project with conditions listed by stafwith the exception that the only condition relating to visual impact will be the added vegetation with no im,�porting of additional soil for APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION a berm and that the antennas do not have to be lowered any further than six feet below the top of the hill. Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communication would not be opposed to co -locating other company's antennas at the site. Future applicants would need to prove that they would not interfere with the current installation and present their project to the City for public hearing. Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated 24 volt closed cell batteries will provide the backup system. C/Goldenberg asked what provisions are made to the City upon expiration of the applicant's two year landscape maintenance bond. He indicated to Mrs. Yuen that many commercial ventures are located in the City's residences. He requested an explanation of the citizen's petition against the project. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that if the Planning Commission approves this project and a future applicant wishes to place antennas at the site, the resolution provides that an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is subject to the Planning Commission public hearingLJ process. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the CUP resolution does not require the applicants to cooperate with other cellular service providers. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and development Review No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution _ subject to the following corrections and amendments: Page 4, Finding J, sentence one to read as follows: "The proposed removal of the map restriction is not of significant benefit to the City." Modify Condition K on Pages 6 and 7 to eliminate the berm, retain the landscaping conditions language. Add the following to Condition B, Page 5: "the permanent maintenance of the landscaping by the applicant." C/Fong proposed the motion be amended to provide a binding agreement in the resolution that the applicants cooperate with future cellular providers to co -locate their facilities at'the'site. Mr. Marquez stated the tri -lateral lease provides non - exclusivity. Other similar types of business are not restricted from enjoying the property aspects. He .!_ , _ .. ...L,. .,- . 1 .1. -. - . . ..._ II.l , APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION offered to provide evidence to the City's Planning Division and suggested that the condition be subject to the review of the Director of the City's Planning Division, that the applicant can provide evidence that they are receptive to co -location. C/Goldenberg stated he wishes to let the motion stand as stated since the applicants have provided for co -location within their lease. He favors incorporating a city-wide cellular site plan rather than encouraging additional installations at this time. C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that it is in the best interests of the applicants to encourage other vendors to co -locate their facilities. With respect to additional sites, the City should consider a cell site plan within the City. Mr. Marquez asked if Condition K, Pages 6 and 7, is sufficiently amended to provide for the elimination of Condition L on Page 7. Mr. Marquez responded to VC/Schad that the applicant's engineers have indicated that the top of the antennas should be placed no lower than flat pad level and that lower installations would not be effective. CDD/DeStefano restated the motion. Mr. Marquez reiterated to Chair/Ruzicka that the equipment will not operate at a point six feet below the flat pad without significant reduction of transmission levels. Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated the applicant will accept lowering the top of the antennas to flat pad level. C/McManus stated his understanding that the applicant's proposed antenna would not be below six feet below grade and that the poles depicted in the photographs were placed at grade level. The poles placed at the height of grade level were not visible at grade level and the landscaping is proposed to mitigate any potential visual impact. C/McManus proposed that the motion under consideration be amended to include the elimination of Condition L, Page 7. C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to include the elimination of Condition L, Page 7. -._..._ ..'__ - '----_ -, r.-.-�-r:�-�- -R- I!Q1 i l lIII it 11111111 Itl 1 1 APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/DeStefano restated the motion as follows: To approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1,0 and Development Review No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution subject , to the following amendments: Amend Page 4, Finding J, regarding the map restriction; amendment to Condition 5. (b) on Page 5 adding the "permanent maintenance of the property and landscaping"; amendment to Condition, K, Page 6 and 7, eliminating the two sentences that discuss berming; elimination of Condition L, Page 7; ,and re -alphabetize the conditions accordingly. C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that in his opinion, appropriate landscaping will provide a much improved aesthetic, -view over the proposed four foot high berm'. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the applicant has indicated that earth removed from the equipment pad would be utilized to create a small berm on the flat pad at the top of the hill. C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to amend Condition K to provide that the earth removed from the equipment pad will be used to create a small berm on the flat pad at the top of the hill. C/Fong stated that the condition pertaining to tree thinning should specifically stipulate that the shape�of the trees will not be significantly altered. Referring to plan drawing A-1, he asked why certain trees are slated for removal. Mr. Marquez stated the tree thinning is at the discretion of the City's Director of Planning. No trees are slated to be removed. The motion was approved with the following Roll Call vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the meeting agenda. Goldenberg, McManus, Fong, Chair/Ruzicka VC/Schad None A M f, APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 9:38 to May 13, 1997. Re ectfull Stbm' ted, J"es DeStefano Community Develop ent Director Attest: -"J,60- Ruz' a Chairma