Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2007 CALL 'TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, and Vice Chairman Tony Torng. Chairman Steve Nelson arrived at 7:30 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Hn Lee was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: VC/Torng asked that Agenda Item 8.1 be considered prior to Item 7.1. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 24, 2007. C/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Chair/Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5,1 Resolution of Denial for Development Review No 2006-25 and Variance No. 2006-01 CDD/Fong confirmed to C/Wei that in order to proceed with a project, the application would, upon approval of the Resolution of Denial, file a new plan with the City and pay the appropriate fees. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Resolution of Denial for Development Review No. 2006-26 and Variance No. 2006-01. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Chair/Nelson 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06 — In accordance with Development Code 22.36 — Sign Standards, the applicant requested to install a new freeway oriented sign to replace the existing freeway oriented pole sign at an existing service station. PROJECT ADDRESS: Chevron 150 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: Chevron Products Co. 145 S. State College Boulevard Brea, CA 92822 APPLICANT: Tamara Fenner , RHL Design Group 2401 E. Katella Avenue #400 Anaheim, CA 92808 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Tamara Fenner, RHL Design Group representing Chevron clarified that the site had not been demolished and was still operational. Therefore, Condition 6 on page 7 of staff's report indicating the applicant may not have an operating business on the site until the sign is built seems to be inappropriate to the circumstances and she asked for clarification. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng asked if the remaining conditions were acceptable and Ms. Fenner responded that the only concern was Condition 6 as stated. Staff agreed that the applicant could continue operating uninterrupted until all conditions were met. C/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the elimination of Condition 6. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Chair/Nelson RECESS: VC/Torng recessed the meeting at 7:20 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson arrived and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05 — In accordance with Development Code Section s 22.58, 2248, 2254 and 22.42, the applicant requested to install a telecommunications facility #LA73XCO17. The installation consists of antenna attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm" and an equipment building to match the existing park structures. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required in order to operate a cell site; Development Review approval was required for the design/architectural review, and the Variance approval was required for the 45 foot tall "monoelm," which exceed the 35 -foot maximum height allowed for a structure. (Continued from July 24, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if the applicant considered moving the picnic tables. CDD/Fong reiterated that moving the picnic tables would be a matter for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider, not the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is considering only the installation of a telecommunications facility and the project would be conditioned accordingly, that is, to move the Monoelm as far away from the basketball court, tennis court and picnic tables as possible. VC/Torng asked if the distance considered to be safe were 33 feet would it be measured on the ground or from the top of the tower. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the 33 feet is measured linearly from the antenna array to the average breast height, which is four feet. He reiterated that the FCC was concerned with surface heating so that no one would be unintentionally burned by the energy being emitted from the array. He again stated that the Telecommunications Act forbids local agencies from denying a wireless facility on the basis of the perceived health effects. CDD/Fong indicated to VC/Torng that the distance from the picnic tables to the Monoelm is more than 33 feet. ACA/Wohlenberg further stated that the 33 -foot requirement pertains to a maximum power facility, which he believed this facility was not. VC/Torng found some of the packet attachments confusing because they are not consecutively numbered. When he asked for a photo simulation last meeting he was concerned about the picnic table appearing to be so close to the antenna. CDD/Fong stated that attachment 2 is missing from the July 24 staff report but as stated in the minutes, was provided to the Commission during the meeting. Attachment 5 is the development plan. Therefore, all necessary attachments were provided. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION There were no additional ex parte disclosures offered. Ed Gala, Sprint Nextel, responded to issues brought up by Commissioners and residents at the July 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. He elaborated on the evaluation of five sites provided by staff by Sprint Nextel. Two locations that were considered to be appropriate were Ronald Reagan Park and South Pointe Middle School. Both were approached and since the City encourages wireless facilities to locate in parks the City was very amenable to the proposed location and encouraged Sprint Nextel to proceed. Mr. Gala said that Sprint Nextel would move the location six to eight feet further away from the picnic tables and would relocate the picnic tables at their expense should the Parks and Recreation Commission deem it necessary. This facility will be broadcasting at 50 watts of power, an incredibly minimal amount of energy. In his experience when several facilities co -locate on rooftops the energy never exceeds to two to three percent of the allowable FCC limit. In short, every wireless company available could locate on this Monoelm and the total energy output would not approach what the FCC allows. Wireless is a marriage of two old technologies — computers and radios. The radio has been in common use since the 1920's and computers have been in common use since the 1960's. Someone expressed a concern about the benefits to Diamond Bar and the benefit of course is that this installation will provide coverage in an otherwise uncovered area. While it is true that the coverage will extend into Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar residents will benefit from this installation as well. The other benefit is the rental income to the City of approximately $18,000 per year. Mr. Gala confirmed to Chair/Nelson that the five sites considered were all existing sites for co -location. However, none would provide coverage to the non -coverage area. Chair/Nelson asked if Mr. Gala would show the map indicating the new coverage area as a result of this installation. Mr. Gala complied. Chair/Nelson asked for an example of a household 50 -watt transmission. Lisa Bartome, RSF Representative for Sprint Nextel responded that it would be less than a microwave oven in a kitchen. This is not a maximum power facility. A maximum power facility would produce about 100 watts. C/Nolan asked if Sprint Nextel had considered placing the facility on the light standard next to the basketball court comparable to Peterson Park. CDD/Fong said she believed the cell site at Peterson Park was on an AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION existing light pole. The light standards at Ronald Reagan Park are within the parking lot only and are about 20 to 25 feet high and may not be high enough or appropriate to the installation. Mr. Gala said the City did not want the facility placed on the light standard in the parks. The City Manager and Community Development Director signed off on design presented to the Commission this evening. The project is in conformance with all City standards. CDD/Fong pointed out that if the facility were located on a 20 - foot light standard next to a tennis court it would be quite visible and not provide adequate service. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Eric Lin, 20777 Missionary Ridge, said he did not understand the coverage gap on the map because he had no problem getting coverage inside of his home. Reggie Buhta, 20795 E. Mill Lane, said he did not understand the 10 meter issue and wondered if the fencing would have to be about 33 square feet around the Monoelm. Leegay Buhta, 20793 Rim Lane, felt that water tanks in Rowland Heights would be a better site for the antenna. He said he could not justify taking 1500 square feet out of the park area for the $1500 per month rent. He asked that the Commission postpone this hearing because a lot of his neighbors who wished to speak on this matter were on vacation. He again stated that the map indicates the coverage will benefit Rowland Heights and not Diamond Bar. He and his neighbors have no issue with cell phone coverage. He recommended that Sprint Nextel contact Walnut Valley Water District and ask about using Hill Rise Reservoir. Ronald Reagan is one of the smallest parks in the City with a flat usable area. Chuen G. Chen, 20718 E. Mill Lane, felt the park was already too small to accommodate this project and he wanted to preserve the natural beauty of the park. Michael Park, 20787 E. Mill Lane, said she moved to the area six years ago and at that time, his carrier was Cingular. As soon as he left the Rowland Heights area and drove up Fairway to Pathfinder he lost reception. He changed his service to T -Mobile and then to Verizon and has had no reception problem for the past five years. If Verizon can provide an adequate signal why cannot Sprint use the existing Verizon towers? When AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION he saw a mockup of the proposed project he laughed aloud because it did not seem aesthetically pleasing and natural to him. Ching Chou Young, 20872 E. Rim Lane, felt mental anguish about having to look at a Monoelm in the park because it does not fit with the beauty of the City. Andy M, 20826 High Country Drive, said he could not believe the City wanted to put a facility in such a small park when there is concern about unproven health threats. He hoped the Commission would not approve this project because he and his neighbors were against the project. Stella Chen, 20718 E. Rim Lane, felt the park should be preserved for the public because she believed that if this cell site were approved visiting the park would pose a threat to children and pets. It is also an eyesore. Teresa, 20919 High Country Drive, said she was worried about health problems were this project to be installed. She said she had no problem with her cell phone service. Fay Ho, 20832 High Country Drive, said he understood the benefit to Sprint and the City but could not think of one benefit to the residents. Mr. Butah asked the Planning Commissioners to visit the park on Saturday afternoon and see how much use the park gets and decide whether the Commissioners would want this kind of installation in a very small community park. He also suggested that $18,000 per year for prime real estate was very low rent. Mr. Gala said that the coverage map is for Sprint only and FCC requires that the gap be filled. FCC's goal in doing so was to guarantee competition among providers. Mr. Gala said he was not sure where the 10 -meter standard came from. When Sprint puts cell sites on buildings they have to be six feet above where people walk and three feet away from where people walk. Nevertheless, the antenna's RAD center is at 33 feet. Sprints standard and FCC's standard is 6 feet tall and 3 feet away. There was a lot of concern about health impacts. As the Commission knows, local jurisdictions are pre-empted from consideration of health-related impacts with respect to this type of facility. The fact that individuals were allowed to speak about health issues is somewhat problematic in that the Commission may not consider the issue so it is difficult to say whether the speakers are AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION influencing the Commissioners. This is a radio" and the public is bathed in radio waves. It is an old technology and low power facility. This cell site is insignificant with respect to radio waves. This site is the first choice. Co - location saves the company a lot of time because there is a landlord willing to lease to cell carrier, the facility is existing, and therefore, saves a great deal of construction money, and the jurisdiction has already approved the facility. Why would Sprint Nextel go to the expense of building a new facility if it could co -locate. Sprint Nextel evaluated all sites that were proposed by staff and none worked. Three of the five sites were existing sites. Sprint Nextel already has a site between the proposed location and the water tank in Rowland Heights. The water tank location is miles away and would not fulfill the coverage requirements. The Monoelm is a stealth installation designed to blend with the existing tree lines and Sprint Nextel has indicated it is more than willing to plant additional trees between the facility and residences to further screen the site. This type of installation is fairly common in Diamond Bar with two or three in various parks throughout the City that are very similar in design. As staff indicated, this project complies with all City standards and staff is recommending approval. He said he believed there was no compelling reason to deny this project. C/Nolan asked for a response about the economic value in exchange for service to the residents; about the perimeter of the fence in relationship to the size of the park; whether or not a light standard could be used — Mr. Gala responded that the antenna is a 12x12x12 foot triangle and therefore the stealth tree is a preferred choice to hide the antenna. Mr. Gala further responded that Sprint Nextel is not building a fence and no fence is required. Currently, the park generates zero income for the City and this installation would provide $18,000 to the City that it was not currently receiving. C/Nolan wanted to know if it was beneficial to the City and to the residents and she wanted to know what diameter of fence the City would require. CDD/Fong said that during the last Commission meeting someone recommended a fence. However, as C/Wei stated, the Monoelm trunk is wide and the likelihood of children climbing the tree would be negligible. If the Planning Commission decided to fence off the tree trunk it would be around the truck of the tree (about five or six feet). As mentioned in staff's report, the applicant will move the tree as close to the edge of the slope as possible and she did not believe children would be playing that close to the edge of the slope. With respect to fees, she does not have a copy of the lease agreement and she believed it was more than $2000 per month with a CPI increase each year. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng asked if Sprint was a partner with Verizon. Mr. Gala responded that Sprint is in competition with Verizon and others. VC/Torng asked why Sprint Nextel could not co -locate with Verizon, which had very good reception. Mr. Gala asked for the location of the facility that VC/Torng was referring to because staff provided five sites, none of which were acceptable. Also, all carriers have certain grid patterns with sites spaced certain distances apart. The Verizon site may be one of the sites provided by staff and is already located near an existing Sprint Nextel site. He reiterated that co -location would be the company's first choice to save construction time and money. Apparently, in this case it is not possible. VC/Torng asked Mr. Gala to work with staff to find a co -location. VC/Torng asked staff to provide the information. CDD/Fong displayed a telecommunications map of Diamond Bar. The yellow dots represent existing telecommunications facilities. Close to Diamond Bar High School existing telecommunications facilities could be Sprint Nextel, AT&T, Verizon or Cingular. The green and purple dots represent existing park areas that are available locations if carriers need to use those sites for installation of antenna facilities. In the project area there are no existing telecommunications facilities. There are co -location sites at City Hall, at the confluence of the SR57/60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. It is up to the carrier to determine whether a co -location facility would serve its needs. VC/Torng believed the Verizon location was at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. He asked if there was a possibility that staff could help the applicant identify the location of the Verizon installation. CDD/Fong said she believed the only Verizon installation was at Diamond Bar High School and the applicant considered that site. VC/Torng asked if the applicant was willing to look into this matter again. Mr. Gala again explained that the Diamond Bar High School site was an existing Sprint Nextel site and did not provide coverage at the proposed location. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that the coverage area could change depending on the carrier and type of equipment. Carriers operate on slightly different frequencies to avoid interference and use different technologies to encrypt and compress the signals. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run, talked about the technology of carriers and said that if the City was required to accommodate the federal mandate, one tree is better than three trees. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Shawn Colmb, 20764 E. Mill Lane concurred with Mr. Lee. A speaker said as a young boy he would make every effort to climb the tree and felt a fence was important. Lisa Brookstone, Nextel/Spring, 310 Commerce, Irvine said that Sprint Nextel operates on 1900 megahertz. VC/Torng asked if there was a possibility that Sprint Nextel could co -locate with Verizon and Ms. Brookstone said that as her colleague explained Sprint Nextel would need to know the location of the existing Verizon towers. The Diamond Bar High School location was the only location provided to the applicant. Already there is co -location at that site and it will not provide coverage on Pathfinder. Mr. Gala explained to VC/Torng that Verizon is able to transmit further distances because it operates at a lower frequency. Sprint Nextel explored co -locating on the Verizon site and it does not work for Sprint Nextel. Cal, 2211 South Meadow Lane, disagreed that a tower should be located in a small park and that alternative locations should be considered. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan said she would appreciate a site visit for the Commissioners with details about the location, perimeter fencing, if proposed, and view samples of the material. VC/Torng said he agreed with C/Nolan that the Commissioners should visit the site to see how small and crowded the park can be. He believes that technology has improved and does not understand why Sprint Nextel cannot provide service like Verizon. If the Commission approves the project the residents will hate Sprint Nextel and no one will switch their service to Sprint so it would not be a good public action. Co -location would be a better option and if he is to approve the project he needs one more effort by the applicant to guarantee there is no technology to match Verizon and that there is no other co -location that could be used in place of the proposed site. C/Wei said he shared his colleague's feelings and thoughts. He felt it was possible that Verizon had the necessary site for Sprint Nextel to co -locate in AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION a neighboring city such as Rowland Heights instead of Diamond Bar because a co -location site would be his preference. Chair/Nelson said it was difficult to separate fact, current technology and emotions. He is not a fan of technology because one of the greatest threats to the American family and quality of life is technology. However, his beliefs do not enter into his decision. He said he believed there was a lot of emotion involved in this discussion and that some of it was unfounded given what is known about the technology of the telecommunications industry. He does not believe that if a child gets within 10 feet of an antenna his head would explode. He does not believe a fence is necessary and that it would be an eyesore. He does not believe a child will be more inclined to climb a concrete pole than they would a real tree. However, he heard what the speakers said. He does not like that fact that money was suggested as a way to overcome the emotions of the community and he believed that the Commission's job was to do what was best for the community. These types of projects come before the Commission regularly and more often than not the only people in attendance are the applicants or their representatives. What he is struggling with most is that he believed emotions were riding high in the face of what is known and what is truly the case about the health risks and the benefits. It boils down to what is best for the community and who better than the community to tell the Commission what is best. He does not want to dictate what is best for the residents. He would also like to point out that the public has brought this issue on because 99 percent of the public uses cell phones. The people's demand for technology results in these types of projects. He agreed with his colleagues that staff should not have to provide information about where the most likely co -location sites exist. The applicant should establish the co -location sites, the carriers should be able to communicate with their competitors and find out where the co -location sites existed. It is not up to staff to tell the applicant where the most likely co - locations are it is up to the applicant to communicate with its competitors. At this point, Chair/Nelson said he was not 100 percent confident that the applicant looked at all of the potential co -location sites. CDD/Fong asked if the Commission was seeking additional information regarding the application. VC/Torng felt the most important issue was whether the applicant had conducted a thorough investigation of the potential locations. He wants to hear from Sprint that they have done their best and maybe the second best location would solve the problem. The first thing is to find a co -location, change the technology to match Verizon or determine the second best location that would not infringe on a small neighborhood park. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION 10 11. CDD/Fong said the Commission could ask the applicant if he wished to continue the item to allow Sprint an opportunity to investigate whether it could determine a co -location with a competitor. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee C/Nelson asked the applicant if he was willing to investigate co -location possibilities and alternative site options. Mr. Gala responded that the applicant agrees to investigate alternative locations and co -locations, discuss options with other carriers and return to the Commission with a complete report including coverage area and effectiveness. Chair/Nelson declared the public hearing reopened. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to continue the matter to September 25, 2007, and to direct the applicant to investigate alternative locations and co -locations and provide a full report to the Commission that would include site rankings in order of effectiveness, Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Lee PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, .'z4wli Nancy Fongi Vmmity Development Director Attest: