Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/25/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Absent: Commissioner Wei. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Meyer, Planning Consultant; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nelson proposed moving Item 7.1 to after Item 8.2. The Commissioners unanimously concurred. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 11, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None VC/Torng, Lee, Nolan, Chair/Nelson None Wei SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. 2006-42 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-19 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plans to construct a 1,294 livable square foot addition and a 438 square foot detached patio cover to an existing 1,786 square foot single family residence on an existing 12,030 lot zoned R1-8000 with a consistent underlying General -Plan -Land -Use -designation of--L-ow Medium -Residential (RLM)_and Minor Conditional Use Permit for the continuation of a non -conforming side yard setback. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22505 Lark Spring Terrace Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Steven and Hsin Samaniego APPLICANT: 22505 Lark Spring Terrace Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Alvarez presented staff s report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-42 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex -parte disclosures offered. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Steve Samniego, property owner, asked for the Commission's approval of a modification and improvement. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-42 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: W01 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.2 Development Review No. 2007-20 and Minor Variance 2007-07 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.52 the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plan to construct a new 12,347 livable square foot dwelling with a 573 square foot two car garage and a 1,162 square foot detached four -car garage on an existing 52,272 Lot zone R1-40,000 with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR), and a Minor Variance for a 4 -foot 6 -inch entrance block wall. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2218 Indian Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Sophia Chen 2822 Bentley Way Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: P.W. and Associates 5917 Oak Avenue, Suite 110 Temple City, CA 91780 PT/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-20 and Minor Variance 2007-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Phillip Wong, Architect, asked for Commission approval. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-20 and Minor Variance 2007-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Torng, Lee, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Wei SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 Code Sections 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/architectura -- - - - - 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 August 14, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar 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 said that what PT/Alvarez presented in his staff report was not in the Commissioner's packets. He hoped the project would be easier to understand for everyone involved and if the Commissioners are not able to review the information ahead of time it is difficult to render a decision. He remembered that he asked the applicant to make an effort to co -locate and he wanted to know what kind of effort the applicant had made. In addition, the second choice was to propose an alternate location. He questioned how far the applicant intended to move the antenna back from the original location. He concluded that a lot of the information was not available. He hoped the applicant could provide the information the Commission requested SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION but would have preferred that the applicant provide the information ahead of time so that the public and the Commissioners could read and understand the applicant's effort ahead of time. VC/Torng asked if his statement was correct and CDD/Fong responded that staff's report did include the plan that showed the relocated pole but for further clarification staff added tonight's information on the current plan only to better illustrate the proposal so that the Commission and audience would be very clear on the new location of the pole. The applicant could have - —provided---additional-illustrations—to—make—it—clearer--to—the--Planning--- ---- Commissioners. Chair/Nelson asked PT/Alvarez to summarize the benefits of relocating the monoelm on the property. PT/Alvarez responded that the applicant submitted propagation maps to show the Commission alternate sites and co - location sites. He suggested the applicant be asked to address that issue. The current site was moved away from the flat pad to the slope because the applicant was unable to find other locations and co -locations for the necessary coverage. CDD/Fong stated that by relocating the monoelm into the slope area it does not take away from any usable park space and no one would play within a 2:1 slope. The height of the pole is about the same, it looks like a tree and is camouflaged by the tree and screened by other large trees in the area. Therefore, the applicant has attempted to address the many concerns of the Commissioners and the residents that the tree would take away usable park space. With respect to coverage, according to the applicant, moving the tree would meet the applicant's needs in providing the needed coverage. The applicant looked at locations outside of Diamond Bar and found the coverage to be inadequate. The applicant has colored illustrations that show that were the antenna to be located in other communities it would not provide the same level of coverage as it would if the pole were located within Ronald Reagan park. Therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed site at Ronald Reagan park would still be the best location for providing the best coverage. In response to C/Nolan CDD/Fong indicated that the highlighted yellow items are the current location of the picnic tables and staff is not planning to relocate any park equipment. If the monoelm were placed within the 2:1 slope as indicated the height would be lowered to some degree. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that if the monoelm were relocated as proposed it would be further away from the picnic tables and park equipment in general. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Ed Gala, Sprint/Nextel, explained the potential coverage areas using an overhead map and pointed out that the proposed antenna site was moved out of the park area into the slope area to avoid any possible perception of impact to usable park space. This project -as modified-and-d-esi-gned-is-in--- compliance with the City's wireless regulations and requirements. The monoelm is similar in size and structure to other trees in the area. With respect to distances from residential uses, the code indicates the height of the pole plus 20 percent or a distance of about 54 feet with this facility being more than 200 feet from the nearest residential use (four times the City's standard). Ronald Reagan Park is a City pre -approved wireless site, which indicates to Sprint/Nextel that wireless sites are expected and encouraged to locate there. In fact, there are no homes in front of the antenna and this appears to be the best spot to locate an antenna within the park. He reiterated that if the Commission offered a preferred spot within the park, Sprint/Nextel would certainly be open to exploring that possibility as well. VC/Torng said he appreciated Mr. Gala's effort and asked if he had discussed this project with any of the residents. VC/Torng further stated that the alternate locations were the same locations discussed in the past. VC/Torng asked again if there is not really a new location that Sprint/Nextel can consider? Mr. Gala responded that the Commission asked the applicant to explore the Verizon site on Golden Springs Drive. Sprint/Nextel explored that site and ran the coverage plots and it did not fulfill the need of the search ring. Also, the water tank was a site that the applicant was asked to explore and Sprint/Nextel provided the coverage plots and that worked to some degree but did not fulfill the requirements. VC/Torng asked if there was a big difference from the water tank and Mr. Gala responded yes - the two sites do not cover Pathfinder Road, which is the primary objective of this proposed cell site. Sprints coverage ends at the park and this would commence at the park to provide coverage to the gap west, north and south. VC/Torng said that is why the Commission wanted to know that up front. And so the applicant considered only those two locations - Brea Canyon Cutoff and the water tank. What about Rowland Heights? Did the applicant consider any Rowland Heights sites? Mr. Gala explained that the Verizon and water tank sites are in Rowland Heights off of Brea Canyon Cutoff. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng asked if Brea Canyon Cuttoff was the Rowland Heights side? VC/Torng asked what about Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon water tank because that location is on the City map. Mr. Gala again showed the coverage plot from Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon. Due to the terrain constraints it would be shielded from providing coverage on Pathfinder Road. Mr. Gala reminded the Commission that at previous Commission meetings he spoke about other alternative locations including the elementary school to the south and co -location off of the SR57, which is already a Sprint/Nextel site. VC/Torng remembered that at the last meeting Mr. Gala promised to call Verizon. Mr. Gala respon a -t at -t a app rcant ca ed -Verizon -which -is - -- how they obtained the address of the Verizon site. VC/Torng said how come Verizon can provide such a service — good reception. Mr. Gala said he could not answer that question. When Sprint/Nextel ran the coverage plots the results were as previously indicated and there was no coverage on Pathfinder Road. Mr. Gala said he could not speak for how Verizon was covering Pathfinder Road. From his personal experience his coverage dropped as he rounded the bend at the park and he did not have coverage again until he got down near Golden Springs. VC/Torng asked if there was old technology that needed to be matched up with Verizon because with Verizon there is very good reception in Diamond Bar. So Sprint/Nextel has already considered that and there is no way to do it? Mr. Gala said VC/Torng was correct. VC/Torng said then he had nothing to say. Chair/Nelson said that last time the Commission asked Sprint/Nextel to explore all possible co -location facilities in the area. He said that he understood that the sites with no possibility to provide coverage would not be pursued. He asked if the co -location with Verizon on the overhead was the only one available and Mr. Gala responded "yes." C/Nolan asked Mr. Gala to comment on the future of satellite coverage and whether that would allow for the future removal of cell sites. Mr. Gala said he did not believe that Sprint or Nextel would be using satellites because of the low power and radius. In order to provide transmission the provider would need a much larger transmission source (cell radio) to reach a satellite. He said he believed that all carriers would continue to use multiple cell sites on the ground for the foreseeable future. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Valerie Geddes Curnihan, 2211 S. Meadow Lane, asked that Sprint try to look for a neighborhood that does not already have existing homes so that SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION families moving in can decide if they want a cell phone tower near their homes. She knew there was already a cell phone tower at Diamond Bar High School which is about three blocks from where she resides and if another cell tower is located at Ronald Reagan Park it would be about two blocks west of her home with possible radiation from both sides. She is a bladder cancer survivor and the has two small children and knows that the health risk has not yet been proven and asked that the cell tower not be placed at a park where young children play because their bodies are growing. She felt that if Verizon could cover Pathfinder Sprint/Nextel be able so as well -She felt that-the--[Tealth of-herself-arrd-herne-ighbors-was not worth one street that may dip in cell phone coverage and she was willing to live without coverage if she could have peace of mind and, if she and her family could have a healthy place to live. She asked that the Commission to stand behind the residents and ask Sprint to keep looking. She felt there were sites in Rowland Heights including a park site with hills that might be beneficial to Sprint. Theresa, 20919 High Country Drive, wanted to know why she got such good reception from Verizon and their coverage was so big and the applicant's coverage was so small? Stephen Davis, 20763 Rim Lane, asked for the map to be displayed. He said that according to the map, about 85 percent of the benefit would be outside of Diamond Bar so this project is proposed for a park in Diamond Bar to support Rowland Heights. In order to construct the tower the access road will run behind the tennis court and trees will have to be cut down along the walking path and the entire area would be converted to asphalt. He felt there might be better technology to handle this situation. He said he spoke with a friend of his who is the mayor of Westlake Village. The mayor told him that they use technology that is mounted on light poles just above street level and he did not understand why that type of coverage would not be available for Pathfinder Road. Also, he has not heard any discussion about the impact to property values. Whether there is a health concern as well as a concern about the equity in their homes. It seemed to him there might be better and less intrusive ways to get the cell coverage. Frank Chen, 20803 Quail Run Drive, said his 10 -year old son has been complaining about headaches and Mr. Chen was concerned about the radiation. He has lived close to the water tank and he does not like to have any towers in his area because he spent a lot of money on his home and he SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION was concerned about loss of equity and health as well. He and his neighbors do not want any towers in the park. Dolores Gunjave, 20745 E. Rim Lane, said this towerwould be in back of her home and she wanted the Commission to know that today she looked out her window and saw at least 100 five to six year-old kids practicing soccer. Her husband is an electrical engineer. She has read studies that state that magnetic fields should be at least 500 feet away from homes and this tower is going to be 200 feet away and there is a health risk to these small children that -play in the park. She feltthere should-be-a-safersite-forthis-tower.—She--- -- wished the Commission would consider a different location because she did not think it was fair for the residents of Diamond Bar. Angie, 2080 Peaceful Hills Road, said she was not concerned about the price of the real estate but she was concerned about the health of the people. Radiation is a major concern in her opinion. She knows that there is high voltage for any tower and it is bad for the people's health. People are sad there will be a tower in their area and their feelings and health is most important and more important than technology. Patrick Wen, 20799 East Rim Lane, said this installation would greatly affect his house. Nobody likes to live near a high voltage tower because of the radiation unless you cannot afford a high priced house. Of course there is no direct scientific proof indicating that radiation causes cancer and leukemia but studies indicate that people living near high voltage towers have a higher rate of leukemia and of course that makes him concerned about this cell pole. Most of the residents in this area do not really need that pole. If people have Verizon they can receive the signal. Some people do not care if they have good reception in this area. If the City approves the project he would suggest that the pole be put next to the Verizon site and put a smaller antenna on the water tank to cover a larger area. VJ Butah, 20793 East Rim Lane, wanted to show pictures he took about 10 days ago showing hundreds of kids playing in the park. The water tank is 4,635 feet away from the park and is at a higher location than Ronald Reagan Park. Sprint's map shows that if they drew a circle from the water tank they would get a lot better coverage from that location than from Ronald Reagan Park. The last time Sprint did not look at this location and this time they have refused to look at this particular tower and his feeling is that it is because it is located in the County of Los Angeles where the process of getting a cell tower approved is much more stringent than it is in Diamond SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Bar. He lives in a neighborhood where people are concerned with location and direction of their homes and staircases. When he bought his home it was on the market for six months because it was oriented poorly for some people and he was able to pick it up more cheaply than if it had a better design. He felt that if a cell tower were built in the park the sale prices of the homes would decrease dramatically. People will not buy these houses because there is a cell tower in close proximity and he felt the Commission should look into this matter before making its decision. There are 15 homes that will go down in value by 10 to 20 percent. He does not understand why the tower cannot be put at -the south hill -where there-�s-open-Iand-H-e-felt - — — $18,000 a year was a small amount to collect for all of the negative issues that would result from this installation. Chin Chow Yun said that everyone he asked about the cell tower in Ronald Reagan Park was against the installation. In addition, he obtained over 100 signatures on a petition in opposition to the project, which he delivered to City Hall. Today it is very clear to him and to the community that it will impact the environment and safety. The applicant also emphasized that it would increase the value of the homes. He believed that no telecommunication antenna would increase the value. His community is different. Put the antenna in your backyard, please. According to their statement everything is legal and follows state law and it is good for the community. He said he knew that his community had no recourse but it does not mean that the project should move forward. It is more about the relationship of a community, property deflation, public safety and public interest. Residents pay taxes and he also pays association fees. This is not fair to the community. Ronald Reagan Park is a busy place and many children play here. Who will be responsible when the winds or earthquake cause the structure to collapse? He wanted the applicant to find another remote location and not build the antenna in a busy area. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run said he had attended about three of these meetings and he appreciated the time invested. Technology and cell phones are important in today's world. There have been eloquent speakers today who have pointed out that there is another location with a water tower that is already destined for a utility use in a nearby city, which certainly should be considered. If the intent were to mitigate the coverage on Pathfinder he would prefer to take a lower dosage on a smaller transmitter than to have one large transmitter. If the technology is available it should be used. He was hoping to hear consideration of smaller towers on street light poles rather than one larger tower similar to what has been done in Westlake. In SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION fact, there is a micro tower on Fairway that covers Fairway to Brea Canyon. He said he was not looking to stop technology but felt there was a better fix than a large fake tree in a park. Chun Chang, 20718 E. Mill Lane, said there were more questions than answers and he would like for the Commission to make a good decision. Many people visit the park. People need the park and the park needs the people. Don't let the people be mentally tortured over this matter. -----S-an-di-2092,1-Quail-Run-Drive ,believed-that-a-fair-proposal-shouId- be -good — for both parties. However, she feels there will be a negative impact on the residents with respect to health, safety and decrease in property values. The residents understand that Sprint wants to increase its coverage area and she believed there were other better alternatives. Ronald Reagan may be the best solution for the applicant but it is really bad for the residents and that is why she is strongly opposed to this project. Chair/Nelson said there were a number of folks who spoke about potential health risk and he asked ACA/Kovacevich to address how the Commission is restricted from such consideration. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Gala to respond to a question about the space in the park that would be impacted and unavailable for turf grass due to the access road construction; the question about the water tank coverage and why that site at a higher elevation does not provide better coverage; and comments with respect to better technology as appropriate. Mr. Gala stated with respect to the access there would be a paved access road from the parking lot to the equipment shelter. There is no access road proposed to the cell tower. Once these towers are in operation they are rarely visited by techs. The equipment shelter is typically visited on a monthly basis to make sure the equipment was properly operating and change out some basic radio stations. There are no other impacts to the park. In fact, the road would not be necessary for Sprint if the Commission wanted it eliminated. The Parks Department asked for the paved road. With respect to property values, he presented a number of reports prepared by independent sources that indicated there was no impact. In fact, the homes closest to the cell tower increased in value more than those further away. Sprint customers looking to buy a home would be pleased to have the coverage. With wireless Internet coming, everyone will want coverage and what this does is allow residents in the area to have a choice among carriers. With respect to micro cells on Pathfinder, Sprint/Nextel has installed this type SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION of technology in certain locations such as windy hillside locations. The micro cells would actually be closer to home sites. This site is a pre -approved site for wireless, which encourages Sprint/Nextel to go to this park following the City's regulations. Supposedly in designating this as a pre -approved site the City Planning Commission and City Council evaluated the same impacts that are being discussed during this public hearing and deemed the installation acceptable. The project complies with all standards and warrants approval. Mr. Gala stated that his company provided information on the propagation map from the water tank on the Brea Canyon Cutoff that it did not propagate -to Pathfinder Road -because the signal -was— locked-bytheF-hilts Different technologies and frequencies propagate at different ranges. Conceivably, that is why Verizon can cover the site from a greater distance than can Sprint. Also, the grid patterns differ so they may be covering it from an area that Sprint/Nextel is not aware of somewhere higher up or further away. Sprint technology is very site specific and very low range. With regard to co - location it would be the applicant's first choice. If co -location were possible it would save Sprint lots of time, lots of money and lots of grief because the applicant would not have to go through the public hearing process again. In short, if there were a co -location opportunity Sprint would have taken it. There is none. The site as designed meets the standards and should be approved. C/Lee said that a speaker claimed that a low -frequency tower output is akin to a microwave and he believed that it was more fiction than truth and is it true? Also, what is the typical wattage and voltage of the facility? Mr. Gala explained that during the last Commission meeting the RF Engineer went into detail about those issues, which is in the public record. Basically, these are very low power facility - typically less than 200 watts per sector. Radio stations broadcasts radio waves at 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 watts of power. These facilities are radio wave. Radios have been in common use since the 1920's. This is not a new technology. The tower is made usable through the use of computers -the blending of computers with radio waves that allow the handoff of phone calls to different cell sites. No one is afraid of radios in their homes. People are bathed in radio waves now from countless sources much more powerful than the proposed facility and no one is afraid of those types of radio waves. And that is why the federal government preempted local jurisdictions from considering health impacts because the technology is not new and it has been deemed safe and is in common usage throughout the world. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Edeese Yung, 20777 Missionary Ridge, said she heard twice that this installation would increase home values. It depends on when appraisals are done and maybe values will increase only five percent instead of 10 percent because of the tower. If the applicant insists the tower will increase the property value appraisals could be done today before the tower is installed. After the tower is installed another appraisal could be done and the applicant should compensate everyone for the difference in the property value. C/Nolan said that with respect to allowing speakers to return to the podium, the Commissione-r—fab-is to make larrd-use de-cisions-is-income-to-the-City --- - and property value an issue that is to be considered? CDD/Fong responded that the job of the Planning Commission is to consider the land use and whether the land use is compatible with surrounding uses. Economics is not part of the discussion and should not be considered. Everyone has an opportunity to speak and if someone has something new to add to the discussion they should be allowed to speak. Property value and economics is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. A speaker said the applicant stated the property values would not drop and he believed the applicant was wrong because a real estate agent would point out that there is a pole about 200 yards away and a potential buyer would discount the property value. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson asked ACA/Kovacevich to discuss what the Commission is allowed to consider when deliberating on this matter with respect to health issues. ACA/Kovacevich responded that quite simply, federal law prevents the Commission from considering perceived health effects. The only issue is whether the equipment proposed complies with FCC requirements and this does. There is broad preemption generally in the area of telecommuni- cations regulation. Local zoning authority is preserved except when strict application of the zoning laws would result in a significant gap in coverage. "A significant gap in coverage" could be considered if there were a considerable number of people that utilized this technology using this road that would make it inconvenient for the user. This matter is for the Commission to decide. One of the issues that came up tonight is the issue of co -location, which as the Commission is aware, the City's ordinance prefers as the number one preferred alternative. Many speakers expressed bewilderment over other carriers being able to serve this area from certain areas and Sprint not being able to co -locate in those areas and obtain the SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION same coverage. There are differences between technologies. The Commission can decide whether it believes there is enough evidence in the record to demonstrate that co -location is truly not feasible in this instance. VC/Torng said he thought he heard the attorney say what has concerned him. There have been three meetings about this issue and the Commission is still trying to find the best co -location. He felt this was an "arrangement" issue and he strongly believed in the technology also. Up to today he was not provided clear maps to study ahead of time and he still did not - understand where the circle is an --he stilydid-not-u-nderstaffd-the-coverage ---- issue. The residents are against it and if tonight's meeting represents 80 or 90 percent of the residents the business case is really bad. He heard the applicant mention that this is a City pre -approved location and he indicated to CDD/Fong that he felt this matter should be pushed back to the City Council because when the City Council made the decision that this was a pre - approved location they probably did not hear the voice of the residents. Weighing all of the factors he respectfully submitted that in his mind this was not a good project. He would like for the applicant to have the opportunity to talk to the City Council because when the City Council pre -approved this location they did not hear the voice of the people and he believed the voices should be heard by the City Council. And if the Commission makes the decision it is approved and it will not go to the City Council. The Commission's decision is final, right? CDD/Fong said the Commission's decision would be final unless it was appealed to the City Council. VC/Torng said for this project the applicant should have one more chance to talk to the City Council because based on all of the facts it really is not a good project and he thought that that even though it was a pre -approved location the City Council should have a chance to understand and listen to the people's voice and let them know why this is a good location. When they do the planning and everybody who does the plan will do their job. Sometimes it is not a good plan so the Commission has to let the City Council know this is not a good plan but he would like for the applicant to have an opportunity to present his plan to the City Council. VC/Torng asked for comments from the Council. C/Lee said the City Council members are elected officials and they are elected to represent the people. Their decision should be respected. We are all citizens and this is a public common benefit and the Commission should decide tonight. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan believed that this was the nature of the beast. This is the age of technology and time of change. She has children that are starting their own families and none have a landline. She is not saying landlines are obsolete. However, cell phones and wireless Internet is something to consider. With respect to property values, it is not for the Commission to debate. The idea that the service is either for people in Diamond Bar or in Rowland Heights is immaterial. It is "mobile" service. There are many people who live in Diamond Bar and travel outside Diamond Bar who would benefit using this service. She believed the applicant had a right as a business owner to provide service toSpri— Sprint customers IS n the area. She believed -there had been significant research done to determine that possible co -locations would not provide the necessary service. She believed the Commission needed to make a decision and not refer the matter to the City Council. The Commission has been provided adequate information to make its decision. C/Nolan offered a motion of approval. CDD/Fong said she would like to poll the Commissioners and give the applicant an opportunity to accept the action of denial or return to the Commission with additional information. C/Lee said he would like to hear C/Nolan's motion and make his decision. C/Nolan said she understood staff's concern and withdrew her motion in favor of a straw poll. Straw Poll: C/Nolan — approve VC/Torng — deny CDD/Fong clarified the City's ordinance that indicated the site was pre - approved for consideration of a cell tower. The location is not pre -approved for a tower and that is why the applicant must proceed through this review process. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification. CDD/Fong stated that the City has established an opportunities map to designate locations for carrier in orderto prevent antenna farms. Where a location might have five or six different poles. The City wants to make certain that poles are within certain designated areas, but not every site is appropriate for a pole, monoelm or SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION other types of cell towers. The locations designated and what the applicant referred as "pre -approved" were simply locations that offer opportunities for cell towers. The City limits the number of cell towers and each cell tower is subject to a land use entitlement approval. Most of public facilities including schools, water tanks, public parks, etc., are listed an opportunities map. C/Lee - approve Chair/Nelson said that what bothered him was that there was no scientific evidence that would cause h'im to deny-tKe-project-lfapproved-ire-wouId -- have suggested that the access road to the maintenance shed be eliminated. Moving the tree away from the play area to the slope is a good thing. He said he did not view his role as having the authority to deny the project per se, it is really to make projects as good as they can be. The clarification about the park being a "pre -approved location" makes him feel as if the Commission is empowered with a bit more discretionary authority. The compelling reason why he is not in favor of this project is because of what the Commission is hearing from the community. If the Commission's job is to do what is good for the community the community has stated it is not in favor of this project. Even if the City were to spend the next 30 years convincing the residents that there is no health risk associated with these facilities there remains the stigma that they will feel and live under; whether or not it will affect property values is an unknown. However, since residents have come out three times in a row he would have to say this project is not good for the community. Straw poll - 2-2; CDD/Fong said that a two to two vote would be considered a denial. CDD/Fong recommended that the Commission continue this item to October 9, 2007, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for consideration. ACA/Kovacevich said that some Commissioners commented earlier that they would like to have the City Council address this matter. Obviously, a vote to deny would be appealed by the applicant, which would move the matter to the City Council for consideration. Chair/Nelson said he did not agree with VC/Torng's comment that this matter should be considered by the City Council rather than the Commission because Chair/Nelson believes that the Commission is charged with taking care of the business brought before it. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan stated that her decision was based on having visited the site, having sat in the exact spot where the antenna was originally proposed to be located, having stood on the slope looking down the unusable slope and with that she would vote to approve the project. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve 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 as amended to remove the asphalt pathway. Motion failed by the following Roll fl --A ! . 1-t, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei VC/Torng moved, Chair/Nelson seconded, to direct staff to bring back a Resolution of Denial. Motion passed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Tomg, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:56 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 83 Neaative Declaration No. 2007-05. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14 - In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48, the proposed project was a request to demolish an existing residence and develop a private school (kindergarten to eighth grade). The proposed three-story school building is approximately 13,760 square feet in area with 16,977 square feet of subterranean parking. A Conditional Use Permit was required to establish a school. The Development Review application was required to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1009 Via Sorella Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Daar-Ul-Ilm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Nomaan Baig, President and CEO Daaar-Ullm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked CDD/Fong if she knew the height of the building from the highway and whether there is residential in addition to commercial in the area. He disclosed that he drove through the area and he was concerned about the view from the residences and the commercial buildings because of the slope. CDD/Fong reiterated that the Commissioner's packets do not contain information that shows the relationship of the building height with the adjacent residential use. On the freeway side there is a tall Caltrans freeway sound wall. However, staff does not know the relationship of the height of the building to the sound wall. Therefore, she could not state how much of the proposed structure might be visible from the freeway or from the residences. VC/Torng asked if there were stop signs at Via Sorella and Brea Canyon Road. He asked if the Commission could recommend a "reduce speed" sign because people drive fast on northbound Brea Canyon. CDD/Fong said she could discuss the matter with the Public Works Department. He asked why the applicant was seeking a seven-day per week facility. CDD/Fong verified to Chair/Nelson that staff did not have a visual simulation from the freeway or from the residences. C/Nolan and Chair/Nelson indicated they drove by the area. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Nomaan Baig, 733 Summerwood Avenue, said he has been a resident of Diamond Bar since he was five years old. He is the founder of Daar-Ul-Ilum, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION a 501(c)3 Corporation and he serves as President of the Corporation. He introduced members of his organization and outlined the proposed project. He stated that the contemporary design conforms to the City's codes and that the project has moved forward in a timely fashion to fulfill every line item requirement set forth by the City. Mr. Baig responded that with respect to the traffic issue, as requested, the applicant hired Webb & Associates to conduct a traffic study. Via Sorella is approximately 20 feet above the elevation of the residences, which are about 25 -0 -feed a r�vayfrorrr-th"roTectpropeT lure—hraddifron tthis-project-isthe last parcel on the street and is buffered by huge trees owned by the AT Learning Center. The drop off area mentioned by VC/Torng is located at the driveway entrance off of the cul-de-sac and there is no view of the remainder of the circulation because the children are dropped off at a sub -terrain garage, which helps to maintain the straight ground elevation on top of the garage. The project has obtained fire department access approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Circulation has been addressed through the engineering plans noted as G-1, G-2, G-3, etc. The building is located in a CO zone (Commercial -Office) that allows for commercial structures up to 35 feet high. The code also indicates that towers are permitted as long as they do not extend more than 20 feet above the 35 -foot height. In relationship to houses, the property will be viewable from the freeway. There is mention of this fact in staff's report, which indicates that the upper floor might be visible from the freeway. The sound wall is about 22 feet more or less. Therefore, 10 feet of the building and the towers would be visible from certain areas of the freeway. The tree buffer and lower elevation will prevent direct visibility to the project. However, the tower atop the structure may be visible. The applicant stated that he could provide a visual if directed to do so, but he hoped that it would not be required. With respect to this being a seven-day school, this school offers academic, religious and cultural education and there will be individuals who prefer to receive only religious and cultural education on the weekends. Mr. Baig responded to VC/Torng that the maximum number of students allowed at any one time would be 135. VC/Torng thanked Mr. Baig for his very good report. Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr, 659 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut, offered his credentials and stated that he would like for the Commission to approve a religious and educational institute for the applicant to build a bridge of communication to understanding. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION Waseem Najmi, Chairman, Planning Commission, City of Walnut, 673 Silver Valley Trail, Walnut, spoke in support of this project. Mohamed Aljibani, 23385 Golden Springs Drive, a City business owner, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Mustafa Farooqi, 907 Wynnewood Drive, wished this school had been available when his children were growing up. He asked for Commission approval -of the piupused-proj-ect—. Abutaleb, 22716 Dry Creek Road, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Omar Rangoonwala, 20739 Lycoming #88, spoke in favor of the project and its proponents. Ataboy, 24323 Delta Drive, Secretary of the institute, stated his credentials and spoke in favor of the project. . Omar Abutaleb, 3620 Calmbrook Lane, said he was proud to be a member of the community and supported the project. Samir, 20730 Moonlake, said the director would teach students to be a positive influence on the community, a larger thought that would cause the Commission to look favorably upon this project. Dr. Abutaleb, 3620 Calmbrook Lane, lives and practices her profession in Diamond Bar as a chiropractor. She would like to have her children safe in school and learn and become educated about their faith at the same time. She said she approved of this project. Nikar Rangoonwala 20739 Lycoming Street, Walnut, said she has lived in the area for many years and she looks forward to her grandchildren growing up with access to this center. She said she would appreciate a yes to the proposal. Irpon Pare, 22055 Birdseye Drive, has lived in Diamond Bar since he was one year old and has been part of the organization for many years. He said he was very thankful for this organization. He is a business owner and his community has an obligation to his community as well as his religion. A separate facility is needed for classrooms apart from the mosque and that is SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION the reason for this project and he hoped the Commission would look favorably upon the project. Mr. Baig stated that he had reached out to his neighbors and community about this project and held a meeting at City Hall. None of the neighbors showed up to discuss the program, its content, traffic, etc., at the September 15 meeting. He also attempted a personal contact with the owner of the storage units as well without success. He and his colleagues have made every effort to reach out to the community. C/Nolan applauded the applicant's motivation. She was concerned about the lack of a visual simulation and in orderfor herto render a decision she would like to see computer generated simulations or models that included landscaping, playground, view from the freeway and the residences. It is a tall building and if approved, this building would probably outlast most of the Commissioners and this body needs to consider the future of the community and its residents. She was concerned about the safety of sub -terrain parking versus the drop-off area. Chair/Nelson said he shared C/Nolan's request for visuals. The proposed structure is marvelous and the Planning Commission asking for visuals is not an indication of a denial. Throughout his history with the Planning Commission churches have fared well regardless of denomination. When the Commission considered Stay America across the freeway there was considerable discussion about a large building adjacent to residences and it was important for the Commission to understand the impacts to the residents. This is a massive and impressive structure and the concerns are the same and the Commission wants to be confident that it will fit into the neighborhood. He asked the applicant to work with staff to provide visual simulations that depict views from the neighborhood and from the freeway. He said he did not recall seeing streetlights on Via Sorella. CDD/Fong confirmed that there are no streetlights on Via Sorella. Chair/Nelson said the lack of streetlights presented a safety concern to him. He asked the applicant and staff to address that issue as well. He felt this was a wonderful project. C/Nolan asked if there was a ratio of open space that was common for playground area. CDD/Fong responded that there is a 75 square foot requirement per child of playground area for the public school system. For private schools there is no such requirement. However, the Planning SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission can analyze the concern about having playground area for private schools. Chair/Nelson urged staff to look at what had been done in the past. For example, EV Free wanted to improve and expand the parking lot and as a result, the playground area was fairly restricted. CDD/Fong said that staff would research other religious schools. Mr. Baig responded that the project proposes a combination of landscape an-hardscape areafor he play area that aHowrs foT-extra-currrcuiarevents such as soccer, baseball, etc. There are two basketball half -courts with green area. He said he would provide visuals for the Commission and the lack of streetlights would have to be addressed by the City. He said he did not believe that streetlights would be an issue for the proposed project because the students would be present only during daylight hours. Chair/Nelson asked the applicant to have his traffic engineer provide a statement to the Commission that a safety plan is warranted or not warranted and that it should include the reasons. Mr. Baig concurred. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. CDD/Fong asked for concurrence that the Commission was requesting a visual simulation with a view of the simulated project from the southbound 57, northbound 57 and from the residential side looking eastward; traffic safety issues and playground context. Mr. Baig asked what concerns C/Nolan and Chair/Nelson had with respect to the visualization of this project as compared to other very large buildings in the immediate area. Chair/Nelson responded that his issue was a compatibility and adjacency issue. Mr. Baig said that with respect to the playground area the irregularly shaped parcel required a great effort on the part of the architect. In his opinion, to consider public school parameters would be unreasonable for this facility because it would take away from the project. C/Nolan said that her concerns had to do with the compatibility of the size and structure to the surrounding buildings. There is a recommendation from staff and if there is anything further that staff has to offer at this time she would appreciate the input. Mr. Baig pointed out that if the project were prevented from including a sub -terrain parking unit the grounds would SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION primarily consist of parking spaces and there would be little space left for building. The only way this development could occupy this parcel would be to provide a sub -terrain structure. In fact, staff proposed the sub -terrain parking with the super structure on top to meet the requirements. Chair/Nelson echoed C/Nolan that staff would look at other private schools only with respect to the playground issue, not public schools. C/Lee moved, to approve Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use -Permit N -o 20OT-&8-and-Deveiopmen# Review -No. 2007=44�-Findings-of-Faet, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. The motion died for lack of a second. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded to continue this matter to October 9, 2007, to give the applicant and staff an opportunity to respond to issues of concern voiced by the Commissioners to wit; visual simulation from the three vantage points; look at the safety traffic issue with regard to the possible need for streetlights, and look at parameters for acceptable level of playground area for private schools. Mr. Baig said he would prefer to expedite this matter to October 9. CDD/Fong reminded the applicant that the information must be submitted to staff no later than Wednesday, October 3 for inclusion in staff's report_ Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS:' None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong asked if the Commissioners would be willing to forego the large size plans in favor of 11x17 plans to reduce the amount of paperwork the Commissioners would have to bring to the meeting. The Commissioners concurred. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 10:20 p.m. Attest: Res�ully Submitted, O'�4� J��, S ve Nelson, Chairman