HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1997i
FILE'COPY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
,4
AGENDA
U 28,
JANUARY1997
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chairman 1t11'ke Goldenberg
Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka
Commissioner Franklin Fong
Commissioner Joe McManus
Commissioner Don Schad
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community
Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection.
If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community
Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
- F
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking ' The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Auditorium ?1717-ov
��.agN� and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, January 28, 1997
Next Resolution No. 97-2
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Mike Goldenberg, Vice
Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Franklin Fong, Joe McManus and
Don Schad
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning
Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity
to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for
the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute
maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are
approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda
by request of the Commission only:
3.1 Minutes of January 14, 1997
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
5. NEW BUSINESS:
5.1 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
6.1 Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9 (pursuant to Code
Section 22,20.100) is a request for an unmanned, wireless telecommunications
transmission facilities for two service providers consisting of antennas to be located
on a proposed 1,152 square foot barn with equipment cabinets located within and
adjacent to the barn. This proposal includes an amendment to Tract Map 42584,
removing an easement from said Map restricting vehicle ingress and egress to
Armitos Place .
1
7.
8.
9.
10.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner Darrin Dr. and Armitos
P1.)
Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc. 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite
100, Irvine, CA 92612 and Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 5959
W. Century Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90015
Property Owners: Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin Drive, Diamond Bar, CA
91765
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9 to a future
date.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
8.1 Development Code - Informational Update
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL - February 4, 1997 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - February 13, 1997 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Bord Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - February 27, 1997 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
PLANNER'S INSTITUTE - Wednesday - Friday, March 12-14, 1997 at Monterey
Conference Center, Monterey, California
ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, February 11, 1997
2
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
R41pt
JANUARY 14, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Fong.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Ruzicka,
and Commissioners, Fong, McManus and Schad
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of December 9, 1996.
VC/Ruzicka made a motion, seconded by C/Schad, to approve the
minutes of December 9, 1996 as presented. Without objections,
the motion was so ordered.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No.
96-14 is a request for an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facility involving a co -
location with an existing monopole owned by AirTouch Cellular
and located at Walnut Pools.
Project Address: 21450 Golden Springs Drive (south side
and south of the SR 60).
Applicant: Cox California PCS, Inc., 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612
Owner: Evelyn Wendler, 21450 Golden Springs
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
JANUARY 14, 1997
PAGE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
SP/Johnson read the staff report into the record. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No. 96-14,
Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within
the resolution.
Chair/Goldenberg opened the public hearing.
Adan Madrid, Land Use Planner, JM Consulting Group, Inc. , 3760
Kilroy Airport Way #440, Long Beach, CA, 90806, representing
Cox California PCS, Inc., stated he read the staff report and
concurs with the conditions of approval with the exception of
two conditions recommended by staff. He asked that Conditions
5.(h) and 5.(i) be eliminated because they have no logical
relationship or nexus to the identified impacts of the
proposed project. The proposed project involves placement of
the proposed antenna array on the existing monopole and the
placement of six equipment cabinets at grade. He further
stated that it is the applicant's opinion that such conditions
do not serve to protect public interest from the identified
project impacts because they require improvements to those
portions of the property that are not effected by the project.
He indicated that the applicant believes the issue of
aesthetics is being remediated to a level of insignificance by
painting the existing monopole andantennas as well as, the
proposed antennas. (He exhibited a six inch piece of pipe
painted glossy gunmetal gray). In addition, the proposed
antennas will be placed at a level below the existing AirTouch
antennas. The applicant is proposing to remove Air Touch's
existing antenna screens which will allow light to pass
through the antennas. The proposed equipment cabinets will be
located within a block wall enclosure designed to match the
existing building's exterior. The proposed unmanned antennae
will not create additional traffic, parking demands or solid
waste, nor will it adversely impact existing on grade
improvements. He cited passages from staff's report to
bolster the applicant's theories. He stated that in his
opinion, Conditional Use Permits are not intended to be used
as a vehicle for requiring onsite improvements that have no
direct relationship to the project. Rather, it is his
understanding that a Conditional Use Permit is a vehicle to
insure that uses are conditioned to insure proper integration
into the existing environment. He also asked the Commission
to consider rewriting Condition 5.(g) to read: "In the event
that the site is abandoned by the applicant, the applicant
shall remove the facility within 90 days.". He concluded
stating the applicant agrees with the balance of conditions as
stated in the Resolution.
Chair/Goldenberg closed the public hearing.
CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Goldenberg that the applicant
has applied for a discretionary permit from the City of
JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSI
Diamond Bar which means that the Planning Commission is under
no obligation to approve the proposed project. The applicant
has requested the Commission's approval based upon the
applicant's proposal. Staff has recommended the Commission's
approval based upon the applicant's proposal, staff s analysis
of the proposal, and staff s recommendation which incorporates
conditions of approval. Staff's recommendations include
conditions which are adverse to the applicant's interest. It
is reasonable to secure property improvements during the
discretionary permit process. It is reasonable to require the
property owner to provide for parking improvements that meet
the needs of and respond to the Code with respect to parking
space allocations, including handicapped spaces. It is
reasonable to require the applicant to improve the property's
aesthetics with respect to landscaping, walls, enclosed trash
facilities, etc. which are required by Code and necessary to
enhance the property's appearance. The project site contains
the highest structure within the immediate area and consists
of equipment that is visible from the freeway corridor and
Golden Springs Drive. Although the site is not specifically
adjacent to residential neighborhoods, it is visible to the
existing residential neighborhood. Staff believes the
proposed conditions should be incorporated within the project
and should be a part of the Commission's deliberation and
approval. The proposed conditions of approval are consistent
with numerous projects brought before the Planning Commission
wherein a discretionary permit was requested and wherein
property improvements were necessary to bring the facility to
current code. Staff believes there is a reasonable
relationship between the additional proposed facility and the
property improvements requested of the applicant.
CDD/DeStefano concluded stating that the Planning Commission
has the discretion to accept or change the proposed conditions
of approval.
RECESS: Chair/Goldenberg recessed the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Goldenberg reconvened the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
C/Fong asked for an explanation of "future maintenance
problems" included in condition 5.(g).
CDD/DeStefano indicated staff is concerned about the project
falling into a state of disrepair or obsolescence.
C/Fong proposed that Condition 5.(g) be reworded to
incorporate language that allows the city to determine, with
the applicant's acknowledgement, that the facility has reached
obsolescence and needs to be upgraded or abandoned and removed
rather than relying upon the discretion of the applicant.
JANUARY 14, 1997-
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSI`QN'I
Mr. Madrid stated that the applicant will continue to use the
proposed site as long as it is useful to the network. The
proposed equipment is very expensive and represents an asset
to the applicant. If the city is concerned that the applicant
will abandon the site due to obsolescence, the applicant is
willing to agree to a condition of approval stating the
applicant will, at regular intervals, notify the City of
Diamond Bar that the facility continues to be functional and
fully utilized.
CDD/DeStefano confirmed to C/Fong that as a result of project
analysis and field review, staff determined that the proposed
"flat gunmetal gray" is appropriate to mitigate the visual
impact of the monopole.
C/Fong stated he believes staffs recommended conditions will
serve to upgrade an unsightly location. The city is pro -
business and strives to be reasonable with respect to
conditions it imposes. At the same time, the city does not
wish to negatively impact the visual aesthetics of the
community. He indicated that in his opinion, it is fair and
reasonable for staff to recommend conditions that offset or
compensate for the visual impact presented by the proposed
project. He asked Mr. Madrid to reconsider his position with
respect to Conditions 5.(h) and 5.(i).
VC/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns regarding the proliferation
of antennas in the City. He asked how many antenna sites.are
currently located within the City and how many sites can the
City accommodate, how many installations can be located at one
site, how many companies currently operate in Diamond Bar and
how many companies. does the City anticipate it will grant this
type of permit. Do the companies pay a fee for operating
within the City? Will there come a time when the City can no
longer hide or camouflage these facilities? Does Walnut Pools
receive a fee for accommodating this installation and if so,
how much do they receive? Does AirTouch Cellular receive a
fee for this project? He stated that Diamond Bar is at the
vortex of the communications system. He suggested that the
City establish a master plan for considering approval of
proposed telecommunications facility installations. He asked
how many installations the Walnut Pools site can accommodate.
C/McManus asked Mr. Madrid what he estimates to be the cost of
the proposed tenant improvements.
Mr. Madrid stated that absent any unforseen situation or
consideration which might cause an increase in the amount the
improvements would cost approximately $4,000.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that staff has reviewed
the site and believes it is appropriate to extend the
landscape area as outlined within the report. The applicant
JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSI"
will provide drawings to comply with the Planning Commission's
conditions of approval and staff will work with the applicant
to resolve any related issues. Staff is not privy to the
agreement between the property owner and the applicant.
Financial benefit should not enter into the decision making
process. Staff is primarily interested in the city's physical
appearance and its related land uses. Therefore, staff is not
aware of whether the applicant or property owner will install
the improvements.
C/McManus asked what recourse, if any, the applicant would
have in the event the costs of improvement substantially
exceeded the anticipated $4,000.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission may add
a condition which allows for discretion at the staff level to
deal with any unforseen characteristics of the site or assign
a maximum dollar amount.
Mr. Madrid stated that if the Planning Commission issues an
ultimatum that Cox California PCS, Inc. accept the proposed
conditions or no approval will be granted, Cox will agree to
comply with the proposed conditions of approval in order to
complete the network, provide service to its customers, and
fulfill their FCC licensing agreement. .
C/McManus stated he seeks an equitable relationship with the
applicant.
C/Schad asked Mr. Madrid if his company will provide its own
power.
Mr. Madrid said he believes the installation will take power
from AirTouch's onsite electrical panel. Cox will agree to
underground any electrical lines it brings to the site.
Mr. Madrid responded to C/Schad that the antennas are
approximately two inches thick, six inches wide and six feet
high. He stated that although the applicant would prefer to
have the antennas located at the same height on the tower as
AirTouch Cellular, the proposed location will satisfactorily
accommodate site needs. Due to the existing elevated freeway
interchanges, the proposed installation location is sited as
low as possible. He stated that it is highly unlikely that
another telecommunications transmission facility could be
located on the pole lower than the Cox installation..
Chair/Goldenberg stated he is concerned about how many sites
will be located within Diamond Bar's city limits, how high the
installations will be, and what will be the city's aesthetic
impact. He indicated that surrounding cities are imposing
moratoriums with respect to additional cell sites. He
referred to a January 3, 1997 Walnut Independent article that
JANUARY 14, 1997
PAGE 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
discusses the item. He told Mr. Madrid that if Cox wishes to
tell Diamond Bar the city's demands are too stringent, he has
no problem with the Planning Commission imposing a moratorium
with respect to this project.
Mr. Madrid said that his client will comply with the Planning
Commission's conditions of approval.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that due to rapidly changing
technology he cannot conclude that no additional antenna
arrays can be co -located on the monopole at the Walnut Pools
site.
VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Fong seconded, to approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-15 and Development Review No. 96-14, Findings of
Fact and conditions of approval listed within the resolution
with the provision that "should any unforseen conditions arise
that render the project economically onerous, staff will
negotiate a satisfactory resolution with the applicant". In
addition, Condition 5. (g) shall be changed to read as follows:
"In the event of any future maintenance problems, abandonment
of use, or changes in technology which render the above
mentioned facility and screening structure obsolete, the
applicant shall, upon notification by the City of Diamond Bar,
repair, replace or remove the screening structure and/or
facility within 90 days." The motion was carried 5-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Schad thanked staff for providing a copy of the publication
"Wireless Communication" in the Commissioners packet. He
reiterated his concern that Diamond Bar does not have a Tree
Ordinance.
VC/Ruzicka reiterated his concern for a master plan with respect to
installation of wireless telecommunications transmission facility
sites in the city.
VC/Ruzicka stated he feels that although the Planning Commission
meeting minutes reflect the gist of what is discussed, observations
and important comments are omitted. He further stated he is not
requesting verbatim minutes. However, much is left to the
imagination. He asked if the City Council receives a full
accounting of the Planning Commission's deliberations in addition
to the meeting minutes. He indicated he wonders if the City
Council fully understands the sometimes vexing and convoluted
process the Planning Commission goes through to reach its
determinations. He said he has talked to Council Members on
numerous occasions and the Planning Commission has even been
reversed on an issue that is, in his opinion, very important. In
that instance, he does not believe the Council got the sense of
what the Planning Commission was driving at if the only record of
the deliberation is the meeting minutes. He said that if
JANUARY 14, 1997
PAGE 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
necessary, he believes this is an item that should be agendized for
a future meeting.
C/Fong asked about the status of the empty tree wells along the
westerly portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard south of Pathfinder Road.
CDD/DeStefano stated tree wells were placed along that portion of
Diamond Bar Boulevard as a result of the sidewalk improvements. No
trees were installed in the wells because sufficient landscaping
exists on adjacent property. The city's Community Services
Department annually allocates monies to replace broken, wind
damaged and vandalized trees located within tree wells.
Chair/Goldenberg expressed his appreciation for the quality of the
Planning Commission's minutes. He asked if tape recordings of the
minutes are retained.
CDD/DeStefano stated the City Council retains tape recordings of
its meetings for two years. The Planning Commission has retained
tape recordings of meetings since the city's incorporation. The
tapes are available for public consumption.
Chair/Goldenberg asked that discussion of wireless sites be
agendized for a future meeting. He requested that staff forward
the Planning Commission's findings to the City Council for
consideration.
CDD/DeStefano stated staff will include a survey of surrounding
cities in the report and recommendation with respect to the
wireless telecommunications transmission facility installation
discussion. Additionally, Commissioner's questions and general
information regarding revenue derived from site installations will
be included in the staff report.
C/Schad announced Planetfest 197 will be held at 1700 Ocean Avenue,
Santa Monica, on Saturday, February 1, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Status of L.A. Cellular site at Diamond Bar High School.
CDD/DeStefano stated the temporary pole located at Denny's
Restaurant on Brea Canyon Road was removed. The facility
located at the Diamond Bar High School football field site has
been energized and the site mitigation measures are completed.
The L.A. Cellular temporary power pole was removed. The
remaining NexTel temporary power pole is slated to be removed
within the next two weeks. The Walnut Valley School District
visited the site and approved the installed mitigation
measures.
f�-
JANUARY 14, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the city responded to
at least 25 calls for service that involved damage to trees as
a result of the recent windstorm.
2. Development Code Update.
CDD/DeStefano referred the Commissioners to the informational
piece within their packets that responds to inquiries raised
at the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated the city's
General Plan is the primary tool used to assist in authoring
the various sections of the Development Code. Currently,
staff and the consultant are reviewing the administrative
section and the Tree Ordinance. Staff anticipates the
Development Code Town Hall Meeting will be scheduled for late
February or early March, 1997'. A report summarizing the
Public comments received within the approximately 250 survey
responses will appear in February issue of The Windmill
publication. The next meeting with the consultant is
scheduled for two weeks from the meeting held earlier today.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that with respect to the
document entitled "Issues Raised by General Plan Strategies",
1.2.5, sentence 5 should read "Pad size, not parcel size
should also be a limiting standard."
C/McManus asked for clarification of 3.2.3.
CDD/DeStefano stated that one of the Significant Ecology Area
Technical Advisory Committee's strong recommendations was to
not permit property owners to erect physical barriers to
wildlife movement. Solid fencing may be installed on the pad
perimeter. However, fences constructed on property lines will
afford wildlife passthrough. He referred to "The Buyers
Awareness" Buyer Awareness Package and as an example, cited
split rail fencing commonly used in the area.
Responding to C/Schad, CDD/DeStefano asked the Commissioners
to refer their questions and suggestions to staff for
transmission to the consultant. Commissioners will receive
the 1989 version of the Tree Ordinance, copy of the 1992
version with background material, and information related to
the 1997 version of the Ordinance. He indicated staff
anticipates the Tree Ordinance will be a topic of discussion
at the next Town Hall Meeting.
CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to VC/Ruzicka's
concerns regarding information transmitted to the City
Council, the current system provides that a complete Planning
Commission meeting packet is furnished to the City Council the
same day it is distributed to the Commissioners. Council
Members peruse the information contained therein. Upon
conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting, a memorandum
highlighting agenda items, actions, and votes taken by the
JANUARY 14, 1997
PAGE 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
Commission is forwarded to the City Manager and the City
Council. Occasionally Council Members will make inquires
regarding specific items. If a case is appealed to the City
Council, or if a case, upon recommendation, is referred to the
City Council, the Council receives the entire history of the
case. Council Members are aware that meeting tapes are
available for their use. The Council discusses with staff the
cases that are coming before them and generally focuses on the
land use issues. He further stated he has observed that the
City Council greatly empowers the Planning Commission and
strongly believes in the Planning Commission process and
strongly recognizes the decisions and recommendations made by
the Commission. This Council respects the value, judgement,
and experience represented on this Planning Commission. The
Council sometimes receives information different from that
provided the Planning Commission because -information is
presented differently by the applicant. With respect to
meeting minutes, the city generally operates under a policy
and philosophy to provide action minutes rather than verbatim
minutes for budgetary reasons. This policy may, from time to
time, and with certain agenda items, change with direction
from the City Council or Planning Commission. The Planning
Division generally takes its direction from the City Clerk.
The manner in which the City Council manages its minutes
through the City Clerk is similar in format to, other city
Commissions.
E45
VC/Ruzicka thanked CDD/DeStefano for his explanation. He
stated he wants the City Council to continue to respect the
Planning Commission's decisions and be aware that a lot of
thought and consideration goes into making the decisions. He
cited the case of the City Council's reversal of the Planning
Commission's decision with respect to the University of
Phoenix sign permit denial. In that case, there was only one
Council Member who agreed with the Planning Commission vote.
He wondered whether there may have been a miscommunication
because he read the minutes and believes some important
questions were left out.
CDD/DeStefano stated he is personally aware that some of the
Council Members struggled with the issue. The Council reached
its decision as a result of their review of the related
materials, discussion with the applicant, and public hearing
discussions. It is rare that the City Council reverses a
Planning Commission decision.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
In addition to the Schedule of Future Events provided in the
Planning Commission packet, Chair/Goldenberg suggested that
Commissioners participate in the January 30, 1997 Parks Master
Plan public hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Heritage
Park.
JANUARY 14, 1997
PAGE 10
k1 o<r
'SPLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Goldenberg confirmed that all five Planning
Commissioners will attend the March 12-14, 1997 Planner's
Institute in Monterey.
CDD/DeStefano asked Commissioner's to contact staff if they
require flight reservations.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 9:17 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Planning Commission, C/Schad moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn
the meeting to January 28, 1997. There being no objections,
Chair/Goldenberg adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
Attest:
Michael Goldenberg
Chairman
Agenda Item: 6.1
To: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
From: James DeStefano, Community Development Di e
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Developmen,
Review No. 96-9 A proposed telecommunications
facility to be located at 24401 Darrin Drive.
Date: January 23, 1997
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9
consist of an application to construct a wireless
telecommunications facility on a portion of property located at
24401 Darrin Drive. The applicants, Cox California PCS and
Pacific Bell Mobile Services, propose to locate and access a
structure upon an existing flat pad area of the lot adjacent to
Armitos Place. The proposed telecommunication facility requires
a noticed public hearing to consider the merits of the request.
In addition, the applicant has requested the removal of the
original tract map restriction prohibiting access to the site
from Armitos Place. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
The City Attorney has advised staff that, in addition to the
above customary notice, the proposed removal of the access
restriction requires a notice to all property owners within the
boundaries of the original subdivision and within a 500 foot
radius of the exterior boundary of the tract.
Although a public hearing has been previously noticed,
consideration by the Planning Commission must be postponed in
order to properly advertise the applicants proposed project.
Accordingly the applicants have been notified and a letter has
been mailed to all those previously noticed indicating the need
to reschedule the matter.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to
reschedule and readvertise the public hearing.
Attachment
jds
Robert S. Huff
Mayor
Carol Herrera
Mayor Pro Tern
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Clair W. Harmony
Council Member
Gary H. Werner
Council Member
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax: (909) 861-3117 • City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
January 20, 1997
RE: Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 28, 1997
for Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review
96-9, a request for an unmanned telecommunications facility
located at 24401 Darrin Dr.
To: Property Owners within a 500' radius of 24401 Darrin Drive
Recently the City advertised a public hearing for the above
mentioned item. Since that time certain issues have arisen in
association with this project that are unlikely to be resolved prior
to the scheduled January 28, 1997 pubic hearing date and it is
anticipated that the hearing date for this project will be
rescheduled. Property owners will be notified of the time, date
and location of the rescheduled public hearing prior to the meeting
date. If you have any questions, please contact. me at the
Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676.
Sincerely,
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Catherine/ Johnson,
Senior Planner
11l
North Subject Site
(not to 3-k)
Recycled paper
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES DESTEFANO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI
SUBJECT: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 20, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission requested information on the
current number of wireless communication facilities within the City, the
potential and capacity for new sites, the limits of co -location, and other
issues relevant to this topic.
In response to this request, staff has prepared the following report. This
report addresses the Planning Commission's issues and provides an update
on the current status of technology within this field and outlook for the
future, the regulatory framework, local government ordinances and current
City regulations.
Staff would like to acknowledge the assistance of representatives from L.A.
Cellular, Cox California and The Keith Companies who provided valuable
information and answered numerous questions in assisting staff in the
preparation of this report.
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Three types of wireless telecommunications systems are currently utilized;
Cellular Systems (analog), Personal Communications Services (PCS) (digital)
and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) (analog-digital).
Analog transmission signals electronically replicate and amplify voice
messages as they are carried from transmitting antenna to receiving
antenna. The drawback of this system is that it tends to amplify
electronic noise or static, which may interfere with conversation.
1
In a digital system, voice messages are converted into digits (zeroes and
ones) representing sound intensities at specific points in time. The
advantage of this technology is that background noise becomes inaudible
and dropped connections are less frequent. Additionally, digital technology
allows more users to access the system, provides fraud protection through
the use of code encryption, and reduces call eavesdropping.
Cellular, PCS and ESMR, facilities are similar in that they are all based on
systems composed of interconnecting cell sites utilizing freestanding
monopoles and/or roof -mounted antennas and accessory equipment cabinets.
However, PCS antennas usually serve areas that span less than five miles
in any direction and therefore require twice as many sites. Additionally, PCS
systems generally require shorter antennas.
LOCAL PROVIDERS
There are five main providers which serve the Southern California region
(excluding San Diego). These providers include Airtouch and LA Cellular
which provide cellular (analog) telephone service, NexTel which provides
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) (analog-digital) service and Pacific
Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications which provide Person
Communication Services (PCS) (digital) service.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE CITY
Since the City's incorporation, seventeen (17) sites have been
approved and
two (2) more are pending approval. The Diamond Bar Cell
Sites Exhibit
Map (attached) delineates all approved and pending facilities.
These sites
are clustered in areas where optimum service is possible and
the provider's
locational criteria is met. The Radisson Inn (#5, and
#14), Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard (#9, and #12), Diamond Bar
High School
(#2, #3, #4 and #15) and Walnut Pools (#6 and #13) sites
utilize co -
location. These site are located adjacent to or near the
freeways , or
heavily traveled roadways and capture the maximum number of users.
Additionally, the sites are located within two (2) to three
(3) miles of
each other due to the number of users and Diamond
Bar's hillside
topography.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues licenses to wireless
communications carriers and establishes the geographic areas in which they
may operate. These licenses are auctioned to providers, generating billions
of dollars in revenue for the federal government.
2
Licenses are issued for certain frequency bands of the radio spectrum,
limiting the number of wireless communication providers in a specific service
area. In order to facilitate the issuance of licenses, the FCC has divided
the radio spectrum into six blocks, alphabetized from A through F.
In the early 1980's the FCC offered cellular providers the opportunity to
apply for licenses to provide cellular services in 306 metropolitan service
areas and 428 rural areas. Because of numerous applications the FCC
began to assign local telephone companies enough radio spectrum to allow
non -telephone companies to offer cellular communications in their individual
areas. By the end of 1984 nearly every major metropolitan area in the
United States had been assigned to a carrier.
Because of increasing demands on wireless service, in 1994 the FCC
auctioned radio spectrum to PCS providers. Enough spectrum was
auctioned to allow at least two new service providers in every market.
Another auction was held in early 1996 to auction off the C block. In
August of 1996 the D and E block auctions began and have been recently
completed. This results in over 500 providers nationwide with at least
twelve (12) providers in most major metropolitan areas.
PCS providers have been mandated by the FCC to establish their network
within a specific time period in order to insure that radio spectrums 8re
used efficiently. Under licensing requirements, all PCS providers must
construct facilities that provide coverage to one-third of its service area in
five years and two-thirds coverage within ten years.
According to the San Diego Association of Governments (December 1995),
Wireless Communication Facilities Issue Paper, the number of wireless
telephone users in the United States has grown from approximately 10
million in 1992 to 24 million in 1994. This figure does not include users of
paging systems, ESMR or PCS systems. 'Further, according to Zoning News
(April 1996) industry analysts estimate that more than 15,000 cellular
towers were built in the last 14 years to serve 25 million users. It is
estimated there will be 167 million PCS users by the year 2003 which will
requiring an estimated 100,000 cellular towers. Originally, less than 2
million users were estimated by the year 2000.
With FCC's auctioning of additional radio spectrum blocks the City can
anticipate additional providers and requests for sites in the next several
years. It is difficult to predict the precise number.
3
NEW TECHNOLOGY
According to an industry representative, the next few years will see a shift
from analog to digital technology. Digital technology may require some
retrofitting of existing analog sites because antennas and equipment
cabinets, which tend to be smaller. Digital facilities have a shorter range
which may require some additional facilities to fill in service gaps.
Although advancements in technology will result in smaller antennas and
equipment cabinets, monopoles will probably remain the same height.
Twenty years hence, it is speculated that global satellite technology will
eliminate the need for antennas.
Other forms of wireless communication facilities may be established within
the City in the future, for example, wireless computer modems. Due to
rapid technological industry advancements the City may receive requests to
establish other forms of wireless communications facilities.
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Level. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an
independent federal agency responsible to congress. The FCC regulates
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire satellite
and cable. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles
all FCC domestic wireless telecommunication programs and policies, except
satellite communications.
FCC licensing requires that all cellular and PCS providers comply with safety
standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE) established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields.
The most important recent federal legislation impacting wireless
communication is •the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, passed by
congress in January of 1996. This act prohibits local governments from
allowing one carrier and excluding another, and it also bars state and local
governments from regulating facilities because of the environmental effects
of radio frequency emission as long as facilities comply with FCC
regulations. The act acknowledges local government's right to establish
facilities siting criteria.
State Level. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the
safety, standards of service and rates paid to privately owned companies
that provide public utilities in the state. The CPUC currently regulates only
cellular providers which are considered public utilities and have no authority
over the PCS and ESMR providers.
The primary regulation enforced by the CPUC is General Order 159 which
requires that all cellular carriers comply with all local rules and regulations.
Under G.O. 159, cellular facilities may not be constructed until the carrier
demonstrates compliance with all local regulations and obtains the necessary
local permits.
Local Level. Within counties and cities wireless communications facilities are
generally regulated through the land use permitting process under broad
authority to ensure the public health safety and welfare of its citizens.
Some local jurisdictions have adopted specific ordinances or included
sections within their development codes which establish specific standards
regulating these facilities. Many jurisdictions permit facilities through the
conditional use permit process.
SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES
Staff contacted several local cities known to have specific ordinances
regulating wireless communication sites. West Covina also conducted an
informal survey and found in cities that had not adopted a specific
ordinance, CUP's were generally utilized in commercial, and industrial zones.
The City of West Covina put together a matrix, which summarizes the
standards of four cities in California (attached).
Of the cities surveyed it was generally found that the adopted or interim
ordinances included provisions limiting the height of monopoles, defining the
minimum distance between poles and in some cities distance from
residential zones or uses. All ordinances included screening requirements for
antennas and equipment cabinets. Several ordinances included abandonment
provisions.
San Dimas' unique ordinances requires each local provider to submit a
"wireless communication facilities master plan" identifying all proposed local
sites. Further, any additions or alterations to this plan requires City review
and approval. In all zones except Industrial, San Dimas requires facilities
be building -mounted or integrated into an existing structure, and requires
freestanding facilities to be designed as public art, subject to approval of
the City Council.
5
DIAMOND BAR'S REGULATIONS
Diamond Bar utilizes the current Planning and Zoning Code to regulate
wireless communications facilities.
The City reviews wireless communication facilities through the conditional
use permit and development review processes. Both processes are
discretionary and require the City to exercise judgment in approving or
disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the
public agency determines conformity with applicable ordinances or other
laws. Projects are subject to one or both of these processes, depending
upon in which zones they are located.
According to the Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.56.010 "a
conditional use" means "a use because of characteristics peculiar to it, or
because of size, technological processes or type of equipment, or because
of its location with reference to surrounding street or highway width, traffic
generation or other demands, on public services, requires special
consideration relative to placement at specific locations or zones... to ensure
proper integration with other existing or permitted uses in the same zone
or zones." The City may impose reasonable conditions to ensure proper
integration with surrounding land uses. For example, conditions may be
imposed limiting the height of a monopole to minimize its visibility from
surrounding properties. Screening of antennas may be imposed to insure
the integration of the site with existing building. Painting of the antennas
may be required to minimize their view from the street or surrounding
properties. Landscaping or walls may be required. to screen equipment
cabinets. The City's CUP process requires Planning Commission review and
mailed notification of surrounding property owners within a 500 foot radius
of the project site.
The Development Review process is authorized by the Planning and Zoning
Code. Chapter 22.72. The purpose of this process is to implement the
General Plan which "promotes high aesthetic and functional standards 'to
complement the physical, economic and social character of Diamond Bar" by
ensuring that new development within the City is well designed and
compatible with existing development. This chapter also authorizes the City
to impose project conditions to ensure that the intent of this chapter has
been fulfilled. According to this Chapter, these conditions may include
requirements for screening and buffering of adjacent properties, installation
of fences and walls; requirements for installation and maintenance of
landscaping and any other conditions which are necessary to "ensure
compatibility with surrounding use, to preserve the public health safety and
6
welfare and to enable the Planning Commission or Director in making the
required findings."
Project's subject to Development Review are heard before the Planning
Commission and notification is required for property owners within a 300'
radius of the project site. Generally, projects which are subject to the
CUP process are also subject to Development Review, concurrently
processed.
Projects which do not meet the criteria for development review are subject
to Administrative Development Review, which requires a public hearing
before the Community Development Director acting as the hearing officer
and requires mailed notification of property owners within 300' of the
project site. The Development Review chapter also authorizes the City to
impose conditions of approval on these projects.
The attached map indicates the majority of wireless communications sites
(12 of 17) within the City were approved by a CUP. It is important to
note that every site within the City was subject to discretionary review and
the public hearing process.
The City's current Code permits wireless communications facilities by right
within the C-1, (Restricted Business Zone), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), C-3
(Unlimited Commercial Zone), and CM (Commercial Manufacturing Zone).
Within these zones, monopoles require CUP approval.
Within the CPD (Commercial Planned Development) and * M-1 (Light
Manufacturing Zone) facilities and towers are permitted subject to a CUP.
Within the M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing Zone) wireless
communications facilities and towers are permitted by right.
Within the R-1 (Single -Family Residence Zone) R-2 (Two -Family Residence
Zone) and R-3 (Unlimited Multiple Residence Zone) facilities and monopoles
require conditional use permit approval. In every case, facilities in zones in
which they are permitted by right are subject 'to the development review
process. Examples that were approved through this process include the
Radisson Hotel and the facility Torito Lane.
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
The design and location of wireless communications sites is determined by
several factors. Sites must be close enough to the caller to receive the
signal generated by a half -watt portable phone. Sites must be far enough
7
from one another to eliminate cross -talk, and sites must be located way
from sources of interference (i.e. tall buildings, large bodies of water) which
will cause signal distortion and poor communication quality.
Height is one of the most important considerations when locating a site
because wireless communication antennas function on a line -of -sight
transmission. Antennas must be placed at precise heights in relation to
one another in order to transmit and receive signals. Therefore, topography
plays a major role when determining antenna heights. Other considerations
include availability of road access, electric powers, land based telephone
lines and/or microwave link capability, structural capacity for equipment
support and maximum coverage in the desired area with minimal sites.
Topography constrains the number and location of future sites. It may be
possible to locate future sites adjacent to the freeway, at Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard, Brea Canyon Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Tres Hermanos Ranch (Diamond Bar Ranch High School) to capture the
maximum number of users. However, live radio frequency tests determine
the feasibility. Where one carrier is located, generally others will follow.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS, CITY OPPORTUNITIES
Staff found that public entities and individuals can earn from $500.00 to
'$1200.00 per month per provider depending on the criticality of the
location by leasing property for wireless communication facilities,. One
provider ' identified a site in downtown Los Angeles which was leased at
$2,000.00 a month.
Based upon the locational criteria outlined above, it does not appear that
there is any City owned property that would be suitable at the present
time to take advantage of this opportunity.
CONCLUSIONS
This report presents an overview of the many issues surrounding the
wireless communications industry and its impact on the current and future
development of the City.
The number and location of the sites within the City have been identified
graphically by the attached map. Based upon the existing pattern of site
location and the locational criteria identified, it appears that a "master plan"
is established, which can predict with reasonable accuracy where future
sites will be located. The Commission also expressed concerns regarding
the potential for unlimited co -location at existing sites. As illustrated by
s
the Walnut Pools facility, this issue appears to be a function of the
locational criteria identified in this report. Additional carriers will not locate
where they cannot obtain adequate reception. The City, through its
discretionary process, can modify or even deny any future carrier that will
unduly impact an existing site.
The City is concerned with the most appropriate and efficient means for
regulating the location, co -location and appearance of these facilities. The
survey revealed local cities are grappling with the same issues. It was
found that Cities that have adopted regulatory ordinances generally
addressed the same issues that Diamond Bar is currently handling through
the discretionary review process and imposing conditions, such as the
screening of antennas and equipment cabinets, limiting the height of
monopoles and requiring provisions for co -location and abandonment.
The City has taken a pro -active approach in regulating wireless facilities and
insuring their compatibility with surrounding land uses. The original
approval for the Walnut Pools monopole contained requirements for co -
location. Screening conditions have been imposed since the approval of the
first monopole in the City on Prospectors (CUP 90-109).
Through its discretionary review process, City staff and the Planning
Commission has evaluated each proposal on a case -by -case basis. PacBel
was. required to construct a clock tower to screen the 21308 Pathfinder`
facility because of its impacts to surrounding properties. The site at 3333
Brea Canyon was approved unscreened because its rooftop resulted in
minimal aesthetic impacts. Other locations such as Vineyard Bank have
employed "stealth" technology to "hide" the installation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the new Development Code, include specific
development standards tailored to address the concerns the Planning
Commission determines are most critical in addressing the impacts
associated with wireless communications facilities. In the interim it is
believed that the Planning Commission and City staff can adequately
regulate these uses and mitigate their impacts through the discretionary
review process.
Prepared By:
CatherinK Johnson
Senior Planner
n J. ! n u
Assista Plan er
attachments: Diamond Bar Cell Sites
City Matrix
10
Q
Z
FQ-
U)
1—
Z
CW
G
a
O
J
W
w
0
O
S] y 7@
•Vf
O 3 O
C7 N N O O U N
O
N
a)C U
Eoa�
O@ 7 C N.0
oN `
T >
o o N �� � m E o
-0 L.
m a3i E `° 6
E@
O. O@ w N a N
o_ LL a
d
d T N ill U N .O
c m , @ .o
a1
m O @ O O� N O@
W
N U
p 0 0 'p N Vl y j
^�
E" c o
E E
M o d y c o
;�ii's': ..:::::<33; 3>.; •p b
"
U N
c o d E
@ �- O N .0 N T @ 7 (n
c
@
C O C H C CD CO C
N
@ CO O C O U •O 7
@
as�'�mE�cr
Qof.
¢ Q�3�mmn°'cvU
.L.
Q
R�
O O7 N O
c c4 @
VN L U
o cc > 3
p
caa) C (a
,:EC'.Ei. "C..
@ O •(n 'O N
C N (u O u E N •O
p a)
Q. Q
V E O ti
o Q t0 o
i i9 0 2 a) E'
i i.I Li
U T
N .,L~,. _ O d O
E@
U U O@ y d N O U p
'O
'O E in cc 0
'C
O
a) C
S C
d)
fA C @
C @
d
C -0
o E—�
0 0 U E 'D
U C 3 N
U O 3 N
o N o•
E o�
— m m .o 0.5
o o.
c i> o ac �
o r?a c y
c
0 a a c_ o
cc—
G: a)ELc`c
@
N= EEm
°'EUco Uw°'�mN@
(n�Z E�3oc°'ic
�ocU
o ca
E@KNEE@�
d
E
a�
E @
LLI_i;EL€s'.=�cmca
m X�
fl.C°��°'M
a)
Qnnmca
ca@@
o U o
cL @L `y
m� E E
(u 7 E E
Ca
Q din @ 3
w 3 o@ 3
Q E U 3'v
Q E c� 3 n
:i --
E '
o _
O
Q)
__ d
to
Z
m T
w�
,�
a
@ 3
w
ca r> -o
N �
a1 a)
N
U d U
o@
=U=>,
c
su
o
E C.) L c' aic
E a@i C6 0
g�
O:°`ocpi'naci
O>cooc�a
vs
o
C)
0�Qur�
O
c
ca
m
c�
>"
a
at
O N
P1
`R:
r
a
O
O
T7 F223.
y
� y > m
z=
oz�
a:
cn
cc
O E C `1 (rya N N C N
....��.�
y-
p
N
}
O
Z
N W U O (CO
2 C 0>
n-• c'n i° o is c
> >
z<
Z
a> a>
a,
}�Q
„
m no'n o ccCL
yN
(U
L d am 7
n
->
3
cirr
U
=
N O
> m °>U
Co
C <U
O
N CU U
. n
•p
O p
is v
C
co
> 0 _
O L 6I
'8 L
-
m •- c
m
OCL a
n
CL
O
Q g a
'c 'v> Q1 a
a
n n•
ar Q (D Z)
Z
O :D
O ca Z G
3
3�
Q
3 3
3 U= 3
3
3
g< oU 30
o a 0 o
o•= d
o� 3oa
d
m 3
a>
CL)o
m> m
o`
m Q CU
o n o
Z ID
d
Z nna> y LL
LL
LL Z o �
LL a>
Z c>i LL
m:E-L
N
N
o a_Ni
m
N
aa>
U O
L
3 H
a m N
(°
_'NU
L N> N
C
a
Ll O N C N N R C
Q U _'C.
n 0 O C O
U y
0 N U
C r m C U G N N
U p—
m � a> E
Q c E
a U d Q.
� m.. U._
•� p U N U d 7 N C0
m E..._`.a n3 N
(n
a c
E
o
_ N a
c c ca
— II L
o me
cv m( m
cc
�
X C
O O N fU
r
0
D1 C O N
O (U
.}'..-.:........ C U
.II C E N T
to O n _• N
a> E c a U 'U
d O a .O O>
LL .
C a N N C
:o Co
a
- •p
Co to a •� >
c C O O
N75 C U o c
O N II D7 d
C
� C f6 O N` tU
o U N
- U N-r-
2
co R C C
3 L
N L 3 C 7 C'
nO U
N
O
"CC" N a
Q O
O N "
T
U �• C •N G3
O W
` d O O C y
C
N N C II
3 0 a N N
nLL n L O O N'
yE
``IEC
�oN � �
�Tm�>�EE
QQC ac,
..
O O w
0c�
,.. ��oV
o
oQI c`
E(=�
O II
O O U
C jU
O 2 o
O(oN
C L
O O
Z U) N
2 2Bm m
Q
E N a 37 U m 3 N
ca
C
O
C
p
C C
O tU O
N iU .` N
C
O O
ti •U N
m
ym
ym cym
coca
E h
E v
E H li op E N
-_2o E w
Q
U-
U.S
U-.. (f
C Uo
E
U
O
c
c
c
: o
m
ca
N
Q
u3
cd
O U
as
�/
--
N 4
4
on
bQ
bHyHO
,
10 Nor
r'`W
a `�S V1EY1
2 Z :
I rbbb
�yd. ESp �
J � CN
Fo Rg N EEQC a�Dn pulOw EnT�
t g��
_
-----
3
Saa��N
two
?tg'a
ti
®•,. ,V" Mtn Xlo- o -Wil, U
-_vP Nq i ?�-3lU1Nn"Lai bSyt Q: 9PPu b37� •Yy�l wa8 oUH3ddp
A
ONOItiVI ° 2� y d��rd ss� 1 Z Y y�R�oONO�Yb oq�rrbs=bq N maN'Oi
1 0 a ■ \ot.,. � •+Y e cRe bi p , H f � oo /O =
/L'tp
;' tiOQ/ •,`J �p A'rS X+ p,.g c,'2Ya O`��O
J e° Orl V POOSP sP AUp o OR �tS• gy 'f No ®jt V UR3 ® � �
od
/ U<7 Nb z � y •2' o CLOUD D(1 µ,' � Qo J` 3 t nOU'J y n a � ' Tea �p�T I('A •{',� __
5 .: �..• N w pED v� _-___.`-_.._.`bM„- _._ _..__. yy. (- *-,._- '' gTr �Np
,g �ou+i M D P �-■ 1 ]n10p \20�.6 \ 4 / r b "A I�i
+� JbbbdJNl (Ilu IIOIO d �e �`��'� �� � r '� ttd`yp e°^TL_ a 'l''' ��_Y �J �i *O 1 r �■moo;,
y p
-i �7Rlo 'uo4 wo
cpSEPa�`aa �- a a
OU11114d330 OUO3 olvd� lr(IyOf y 01v.i .y ° ,n\ �Q 8,7
\ 3 z
�d Ji, you �oNnaw ayy
uo
WJ �W 1 3
AlW
® Z o 13•hd37�'r'u�� AN all
YO b
I
CC CE R1 .[ ,.1� do SbS
� � N N N N N O �ll t r DOlUD
F UE-�UUE P1C40.1W 0.1(� aka/ U �� fMEEp sa
$Y l � ADEC p1� Sys Ai11Vn
U � pVE b
C
y ppN p
3Atl o .� w I1151 pnPE On
14 ? ; f-1 o OOQ'.�IVKIM ,d
51U347PH1S'�' w o p �I
N L N O
a Q t, A i 'O o Du m1 u3nus G ulnE on
CEN x
'� ❑ 1 C q bA OA A s� O •noturn tml llN
R P i g 0 N V3d8
p11n pn c
O �+' C. U 01 y7 P4
-PINEfALLS
fn •„O "O ^O �. ..O C O O �, '7 U U N \,-- —
G IAA A ~
Lr.'(c-,:4 2 �O 0El
-I--d b S
3
PO p 6 Pftlt tt em
C7 a a a c7 c7 a+ � U U Q1 � N � yE Y w d Mtn y
V•I O O O V1 O 00 C7 d' O In O C j A (� 3nv �, e o a cNEPHL
In O O O N In 0 O M d' O V1 N O ,..� pp tlOD i# N Q N d P o 0
M Qt O M ^+ CD 'I I-- 't in I p 00
.�-1 �-( N N M ^� N .--1 „'� •"( [� [� d• M 'T 3 DIhW31p tfINNV J%j �'! ,>
N N N N N N N N + M N (mil N N N N d \ �■ S�8 °b
N ( l
M d• In In to CD
O E►AON3 - - �n lriuoty D
N N 1-4 N � .--1 ti r� � ti,,AantnlcE��N
O� N VD l� M , , i 1 , 1 i i i
ct d' 4 Vl Qt OT oa pl Ot O� rn Ov �• d� "lye` x
(ON
c7N
Cl+ UUUUQUUU¢U.Q UQUUU ��� 1, 3 &
P� U U 00
U\
0
o
r \
IGE�`
�
zd�
•'
Wy
6\,
J\
r �
JLH boy ,.Y�ibJ35
L
Ij� HS P� y
S9' T\aTV D7ag
SOS CHf
`EPtWitNG PIN od'p
dM2�:j��
no
13A
—EI
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development
SUBJECT: Development Code Information Update
DATE: January 23, 1997
Attached for your information is an article prepared by staff summarizing the development
code survey results. The article will appear in the February issue of the Windmill. Also
included for discussion purposes is a preliminary list of topics for the proposed Town Hall
meeting prepared by the consultants and staff.
attachments.
JDS/CJ:cj
RESIDENTS EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON DEVELOPMENT CODE ISSUES
The results are in! In the October 1996 issue of the Windmill the City
included a Development Code Survey. The purpose of this survey is to
provide City staff with input on how the citizens of Diamond Bar would like
our City to develop in the future and to identify the issues that are most
important to the community. This input will provide direction for the
preparation of the new Development Code, which is one of the most
important implementation tools of the General Plan.
The General Plan, which was adopted in July of 1995, established the
goals and strategies for future development within the City. The
Development Code will establish the detailed zoning and land use
regulations, development standards and subdivision regulations which
implement the goals and strategies of the General Plan.
The survey consisted of 15 questions, addressing a variety of issues dealing
with the quality of development within the City and what can be done to
improve it. Approximately 230 surveys were returned (approximately 1
of the 19,000 households within the City). Every survey received has been
read in its entirety. The following is a brief summary of the responses to
several of the survey questions.
Respondents were asked to provide a rated response to many of the
questions, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A majority
of the respondent's agreed that residential development within the City is
of high quality, but felt that the quality of commercial development could
be improved. It was "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that "stronger
development regulations need to be adopted by the City to help ensure
better, higher quality development within the future."
Respondents were asked to rate various components of a development
project including architectural design, parking, access, landscaping, etc.,
from the most to the least important. The respondents were able to reach
a consensus on the "most" and "least" important components, rating
superior architectural design as most important and a "wide variety of
different types of business, including offices" as least important.
The Country Hills Towne Center was named as one of the favorite
commercial developments because of its easy access, good parking and
design. The Gateway Corporate Center was also mentioned because of
its design and parking. Commercial developments with a run-down
1
appearance, poor parking, access and congestion were named as "least
favorite."
The Country Estates was named as the favorite residential development
because of its variety of architectural styles, open space and
landscaping. Respondents were generally less specific about their least
favorite residential developments often naming apartments and
condominium developments in general, because of perceived concerns
related to crowding and congestion.
The question "If you could change one thing about the general
appearance of development within the City what would it be?" elicited a
variety of responses. Many respondents were concerned about reducing
traffic congestion and were especially concerned with eliminating the
problem of traffic cutting through residential neighborhoods. The
importance of preserving and enhancing the City's natural beauty was
stressed by many respondents.
Among other concerns cited were excessive commercial vacancies and
improving the appearance of existing commercial development.
Strengthened residential and commercial property maintenance
regulations were also cited as important.
When asked, "What type of development, residential and commercial,
would you like to see in the City that isn't here now?" one of the most
frequent responses was restaurants; specifically, fine dining, as opposed to
fast-food restaurants. Hospitals and medical centers were also a frequent
response. Cultural and performing arts centers were felt to be needed
and desirable, as well as increased opportunities for recreation. Other
respondents felt that more commercial opportunities were needed.
The majority of respondents felt that the appearance and livability of the
City were more important than a developer's return on investment and
that the City should require the highest standards of development
possible. Consistent with this position, the majority of respondents also
disagreed with the statement that "The City should strongly encourage
development even if it means lowering standards to encourage it."
Respondents also agreed that the City should establish new commercial
and residential development standards that are comparable to other
communities in the area.
2
The majority of survey respondents feel that existing residential lots sizes in
the City are acceptable. The majority of respondents also believe that
developers should pay the entire cost of public facilities and off -site
improvements needed for their development projects.
Respondents were fairly evenly spilt on whether or not they were satisfied
or dissatisfied with signage in the community and many respondents
stated a preference for "English -only" signage. Several did not want to
see message boards along the freeways.
Once the new development code establishes regulations, they should be
enforced through a Code compliance program. The majority of
respondents agree that the City should pro -actively identify instances of
code violations and require compliance, as opposed to reacting to
violations only when a complaint is filed with the City.
Respondents were evenly split on whether "The land use application and
permit process should be streamlined, allowing decisions on the approval
of routine development projects to be made by the planning staff so that.
the Planning Commission has time to focus on the larger issues."
However, the majority of respondents agreed that the project review and
approval process should take as long as necessary to guarantee a well
designed residential or commercial project.
Finally, survey respondents agreed that some form of business registration
should be implemented to track businesses within the City.
City staff would like to thank all those who took the time and effort to
participate in this survey. This input will be invaluable in creating a
Development Code that is truly reflective of community values.
We welcome your views and comments on the Development Code.
Numerous opportunities remain to participate in the Development Code
process at several proposed public meetings. The date, time and
location of these meetings will be advertised in local newspapers. Further
information may be obtained by contacting the City of Diamond Bar
Community Development at (909) 860-2489 or (909) 396-5676 FAX (909)
861-31 17, City -Online Community Bulletin Board System (909) 860-5463 or
by writing us at the City of Diamond Bar, attention James DeStefano,
Community Development Director, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
M
URB" DESIGN STUDIO Fax (714) 489 9005 Voice: (714) 489-8131 To: Cathy Johnson at: City of Diunond Bar
Fare 2 of 2 Friday. January 10, 1997 8:07
c
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Comprehensive Development Code
List of Potential Discussion Topics for Town Hall Meeting
(Preliminary list January 10,1997)
A. Hillside development - slope/density formula
B. Tree preservation
C. Density ranges for residential development - GP has no minimum densities
D. Parking and access for existing uses//' /Z4112
E. Signs
F. Home -based businesses/home occupations
G. Development review and approval process - thresholds of review (Director, Hearing
Officer, Commission)
H. Zoning Clearance - business license
I. Public notice requirements
J. Nonconforming uses and structures, continuance of,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item: 6.1
To: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
From: James DeStefano, Community Development Di e
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Developmen
Review No. 96-9 - A proposed telecommunications
facility to be located at 24401 Darrin Drive.
Date: January 23, 1997
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9
consist of an application to construct a wireless
telecommunications facility on a portion of property located at
24401 Darrin Drive. The applicants, Cox California PCS and
Pacific Bell Mobile Services, propose to locate and access a
structure upon an existing flat pad area of the lot adjacent to
Armitos Place. The proposed telecommunication facility requires
a noticed public hearing to consider the merits of the request.
In addition, the applicant has requested the removal of the
original tract map restriction prohibiting access to the site
from Armitos Place. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
The City Attorney has advised staff that, in addition to the
above customary notice, the proposed removal of the access
restriction requires a notice to all property owners within the
boundaries of the original subdivision and within a 500 foot
radius of the exterior boundary of the tract.
Although a public hearing has been previously noticed,
consideration by the Planning Commission must be postponed in
order to properly advertise the applicants proposed project.
Accordingly the applicants have been notified and a letter has
been mailed to all those previously noticed indicating the need
to reschedule the matter.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to
reschedule and readvertise the public hearing.
Attachment
jds
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development
SUBJECT: Development Code Information Update
DATE: January 23, 1997
Attached for your information is an article prepared by staff summarizing the development
code survey results. The article will appear in the February issue of the Windmill. Also
included for discussion purposes is a preliminary list of topics for the proposed Town Hall
meeting prepared by the consultants and staff.
attachments.
JDS/CJ: cj
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Dir r
SUBJECT: Median break on Diamond Bar Blvd between and
Avenue and Clear Creek Canyon Drive
DATE: January 22, 1997
As previously reported, a discussion concerning the referenced
subject was scheduled for the Traffic and Transportation
Commission's January 1997 agenda. According to David Liu, Deputy
Public Works Director, the referenced subject has been
re -scheduled for February 13, 1997.
Robert S. Huff
Mayor
Carol Herrera
Mayor Pro Tern
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Clair W. Harmony
Council Member
Gary H. Werner
Council Member
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax: (909) 861-3117 • City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
January 20, 1997
RE: Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 28, 1997
for Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review
96-9, a request for an unmanned telecommunications facility
located at 24401 Darrin Dr.
To: Property Owners within a 500' radius of 24401 Darrin Drive
Recently the City advertised a public hearing for the above
mentioned item. Since that time certain issues have arisen in
association with this project that are unlikely to be resolved prior
to the scheduled January 28, 1997 pubic hearing date and it is
anticipated that the hearing date for this project will be
rescheduled. Property owners will be notified of the time, date
and location of the rescheduled public hearing prior to the meeting
date. If you have any questions, please contact, me at the
Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676.
Sincerely,
Community Development Department
Planning Division
cat 'C- ' - -50-L)
Catherine Johnson,
Senior Planner
Road,
It
Recycled paper
North Subject Site
(not to soa)c)
' vn`
06I 'alS `-da AaZdOD 'a 099IZ j
RVg CINOLivIQ AO Alla
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3U3H a103
3U3H GIO.3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES DESTEFANO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI
SUBJECT: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 20, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission requested information on the
current number of wireless communication facilities within the City, the
potential and capacity for. new sites, the limits of co -location, and other
issues relevant to this topic.
In response to this request, staff has prepared the following report. This
report addresses the Planning Commission's issues and provides an update
on the current status of technology within this field and outlook for the
future, the regulatory framework, local government ordinances and current
City regulations.
Staff would like to acknowledge the assistance of representatives from L.A.
Cellular, Cox California and The Keith Companies who provided valuable
information and answered numerous questions in assisting staff in the
preparation of this report.
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Three types of wireless telecommunications systems are currently utilized;
Cellular Systems (analog), Personal Communications Services (PCS) (digital)
and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) (analog-digital).
Analog transmission signals electronically replicate and amplify voice
messages as they are carried from transmitting antenna to receiving
antenna. The drawback of this system is that it tends to amplify
electronic noise or static, which may interfere with conversation.
1
In a digital system, voice messages are converted into digits (zeroes and
ones) representing sound intensities at specific points in time. The
advantage of this technology is that background noise becomes inaudible
and dropped connections are less frequent. Additionally, digital technology
allows more users to access the system, provides fraud protection through
the use of code encryption, and reduces call eavesdropping.
Cellular, PCS and ESMR, facilities are similar in that they are all based on
systems composed of interconnecting cell sites utilizing freestanding
monopoles and/or roof -mounted antennas and accessory equipment cabinets.
However, PCS antennas usually serve areas that span less than five miles
in any direction and therefore require twice as many sites. Additionally, PCS
systems generally _require shorter antennas.
LOCAL PROVIDERS
There are five main providers which serve the Southern California region
(excluding San Diego). These providers include Airtouch and LA Cellular
which provide cellular (analog) telephone service, NexTel which provides
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) (analog-digital) service and Pacific
Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications which provide Person
Communication Services (PCS) (digital) service.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE CITY
Since the City's incorporation, seventeen (17) sites have been
approved and
two (2) more are pending approval. The Diamond Bar Cell
Sites Exhibit
Map (attached) delineates all approved and pending facilities.
These sites
are clustered in areas where optimum service is possible and
the provider's
locational criteria is met. The Radisson Inn (#5, and
#14), Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard (#9, and #12), Diamond Bar
High School
(#2, #3, #4 and #15) and Walnut Pools (#6 and #13) sites
utilize co -
location. These site are located adjacent to or near the
freeways or
heavily traveled roadways and capture the maximum number of users.
Additionally, the sites are located within two (2) to three
(3) miles of
each other due to the number of users and Diamond
Bar's hillside
topography.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues licenses to wireless
communications carriers and, establishes the geographic areas in which they
may operate. These licenses are auctioned to providers, generating billions
of dollars in revenue for the federal government.
FP
Licenses are issued for certain frequency bands of the radio spectrum,
limiting the number of wireless communication providers in a specific service
area. In order to facilitate the issuance of licenses, the FCC has divided
the radio spectrum into six blocks, alphabetized from A through F.
In the early 1980's the FCC offered cellular providers the opportunity to
apply for licenses to provide cellular services in 306 metropolitan service
areas and 428 rural areas. Because of numerous applications the FCC
began to assign local telephone companies enough radio spectrum to allow
non -telephone companies to offer cellular communications in their individual
areas. By the end of 1984 nearly every major metropolitan area in the
United States had been assigned to a carrier.
Because of increasing demands on wireless service, in 1994 the FCC
auctioned radio spectrum to PCS providers. Enough spectrum was
auctioned to allow at least two new service providers in every market.
Another auction was held in early 1996 to auction off the C block. In
August of 1996 the D and E block auctions began and have been recently
completed. This results in over 500 providers nationwide with at least
twelve (12) providers in most major metropolitan areas.
PCS providers have been mandated by the FCC to establish their network
within a specific time period in order to insure that radio spectrums are
used efficiently. Under licensing requirements, all PCS providers must
construct facilities that provide coverage to one-third of its service area in
five years and two-thirds coverage within ten years.
According to the San Diego Association of Governments (December 1995),
Wireless Communication Facilities Issue Paper, the number of wireless
telephone users in the United States has grown from approximately 10
million in 1992 to 24 million in 1994. This figure does not include users of
paging systems, ESMR or PCS systems. Further, according to Zoning News
(April 1996) industry analysts estimate that more than 15,000 cellular
towers were built in the last 14 years to serve 25 million users. It is
estimated there will be 167 million PCS users by the year 2003 which will
requiring an estimated 100,000 cellular towers. Originally,' less than 2
million users were estimated by the year 2000.
With FCC's auctioning of additional radio spectrum blocks the City can
anticipate additional providers and requests for sites in the next several
years. It is difficult to predict the precise number.
3
NEW TECHNOLOGY
According to an industry representative, the next few years will see a shift
from analog to digital technology. Digital technology may require some
retrofitting of existing analog sites because antennas and equipment
cabinets, which tend to be smaller. Digital facilities have a shorter range
which may require some additional facilities to fill in service gaps.
Although advancements in technology will result in smaller antennas and
equipment cabinets, monopoles will probably remain the same height.
Twenty years hence, it is speculated that global satellite technology will
eliminate the need for antennas.
Other forms of wireless communication facilities may be established within
the City in the future, for example, wireless computer modems. Due to
rapid technological industry advancements the City may receive requests to
establish other forms of wireless communications facilities.
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Level. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an
independent federal agency responsible to congress. The FCC regulates
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire satellite
and cable. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles
all FCC domestic wireless telecommunication programs and policies, except
satellite communications.
FCC licensing requires that all cellular and PCS providers comply with safety
standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE) established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields.
The most important recent federal legislation impacting wireless
communication is •the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, passed by
congress in January of 1996. This act prohibits local governments from
allowing one carrier and excluding another, and it also bars state and local
governments from regulating facilities because of the environmental effects
of radio frequency emission as long as facilities comply with FCC
regulations. The act acknowledges local government's right to establish
facilities siting criteria.
State Level. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the
safety, standards of service and rates paid to privately owned companies
that provide public utilities in the state. The CPUC currently regulates only
4
cellular providers which are considered public utilities and have no authority
over the PCS and ESMR providers.
The primary regulation enforced by the CPUC is General Order 159 which
requires that all cellular carriers comply with all local rules and regulations.
Under G.O. 159, cellular facilities may not be constructed until the carrier
demonstrates compliance with all local regulations and obtains the necessary
local permits.
Local Level. Within counties and cities wireless communications facilities are
generally regulated through the land use permitting process under broad
authority to ensure the public health safety and welfare of its citizens.
Some local jurisdictions have adopted specific ordinances or included
sections within their development codes which establish specific standards
regulating these facilities. Many jurisdictions permit facilities through the
conditional use permit process.
SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES
Staff contacted several local cities known to have specific ordinances
regulating wireless communication sites. West Covina also, conducted an
informal survey and found in cities that had not adopted a specific
ordinance, CUP's were generally utilized in commercial and industrial zones.
The City of West Covina put together a matrix, which summarizes the
standards of four cities in California (attached).
Of the cities surveyed it was generally found that the adopted or interim
ordinances included provisions limiting the height of monopoles, defining the
minimum distance between poles and in some cities distance from
residential zones or uses. All ordinances included screening requirements for
antennas and equipment cabinets. Several ordinances included abandonment
provisions.
San Dimas' unique ordinances requires each local provider to submit a
"wireless communication facilities master plan" identifying all proposed local
sites. Further, any additions or alterations to this plan requires City review
and approval. In all zones except Industrial, San Dimas requires facilities
be building -mounted or integrated into an existing structure, and requires
freestanding facilities to be designed as public art, subject to approval of
the City Council.
s
DIAMOND BAR'S REGULATIONS
Diamond Bar utilizes the current Planning and Zoning Code to regulate
wireless communications facilities.
The City reviews wireless communication facilities through the conditional
use permit and development review processes. Both processes are
discretionary and require the City to exercise judgment in approving or
disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the
public agency determines conformity with applicable ordinances or other
laws. Projects are subject to one or both of these processes, depending
upon in which zones they are located.
According to the Planning and Zoning Code' Section 22.56.010 "a
conditional use" means "a use because of characteristics peculiar to it, or
because of size, technological processes or type of equipment, or because
of its location with reference to surrounding street or highway width, traffic
generation or other demands on public services, requires special
consideration relative to placement at specific locations or zones... to ensure
proper integration with other existing or permitted uses in the same zone
or zones." The City may impose reasonable conditions to ensure proper
integration with surrounding land uses. For example, conditions may be
imposed limiting the height of a monopole to minimize its visibility from
surrounding properties. Screening of antennas may be imposed to insure
the integration of the site with existing building. Painting of the antennas
may be required to minimize their view from the street or surrounding
properties. Landscaping or walls may be requiredto screen equipment
cabinets. The City's CUP process requires Planning Commission review and
mailed notification of surrounding property owners within a 500 foot radius
of the project site.
The Development Review process is authorized by the Planning and Zoning
Code. Chapter 22.72. The purpose of this process is to implement the
General Plan which "promotes high aesthetic and functional standards to
complement the physical, economic and social character of Diamond Bar" by
ensuring that new development within the City is well designed and
compatible with existing development. This chapter also authorizes the City
to impose project conditions to ensure that the intent of this chapter has
been fulfilled. According to this Chapter, these conditions may include
requirements for screening and buffering of adjacent properties, installation
of fences and walls; requirements for installation and maintenance of
landscaping and any other conditions which are necessary to "ensure
compatibility with surrounding use, to preserve the public health safety and
6
welfare and to enable the Planning Commission or Director in making the
required findings."
Project's subject to Development Review are heard before the Planning
Commission and notification is required for property owners within a 300'
radius of the project site. Generally, projects which are subject to the
CUP process are also subject to Development Review, concurrently
processed.
Projects which do not meet the criteria for development review are subject
to Administrative Development Review, which requires a public hearing
before the Community Development Director acting as the hearing officer
and requires mailed notification of property owners within 300' of the
project site. The Development Review chapter also authorizes the City to
impose conditions of approval on these projects.
The attached map indicates the majority of wireless communications sites
(12 of 17) within the City were approved by a CUP. It is important to
note that every site within the City was subject to discretionary review and
the public hearing process.
The City's current Code permits wireless communications facilities by right
within the C-1, (Restricted Business Zone), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), C-3
(Unlimited Commercial Zone), and CM (Commercial Manufacturing Zone).
Within these zones, monopoles require CUP approval.
Within the CPD (Commercial Planned Development) and ' M-1 (Light
Manufacturing Zone) facilities and towers are permitted subject to a CUP.
Within the M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing Zone) wireless
communications facilities and towers are permitted by right.
Within the R-1 (Single -Family Residence Zone) R-2 (Two -Family Residence
Zone) and R-3 (Unlimited Multiple Residence Zone) facilities and monopoles
require conditional use permit approval. In every case, facilities in zones in
which they are permitted by right are subject to the development review
process. Examples that were approved through this process include the
Radisson Hotel and the facility Torito Lane.
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
The design and location of wireless communications sites is determined by
several factors. Sites must be close enough to the caller to receive the
signal generated by a half -watt portable phone. Sites must be far enough
7
from one another to eliminate cross -talk, and sites must be located way
from sources of interference (i.e. tall buildings, large bodies of water) which
will cause signal distortion and poor communication quality.
Height is one of the most important considerations when locating a site
because wireless communication antennas function on a line -of -sight
transmission. Antennas must be placed at precise heights in relation to
one another in order to transmit and receive signals. Therefore, topography
plays a major role when determining antenna heights. Other considerations
include availability of road access, electric powers, land based telephone
lines and/or microwave link capability, structural capacity for equipment
support and maximum coverage in the desired area with minimal sites.
Topography constrains the number and location of future sites. It may be
possible to locate future sites adjacent to the freeway, at Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard, Brea Canyon Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Tres Hermanos Ranch (Diamond Bar Ranch High School) to capture the
maximum number of users. However, live radio frequency tests determine
the feasibility. Where one carrier is located, generally others will follow.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS, CITY OPPORTUNITIES
Staff found that public entities and individuals can earn from $500.00 to
$1200.00 per month per provider depending on the criticality of the
location by leasing property for wireless communication facilities,. One
provider identified a site in downtown Los Angeles which was leased at
$2,000.00 a month.
Based upon the locational criteria outlined above, it does not appear that
there is any City owned property that would be suitable at the present
time to take advantage of this opportunity.
CONCLUSIONS
This report presents an overview of the many issues surrounding the
wireless communications industry and its impact on the current and future
development of the City.
The number and location of the sites within the City have been identified
graphically by the attached map. Based upon the existing pattern of site
location and the locational criteria identified, it appears that a "master plan"
is established, which can predict with reasonable accuracy where future
sites will be located. The Commission also expressed concerns regarding
the potential for unlimited co -location at existing sites. As illustrated by
8
the Walnut Pools facility, this issue appears to be a function of the
locational criteria identified in this report. Additional carriers will not locate
where they cannot obtain adequate reception. The City, through its
discretionary process, can modify or even deny any future carrier that will
unduly impact an existing site.
The City is concerned with the most appropriate and efficient means for
regulating the location, co -location and appearance of these facilities. The
survey revealed local cities are grappling with the same issues. It was
found that Cities that have adopted regulatory ordinances generally
addressed the same issues •that Diamond Bar is currently handling through
the discretionary review process and imposing conditions, such as the
screening of antennas and equipment cabinets, limiting the height of
monopoles and requiring provisions for co -location and abandonment.
The City has taken a pro -active approach in regulating wireless facilities and
insuring their compatibility with surrounding land uses. The original
approval for the Walnut Pools monopole contained requirements for co -
location. Screening conditions have been imposed since the approval of the
first monopole in the City on Prospectors (CUP 90-109).
Through its discretionary review process, City staff and the Planning
Commission has evaluated each proposal on a case -by -case basis. PacBel
was required to construct a clock tower to screen the 21308 Pathfinder
facility because of its impacts to surrounding properties. The site at 3333
Brea Canyon was approved unscreened because its rooftop resulted in
minimal aesthetic impacts. Other locations such as Vineyard Bank have
employed "stealth" technology to "hide" the installation.
9
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JAMES DESTEFANO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI
SUBJECT: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 20, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission requested information on the
current number of wireless communication facilities within the City, the
potential and capacity for new sites, the limits of co -location, and other
issues relevant to this topic.
In response to this request, staff has prepared the following report. This
report addresses the Planning Commission's issues and provides an update
on the current status of technology within this field and outlook for the
future, the regulatory framework, local government ordinances and current
City regulations.
Staff would like to acknowledge the assistance of representatives from L.A.
Cellular, Cox California and The Keith Companies who provided valuable
information and answered numerous questions in assisting staff in the
preparation of this report.
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Three types of wireless telecommunications systems are currently utilized;
Cellular Systems (analog), Personal Communications Services (PCS) (digital)
and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) (analog-digital).
Analog transmission signals electronically replicate and amplify voice
messages as they are carried from transmitting antenna to receiving
antenna. The drawback of this system is that it tends to amplify
electronic noise or static, which may interfere with conversation.
1
In a digital system, voice messages are converted into digits (zeroes and
ones) representing sound intensities at specific points in time. The
advantage of this technology is that background noise becomes inaudible
and dropped connections are less frequent. Additionally, digital technology
allows more users to access the system, provides fraud protection through
the use of code encryption, and reduces call eavesdropping.
Cellular, PCS and ESMR, facilities are similar in that they are all based on
systems composed of interconnecting cell sites utilizing freestanding
monopoles and/or roof -mounted antennas and accessory equipment cabinets.
However, PCS antennas usually serve areas that span less than five miles
in any direction and therefore require twice as many sites. Additionally, PCS
systems generally require shorter antennas.
LOCAL PROVIDERS
There are five main providers which serve the Southern California region
(excluding San Diego). These providers include Airtouch and LA Cellular
which provide cellular (analog) telephone service, NexTel which provides
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) (analog-digital) service and Pacific
Bell Mobile . Services and Cox Communications which provide Person
Communication Services (PCS) (digital) service.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE CITY
Since the City's incorporation, seventeen (17) sites have been approved and
two (2) more are pending approval. The Diamond Bar Cell Sites Exhibit
Map (attached) delineates all approved and pending facilities. These sites
are clustered in areas where optimum service is possible and the provider's
locational criteria is met. The Radisson Inn (#5, and #14), Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard (#9, and #12), Diamond Bar High School
(#2, #3, #4 and #15) and Walnut Pools (#6 and #13) . sites utilize co -
location. These site are located adjacent to or near the freeways or
heavily traveled roadways and capture the maximum number of users.
Additionally, the sites are located within two (2) to three (3) miles of
each other due to the number of users and Diamond Bar's hillside
topography.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues licenses to wireless
communications carriers and establishes the geographic areas in which they
may operate. These licenses are auctioned to providers, generating billions
of dollars in revenue for the federal government.
2
Licenses are issued for certain frequency bands of the radio spectrum,
limiting the number of wireless communication providers in a specific service
area. In order to facilitate the issuance of licenses, the FCC has divided
the radio spectrum into six blocks, alphabetized from A through F.
In the early 1980's the FCC offered cellular providers the opportunity to
apply for licenses to provide cellular services in 306 metropolitan service
areas and 428 rural areas. Because of numerous applications the FCC
began to assign local telephone companies enough radio spectrum to allow
non -telephone companies to offer cellular communications in their individual
areas. By the end of 1984 nearly every major metropolitan area in the
United States had been assigned to a carrier.
Because of increasing - demands on wireless service, in 1994 the FCC
auctioned radio spectrum to PCS providers. Enough spectrum was
auctioned to allow at least two new service providers in every market.
Another auction was held in early 1996 to auction off the C block. In
August of 1996 the D and E block auctions began and have been recently
completed. This results in over 500 providers nationwide with at least
twelve (12) providers in most major metropolitan areas.
PCS providers have been mandated by the FCC to establish their network
within a specific time period in order �-to insure that radio spectrums are
used efficiently. Under licensing requirements, all PCS providers must
construct facilities that provide coverage to one-third of its service area in
five years and two-thirds coverage within ten years.
According to the San Diego Association of Governments (December 1995),
Wireless Communication Facilities Issue Paper, the number of wireless
telephone users in the United States has grown from approximately 10
million in 1992 to 24 million in 1994. This figure does not include users of
paging systems, ESMR or PCS systems. -Further, according to Zoning News
(April 1996) industry analysts estimate that more than 15,000 cellular
towers were built in the last 14 years to serve 25 million users. It is
estimated there will be 167 million PCS users by the year 2003 which will
requiring an estimated 100,000 cellular towers. Originally, less than 2
million users were estimated by the year 2000.
With FCC's auctioning of additional radio spectrum blocks the City can
anticipate additional providers and requests for sites in the next several
years. It is difficult to predict the precise number.
3
NEW TECHNOLOGY
According to an industry representative, the next few years will see a shift
from analog to digital technology. Digital technology may require some
retrofitting of existing analog sites because antennas and equipment
cabinets, which tend to be smaller. Digital facilities have a shorter range
which may require some additional facilities to fill in service gaps.
Although advancements in technology will result in smaller antennas and
equipment cabinets, monopoles will probably remain the same height.
Twenty years hence, it is speculated that global satellite technology will
eliminate the need for antennas.
Other forms of wireless communication facilities may be established within
the City in the future, for example, wireless computer modems. Due to
rapid technological industry advancements the City may receive requests to
establish other forms of wireless communications facilities.
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Level. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an
independent federal agency responsible to congress. The FCC regulates
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire satellite
and cable. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles
all FCC domestic wireless telecommunication programs and policies, except�-
satellite communications.
FCC licensing requires that all cellular and PCS providers comply with safety
standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE) established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields.
The most important recent federal legislation impacting wireless
communication is •the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, passed by
congress in January of 1996. This act prohibits local governments from
allowing one carrier and excluding another, and it also bars state and local
governments from regulating facilities because of the environmental effects
of radio frequency emission as long as facilities comply with FCC
regulations. The act acknowledges local government's right to establish
facilities siting criteria.
State Level. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the
safety, standards of service and rates paid to privately owned companies
that provide public utilities in the state. The CPUC currently regulates only
cellular providers which are considered public utilities and have no authority
over the PCS and ESMR providers.
The primary regulation enforced by the CPUC is General Order 159 which
requires that all cellular carriers comply with all local rules and regulations.
Under G.O. 159, cellular facilities may not be constructed until the carrier
demonstrates compliance with all local regulations and obtains the necessary
local permits.
Local Level. Within counties and cities wireless communications facilities are
generally regulated through the land use permitting process under broad
authority to ensure the public health safety and welfare of its citizens.
Some local jurisdictions have adopted specific ordinances or included
sections within their development codes which establish specific standards
regulating these facilities. Many jurisdictions permit facilities through the
conditional use permit process.
SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES
Staff contacted several local cities known to have specific ordinances
regulating wireless communication sites. West Covina also conducted an
informal survey and found in cities that had not adopted a specific
ordinance, CUP's were generally utilized in commercial and industrial zones.
The City of West Covina put together a matrix, which summarizes the
standards of four cities in California (attached).
Of the cities surveyed it was generally found that the adopted or interim
ordinances included provisions limiting the height of monopoles, defining the
minimum distance between poles and in some cities distance from
residential zones or uses. All ordinances included screening requirements for
antennas and equipment cabinets. Several ordinances included abandonment
provisions.
San Dimas' unique ordinances requires each local provider to submit a
"wireless communication facilities master plan" identifying all proposed local
sites. Further, any additions or alterations to this plan requires City review
and approval. In all zones except Industrial, San Dimas requires facilities
be building -mounted or integrated into an existing structure, and requires
freestanding facilities to be designed as public art, subject to approval of
the City Council.
s
DIAMOND BAR'S REGULATIONS
Diamond Bar utilizes the- current Planning and Zoning Code to regulate
wireless communications facilities.
The City reviews wireless communication facilities through the conditional
use permit and development review processes. Both processes are
discretionary and require the City to exercise judgment in approving or
disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the
public agency determines conformity with applicable ordinances or other
laws. Projects are subject to one or both of these processes, depending
upon in which zones they are located.
According to the Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.56.010 "a
conditional use" means "a use because of characteristics peculiar to it, or
because of size, technological processes or type of equipment, or because
of its location with reference to surrounding street or highway width, traffic
generation or other demands on public services, requires special
consideration relative to placement at specific locations or zones... to ensure
proper integration with other existing or permitted uses in the same zone
or zones." The City may impose reasonable conditions to ensure proper
integration with surrounding land uses. For example, conditions may be
imposed limiting the height of a monopole to minimize its visibility from
surrounding properties. Screening of antennas may be imposed to insure
the integration of the site with existing building. Painting of the antennas
may be required to minimize their view from the street or surrounding
properties. Landscaping or walls may be required. to screen equipment
cabinets. The City's CUP process requires Planning Commission review and
mailed notification of surrounding property owners within a 500 foot radius
of the project site.
The Development Review process is authorized by the Planning and Zoning
Code. Chapter 22.72. The purpose of this process is to implement the
General Plan which "promotes high aesthetic and functional standards 'to
complement the physical, economic and social character of Diamond Bar" by
ensuring that new development within the City is well designed and
compatible with existing development. This chapter also authorizes the City
to impose project conditions to ensure that the intent of this chapter has
been fulfilled. According to this Chapter, these conditions may include
requirements for screening and buffering of adjacent properties, installation
of fences and walls; requirements for installation and maintenance of
landscaping and any other conditions which are necessary to "ensure
compatibility with surrounding use, to preserve the public health safety and
6
welfare and to' enable the Planning Commission or Director in making the
required findings."
Project's subject to Development Review are heard before the Planning
Commission and notification is required for property owners within a 300'
radius of the project site. Generally, projects which are subject to the
CUP process are also subject to Development Review, concurrently
processed.
Projects which do not meet the criteria for development review are subject
to Administrative Development Review, which requires a public hearing
before the Community Development Director acting as the hearing officer
and requiresmailed notification of property owners within 300' of the
project site. ` The Development Review chapter also authorizes the City to
impose conditions of approval on these projects.
The attached map indicates the majority of wireless communications sites
(12 of 17)' within the City were approved by a CUP. It is important to
note that every site within the City was subject to discretionary review and
the public hearing process.
The City's current Code permits wireless communications facilities by right
within the C-1, (Restricted Business Zone), C-2 (Neighborhood Business), C-3
(Unlimited Commercial Zone), and CM (Commercial Manufacturing Zone).
Within these zones, monopoles require CUP approval.
Within the CPD (Commercial Planned Development) and ' M-1 (Light
Manufacturing Zone) facilities and towers are permitted subject to a CUP.
Within the M-1.5 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing Zone) wireless
communications facilities and towers are permitted by right.
Within the R-1 (Single -Family Residence Zone) R-2 (Two -Family Residence
Zone) and R-3 (Unlimited Multiple Residence Zone) facilities and monopoles
require conditional use permit approval. In every case, facilities in zones in
which they are permitted by right are subject to the development review
process. Examples that 'were approved through this process include the
Radisson Hotel , and the facility Torito Lane.
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
The design and location of wireless communications sites is determined by
several factors. Sites must be close enough to the caller to receive the
signal generated by a half -watt portable phone. Sites must be far enough
7
from one another to eliminate cross -talk, and sites must be located way
from sources of interference (i.e. tall buildings, large bodies of water) which
will cause signal distortion and poor communication quality.
Height is one of the most important considerations when locating a site
because wireless communication antennas function on a line -of -sight
transmission. Antennas must be placed at precise heights in relation to
one another in order to transmit and receive signals. Therefore, topography
plays a major role when determining antenna heights. Other considerations
include availability of road access, electric powers, land based telephone
lines and/or microwave link capability, structural capacity for equipment
support and maximum coverage in the desired area with minimal sites.
Topography constrains the number and location of future sites. It may be
possible to locate future sites adjacent to the freeway, at Grand
Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard, Brea Canyon Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Tres Hermanos Ranch (Diamond Bar Ranch High School) to capture the
maximum number of users. However, live radio frequency tests determine
the feasibility. Where one carrier is located, generally others will follow.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS, CITY OPPORTUNITIES
Staff found that public entities and individuals can earn from $500.00 to
$1200.00 per month per provider depending on the criticality of the
location by leasing property for wireless communication facilities,. One
provider identified a site in downtown Los Angeles which was leased at
$2,000.00 a month.
Based upon the locational criteria outlined above, it does not appear that
there is any City owned property that would be suitable at the present
time to take advantage of this opportunity.
CONCLUSIONS
This report presents an overview of the many issues surrounding the
wireless communications industry and its impact on the current and future
development of the City.
The number and location of the sites within the City have been identified
graphically by the attached map. Based upon the existing pattern of site
location and the locational criteria identified, it appears that a "master plan"
is established, which can predict with reasonable accuracy where future
sites will be Located. The Commission also expressed concerns regarding
the potential for unlimited co -location at existing sites. As illustrated by
g
the Walnut Pools facility, this issue appears to be a function of the
locational criteria identified in this report. Additional carriers will not locate
where they cannot obtain adequate reception. The City, through its
discretionary process, can modify or .even deny any future carrier that will
unduly impact an existing site.
The City is concerned with 'the most appropriate and efficient means for
regulating the location, co -location and appearance of these facilities. The
survey revealed local cities are grappling with the same issues. It was
found that Cities that have adopted regulatory ordinances generally
addressed the same issues that Diamond Bar is currently handling through
the discretionary review process and imposing conditions, such as the
screening of antennas and equipment cabinets, limiting the height of
monopoles and requiring provisions for co -location and abandonment.
The City has taken a pro -active approach in regulating wireless facilities and
insuring their compatibility with surrounding land uses. The original
approval for the Walnut Pools monopole contained requirements for co -
location. Screening conditions have been imposed since the approval of the
first monopole in the City on Prospectors (CUP 90-109).
Through its discretionary review process, City staff and the Planning
Commission has evaluated each proposal on a case -by -case basis. PacBel
was required to construct a clock tower` to screen the 21308 Pathfinder
facility because of its impacts to surrounding properties. The site at 3333
Brea Canyon was approved unscreened because its rooftop resulted in
minimal aesthetic impacts. Other locations such as Vineyard Bank have
employed "stealth" technology to "hide" the installation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the new Development Code, include specific
development standards tailored to address the concerns the Planning
Commission determines are most critical in addressing the impacts
associated with wireless communications facilities. In the interim it is
believed that the Planning Commission and City staff can adequately
regulate these uses and mitigate their impacts through the discretionary
review process.
Prepared By:
CatherinK Johnson
Senior Planner
ax'�- - �4� .
n J. n u
Assista Flan er
attachments: Diamond Bar Cell Sites
City Matrix
10