Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/2015 MinutesM1 i MARCH c , 2015 Chairman Frank Farago called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ruth Low, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Bob Nishimura, Peter Pirritano, and Chairman Frank Farago Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION — Selection of Chair and Vice Chair C/Mahlke nominated C/Low to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. C/Pirritano seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Low was unanimously elected to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Mahlke Yes C/Pirritano Yes C/Low Yes C/Nishimura Yes C/Farago Yes C/Mahlke nominated C/Pirritano to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. C/Nishimura seconded the nomination. C/Pirritano was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Mahlke Yes C/Nishimura Yes C/l=arago Yes C/Pirritano Yes Chair/Low Yes MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low thanked outgoing Chair/Farago for his excellent service during the past year. 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the February 24 2015 Regular Meeting. C/Nishimura moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the February 24, 2015, regular meeting minutes as amended by C/Nishimura. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. A NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None PUBLIC HEARING(S): Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VC/Pirritano, Chair/Low None None 8.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-556 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to remodel and construct a multi-level addition consisting of 3,925 square feet of floor area and new balcony area to an existing 4,398 square foot, two story single family residence with an attached 656 square foot, three -car garage on a 0.64 gross acre (28,020 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a multi-level addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 22 -foot front setback (where 30 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2745 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 MARCH 1 2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNERS APPLICANT: Kuei Lien Lo 2745 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Julieo Gutierrez 1749 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 APIEspino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-556, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked APIEspino to refer back to the chart for the development standards. He said he noticed that the side yard minimum between adjoining structures for the north side is 30 feet 7 inches and asked if that was correct when the drawings indicated 39.1 feet. He wanted to know where there was a loss of nine (9) feet because he could not find that in the drawings. APIEspino referred to the drawings and said staff's report contained a typo because there was no addition proposed on that side of the home. The existing home is 39.1 feet on the north side and that staff would correct the error on the chart. C/Nishimura asked if in looking at Sheet 2 for the measurement of 30 feet 7 inches that is reflected on the architect's diagram between the project site and existing house to the north, does the arrow indicate where staff got the measurement for the 30 feet 7 inches between the existing house on the north (right side of the diagram). APIEspino said he does not see 30' 7" but sees the 39.1 feet which is correct. He pointed to the area in which the 39.1 feet was derived and for reference he asked C/Nishimura to point out the dimension he was referring to. C/Nishimura responded that on Page 2 there is a dimension between the existing house and the house to the north which would be the little bracket on the right side of the diagram. There is a dimension he believes goes from the northeast corner of the garage to the corner of the neighboring home. C/Farago explained to C/Nishimura that he is talking about the same dimension. It is illegible. APIEspino said that as C/Nishimura mentioned, the existing dimension that was noted in the Table is a typo that should read 39.1 which has not changed. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said he visited the site and noticed that the house to the north is slanted so it is closer to the structure to the rear than it is from street level. He asked if it would be more appropriate to take the closest measurement between the house at the northwest corner of the garage to that neighboring house or is it appropriate to use the corner to corner as depicted in the diagram. APIEspino responded that typically, the measurement is taken from the closest point to the closest point and reference to the plans showing the 39.1 dimension which exceeds the minimum 25 feet it was difficult for staff to make that measurement without getting on the neighbor's property; however, relying on the plans that were submitted by the applicant, staff felt assured that the measurement was in compliance with Code standards. C/Nishimura said this was probably non -consequential for this project but his worry is that if the City keeps accepting measurements given by applicants that the City may run into a problem when it gets closer to the 20 foot or whatever requirement the City has for setbacks between homes and buildings. He believes staff needs to make sure it takes the closest point between the buildings because that is what is being presented to the • - Commission and the Commission is relying on that measurement. If it was acceptable for staff it should be noted because if staff puts it in the report it means it is staffs measurement also and staff has taken ownership of the measurement of the applicant and it is not staffs if staff believes there is a different measurement. Chair/Low said that rather than having the Commission direct staff as to how they should do their job perhaps the direction from the Commission is that staff do its best to clarify and verify the plans as submitted as to staff's presentation to the Commission and the public. She asked if that would be satisfactory to C/Nishimura. C/Nishimura said yes, it is when information is presented to the Commission the Commission is taking that as the City's information and he thinks the City needs to take ownership of those measurements and make sure the Commission gets the appropriate information or if staff needs to asterisk the information there is disclosure there is information that it may not be exactly 30 feet 1 inch or anything like that. Chair/Low said this is why we have this process of asking questions and presenting the documents and full discussion and the Commission needs to leave it at that that the City does its best practices in this area. ClFarago asked if the "glass tower" was the round structure with the glass inlays for the roof as depicted in drawing 2 in the center of the structure. APIEspino confirmed that ClFarago was correct. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COITOIISSIOft CILow asked if there was a patio cover over the swimming pool which was part of the patio area. Is this an indoor swimming pool that exists? APIEspino said it is not there and staff calculated the cover as part of the lot coverage. Essentially, it is a large patio cover. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Luis Vasquez, builder for the project, said that he assisted the architect in the design. He said he was concerned about C/Nishimura questions about the measurement shown on the drawing because the measurement was well beyond the minimum 25 feet requirement. Other than that, he said he was good with the presentation. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. Farago moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-556, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VCIPirritano, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant requested Conditional Use Permit approval for a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas, three (3) remote radio units, and a 24 -inch diameter microwave dish antenna on a new 65 foot tall monopine and related equipment, within a 220 square foot enclosure at a public park (Maple Hill Park). The subject site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Park (PK). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 1355 S. Maple Hill Road (Maple Hill Park) City of Diamond Bar Bryce Novak Cortel, LLC 14621 Arroyo Hondo San Diego, CA 92127 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura referred APIEspino to the photograph looking northwest from Maple Hill Road to the proposed location and asked if the tower would be located behind the trees. He asked if the trees were evergreen or deciduous trees and AP/Espinoza said he believed they were deciduous. He visited the site recently and some of the leaves have fallen. C/Nishimura said this photograph was taken when -the leaves were full and a little more of the tower may be visible during the winter time. APIEspino responded that that was correct. At different times of the year there will be different exposure of the antenna structure. C/Farago said that the leaves have fallen off of the trees and the tower would be very visible at this time. He said he was concerned about the aesthetics. There are no other evergreens in close proximity to the tower and it will stand out. He asked if there was a possibility that evergreens could be planted in the area to camouflage the tree, and APIEspino said it was within the purview of the Commission to request the applicant add additional trees to camouflage or hide the proposed facility. C/Nishimura said that staff noted in its report that a first attempt was made across the street at Maple Hill Elementary School (to locate the cell site), and asked what happened with that proposal. APIEspino said he would defer that question to CDDIGubman who may have more knowledge on that question. CDDIGubman said he was with the Community Development Department at the time that application was submitted. T -Mobile submitted an application to install a cell tower designed as a flagpole to conceal the tower antennas inside the shroud of the flagpole. That application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted to the Community Development Department. Staff began processing the application and after the application was taken, the school district's constituents became aware of the proposed installation at the school and from what he heard from T -Mobile representatives was that they did withdraw the application based on the school district making the decision to discontinue their authorization for T -Mobile to apply for the tower on their property. This was about three years ago. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said so the constituents went to the board is what CDDIGubman heard and the school district, as a property owner, withdrew the application and CDDIGubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura said the property they proposed for the installation was owned by the public school district. CDDIGubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura said the City park is also public property. CDDIGubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura asked if the City, as landlords, have a right to say we don't want a cell tower there or are we compelled to put a cell tower there and CDDIGubman explained that staff has consistently given authorization to providers who have approached the City to proceed with an application on public property. This is in keeping with past practice. The discretion whether or not to approve this lies with the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission approves it and the approval is final then the City Council would then have to make the final decision to enter into a licensing agreement with the carrier to install the cell site on that facility. In speaking with the City Manager's office, they take a neutral position when they are approached and do not make the decision at the beginning of the process whether or not to grant authorization to make an application to CDDIGubman's department. C/Nishimura said that the phone carrier must have been in communication with somebody at the City to say this concept in theory looks good and to go ahead and apply for it. Again, the question was, as the property owner, can the City just say it does not want a cell tower there. DCAIEggart responded to C/Nishimura that as the property owner yes, the City has an absolute right to not allow a carrier to construct a tower on its property; however, the decision whether to allow it on City property is within the jurisdiction of the City Council and is not something that is actually before the Planning Commission as part of its decision. The final decision will be made by the City Council when it considers leases for previously approved cell tower applications. C/Nishimura repeated that as a property owner the City could say yes or no regardless of this health concern so they can have any reason to say yes or no and ACAIEggart said C/Nishimura's statement was correct. C/Nishimura said that CDDIGubman mentioned something about "past practices" as a reason for the City having allowed cell tower application to be submitted for City -owned properties. He asked if the City ever denied people permission to submit applications to put cell towers anywhere on City property or City rights-of-way. CDDIGubman responded that he was not aware of any such denial and C/Nishimura said okay, not like the WVUSD which has cell towers on some of their properties including some in the City at Diamond Bar High School, so in this case they deviated from MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION their past practice and said they did not want one at Maple Hill. Is that correct? CDDIGubman said he believed that was a fair assessment. C/Farago said that other than the school itself, in order to handle or fill this dark spot in the carrier's coverage, were any other locations considered or brought before the City prior to this location? CDDIGubman said he was not aware of any other considerations; however, this might be a question for the applicant. The next nearest opportunity site would probably be Chaparral Middle School; however, not being familiar with the propagation needs and topography, etc., he was not aware of any other proposals other than for Maple Hill Elementary across the street. C/Pirritano asked if CDDIGubman knew of any other available sites. CDDIGubman asked APIEspino to put up for viewing, the "Wireless Facilities and Opportunity" map which APIEspino said was included in staff's report. APIEspino described the locations of potential sites. Approximately 65 locations were included in the list. CDDIGubman stated that carriers also have another option which is to locate on existing utility poles such as street lights in the public rights-of-way, or to replace poles with poles that are engineered to accommodate antennas. Most of the City's street lights are Southern California Edison assets. The applicant would be the proper source to expand on that option. Street fight poles are lower in height and the carrier may have to look at doing more antennas to distribute throughout the coverage gap effectively since they would not have the advantage of the height to propagate the signal more effectively. ClMahlke said that something that was addressed in the handbook was the prior facilities, which was something that was discussed early on. The City already has established facilities at Peterson Park, two at Diamond Bar Center and one at Pantera Park. She asked CDDIGubman to educate her about what the Planning Commission is looking at with 12 panel antennas and three remote radio units and the one 24 -inch microwave dish as compared to the prior installations. APIEspino said that installations vary based on the carrier's needs but it would be commonplace for a carrier to request multiple antennas with remote radio units. The dishes are not always included in the request but again, it depends on each carrier's needs and how they are trying to service their customers. ClMahlke said she was trying to figure out if this request included "more" than what is already in place in other parks in the City. APIEspino said he would say this proposal is comparable to the 85 foot high light pole at Peterson Park where one can see multiple antennas (at least 12) driving the SR57 to the SR60 stretch adjacent to the park. MARCH `. 0 PAGE •, PLANNING :y COMMISSION C/Nishimur 'N- C/Nishimura asked if he was correct to say that the antenna at Pantera Park is camouflaged in a lighting standard for the ball field. AP/Espino responded yes. Camouflaged is subjective, but yes. C/Nishimura said it is one and the same. It is the light standard that was modified to accommodate the antennas and the lighting for the ball field. C/Nishimura said there are a couple of sites at Peterson Park that are against the freeway and they are also on the light standards and not fake trees. The ones at the Diamond Bar Center are two fake trees at the back of the parking lot. He wanted to know if the proposed site was similar to the installation at the Diamond Bar Center. APIEspino said it was similar in the fact that it was an artificial tree. The two at the Diamond Bar Center are 45 feet high and resemble elm trees. The proposed project is a 65 -foot high artificial pine tree. Chair/Low asked to again see a photo depicting the installation and whether the applicant had additional photos of actual installations. APIEspino responded that the applicant indicated yes and that he will display them on the screen. Chair/Low asked APIEspino to put up the slide that shows the coverage and coverage gap. APIEspino explained that the slide showed the map of coverage without the site. Chair/Low asked for an explanation of the various colors with respect to cell service. APIEspino stated that the darker green colors are the optimum level for cell phone reception/transmission inside of a building. The lighter green is reception/transmission through a vehicle and the yellow is reception/transmission outdoors. The gray arrows are shady at best and the white is non-existent reception/transmission. Chair/Low asked if AP/Espino could provide an overlay of the coverage area with the inclusion of the proposed cell site. APIEspino responded that he did not have an overlay but could toggle between the slides showing coverage without the proposed site and with the proposed site. Chair/Low said the map was deceptive and asked how far the coverage would be extended. AP/Espino said it was approximately '/Z mile distance to Diamond Bar Boulevard and scattered into the neighborhood. Chair/Low asked if staff had any knowledge that these cell tower "trees" resulted in any vandalism to the community and AP/Espino said he was not aware of any. CDD/Gubman said he was aware of copper wire being stolen from field lighting and did not recall at Pantera Park whether the pole that houses the cell site was vandalized in that way. This type of theft is always a risk. Chair/Low asked the height of the existing trees that would surround the proposed cell tower and AP/Espino responded that there are numerous mature Eucalyptus trees that can grow well over the proposed 65 foot high cell tower. There are trees located along the steep hillside incline and there are mature trees that are higher than the proposed tree depending on where they are located, whether above or below the grade of the proposed facility. According to MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION what he sees, some of the trees exceed 65 feet. Chair/Low asked if the existing trees would be endangered by the existence, construction and installation of this cell tower and APIFspino responded that there are small trees/large brush along the south end of the tennis court that will be cleared for installation of the enclosure. No trees will be damaged or removed as a result of the installation of the monopine. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Bryce Novak, Agent for T -Mobile, showed a photograph of a recently installed T -Mobile 65 foot monopine in Arcadia which was installed in August 2014. The branch count of the proposed installation would be similar to what the photo indicates. He showed another photograph of a 75 foot monopine which was installed in Riverside in the summer of 2014. The reason T -Mobile needs the 65 foot monopine at Maple Hill Park is due to the coverage gap which is due to the topography of the subdivision. The hills of Diamond Bar present challenges for carriers. A lot of T -Mobile sites are along the freeway and there is one along Diamond Bar Boulevard. These sites are not high enough to provide coverage to the subdivision. Between November 2014 and February 2015, T -Mobile has received approximately 25 complaints in the call center for T -Mobile from this specific search ring. Over the course of a year there have been over 100 complaints of dropped calls. T -Mobile is not the only customer that suffers from such complaints. Verizon has one bar coverage at this park in this subdivision. In order to fill in this coverage gap it has to have the necessary elevation and this park is the only option for T -Mobile to provide coverage to this subdivision. C/Pirritano asked if the applicant was indicating there could be other providers on this same pole and T -Mobile said C1Pirritano was correct and why the monopole was being designed to allow additional carriers and why 65 feet was needed to provide a reasonable co -location height at the 39 foot rad. C/Pirritano asked if there were other cell towers in the vicinity on which T -Mobile could co -locate. Mr. Novak said that there were no existing cell towers that would cover the specific quarter -mile subdivision. C1Pirritano asked if there was a cell phone company that provided coverage to the subdivision and whether Mr. Novak could identify that location and co -locate on that site rather than install a new site. Mr. Novak said his company completed a "fun run" where he accompanied a T -Mobile radio frequency engineer while the engineer circled the entire coverage gap looking for existing sites and new location sites. Mr. Novak reiterated that there is nothing for T -Mobile within that coverage area with an elevation that would provide coverage to the coverage gap area. MARCH1 2015 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said he had the same question which was not answered to his satisfaction. He has AT&T and while he is not advertising AT&T he has never had problems in that area. He asked if Mr. Novak knew the location of the AT&T site and whether it would provide a possible site for co -location. As it is, the Commission is being asked to weigh in on this project and for all he knows, this is the only alternative because there are no other alternatives that were presented to the Commission. Mr. Novak explained that before carriers hand these types of search rings off and send specialists out to review the areas to site acquisition firms such as the firm for which he works, they approach the different carriers and tower companies to locate their installations. C/Nishimura asked if in this instance Mr. Novak knew that that happened or whether he was just saying this usually happens. C/Nishimura said that it seems to him that for this project Mr. Novak is not sure whether this happened or not. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he can say that this happened. Mr. Novak said no, he can only say that he drove the area with the engineer. C/Nishimura said that was not his question. His question was, does Mr. Novak know if the process he described before where all of the alternatives were considered by the carrier, whoever it may be, had different alternatives -- did they know that AT&T has a tower and that AT&T said no to co -locating. Is there something across in Diamond Bar Boulevard in The Country for example, because they are higher, which might provide another alternative site. C/Nishimura said the Planning Commission was not being presented with any other alternatives and no one is telling the Commission that there have been any other alternatives other than Maple Hill Elementary School across the street which was denied. Mr. Novak responded to C/Nishimura that he has seen two emails going to the tower companies (Crown Castle and ATC) where T -Mobile's development manager approached AT&T and Verizon. Other than that, he cannot say whether they actually did so. C/Nishimura asked if T -Mobile would own the tower or lease it from Cortel, LLC and whether they would have first right -of -refusal and an advantage in going into the project with Cortel. Mr. Novak said that T -Mobile would own the tower. C/Nishimura said so if they own the tower they could set the rents for a co -locator and Mr. Novak explained that rents are set between carriers who have a Master Lease Agreement. Each carrier has set pricing they can charge each other on each other's towers. C/Nishimura stated that T -Mobile could make money on another carrier coming in to lease out the other space on the tree. Mr. Novak said yes, just as another carrier can make money off of T -Mobile if MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION T -Mobile went on their cell site. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he knew of any other alternatives and whether T -Mobile felt it was more of a business decision where they could make money on a new site or whether it was more expensive to try and lease long-term at another site from another carrier. Chair/Low asked the City Attorney :if this was a proper area of inquiry by the Planning Commission to ask about the business application or business decisions behind this application and ACAIEggart responded that certainly the questions about the investigation done to co -locate on other towers is a pertinent question. C1Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if T -Mobile, the company he is representing, looked at any other alternative spaces that would help cover a majority of the area where there is currently a gap in coverage. Mr. Novak again explained that his job was to drive the area with the engineer to identify any existing sites that might not show up on the FCC website and tower company websites to see if something was missed and he is testifying that he drove the entire neighborhood. C/Nishimura stated that Mr. Novak is showing the Planning Commission a map that is just for T -Mobile, not for AT&T or any of the other carriers. Mr. Novak said the map is a T -Mobile map. C/Nishimura reiterated that he has never had coverage problems at Maple Hill Park and it seems to be a big gap for T -Mobile. He again asked, 1) what are the other carriers doing to provide coverage in this area because he knows there is coverage in this area, 2) did T -Mobile consider working with these other areas to see if they can provide a majority of coverage that is missing, and 3) what are the alternatives because there are no alternatives presented to this Commission. Mr. Novak said that from his understanding and he has a T -Mobile Radio Frequency Engineer here to testify, the reason why C/Nishimura is getting coverage with his AT&T cell phone at Maple Hill Park is that they work off of a specific frequency band that provides longer distances of coverage. Mr. Novak further explained that he is not privy to the information about which cell site might be covering that particular area. He does know that the AT&T 1900 frequency band allows more expansive coverage than T -Mobile's. C/Nishimura asked if anything at The Country across Diamond Bar Boulevard was explored or if there were any other alternative places where one could get substantial coverage that the Planning Commission does not know about. Mr. Novak said that the other side of Diamond Bar Boulevard would be well outside of the coverage deficiency area and if a cell site was placed there, because of the lower elevations and distance from the area, only a fraction of the area covered by the new cell site would be covered which would make no sense. One can see a lot of that kind of proliferation close to Diamond Bar MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Boulevard which already has coverage. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he was saying there were no other alternatives other than this monopine pole and Mr. Novak again said there are no other alternatives. C/Nishimura asked if it would solve the problem if antennas could be put on some of the existing Edison light poles. Mr. Novak said the problem would be that those are extremely costly and there is a population in this neighborhood of 3,000. Light poles are put in highly dense urban environments which can justify the cost. If these antennas were placed on a light pole there would be coverage between five and 10 light poles. C/Nishimura said but it can be done, it would just be more expensive for the provider. Mr. Novak said that in his experience, for these antennas to be running in neighborhoods, opposition to the project is even higher than what it would be if T -Mobile proposed to install more than one cell site in an open park. C/Nishimura commented that is cheaper to put one fake tree in a park than it is to maybe put smaller antenna arrays on five or six different light poles and Mr. Novak responded that as a property owner because they would be closer to residences, it would be more tenable to place the tower in the park which is an open environment. ClFarago directed his question to staff stating C/Nishimura indicated that there are arrays on existing light poles illuminating ball fields and he wanted to know if there were light standards at the park used to illuminate the tennis courts that these antennas could be placed on rather than installing a monopine. CDDIGubman responded that to the best of his recollection, the tallest light poles at Maple Hill Park would be at the tennis courts and he did not believe they were higher than 18-25 feet high. ClFarago asked Mr. Novak if it was true that he personally traveled the area looking for service for T -Mobile but there was no real investigation with respect to alternative cell towers that T -Mobile could possibly lease space :on. Mr. Novak said he identified every cell site in this general coverage area, most of which are along Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue at lower elevations. This specific coverage gap cannot be closed by putting antenna on one of the City's major street arteries. There is only one solution in this instance which is the higher elevation site. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak's statement was that he looked at all of the T -Mobile towers and not everybody's towers. Mr. Novak said that C/Nishimura's statement was not true. This map was created to justify T -Mobile's coverage gap. He reiterated that he personally drove the entire area with T -Mobile's engineer to look at and identify every cell site on every street that was not documented, and he is not aware of any cell sites in the subdivision. C/Nishimura said that it is not depicted on this map. Mr. Novak MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION said that was correct because he was not asked to provide that information, only the T -Mobile information. Abigail Tata, 1311 Solera Lane, said her daughter goes to Maple Hill Elementary School and she did not receive notification about this project. In fact, the location where the public hearing notice is posted only is visible during non -school hours. She was unaware of this until a week ago and asked if the City had a responsibility to charge the school to inform parents because she believes most parents do not know about this project unless they park in the park and walk in front of the sign. She does not recognize anyone in the audience from the school or school district and does not know what the school's level of involvement is in regards to this project and it makes her wonder if the school benefits from this project and that is why there was no notification to parents. She has concerns about health effects and things that are arguable. Denis Paul, 1429 Blenbury Drive, said he and his wife have lived in their home for the past 36 years and this is the first time he has come before the Commission. He commended the Commissioners on the depth of their questions and did not know coming into this tonight whether this would be a "rubber stamping" or serious inquiry. His son went to Maple Hill and played in the park. He has never before seen an opposition united in this community against a singular project such as he is seeing now. He was pleased by the 'presentation. He did not look at the related materials but believed staff had done a good job in presenting the information. In a way, it has heightened his concern. When seeing that the WVUSD, his former employer, declined this project and as a former principal of Diamond Bar High School where there was a plethora of cell towers, he believed that coverage issues were also fiscal issues. He is concerned by WVUSD's opposition and wanted to know why the school district did not take advantage of this project. He shares his neighbors' concerns with the aesthetics and health issues. He is also concerned about infringing on the park. Staff mentioned three parks -- Peterson. Park, Diamond Bar Center and Pantera Park which are all much bigger parks. Also, the size of the enclosure associated with this tower is a proportional issue. He is glad the Commissioners picked up on the co -location possibilities. The Commission will be approving a site that will be open to other providers. He too has AT&T and has no problem. The only answer he heard to his question about why not tag on to another provider's site and why this was the only alternative was that T -Mobile's coverage is not as widespread as AT&T because they have a different frequency. So it seems that the kids will suffer because of a single inferior carrier. Another question is the fiscal impact of this site. if this is approved by the City Council, where will the money go? MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Will it go to help kids, improve the park or go into the General Fund? The neighborhood does not want this huge infringement on a small park. C/Nishimura asked the City Attorney if people were required to give their name and address during a public hearing and ACAIEggart responded "no." Junko Takeya, Birdseye Drive, said the small portion of the park where T -Mobile is requesting to place this tower is right next to the area where most families go when they have birthday celebrations or gatherings. This is going to be so intrusive on that area because there is no way it will look like a native tree. When people sit at the picnic tables off to the side they will see the enclosure because it cannot be hidden. This park is too small to allow this structure, More and more, green spaces are being destroyed for housing developments in Diamond Bar and other cities. Hillsides are coming down for these developments and the City needs to protect what little green space is left. This park has been in this community for decades and this fake "tree" will be an eyesore to this beautiful little community park. According to Municipal Code Section 22.72.020 it states under number 2 that display boards will be placed in at least three public places in the area of the property. There is only one display board located in a place where unless one intentionally goes to the board they will not see the notice. She visits the park every day and walks through the entire park. Even if she were to go down the footpath and make a left turn on Maple Hill she would not notice the display board. Most of the park visitors park along the side of the park if they are going to Little League games, enter through the gate and come back out or drive into the parking lot and then exit their vehicles, go up to the footpath, go to the tennis courts, go to the field or go to the playground. No one ever walks to the front side to look at the sign. This is . a blatant attempt to adhere to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the. law which is to notify the public about what is taking place. She is opposed to T -Mobile putting up the monopine. She too has AT&T and her cell service is fine. She has no problem getting service in the park and around the neighborhood. Evelyn Li, Blenbury Drive, said four years ago she and her husband bought their house specifically for this park and the nearby schools. She delivered a baby four months ago and read up on cell phone radiation which could lead to birth defects, Alzheimer's, and cancer and she knows the Commission cannot make its decision based on health but all of the residents and people who use the park are really concerned about the health issues. She is an AT&T customer and has no problem with her wireless connection in the area. She hopes that T -Mobile can find out how AT&T is able to provide service and perhaps co-partner with them for MARCH 10, 2016 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION another site. She hoped this tower would not be placed at this site. Mrs. Li asked about the approval and appeal process. ACAIEggart said that regardless of what the Planning Commission's decision is, anyone can appeal the matter to the City Council. The appeal period is 10 days from the Planning Commission's decision to file paperwork with the City Clerk's office. . . C/Nishimura directed his question to CDDIGubman and asked him the amount of the appeal fee. CDDIGubman responded that the appeal fee is $711 for a member of the public to appeal the project or for an applicant to appeal the denial. The City Council has the discretion to call the matter up for a public hearing. For that to happen the matter would have to be placed on the next City Council agenda and a majority of the City Council would have to vote to call the matter up for a hearing. Staff will notify the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision. In addition, staff notifies the City Council when there is a matter of controversy such as this as part of the information conveyed. C/Nishimura said that either party can go through the City Council or pay the fee to file an appeal.. CDDIGubman responded "yes." C/Nishimura asked how soon a Council Member would need to put this on the agenda to meet the time constraints. ACAIEggart said it would need to be agendized for the next City Council meeting and it would need to be done this week for next Tuesday's meeting. ACAIEggart stated that before the Planning Commission this evening is a proposed resolution to approve. If the Planning Commission is inclined to deny the project, the law requires that the denial be in writing (supported by written findings) so in that instance, the Planning Commission would need to continue the matter until the next Planning Commission meeting in order to allow written findings to be developed for the Commission's consideration which means that the action would take place at the next Planning Commission meeting. C/Nishimura asked if in the event the Planning Commission approved the project, an individual or individuals could file an appeal and pay the $711 appeal fee or try to get to their Council Member by Thursday in time to get the matter agendized for the next Council meeting. By what day does the Council Member have to place the matter on next Tuesday's meeting agenda and CDDIGubman responded that the City Council agenda goes out on Friday at about 3:00 p.m. Chair/Low said that to her it sounded like C/Nishimura was saying that the individual either had to pay the appeal fee or talk to a City Council Member MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 17 PLANNINGO to get the matter placed on next Tuesday's agenda which does not sound correct to her. ACAIEggart explained that there are two separate processes for appealing the Planning Commission decisions as set forth in the Municipal Code. The first allows the City Council as a body to call up the item without an appeal which needs to be done within 10 days of the decision. Therefore, the matter would need to get put on an agenda for a City Council meeting within 10 days of the decision in order for the City Council to vote on whether they wanted to call up an item and hold a public hearing or let the Planning Commission's decision stand. Separate and apart from that, individuals, applicants, and members of the public can appeal and file a formal appeal in writing with the City Clerk and pay the appeal fee regardless of what the City Council does on its own. The City is not necessarily acting in response to a request from the public but as a practical matter, if people have concerns they can let their City Council Members know and that is how City Council Members become aware that there may be an issue they should consider. Chair/Low said it sounded to her like all one had to do was get on the phone and talk to his or her favorite Council person. It sounded nefarious to her and she did not believe that was the intention of the process. ACAIEggart said it was not the intention of the process and under these circumstances, regardless of the Planning Commission's decision, staff would notify the City Council Members the next day of the Planning Commission's decision so that they would have an opportunity to consider placing the matter on next Tuesday's agenda, should they chose to do so. Evelyn Li asked if she was being advised to talk to a Council Member tomorrow and Chair/Low advised her to wait until the end of the public hearing to see what the Commission decides. Mrs. Li said that even if fire Commission disapproves the matter, the applicant might appeal the Commission's decision and in that event, would this entire process would take place again. ACA/Eggart again explained that if the matter is appealed to the City Council, or if the City Council votes to take up the matter absent an appeal, the exact same process will occur again before the City Council with a public hearing, public notices, publishing it in the newspaper and posting it on the property and the entire presentation will take place once again. MARCH 10, 2015 . PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION Mrs. Li said asked confirmation that that if the Commission disapproves the proposed project then this is the end of this proposal? ACAIEggart again reiterated that the applicant would have an opportunity to file an appeal. Tyra Caballero lives about .3 miles from the park. She and her two kids visit the park frequently to walk their dog and enjoy birthday parties. Her six year old son attends Maple Hili Elementary School across the street and when she was discussing this matter with her husband her six year old overheard the conversation and when the word "cancer" came up he asked if it would burn if he gets cancer and wondered what it would be like with Jesus in Heaven. No child should have anxiety about going to school and no parent should have anxiety about sending their child to school. No resident should be anxious about living near this site. She appealed with the Planning Commission to vote no on putting this cell tower in the community. Robert Coventry, 22241 Croll Court, said he is one of the Largest employers in Diamond Bar and like Mr. Paul has lived here for a long time and this is his first time coming to a meeting. His property overlooks Maple Hill Park and there are three important things when buying a property which are location, location, location. There is a lot of stuff on the internet about property value and how cell towers affect property values. Many have spoken about health concerns and whether true or not, is a valid and perceived issue. He does not want to suffer a decline in property value which adversely affects the City. In Diamond Bar, there is a 1.14567 property tax rate and if his property taxes go down the money to the City goes down. The fiscal impact of that issue is of concern to him. The hideous looking fake trees in such a small park compared to the much larger parks mentioned are not in the middle of a community. These are small single family residential areas. He has two children, one at Diamond Bar High School and one at Chaparral Middle School who both went to Maple Hill Elementary School. Every Thursday he and his family took a big bag of cans and donated them to Maple Hill Elementary because they needed money. Every month his family dropped off paper because they needed money. If the school district needs money so badly why would they turn down a proposition to make money and he thinks that needs to be looked into. Also, T -Mobile has the least market share of any of the major carriers and how many people in Diamond Bar .in this 3,000 person subdivision are affected by T -Mobile. Not one speaker has mentioned they have T -Mobile service. He has Verizon. Every morning driving down he loses signal and in the afternoon driving up Deerfoot he loses signal. He asked Verizon if they could put a tower in the area and they said no. If AT&T works, people have an opportunity. This (tower) is not something that is needed. A Google real estate survey says that 94 percent of the people state they MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION would not buy a property that has a view of a cell tower. That information could hugely affect his ability to sell his home. He has been in his home for 16 years and does not plan to move. At the same time he does not want something hideous he has to look at every time he looks out his backyard and when he takes the kids and dog to the park. At a height of 65 ft and this being the only pine tree in the area where there are Eucalyptus trees only, this would stand out like a sore thumb. Also, the pictures the Commission was shown did not include the microwave (dish) and he did not believe the microwave could be camouflaged as well as regular antennas so people will see a big round dish on the fake tree. He asked the Commission to please find a better way. Nancy Kim has a son in kindergarten at Maple Hill Elementary School. Every day at 1:15 p.m. he and his friends go to the park. Every day at 2:30 p.m. a lot of kids (100, 200, or 300) go to the park because the parents park at the park to pick up their kids. Kids play at that park every day. It is right in front of the school. The kids are very curious and they will want to go touch the tree. Please consider the lives of the kids and deny the project. Teruni Evans lives in north Diamond Bar and drives her kids to Maple Hill Elementary. She is a parent and was not notified about this project. She found out through Facebook when somebody posted the information. She is a T -Mobile customer but she does not want a cell tower at that location. If it is between her kids and other kids versus her getting cell service she is okay not getting the cell service. She asked the Commission to deny the project. Robert Lin, long time Diamond Bar resident, said this was his first time attending a Planning Commission meeting. He commended the Commissioners for their level of inquiry on this matter. He is opposed to this project. He is a board certified family physician and to him, health is everything. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, radio frequency is classified as a possible carcinogen and that being said, regardless of the reason for the WVUSD denying the initial placement at Maple Hill Elementary School, placing a cell tower directly across from a school is tantamount to placing it at the school and exposing the kids. The applicant mentioned that the Development Code allows for wireless facilities on public property but that is an inherent conflict of interest because T -Mobile is making money off of the risk of exposing kids who visit the park and come into the vicinity of the tower after school. Historically, there has MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION been denial of cell phone towers in the City of Diamond Bar. In 2008 an application for a cell tower to be placed in Ronald Reagan Park was denied. He is a Verizon customer and has no problem with transmission while traversing the neighborhood park. Venny Carranza, speaking on behalf of Scott Wolfe read a letter written by Scott Wolfe who is the son of Blair Barnes, the homeowner. Blair and Scott have lived at 1463 Maple Hill Road in Diamond Bar since the subdivision was built in 1977. Mr. Carranza said that when he first moved to California he lived in Hollywood which was crazy. When his friend Scott Wolfe offered that Diamond Bar would be a great place to live he visited the City and saw the beautiful scenic view and decided to move to Diamond Bar. He walks his dog every day to the park and it is beautiful. After working in Hollywood all day it is nice to come home to a calm and serene setting. Mr. Carranza read Scott Wolfe's letter. "I Scott Wolfe, resident and owner of the property located at 1463 Maple Hill Road am registering my total and complete objection to any cell phone tower construction at Maple Hill Park located at 1355 Maple Hills Road. Public residential parks are there for one purpose and one purpose only, to allow residents, their children and their dogs to enjoy a public space set aside for recreational purposes only. Maple Hill Park is a community park that is used for recreation purposes by soccer teams, for family games, picnics, kite flying and a multitude of other purposes. Any construction of any cell phone tower at the park could interfere with that. As a taxpaying citizen of Diamond Bar, my tax dollars go to care for my City Park that I enjoy. I am surprised that the City of Diamond Bar would even entertain the idea of building a cell phone tower in a public space enjoyed by and built for residents of the community. I'm sure the cell phone company would not care less about possible impact of the tower at the park being that they are from San Diego. They do not live here. Once again, I am registering my total and complete objection to any construction of any cell phone tower at Maple Hill Park." /s/ Respectfully, Scott Wolfe RECESS: Chair/Low recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Low reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Kupferman, Birds Eye Dr., stated that he has a degree in engineering, and this proposal does not make sense from an engineering perspective. This is unacceptable. He said he realizes somebody wants to make money and that is T -Mobile. Good for them and they can put it in their house and not where I live. He does not want them there. He has AT&T and has no MARCH r 2015 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION problem with reception. If a T -Mobile customer has a problem they can switch. There is no reason to take the whole neighborhood down because of selfish reasons. He asked the Commission to kindly disapprove the cell tower because it does not belong here. Cindy Pan said that Maple Hill Elementary is her school and she does not want a cell tower in the park. She grew up in Diamond Bar and went to Diamond Bar High School where she ran cross-country. Her team went to Maple Hill Park to stretch and run and that fake tree will not be ideal because kids go there all of the time and she does not want the cell tower there. Why is this project being discussed tonight when residents do not know about it? She reads the quarterly newsletter but did not see anything about this project. Her suggestion to T -Mobile is if they want coverage for people who live in the subdivision they should partner with AT&T. Obviously, they already have coverage in the area and T -Mobile can make a deal with them and T -Mobile can keep their customers. The most important thing is for customers to have the coverage they need but there should not be a cell tower in a public park where kids will want to touch the tree and try to climb it. She graduated from Cal Poly with a Chemical Engineering Degree and she knows safety is a huge issue, especially for kids. What is being proposed is definitely not safe. Chair/Low closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. C/Nishimura asked where the money would go if the application is approved and a lease is approved and CDDIGubman responded that it would go into the City's General Fund. C/Nishimura said that one of the speakers brought up Section 22.720.20 of the City's Development Code and asked if she was correct in stating the Code requires that there needs to be three signs/notices posted on the property. CDDIGubman responded no, that is an inaccurate reading of that Code Section. There is a requirement to post the property with a notice board and copies of the notice need to be posted at three designated sites. AC/Marquez stated that the three designated posting sites are at Heritage Park, the AQMD Building and the Diamond Bar Library. In addition, the notice is posted on the City's website. Chair/Low asked if this project was in compliance with the notification process and APIEspino responded affirmatively. C/Nishimura asked if notices could be placed in any three public places in the area of the property and whether it could be placed in three other places in north Diamond Bar to meet the Code requirements. Or, is it at designated MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION places, which this (Code Section) does not specify. The way the Code reads, does that mean these notices can be posted at any three public places to meet the requirements for this code? ACAIEggart explained through the Chair that the intent of the provision is that the property itself be posted and in addition to that, the City posts notice at three additional public locations. For purposes of interpretation of that code section, the City has pre -identified public places where it posts all public notices and all public notices and all public hearings are posted at the same three places as previously identified by AC/Marquez. C/Nishimura again asked if notices could be placed at any three public places in the City to meet code requirements and ACAIEggart said he believed the City would direct where notices are to be posted. C/Nishimura asked the attorney if he would like to see the code. Is it any three public places because it seems like people are having problems getting the notices and if it is not in the code, maybe the code needs to be fixed to specify the designated places because the way he reads the code, it says "in at least three public places in the area of the property." First of all, does that mean they could post them at three places at Pantera Park? People do not know where to go look at these public places. And, what does it mean "in the area of the property?" Does it mean in the City, does it mean in two blocks, does it mean in 300 feet? In his opinion, it is all subjective. He said he was referring to Section 22.72.020 subsection 132b. ACA Eggart requested time to read the Code Section. He stated that he better understood the Commissioner's question after having looked at the code. He can see how the code can be read in different ways. All he can tell the Commissioner is how the Code has been applied historically for years by the City. The City has consistently interpreted the Code in a way that the City posts the three notices in the public places and controls where they are posted and always posts notices of public hearings for Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings in the same places with the idea that if it does, then it designates those places ahead of time and everybody will know where to go look. Certainly, as a Commissioner C/Nishimura has the prerogative to believe that the City's processes can be improved and he can make that comment. What the City did in this case is consistent with what it has done historically for all prior public hearings. C/Nishimura said that somebody reading this would not know where these three public places are and whether they change or if they are consistent. Is that correct? ACAIEggart said that reading this code section does not identify them. C/Nishimura asked where are the three public places where all of these notices are posted. AC/Marquez repeated that they are posted MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION at the Diamond Bar Library, Heritage Park and the AQMD Building and on the City's website. C/Nishimura asked if there is anywhere in north Diamond Bar. AC/Marquez responded, that in this case, the' AQMD Building is the closest to north Diamond Bar. C/Nishimura responded "interesting." ClFarago said the aesthetics of this tower are an area of concern for him, especially with the equipment box. He wanted to know who chose the location because it could not be any closer to where a majority of people congregate for picnics and tennis as well as, being more centrally located within the park. And why was this particular type of fake tree chosen which is not representative of any of the other trees in the park. APIEspino responded that staff worked with the applicant. Initially, the proposal was to locate the tree adjacent to the street which would have made it very visible from the school across the street. The applicant worked with the Community Services Department for a location on the park property. When Planning staff got involved in locating the tree there were two other alternatives staff felt were more aesthetically pleasing for a location. Planning staff felt that the location adjacent to the public street was not a very suitable location for visibility Issues because it would be taking up space in the open ball field area. The second location that was contemplated was up in the landscaped area between the walkways which staff also did not believe would be suitable. As staff looked around the park, staff contemplated various areas such as behind the tennis courts which proved to be unfeasible and which also did not meet the minimum distance requirements to residential parcels. The best location at the park that staff could recommend was at the proposed location which is behind the tennis courts and not in any actively used park areas. The equipment structure was contemplated to be behind the tennis courts, which is currently occupied by brush so it seemed to staff to be a suitable location. The fake pine tree was going to be located at the top of the hill where it would be surrounded by existing vegetation and blocked from view from the street. Again, staff worked with the applicant to consider various locations at the site and ultimately determined the proposed site to be the best location. ClFarago asked why the park was chosen and why private property was not considered. APIEspino reiterated that the applicant is proposing this location and based on the requirements and topography felt this was the best location. In addition, the City's standards for wireless facilities state they are not allowed on residentially zoned properties that contain MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION residential structures, which constitutes a majority of this neighborhood. The only two alternatives, and given that the school district had denied a previous request, included the park or an area within the public right-of-way to accommodate the coverage gap. ClFarago asked if any other alternatives to this type of tree were considered for a tower and whether this was aesthetically the best possible option. APIEspino responded that staff worked with the applicant's initial recommendation of a Mono -Eucalyptus and was informed that a eucalyptus is not a co -locatable tree and would house only one carrier which would not meet the intent of the first preferred location as identified in the City's code. There are pine trees in the neighborhood some of which are across the street at the school. In addition, the pine tree gives height to accommodate the coverage. The only larger tree that fits in that setting would be an artificial Eucalyptus but again, it would not be a co -locatable facility as required by the City's Code. ClFarago said that this was really the better of two bad alternatives. APIEspino responded that one could say that. C/Nishimura said that APIEspino referenced that some of the alternatives would accommodate only one carrier which was not consistent with the applicant's desire to be able to accommodate two carriers. Is that correct? APIEspino said that initially, the applicant was not looking at a co -locatable facility. As previously stated, the City. 'code requires a co -locatable facility. C/Nishimura responded that being able to have one carrier costs more money, but given economics of scale, is obviously cheaper and one can make more money, is that correct. APIEspino said potentially, sure. C/Nishimdra said that the Commission is hearing that T -Mobile wants to increase their coverage and could that be done with one carrier on one pole. APIEspino said he did not know the logistics of that because to get coverage for only one carrier limits coverage to customers who have only T -Mobile. If the facility was going to be a one -carrier pole it would be the T -Mobile's pole. C/Nishimura asked who the applicant is in this project and what carrier will go on the pole. APIEspino replied that it would be T -Mobile. C/Nishimura then asked for confirmation that T -Mobile would be constructing the cell site and everything the Commission has seen thus far about coverage is all about T -Mobile. APIEspino said "correct." C/Nishimura said he was wondering out loud whether accommodating a second carrier would just be gravy on something that they already wanted to do. As far as that goes before a vote is taken he has a few more questions. C/Nishimura said the applicant said there were 25 complaints last month and asked if that was correct. Mr. Novak corrected C/Nishimura that he MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE25 PLANNING COMMISSION stated there were 25 complaints over a three month period which he said would equate to hundreds of complaints over a year. Chair/Low asked if the Commission was supposed to reopen the public comments because the applicant was asked to address Commissioners questions. ACA/Eggart said that if the Commission wanted the applicant to speak, the public hearing would need to be reopened. Chair/Low reopened the public hearing. C/Nishimura said so there were 25 complaints over a three month period and asked over what three month period Mr. Novak was referring to and Mr. Novak reiterated December 2014, January 2015 and February 2015. C/Nishimura asked how many complaints were from the same person and Mr. Novak said the complaints were from 25 different people from 25 different customer billing addresses within the coverage area. C/Nishimura said that there is a chance that some of these complaints could be duplicate complaints. Mr. Novak said that he believed that when carriers documented complaints for search rings, they documented them as separate customer complaints. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he knew for a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that these were 25 separate complaints. Mr. Novak said he does not work for T -Mobile. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak knew anything about the complaints during the past year, Mr. Novak responded that for this project the search ring started over a year ago, so for T -Mobile to provide him with this search area radius for a tower indicates to him that they have received complaints over several years. C/Nishimura said but we do not know how many complaints were received over the past year. He said that Mr. Novak had been pretty detailed on complaints during the last three months so either T -Mobile did not provide Mr. Novak with that the information or he does not know the information about the number of complaints over the past year. Mr. Novak reiterated that the information provided to him covers the three month period as stated. Again, these search rings are provided to him because there have been complaints dating back many years which is the reason the provider seeks his assistance. C/Nishimura asked when T -Mobile received the first complaint. Mr. Novak said he was trying to emphasize that this search ring would not have been created without prior complaints which is why and where the entire process starts. Carriers run demographic studies based on how many people are in the quarter -mile radius, how much coverage ...... C/Nishimura interrupted to MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION ask if the complaints for three months were in compliance with what was done prior to submission of this application and prior to the WVUSD project and Mr. Novak responded yes. C/Nishimura said that what Mr. Novak is telling him is that these projects generate these search rings so we already know that WVUSD denied use of their site across the street. In his opinion, one would think that if the same process were followed there would have been a search ring about complaints in that area for the proposed tower at Maple Hill Elementary School. Mr. Novak said that any site, whether it is at Maple Hill Elementary School or at Chaparral Middle School would fall within the same search ring. C/Nishimura asked if there was any data available about complaints when the Maple Hill School project was in process and Mr. Novak said that neither he nor his company was involved with the school application and he would not be privy to that information. C/Nishimura asked if the radio frequency equipment is turned off during maintenance. Mr. Novak responded that technicians visit the site two or three times a month on average to service the cabinets and .equipment shelter. There are modification projects that take place every two to three years where carriers upgrade antennas and RRU's. C/Nishimura said his question was if pine needles fall off and they need to be replaced would the tower be taken down for the safety of the workers or is the tower left live while they are maintaining equipment 65 feet up in the air. Mr. Novak said that towers are usually turned off during modification and C/Nishimura said "why is that?" Mr. Novak said because there is live electricity. C/Nishimura said but if they are just replacing the pine needles why do they turn the towers off and Mr. Novak responded "as a precaution" and C/Nishimura said "because it is unsafe" and Mr. Novak said he is not authorized to go into details about modifications. C/Nishimura said it sounded like it was a safety issue for the workers that the tower would be turned off while they were replacing pine needles. He said he could understand if they were cutting wires or fixing things. Mr. Novak said that the pine needles are designed to last a long time. There are provisions that T -Mobile will care for the site. C/Nishimura said it sounds like you are saying that if you were just to replace something 65 or 85 feet up in the air that the tower would go down (be shut down) for the safety of the worker. Mr. Novak said he was not a safety expert and such a determination would be up to the safety experts to decide whether a precautionary power down of the site was necessary. MARCH 1 2015 PAGE PLANNING • r C/Nishimura said that somebody mentioned a round dish and wanted to know if a round dish was part of this tower. Mr. Novak responded that as stated in staff's report, there is a proposed 24 -inch microwave dish that will be installed on the monopine. C/Nishimura asked where the dish would be located. Mr. Novak said it would be placed at approximately the second line down between the two antenna arms as shown on the drawing. C/Nishimura asked if there was a picture of the dish and Mr. Novak said that he believed some of the other elevations might show it better. It is designed to be mostly concealed by the pine needles. C/Nishimura said he did not see a circle on the drawings and Mr. Novak said he believed it was called out on the drawings. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak to approach the dais and show him where it might be. As requested, Mr. Novak approached the dais in order to point to a place on the drawing where the dish would reside. He said that the drawing indicated where the proposed T -Mobile 24 -inch microwave dish would be mounted on the monopine which indicated the dish would be installed at an elevation of about 46 feet at the mid -point of the dish. C/Nishimura stated that the circular disc is not represented on that picture but the arms of the other antennas are. Mr. Novak said it is designed as accurately as possible to represent what a monopine would look like when it is installed. C/Nishimura asked if the circular disc would be seen from a certain view and Mr. Novak said that based on the drawings it is in the eye of the beholder. C/Nishimura said that Mr. Novak is presenting this issue and making the statement that this is what would be seen. C/Nishimura does not see a circle on the drawing so he does not know if it will be on the outside and he does not know how camouflaged it will be. He knows that with his DIRECTV dish if his Eucalyptus tree gets in front of it he gets no service. He is not an expert but he would think that things cannot be placed in front of this dish. Mr. Novak explained that the tree and needles are designed to allow penetration of radio frequencies. C/Nishimura asked if the 24 -inch dish would be seen or not. Mr. Novak said it would be highly concealed. ClFarago asked if Mr. Novak said that he was able to identify the 25 complaints over a three month period as having been from residents identified through their billing addresses. Mr. Novak explained that when complaints come into the call centers, billing addresses are used to identify the complainant. ClFarago said it did not necessarily equate to folks living in the area of lost coverage. Mr. Novak said that in fact, it did. The 25 complaints fall within the coverage deficient area. ClFarago asked how many customers T -Mobile has in that area because it seems that most of MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION the speakers have another provider and Mr. Novak asked if ClFarago is referring to the area that currently has no coverage, the area inside the car, outside the car or some other area. C/Nishimura asked if the 25 complaints could be from people who were driving through the City complaining about the lack of coverage at Maple Hill Park. How does Mr. Novak know that all 25 complaints are from residents and in what area they reside. Are people complaining because they can't get coverage at their homes or maybe the complaints are from people that transfer to WVUSD that visit the park to play for AYSO? There are a lot of people that transfer to the elementary school. Are there people from out of town complaining that they were on the phone and there was no coverage so they want to register a complaint? Mr. Novak responded that he knows T -Mobile trains its customer service reps to vet these complaints so that these search rings can be issued. Again, they take complaints, look at the coverage in the area....C/N ishimura said he thinks what Mr. Novak is trying to present is very relevant to the Commission and the City. Again, are these residents that are complaining or non-residents that are complaining? Mr. Novak again stated that these are customers with billing addresses within this deficient coverage area. C/Nishimura asked how far that deficient coverage area goes and Mr. Novak again stated that it goes up to about 1/2 mile. ClFarago said that what he was trying to ascertain was what percentage the 25 customers represented for the totality of T -Mobile customers within the deficient coverage area subdivision. Mr. Novak said that when they did the coverage analysis it was based on the coverage of 3,000 residents in the area. C/Nishimura again asked if all 25 complaints came from the deficient coverage area or from other parts of the City or do complaints come from people in the fringe areas. Mr. Novak responded that 90 percent of the complaints came from within a quarter of a mile. There were a few complaints from Diamond Bar Boulevard but that represents a small portion. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak knows his statement to be fact. Are his statements true and can he back up his statements that all 25 complaints are within a quarter mile radius. Chair/Low said that C/Nishimura was asking for information that Mr. Novak may not be able to provide at this time. She asked the City Attorney to advise her on whether ..... C/Nishimura said he wanted answers to his questions and would not be interrupted. Chair/Low said she agreed with C/Nishimura and was asking that Mr. Novak provide that information to staff .VIARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION for vetting and that staff report back to the Commission at the next meeting so that this hearing could be continued. Chair/Low stated that C/Nishimura is asking for important and relevant information all of the Commissioners need in order to make an informed decision. ACA/Eggart said that Chair/Low's request was reasonable and if the Commission chose to do so it could continue the public hearing to a date certain which would be the next Planning Commission meeting. He said he would recommend asking the applicant's opinion regarding a continuance because as a matter of law, there are time limits within which the City must act on this matter. If the applicant objects and wants the Commission to make its decision tonight that needs to be a part of the record. Chair/Low asked C/Nishimura to provide his questions at this time so that the applicant could provide the information for the benefit of the Commission and public, after which she would ask if the applicant had an objection to continuing the public hearing. C/Nishimura said he wanted to hear if the applicant had an objection to continuing first and Chair/Low stated that C/Nishimura should ask his questions at this time for the benefit of the entire Commission. C/Nishimura said that one of the data points Mr. Novak presented is that there were 25 complaints and C/Nishimura wants to know the date of the each complaint, the location that is being complained about and the location of the billing address, as well as, supporting methodology about how this data is gathered. Again, he does not know if it is 25 people driving through the City to get to Chino Hills or if it is 25 people who live in the area that are complaining about that area. And he does not know if the complaints are about any of the areas that are getting mitigated outside of the Maple Hill community. Chair/Low asked if Mr. Novak understood what C/Nishimura was asking and Mr. Novak said yes, and in his opinion, if he were to provide the Commissioner with the data that it would not matter. He believes he presented a case where there is a coverage deficiency that T -Mobile is trying to cover and that he had provided backup and justification for this project and he respectfully asked for the Commission's decision tonight. Mr. Coventry said that T -Mobile is using December 2014 and January and February 2015 as data and Mr. Novak is being reluctant to share that with the Commission. At Christmas time a lot of people get cell phones and if he were to get his kid a T -Mobile phone, bring it home and it not work, that MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 30 PLANNING COMMISSION would be a problem with using December data. He would like to see a much broader range of data and specifics on the billing addresses. He has an office on Brea Canyon which is a billing address for 125 or 140 cell phones for his company and if he were to lodge a complaint it would look like it was at his building when it might be in another area. Again, he has an issue with the December timeframe because of the Christmas purchase. When he bought his home in 1999 he tried AT&T, Verizon and he picked Verizon. AT&T gave him a phone for two weeks to try and it did not work at that time. Karen Johnson, 22423 Mountain Laurel Way, said she was opposed to this project. She had T -Mobile service for 11 years and recently stopped the service. With T -Mobile she was able to get service at her home which is very close to the park. Coverage tends to drop at the stop sign at Maple Hill and Mountain Laurel Way where coverage gets spotty and then coverage comes back up as one drives up the hill. Junko Takeya said she believed the Commissioner's concern about who is complaining is very relevant to this decision because if it is not people in the immediate neighborhood and it is people who live in The Country, this tower needs to be in The Country. It is very possible this is what is going on with this application because The Country would never allow a cell tower in its community. She pointed out that while there may be trees at the location proposed for this tower, the area is not densely populated with trees, so the other trees will do little to disguise the trunk of this tower. Roger Yu wanted to know why the Commission was wasting everybody's time because people do not want this tower. Only 25 people have complained. Mr. Kupferman said that he is a college professor and from an engineering point of view this project does not make sense. Maple Hill is like a small canyon and it does not make sense to place a tower at the park. Ling Li said this discussion is about nuking a few hundred innocent kids for 25 complaints. Kui Kim said that in front of the elementary school there are small children where the City is planning to install the cell phone tower which makes no sense to her. She does not know whether anyone here explained the justification for this project. As a mother of children it does not make sense to her and she is furious with the City about how they can make a decision (to place a cell tower) in front of an elementary school. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION Junko Takeya said she was shocked that the applicant came in complaining about an area that lacks coverage and cannot tell this Commission and residents how many T -Mobile customers this actually affects. How can Mr. Novak not have that number? Pramod Gutha, T -Mobile Engineer, said he brought coverage maps. He drove around the area with cell phones to quantify and record the coverage that is available in the area. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Farago said he was concerned about due diligence in determining that this is the right location. Within the coverage area it just so happens that the cell tower location would land in a park. Looking at all of the renderings and what is being proposed, the aesthetics still concern him because the tower looks like it would detract from that park and neighborhood. It is a real concern that what this application brings forth to the Commission is the better of two bad options, which he believes handcuffs the Commission. C/Nishimura said that what the Commission is considering is a Resolution that was prepared by staff and of course, the City has to come up with Findings of Fact. Under the Conditional Use Permit section on Page 2, the last sentence says "therefore, the proposed facility will have no adverse affects in the surrounding area" so the Commission has to say yes or no. No. 5 says "granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district on which the property is located" so the Commission has to say yes or no and staff has written it in such a way that it is not detrimental. Midway into the page it says "wireless telecommunications facilities No. 1 — taking into consideration alternative sites that are available" and he did not hear that any alternative sites were available other than the suggestion maybe they could go on street poles. He said he wanted to point out these statements in the Resolution to the public and his colleagues because the Commission is being asked to approve or disapprove the Resolution that is before the Commission. ACA/Eggart said a moment ago he stated that the Commission should defer to the applicant whether or not to continue the hearing. He said he was backing away from that statement because he wanted to give the Commission an opportunity to do what is best and there are a few options that he would like to cover. The Commission could vote to approve the Resolution currently before it. If the Commission wants to deny the project, MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 32 PLANNING COMMISSION it is not in a position to do so this evening and if the majority of the Commission is leaning toward denial of the project there are parameters, because of the Federal Law placed upon the Commissioners that provide guidance as to which Facts upon which the Commission can base its denial. The two options would be to go through the Findings and have the Commission provide Facts constituting substantial evidence to support why the Commission is unable to support at least some of the required Findings. That could be done this evening or the hearing could be continued, which would then allow staff to come back with a proposed Resolution of Denial based on what the Commission tells staff the Commission could consider at the next meeting. This would be the most expedient solution. However, if the Commission decides not to continue the public hearing the Commission would go through the process of developing those Facts and the Commission would then direct staff to prepare the Resolution for consent only at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair/Low thanked ACA/Eggart for the very good advice. Chair/Low had questions about the Findings of Facts and asked that they be fleshed out. Additionally, she felt it would be prudent to do so and to know the steps subsequent to the Commission's decision this evening. C/Farago said he was trying to understand ACA/Eggart's statement. If the Commission considers a continuance to allow staff to come back with a recommendation of denial, is that what ACA/Eggart just said? ACA/Eggart stated that not only because this is an area of Federal Law but especially because Federal Law expressly says so, the Commission is prohibited from denying a project unless it adopts written Findings of Fact supporting the denial. There are no such Findings of Fact supporting denial before the Commission and so there is nothing for the Commission to adopt. Therefore, the Commission cannot make the motion tonight to deny. All that the Commission can do is to direct staff to prepare a Resolution now consistent with the Findings and Facts that the Commission gives staff to be considered at the next meeting, if that is what the Commission wants to do. C/Mahlke said that from what she understood, the Commission absolutely cannot deny this project based on perceived health concerns, but the Commission can, tonight, based on aesthetic compatibility, or what the Commission perceives to be aesthetic compatibility. Is that correct? MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE33 PLANNING COMMISSION ACAIEggart responded that the law on this matter is actually pretty complicated. He asked Chair/Low if she would like for him to go through the parameters of the law and Chair/Low said she would if he would please be brief. ACA/Eggart stated, so as staff said, the Planning Commission's ability to act on this area is firstly preempted by the Federal Telecommunications Act. In considering and acting on the present application, the Commission is limited to applying the standards set forth in the City's Code, and those standards are generally set forth in the Draft Resolution i.e., the required Findings. As he said, any denial has to be in writing and supported by substantial evidence. Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Telecommunications Act expressly prohibits the City from denying or regulating the placement or construction of wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that facilities comply with the FCC's regulations on radio frequency emissions which would be a condition of any approval. Finally and importantly, the Federal Act provides that a city's action on an application cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of wireless services and cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services by a particular carrier. What that means is that a basis of the denial cannot be that AT&T provides coverage in the area, therefore it does not matter whether T -Mobile does or. not. This is not a legitimate basis under the Federal Law. T -Mobile has to have an opportunity to compete with AT&T essentially. Secondly, if T -Mobile has a significant gap of coverage in the area and they have presented evidence that there is a gap of coverage, the question is whether it is "significant" and the Commission's discretion is further circumscribed and, T -Mobile could potentially challenge it. If there is a significant gap in coverage T -Mobile can show, they would also have to show that the manner in which they propose to fill that gap is the least intrusive on the values that the denial seeks to serve. Presumably, any denial would be based on aesthetics grounds and, that placement in a park is incompatible with the public's use of the park. T -Mobile would have to show that it is this particular monopine at this specific location that is the only way possible to close the coverage gap. So, when the Commission is making Facts and Findings, consider whether evidence of alternatives have been provided. C/Farago said he did not believe there was evidence provided that shows that any other alternative sites were presented to the Commission other than the park and other locations within the park in addition to the representation of denial at the school. Other than that he has seen nothing else in looking at the coverage map that any other areas were considered and brought to this Commission, .so basically all the Commission has to MARCH 14, 2015 PAGE 34 PLANNING COMMISSION consider are the facts as presented. So now the Commission is left with determining that the Commission would have to assume that this location is T -Mobile's choice and what they are putting there is not detrimental to the aesthetics and the use of the park, and whether it conforms to the City requirements or in the opinion of the residents. So if the Commission motioned for a denial based on that assumption, would that fall within the Federal guidelines? ACA/Eggart said that he believed the Commission could make such a motion, yes. C/Farago so moved. C/Nishimura seconded. ACA/Eggart asked for clarification that the motion directs staff to prepare a proposed Resolution of Denial supported by those facts. Chair/Low said the way she understood what ACAIEggart said, the Commission is unable to make a denial of the application at this time so therefore, the Commission has to direct staff to prepare Findings of Facts based upon tonight's discussion so that the denial is a proper denial. Is that what ACAIEggart said? ACA/Eggart said not exactly, that he was explaining the parameters. He was not trying to say that the Commission is unable to make Findings that are consistent with Federal Law - he just wanted to make sure that the Commission had the full picture before taking action. He does not want the Commission to come back and say that he did not tell the Commission they could not do that. As C/Mahlke asked, aesthetics is a common ground and a major concern for the Planning Commission which is what the Commission does (make those determinations). And there has been evidence provided in the record that there are lots of concerns whether this is the optimum solution from an aesthetics standards point and he believes staff has enough of those facts that they can articulate those particular facts. Chair/Low asked if the proper way to do it was to vote tonight or come back for the vote after the Resolution is prepared. ACA/Eggart said it was up to the Commission. The Commission has two options, again assuming the majority of the Commission is in support of the motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. The first option is to stop and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial based on what staff heard tonight and have staff bring the Resolution of Denial back for consideration. In that case, he would recommend that the Commission continue the public hearing because staff will be preparing a document the public should have an opportunity to comment on because they have not yet seen the document. Or, he can articulate verbally Findings he believes MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE35 PLANNING COMMISSION' are consistent with what he has heard from the Commissioners and they can say "yes, that's what we want you to write" and direct staff to do it. In that case the Commission would not have to continue the public hearing. The applicant has said he wants a decision. In that case staff would bring back the Resolution without a public hearing at the next meeting for the Commission's approval on consent calendar without public testimony. CIMahlke asked for clarification. One of the key phrases she heard ACA/Eggart was "least intrusive." If the Commission decides to vote tonight with the idea that this vote hangs on what has been presented tonight and the Facts provided to the Commission have not been shown to be the "least intrusive" and the Commission does not necessarily say that it is not "aesthetically pleasing." If the Commission picks "least intrusive" as a potential reason to say "no" to this particular idea does that mean that the applicant can reapply with more Findings of Facts and reopen the issue or is it an entirely new application process and would that be potentially different than if the Commission had decided to deny the project on something else like "aesthetics." Either way, is the Commission leaving the door open for reapplication? ACAIEggart suggested that the Commission state all of their reasons for requesting a denial. Chair/Low recognized CDDIGubman who asked to consult with ACAIEggart. Chair/Low responded affirmatively. ACAIEggart asked if the Commission wished him to articulate as best he could on the fly a general outline of the Findings he would propose to put in a Resolution for the Commission's consideration. Chair/Low said yes, based on tonight's discussion. ACAIEggart said that in order to approve this application the Commission needs to make each and every one of the Findings required by the Municipal Code. That includes the five required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit, as well as, the Findings required by Section 22.42.130 for Wireless Facilities. Based on the comments he heard from some of the Commissioners he would say that the Commission would say that Findings 3, 4 and 5 of the Conditional Use Permit Findings cannot be made. Finding 3 is "that the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity." He would surmise that the Commission would say that this particular cell tower facility, its size and location, given the size, location and MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 36 PLANNING COMMISSION use of the park, is not compatible with the nearby existing residences or the public's use of the park in which it is located. He would say that the Commission would probably find that the subject site, i.e., the park, is not physically suitable for the type of use being proposed because it is a heavily used park and the particular site within the park in which the facility is located, is located near areas that are heavily used, therefore, the large cell tower would be highly visible for those users; and, that granting the CUP will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and convenience for those same reasons. In addition, the specific Findings required to be made for wireless telecommunications facilities under 22.42.130 which include environmental integration. To the extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment and is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternative sites, evidence has been presented that it is a monopine and none of the other natural trees around the monopine are of a similar variety. C/Nishimura said what about the fact that there were no alternative sites considered. ACAIEggart said he would not say that is completely accurate but the Commission can say that there is "not" evidence before the Commission that all alternative sites were investigated and considered. ACAIEggart continued. Another factor to consider is size. He has heard objections about the size of this particular facility being 65 feet tall which is taller than the other monopine facilities in other public parks. This is in particular relationship to the surrounding and supporting structures. There are no large structures in this park to speak of. C/Nishimura asked if it could also be argued that T -Mobile could increase their coverage with a single carrier on a shorter pole and that is not one of the options before the Commission because they want a double pole and that it is why it is higher. Chair/Low said that was not part of the Findings. ACAIEggart said he did not want to dampen C/Nishimura's enthusiasm for making the Findings but he is not sure that there are a lot of facts in the record about what would and would not work so without further investigation he would be cautious about making that Finding. ACAIEggart continued. Another factor is residential proximity. Obviously, this tower would be located within 100 or 200 feet of residences. Chair/Low said that the code section says it has to be at least 78 feet from a residence and this tower is 89 feet. ACAIEggart acknowledged that the proposed distance conforms to the minimum code requirement but it is still adjacent to residences. He does not have to include that Finding if the Commission MARCH 10, 2015:. • r, does not wish to do so. He is just putting it out for consideration. Chair/Low said that it was part of the consideration. However, it does meet the distance requirement. ACAIEggart said he would not include that as a Finding. ACAIEggart concluded that "not the least intrusive" means to address the aesthetics issues raised and the issues of interfering with the public's use of the park in which it is proposed, primarily based on Commissioner comments that it is unclear that there are no alternative sites proposed outside of this park that could provide coverage in this area. CDD/Gubman asked to address the topic of co -location. For informational purposes, Finding No. 6 for these wireless telecommunications facilities, lists certain orders of preference for types of facilities. The intent of the City's Telecommunications Ordinance is to encourage co -location in order to reduce the number of individual structures. So that is the basis for the co -location. The City would indeed expect this park, if deemed to be an appropriate location for wireless telecommunication facilities, to have more carriers who would wish to locate on the facility in the park. And the guidance in the Ordinance for co -location is to minimize those aesthetics and the over -intensification effects of multiple poles rather than fewer co - locatable poles. ClFarago asked if what ACAIEggart outlined was for the Commission to move forward with a motion for a Resolution of Denial as outlined by counsel that the Commission votes on this evening, and that the Resolution would be brought back without public hearing or comment which is pretty much at the request of the applicant that a decision be made tonight. ACAIEggart said that was what he just outlined. ClFarago amended his motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial as outlined by ACA/Eggart because the Commission cannot make the Findings of Fact as required for an approval. C/Nishimura seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VC/Pirritano, Chair/Low None None ACAIEggart stated that the applicant has 10 days to file an appeal from the date of the Planning Commission's final decision. Because the Commission will not be adopting the Findings of Fact to support the denial until the next MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 38 PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission meeting, the time to appeal will not commence until the Planning Commission has voted on the Resolution. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Mahlke thanked everyone for their support tonight. C/Pirritano thanked ACA/Eggart and staff for providing all of the information the Commission needed to make its decision. C/Farago said that staff did an excellent job this evening and he appreciated all of the information and support allowing the Commission to come to this decision on a very controversial topic. Congratulations to Chair/Low and VC/Pirritano on their appointments. He said he looked forward to this year under their leadership. C/Nishimura thanked staff for their hard work and thanked the citizens of the neighborhood who came out and expressed their concern for their neighborhood. He encouraged all citizens of Diamond Bar to get educated about how government works and to get involved in the decision making process that affects their neighborhoods and families Chair/Low thanked staff and ACA/Eggart for the help and guidance and said she hoped the Commission made the correct decision tonight. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reported that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 24. Currently, there is only one item on that agenda which is an addition to a single family residence on the easterly side of Cold Spring. Staff will endeavor to bring the minutes for tonight's meeting, as well as the resolution articulates the Denial Findings as expressed verbally which will be placed on the Consent Calendar. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 39 PLARA-hIG COMMISSIOtl ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 10:24 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of March, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director )(b, �-- Ruth Low, Chairperson