Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2015-06A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PL 2014-518 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 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 65 -FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL TREE (MONOPINE) AND ASSOCIATED ABOVE -GROUND EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 220 SQUARE -FOOT ENCLOSURE AT A PUBLIC PARK (MAPLE HILL PARK), LOCATED AT 1355 MAPLE HILL ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN: 8293-030-900). A. RECITALS 1. The applicant, Bryce Novak, Cortell, LLC, representing T -Mobile, has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 to allow the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility at a public park (Maple Hill Park), Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would consist of 12 panel antennas, three (3) remote radio units (RRUs), and a 24 -inch diameter microwave dish antenna on a 65 -foot high monopine and associated above -ground equipment cabinets proposed to be located within a 288 square -foot lease space consisting of a 9'-5" high, 220 square - foot split face block enclosure structure. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the proposed Conditional Use Permit and new wireless telecommunications facility are collectively be referred to as the "Project." 2. The subject site is a 5.43 gross acre public park (Maple Hill Park) owned by the City of Diamond Bar. it is located in the Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Park. The legal description of the subject property is a Portion of Lot 93 of Tract 31038. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8293-030-900. Maple Hill Park is surrounded on three sides by single-family residential homes and by Maple Hill Elementary School to the east, and its amenities are frequently used by residents of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and students from Maple Hill Elementary School. 3. The proposed 65 -foot tall monopine structure would be located on top of a landscaped knoll on the southeast side of the tennis courts within the park. Improved picnic areas are located to the east of the tennis courts near the proposed locations of the monopine and equipment cabinet structure. When viewed from the street, the proposed monopine would appear to be located within a cluster of existing deciduous trees. 4. On February 26, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site. In addition, public notices were posted at the City's three designated community posting sites and the Project site was posted with a display board. On February 27, 2015, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel ValleV Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 5. On March 10, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed pubiic hearing, received a staff report and information concerning the Project from City Staff, solicited testimony and evidence from the applicant and all other interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. The applicant and all other interested individuals were given an opportunity to be fully heard and to present evidence at the public hearing. 6. The applicant's representative(s) provided testimony in support of the proposed Project at the public hearing. Numerous members of the public provided testimony in opposition to the proposed Project at the public hearing. No members of the public other than the applicant's representative(s) provided testimony in support of the Project. Reasons cited at the public hearing by individuals in opposition to approval of the Project included, without limitation: that the size of the proposed facilities was too large in proportion to the relatively small area of Maple Hill Park; that the other public parks within the City in which wireless telecommunications facilities have been installed are much larger than Maple Hill Park; that the proposed artificial monopine structure was out of character with the park and surrounding area; that the proposed monopine would not blend into the surroundings or be adequately screened because the natural trees surrounding it, were all of a deciduous variety, rather than pine trees or other types of evergreen trees more similar to a "monopine"; that the proposed Project would interfere with the public's use of the park; that the location within the park at which the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities would be located was too close to, and would be highly visible from, areas at which people congregate and that are frequently used by the public, including a picnic area frequently used by park patrons for birthday parties and other gatherings; that installation of the proposed Project would result in a reduction in property values of the surrounding residential properties; that other carriers were able to provide coverage in the area the applicant is seeking to cover with the proposed Project; and that potential alternative sites at which the applicant could install or co -locate a facility to serve its desired coverage area may exist and thatthe applicant had notfully investigated or considered these alternatives. 7. In order to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518, all of the findings prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58 must be made. In addition, in determining whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, the Planning Commission must consider the factors set forth in DBMC Section 22.42.130. 8. The Planning Commission gave due and careful consideration to the matter during its meeting of March 10, 2015 and, following conclusion of the public hearing, voted unanimously to direct City Staff to prepare this Resolution denying the application for a Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 based on the facts and reasons stated in this Resolution. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-06 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that because the application is denied, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Planning Commission hereby denies the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 because, based on the totality of information provided, the Planning Commission- hasp: determined, for the reasons set forth below, that several of the factors it is required to consider pursuant to DBMC Section 22.42.130 suggest that the proposed type and size of wireless telecommunications facility proposed is inappropriate for the proposed location within Maple Hill Park and dictate against approval of`the proposed Project and that not all of the required findings set forth in DBMC Section 22.58 can be made. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the following required findings for approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to DBMC Section 22.58 cannot be made: A. "The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity;" B. "The subject site is physically suitable.for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints;" and C. "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 in which the property is located." The facts and reasons supporting this determination include the following: These required findings,cannot be made because, due to its size, type and location, the proposed wireless telecommunications facility will not be compatible with the public's use of Maple Hill Park for park purposes or with the surrounding residential land uses. The proposed new freestanding wireless telecommunications facility would be located in Maple Hill Park. Maple Hill Park is a relatively small, but frequently used, 5.3 acre public park containing many amenities, including tennis courts, picnic areas, playground equipment and open fields. Maple Hill Park is surrounded on three sides by single-family residential homes and by Maple Hill Elementary School to the east, and, according to testimony provided at the public hearing, its amenities are frequently used by residents of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and students from Maple Hill Elementary School. The proposed 65 -foot monopine would be highly visible to users within the park and some of the residential properties adjacent to the park. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-06 Although the proposed monopine would appear to be located within a cluster of existing natural trees when viewed from the street, these natural trees are of deciduous varieties and there are no existing pine trees or other trees of an evergreen variety located near the location of the proposed monopine. As a result, the proposed 65 -foot monopine would stand out, especially in winter months, and would not blend into the surroundings or be adequately screened from the view of park users or surrounding residential properties. In addition, the location of the proposed monopine and block wall enclosure structure would be near to areas at which people congregate and that are frequently used -by the public, including a picnic area frequently used by park patrons for birthday parties and other gatherings. The proposed facilities would be highly visible from these areas. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is also too large to be located in Maple Hill Park, which is a relatively small community park immediately adjacent to residential uses. The City has previously approved the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities in three other public parks within the City — Peterson Park, Diamond Bar Center, and Pantera) Park; but each of these three other parks are larger than Maple Hill Park and the types of wireless telecommunications facilities approved are of a different character than the proposed Project. The wireless telecommunications facilities located in Peterson Park and Pantera Park are co -located on light poles and do not involve artificial tree structures. At Diamond Bar Center, there are two 45 -foot tall "monoelms" containing co - located facilities. The proposed 65 -foot mono -pine is significantly taller than the "monoelms" located at the Diamond Bar Center and would have a significantly greater visual impact than the facilities co -located on light poles at Peterson Park and Pantera Park. Pursuant to DBMC Section 22.42.130, "the extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment," "the extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures," and "the total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures" are all factors the Planning Commission is required to consider in evaluating an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Based on the facts stated above, all three of these factors suggest that the proposed type and size of wireless telecommunications facility proposed is inappropriate for the proposed location within Maple Hill Park and dictate against approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Finally, there may be alternative, less -intrusive ways for T -Mobile to close the asserted gap in its service coverage than through the proposed Project. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing, customers of AT&T receive adequate coverage in the subject area; however, the applicant's representative was unable to confirm the location or type of facility utilized by AT&T to provide this service coverage and/or whether it was possible to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-06 co -locate on the same facility as AT&T or another facility in a nearby location. In addition, based on testimony provided by the applicant's representative, potential alternative means exist to provide service coverage in this area, such as co -locating on existing utility facilities in the public right of way,' however, these alternatives would be more expensive than the proposed Project. At the public hearing, the applicant's representative was asked whether he would like the public hearing to be continued in order to allow for an opportunity for additional information to be provided to the Planning Commission, and he indicated that he preferred that the Planning Commission not continue the public hearing and, instead, vote on the application at the March 10, 2015 meeting. Accordingly, based on the testimony and evidence provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that there are not potential, less -intrusive alternative sites at which the applicant could install or co -locate a facility to close the asserted gap in T -Mobile's service coverage and that the applicant has not fully investigated or considered such alternatives. 5. The Planning Commission shall: a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the applicant, Bryce Novak, Cortell, LLC, 14621 Arroyo Hondo, San Diego, CA 92127, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Ruth ow, Chairman MARCH 2015, BY THE PLANNING 1, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary Farago, Nishimura, Chair/Low None Mahike, VC/Pirritano None Planning Commission Resolution No 2015-