Loading...
PC MINS 20040413CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Approved May 11 2004 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mueller at 7 05 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Cote led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Karp, Knight, Tetreault, Van Wagner, Vice Chairman Cote, and Chairman Mueller Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Project Coordinator Alvarez, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Assistant Planner Luckert APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a letter related to Agenda Item No 5, copies of 2 e- mails received at pcc rpv com, a booklet of Parliamentary Procedures and a copy of Rosenburg's Rules of Procedure at the request of Commissioner Karp. Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council opted to have a joint meeting with the Open Space Park and Recreation Committee on the fifth Tuesday in June instead of a possible joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Chairman Mueller thanked the City for the opportunity to allow the Planning Commission to attend the Planners Institute in Monterrey He also discussed the importance of the Planning Commissioners speaking on topics as individual citizens rather than as Planning Commissioners. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. View Restoration Permit No. 165: 5403, 5411, and 5417 Littlebow Road Director/Secretary Rojas polled the Planning Commission as to who had visited the site All Planning Commissioners had visited the site. Project Coordinator Alvarez presented the staff report giving a brief history of the project, noting that staff identified 7 trees on the Aberle property that significantly impair the view from the Spolher and Fukunaga properties He also noted that staff does not believe the subject trees significantly impair the view from the Lee property, as the foliage is to the extreme left of the view In order to restore the view from the Spolher and Fukunaga properties staff recommends the subject trees be trimmed to the red line show in Exhibit C in the staff report and the trees be trimmed in the cooler months. He concluded by stating that staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the View Restoration Permit and adopt the draft Resolution Commissioner Knight asked if the Lees would have to come before the Planning Commission with a new application if they felt they had view impairment from their property, as their property was not addressed in the Resolution Project Coordinator Alvarez answered that staff wrote the Resolution to state the significant view impairment was from the Fukunaga and Spolher properties only. Commissioner Knight asked what staff considered to be the cooler months. Project Coordinator Alvarez answered that staff considers the cooler months between October and March. Commissioner Knight asked if the bonded tree trimmers are required to name Mrs. Aberle as an additional insured when they go on her property Project Coordinator Alvarez explained that the standard liability coverage covers property damage but does not assume responsibility for any personal damage Commissioner Karp stated that it has been his practice to have tree trimming companies name him as additional insured on their liability and workers compensation policy, as it costs the company nothing extra and gives the homeowner a degree of protection, and felt that any company that will not do that should not be used. Commissioner Karp asked staff if they considered the severe fire hazard and danger the trees present to the community. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 2 Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff was not aware of any evidence that the trees constitute a fire hazard. Commissioner Karp stated that the trees in question present a fire hazard to the community. Vice Chairman Cote referred to the letter from Mrs. Aberle, noting she was requesting the applicants pay for the future maintenance of the trees, possibly based on an agreement she may or may not have with one of the applicants She asked if this was something that could be included in the conditions of approval. Project Coordinator Alvarez explained that there was some type of private agreement between the Lees and Mrs Aberle regarding the maintenance of the trees, however the City would not be able to incorporate the condition of approval that will require the applicants to maintain the trees after the trimming, as that could only be done through a private agreement between the parties. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. John Lee 5403 Littlebow Road stated that he was speaking on behalf of the three applicants He explained that his offer to maintain Mrs. Aberle's trees was made during the mediation process, and when the offers made during the mediation process were rejected this offer was removed. He also stated that Mrs. Aberle was requesting the debris from the tree trimming be removed through the applicants' properties, however he did not feel that was necessary as the applicants' properties were all uphill from Mrs. Aberle and there was ample access to remove the debris from her property. He also did not feel it was the applicants' responsibility to have the debris removed through their properties. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Lee if he understood that his property was not part of the Resolution and that he would have to file a separate application if he felt there was view impairment from his property Mr. Lee understood, noting that he did not disagree with the finding and that he was speaking in support of his neighbors. Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Lee if the agreement he made with Mrs Aberle was still, in his opinion, a valid agreement. Mr Lee explained that the offer was made during the mediation process and at that time he did not realize the number of trees that are actually on Mrs. Aberle's property. He stated that he is very concerned that there are a number of trees on Mrs. Aberle's property that do not currently impact the view from the Fukunaga's property but once they grow they will be directly impacting their view. He stated that Mrs. Aberle did not Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 3 accept the offer to maintain the trees at the time it was made and at this time he was not willing to extend the offer. Chairman Mueller asked Mr Lee if he agreed with the staff recommendations in the Resolution Mr. Lee answered that he agreed with the staff recommendations. Chairman Mueller asked Mr Lee if he agreed with Mrs Aberle's suggestion that the Eucalyptus Trees be trimmed to a level and maintained. Mr. Lee agreed with the suggestion. Blanca Fukunaga 5411 Littlebow Road stated that Mr Lee represented her and her opinions regarding the issues Mrs Aberle 5434 Manitowac Drive (foliage owner) stated that there has been no communications with the applicants after the initial communication and therefore did not understand why Mr. Lee felt that no agreement could be reached between the parties. She agreed to have the pine trees cut to the line represented in the staff report, but no lower, as she felt that would damage or kill the trees. Regarding the Eucalyptus trees, she stated that they could be topped but Eucalyptus trees grow very fast and suggested the Eucalyptus trees be cut down approximately two to three feet below the line in the staff report She felt that it was very dangerous to bring the tree trimmings downhill through her property nd would be much better to bring the trimmings up to Littlebow Road. I Vice Chairman Cote referred to Mrs. Aberle's letter and asked her if she still agreed with what she had written regarding trimming the trees. Mrs. Aberle read the first paragraph of the letter and stated that she has changed her mind and that trimming the trees to a level three feet below the red line is much too low and will stun the trees Vice Chairman Cote asked Mrs Aberle about the offer made by Mr. Lee to pay for the maintenance of the trees Mrs. Aberle stated that she cannot afford to keep the trees trimmed to the level suggested. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mrs Aberle if she has had an opportunity to trim the trees in the last 15 years Mrs Aberle answered that she has not Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 4 Mr Lee (in rebuttal) emphasized that the offer to maintain the trees was made at the mediation stage and was refused by Mrs Aberle at that time. At this time the applicants agree with the staff suggestions and are not willing to pay for the maintenance of the trees on Mrs. Aberle's property Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Lee if he saw any problem with allowing the tree trimmer to remove the foliage upslope rather than down slope. Mr. Lee answered that Mrs. Spolher has indicated that she would not like the tree trimmings to go through her property and to use his property or Mrs. Fukunaga's property the tree trimmers would have to first cross another neighbor's property who has indicated that she does not want that to happen. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr Lee why the offer to maintain the trees has been taken off the table Mr Lee answered that Mrs. Aberle has a responsibility to maintain her own trees and after touring her property he realized that there are many more trees than he initially realized would have to be maintained Vice Chairman Cote asked Mrs. Aberle, given the financial burden of having to maintain the trees on her property, if she had considered the option of removal of the trees versus having the continued responsibility of having to maintain the trimming of the trees Mrs. Aberle answered that she would not consider having the trees removed. Chairman Mueller stressed to Mrs Aberle that maintaining the trees is her responsibility unless a private agreement is made between her and her neighbors and the Planning Commission cannot require her neighbors to pay for maintaining her trees Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Cote asked staff to recap the steps involved in the mediation process, as she felt it was important for the foliage owner to understand that offers that may have been made during that process are not binding and cannot be enforced by the Planning Commission. She further questioned why the mediation process in this case consisted of only one mediation session and why it then took so long to come before the Planning Commission Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the process only includes one mediation session with the City mediator and explained how the process then proceeds to private discussions between the applicant and foliage owner and that process can, at times, take quite awhile. He explained that if discussions do not work the case will then go before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 5 Vice Chairman Cote asked staff, when there are circumstances when there is a concern regarding future maintenance of the foliage because of limited financial means of the foliage owner, what the role of the City would be in this type of situation. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the follow-up tnmming does not occur the City sends a notice to the applicant reminding them to do the trimming He noted that the City Council has directed staff to be more punitive when foliage owners do not do the required maintenance trimming noting that when trimming does not occur the cases are sent to the City Attorney's office where a warrant is obtained to do the work and a lien may be placed on the property. Commissioner Knight stated that there are seven trees identified by staff that are currently blocking the applicants' view, noting that there are several other trees on the property, and asked what happens when the smaller trees not currently identified by staff grow into the viewing area and begin to block the applicants' view. Project Coordinator Alvarez noted that Condition No. 8 of the Conditions of Approval states that if any additional trees present a view obstruction, the City will order the trimming of those trees. Commissioner Tetreault asked, as a possible alternative to ruling on the application at this meeting, if the Planning Commission could order the parties into another session of mediation and continue the item to a date certain. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that there is nothing in the Guidelines that addresses that, however there is a formal request from the applicant to take action on this item at this meeting. Chairman Mueller asked staff if it has been a past practice to order the foliage be removed from the foliage owners property using a neighboring property, and is this something that staff feels is a feasible solution. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated that there is nothing in the Ordinance stating the applicants are required to remove the trimmings through their property and the foliage owner is the one who schedules the tree trimmers, who are only allowed on the property by consent of the property owner. Commissioner Tetreault felt it was very clear in this situation what the Planning Commission is charged to do, as there is view impairment and the applicants are entitled to have their views restored He felt that the difficulty becomes one of accomplishing this in a way that will be agreeable to all concerned, as the foliage owner is unable or unwilling to promise any future maintenance of the trees after they are initially trimmed. He commended the applicants in their initial offer to the foliage owner to help with the cost of the maintenance of the trees and realized that the Planning Commission cannot enforce this agreement However, he felt it was in everyone's best interest for the applicants and foliage owner to take another look at some type of Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 6 maintenance agreement and encouraged the parties involved to try to come to some sort of private agreement, as in the long run it would benefit everyone concerned. Commissioner Van Wagner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments adding that he was disappointed the mediation process did not produce an agreement and the Planning Commission must now make a decision. He felt that all of the findings could be made and agreed with the recommendations of the staff report. Commissioner Karp stated that there are dead trees and dead pine needles throughout this property, creating a serious fire hazard to the City. He felt that the trees should be cut down entirely and replaced with lower growing foliage that is more suitable for the slope He asked if it was necessary to wait to do the trimming in the cooler months starting in October which would mean that the fire danger would exist throughout the hotter summer months Vice Chairman Cote felt that there is a significant impairment of the view from the applicants' property. She was having difficulty with finding that the applicant had complied with the early neighborhood consultation process and shown cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts. She discussed the process and felt it was a shame that the parties did not realize it was to both of their benefits to come to an agreement earlier rather than bring this application to the Planning Commission. She did not think the foliage owner understood that the initial offer made by the applicants to help with the maintenance of the trees was no longer valid. She stated that she agreed with the staff recommendations presented in the staff report even though she understood the difficulty the foliage owner will have maintaining these trees in the future. Commissioner Knight stated that he could make the necessary findings adding that he would like to specify the dates for trimming in Condition No 16 and asked staff if they could find out if the tree trimmers could name the foliage owner as an additional insured on their insurance policy Finally, he wondered if it would be worthwhile for the City Council to look into possible financial aid for people who are in a situation where they are required to maintain the foliage but may not be able to do so financially. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the findings can be made and agreed with the recommendations in the staff report. He felt that trimming the Eucalyptus tree in excess of what staff was recommending would help reduce the maintenance of the tree in the future Chairman Mueller did not think the foliage owner was arguing with the tnmming and at the same time the rights of the view owners must be considered. He did not think the foliage created a fire issue and it was not in the purview of the Planning Commission to make opinions on whether or not there was a fire issue He did not think the Planning Commission had the authority to send the application back to the mediation process as the Ordinance and Guidelines specify it is the Planning Commission's job to make a decision as to whether there is significant view impairment and act accordingly He suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the option in the staff report to trim the Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 7 Eucalyptus tree down three feet rather than down to the red line indicated in the staff report (option 2). Commissioner Knight asked if the options in the staff report were options available to the foliage owner or if the Planning Commission must choose one of the options. Project Coordinator Alvarez answered that the options were available for the foliage owner to choose, noting that at a minimum staff recommends option 1 and only with the consent of Mrs. Aberle can any other option be selected He stated that Mrs Aberle has consented to option 2 in her letter sent to the Planning Commission Chairman Mueller re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Lee if he understood the three options for the Eucalyptus tree presented in the staff report, particularly option 2. Mr. Lee stated that the applicants were agreeable to option 2 regarding the Eucalyptus tree. Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-15 thereby approving the View Restoration Permit as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE 1 At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8.50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINES (CONT) 2. Code Amendment regarding 16' building height (ZON2003-00417) Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report, noting that the City Council opted to deal with this issue and gave staff specific direction on what amendments to make, and the City Attorney is currently working on the language for the amendments which will be presented at the next City Council meeting Therefore, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission receive and file the report and take no further action on the item, given the City Council direction on the item. Vice Chairman Cote stated that she was not able to attend the April 6 City Council meeting but has read the staff report and viewed the tape of the meeting. She was very pleased with the clarifications made which allows the Planning Commission much clearer guidance on how to deal with the issues and thanked the City Council for taking the action they did. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Gerstner stated that he too was pleased the City Council addressed the issue and thanked the many previous Planning Commissioners who spoke to the City Council. Commissioner Tetreault was also pleased with the results of the City Council deliberations on this issue as he felt the clarifications are much more workable and practical and will allow the Planning Commission to do their job much more effectively Commissioner Knight stated that he was not able to attend the City Council meeting and he had some issues he wanted to bring forth to them, which he will give to staff to present to the City Council. Chairman Mueller was also pleased with the City Council and felt that the language was much more workable and understandable Chairman Mueller moved to accept the staff recommendation and take no further action on the item, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). 3. View Restoration Permit No. 161: 7256 and 7264 Berry Hill Drive Director/Secretary Rojas reported that staff was recommending the item be continued to the April 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the item to the April 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Cote. (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation Permit/Grading PermitNariance (Case No. ZON2003- 00562): 7455 Via Lorado (Lot #2) Assistant Planner Lucked reported that the applicant has recently withdrawn the application before the Planning Commission and a new design has been submitted. He noted that after an initial review of the new submittal, staff determined that the new design does not require Planning Commission review. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission accept the withdrawal of the application. Vice Chairman Cote moved to accept the withdrawal of the application as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. (7-0). 5. Height Variation Permit/Grading PermitNariance/Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2003-00563): 7455 Via Lorado (Lot #1) Vice Chairman Cote moved to accept the withdrawal of the application as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. (7-0) Planning Commission Minutes Apnl 13, 2004 Page 9 6. Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2004-00003): 3960 Crest Road Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the Conditional Use Permit and was recommending the Planning Commission approve the application subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Commissioner Knight asked staff what other facilities this site serves. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that California Water utilizes the site exclusively Commissioner Knight asked if there were other wireless communication companies located at the site Associate Planner Schonborn answered that Sprint is the first wireless company at this site Vice Chairman Cote asked staff if Sprint has provided a master plan for the community which includes the before and after coverage that will be provided and what additional benefit to the community this antenna will provide Associate Planner Schonborn answered that this was a question better answered by the applicant. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. Courtney Schmidt (representing Sprint PCS) explained that the frequency of visits to the site is once a month or Tess, as the site is monitored off-site. She noted that the antennas that are existing on the utility pole are small whip antennas used by California Water, however they are no longer in use and Sprint will be removing them from the utility pole, as well as the cross arms that the whip antennas are attached to. She stated that Sprint has provided to the City a copy of their most recent master plan for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula She explained that antennas at this site will provide coverage to customers south of the site along Ganado Drive and that this antenna will replace many of the outdated antennas along Ganado Drive. She also noted that the new antennas will provide service to the golf course area at Ocean Trails. Commissioner Knight asked if the outdated antennas along Ganado Dnve will be removed. Ms Schmidt answered that the antennas along Ganado Drive will eventually be removed, however they are connected to other facilities and cannot be completely removed until the upgrade is complete in the City Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 10 Chairman Mueller noted that the plan indicates the pole at a height of 50 feet and wondered if there was some reason the pole was not shortened in height to support the proposed antenna. He asked if there was a plan for carriers other than Sprint to utilize the pole. Ms. Schmidt answered that any use of the pole above Sprint's propose cross arm is not currently being used, however there is always the possibility for any other carrier to place a cross arm above Sprints Chairman Mueller asked Ms. Schmidt if, in the site coverage analysis, was Sprint convinced that the correct height was chosen for the cross bars to ensure proper coverage. Ms. Schmidt explained that the height of the cross arm proposed is what the radio frequency engineers preferred when reviewing their need for coverage in the area. Chairman Mueller felt that, unless the additional height on the pole is needed, it was just excess area not serving any purpose. Ms. Schmidt answered that the upper portion is not currently being used. Vice Chairman Cote noted that the Wireless Communication Antennas Development Guidelines encourages co -location of various commercial antennas uses on existing utility poles, and in the case of the excess height on this pole if it would be feasible to have another carrier use another part of this pole in the future Ms. Schmidt explained that there are separation requirements between particular antennas for different carriers, however because Sprint is placing their cross arm at 26 feet and there is approximately another 20 feet at the top of the pole, she felt that there sufficient room for another carrier to place additional antennas at the top of the pole Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Chairman Mueller asked staff if the Planning Commission has the latitude to condition the approval to require the pole be shortened to satisfy their current requirement and in time if additional carriers request use of the pole, the pole can then be modified and reconfigured at that time Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the Planning Commission can require the pole be shortened if the pole is creating an impact, however staff is not aware of any impact the height of the pole is creating. Commissioner Karp stated that he visited the site and felt that this is an ideal location for this type of antenna use, as it has no impact on any of the surrounding neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Karp, adding that the antenna is an existing structure, and felt there was no impact on any of the neighbors in the area. Commissioner Van Wagner agreed with the comments of Commissioners Karp and Tetreault Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-16 as recommended, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2004-00003), seconded by Vice Chairman Cote. Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to add a condition that, where feasible, Sprint phase out and remove any facilities that are not being used because of this new facility, seconded by Chairman Mueller. Vice Chairman Cote asked staff if there was a better way in which the Planning Commission could address the issue of proper phase in and phase out plans in the requirement for the submittal for the network master plan, rather than having it as a specific condition of approval on each case before the Planning Commission Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Guidelines require the submittal of a master plan, however to address the specific concerns of Commissioner Knight he felt that a condition would have to be added to the approval of each individual application. Vice Chairman Cote wondered if the Planning Commission should even get involved with the phase in and phase out of outdated equipment Director/Secretary Rojas explained that, in the past, staff has let the carriers do their plans based on technology and their needs and staff reacts to the plans to make sure they do not impact the residents Vice Chairman Cote was concerned that the Planning Commission was identifying a policy or a long-term issue and was focusing on Sprint PCS in this specific application She would prefer to see the Planning Commission take the action to figure out the longer-term approach through a possible change or revision to the Wireless Communication Antenna Development Guidelines. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that the Planning Commission may want to ask the Guidelines be brought to the Planning Commission as an agenda item to review them to see if there are any changes that may want to be made. Commissioner Tetreault felt that input should be received from the wireless company as well. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments and withdrew his amendment to the motion. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 12 The motion to approve the application was approved, (7-0). 7. Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 191: 6507 Ocean Crest Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and showing a picture of the equipment cabinets He stated that staff has reviewed the required findings and felt all of the findings could be adopted In addition, staff is of the opinion that the equipment cabinet is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City's Commercial Antenna Ordinance and the proposal does comply with Wireless Communication Antenna Development Guidelines. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Van Wagner asked why Cingular Wireless built the cabinet without the required City permits. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the previous consultant that Cingular had hired informed Cingular that there was a permit for the installation. Commissioner Van Wagner asked if there were consequences from the City for doing the work without permits Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that all Planning and Building and Safety fees are doubled Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. Dean Brown 1111 Town and Country Road, Orange (representing Lingular Wireless) stated that both cabinets should have been installed when the project was originally done, however there was a miscommunication and at a later date the second cabinet was installed, not realizing that the permit had already expired He apologized for the misunderstanding and was before the Planning Commission to rectify the problem. He stated that he as reviewed all of the Conditions of Approval and agrees to all of them. Commissioner Van Wagner asked if there were any alternatives to having a wall screen the cabinets that would not create any interference with the equipment. Mr. Brown explained that they had looked at building a screening wall, however the wall would interfere with existing antennas, which belong to another carrier. He stated that a wall would also create somewhat of a hazardous situation as a wall would have to be built in a location that would make it very difficult to get around and it was very close to the edge of the five -story apartment building. Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 13 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-17 as recommended, thereby approving a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 191, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). 8. View Restoration Permit No. 123: 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff was recommending the public hearing be continued to the meeting of May 11, 2004 and all parties are in agreement to the continuance request Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to May 11, 2004, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 9. Review of the City Tree Review Permit Process Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the April 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. Minutes of March 9, 2004 Commissioner Knight noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Cote not ted a typo on page 5 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight toted on page 19 that the minutes should reflect that he was requesting that the rodf pitch be lowered from 4:12 to 3:12. Vice Chairman Cote moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). 11. Minutes of March 23, 2004 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since the minutes include an item that he abstained from and Vice Chairman Cote abstaining since she was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Karp noted that he will be absent from the April 27 and May 11 meetings. Vice Chairman Cote moved to add a review and discussion of the Antenna Guidelines at a future meeting, to look specifically at the Master Plan and the Planning Commission Minutes Apnl 13, 2004 Page 14 possible review in the Master Plan of what sites and antennas could be deleted as new antennas and sites are added, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Mueller stated that he would tend to not support the idea, as he did not feel the community was built out as far as antenna sites are concerned and he did not think there would be much discussion on what antennas could be eliminated. He felt the priority on the Wireless Guidelines was very low in priority on items that should come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault felt that if such an item were to be discussed, it would be helpful to get input from representatives from the wireless carriers, as he did not understand the technology involved. Chairman Mueller asked staff if they felt the wireless carriers would speak before the Planning Commission about their individual plans for the area Director/Secretary Rojas felt that if staff asked the carriers to educate the Planning Commission on how adding and removing antennas works, that they might be willing to attend Director/Secretary Rojas noted that there are two types of antennas in the City: those on private property that must be approved by the Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process and those in the public right-of-way that are attached to utility poles and light standards. He noted that the Planning Commission does not deal with the antennas in the public right-of-way, as the Department of Public Works reviews those applications. The motion to add the discussion item of the Antenna Guidelines passed (6-1) with Chairman Mueller dissenting. Chairman Mueller noted that the review of the View Restoration Guidelines and a definition of a hedge would be placed on an agenda in the near future. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he would review the future agendas to find a meeting where he can place these items. 12. Pre -agenda for the meeting of April 27, 2004 Regarding Agenda Item No.1 and the issue of the easements, Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it would be helpful for the City Attorney to be present at the meeting or to review the issue and present some sort of opinion to be given with the staff report to guide the Planning Commission on the issue. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff has been consulting with the City Attorney regarding this issue and there would be a discussion of this in the staff report. He explained that for the City Attorney to attend the meeting or create a memo for the Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 15 Planning Commission, he would have to consult with the City Manager, as the City does not budget for the City Attorney to attend Planning Commission meetings. Vice Chairman Cote noted that she will not be attending the April 27 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2004 Page 16