Loading...
PC MINS 20170627 Approved 7/25/1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 7:13 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Public Works Associate Engineer Eder, Assistant City Attorney Gerli, Deputy City Attorney Lona Laymon, and Special Counsel Christy Marie Lopez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the June 20, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved, without public comments, the appeal of the Commission-approved new single family residence on Rolling Ridge Road. The City Council also directed Staff to resume the peafowl trapping program for 2017, and initiated code amendment proceedings to the City's Sign Ordinance which he stated will be reviewed by the Commission later this summer. Director Mihranian also reported that the technical studies consisting of the traffic, noise, and quality analyses for the General Plan update will be presented to the Planning Commission at the July 25, 2017 meeting and that the continued Public Hearing on the Cal Water Conditional Use Permit Revision is requested by both the applicant and the neighbors to be continued from July 11, 2017 to the July 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Nelson provided the Commission with the State's new Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan. Commissioner Tomblin introduced students from Marymount California University who were in attendance to observe tonight's meeting. Chairman Cruikshank reported that he met with representatives from Cal Water and toured their Rancho Palos Verdes facility. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the May 9, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (4-0-3) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Tomblin and Leon abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 2. Approval of the June 13, 2017 Minutes Vice Chairman James moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0-1) with Chairman Cruikshank abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. NEW BUSINESS 3. Review of the City's Ordinance regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Commissioner Emenhiser disclosed that he was, at one time, a National Sales Manager for Verizon Wireless, but noted he has no financial connection with Verizon Wireless. Director Mihranian introduced Special Counsel Christy Lopez with the law firm Best, Best and Krieger, Charles Eder, Associate Engineer in the Public Works Department, Elena Gerli with the City Attorney's office, and Lona Laymon, also from the City Attorney's office. He explained they are all present this evening to discuss tonight's agenda item on wireless telecommunication facilities. Director Mihranian explained that the item before the Commission is an orientation of the new Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance that the City Council recently enacted. He explained the Planning Commission will be taking on a new role in this process, as they will be looking at wireless telecommunication facility applications that takes place in the public right-of-way rather than private property. He noted that the Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 2 program is administered through the Public Works Department, and not the Planning Department. He stated that no pending applications will be discussed at this meeting, and advised any public speakers to save their comments on individual projects for the meeting at which the project is scheduled to be heard. Ms. Lopez explained she worked with City Staff in order to get the Ordinance in place, and therefore has a lot of knowledge on this Ordinance as well as opinions shared by the community because of the lengthy and detailed process this Ordinance went through. Ms. Lopez began by discussing the City's role in the process, and how, when working in the public right-of-way, the City is subject to the Public Utilities Code. She also explained how the City is considered an owner and/or a landlord when discussing light standards in the public right-of-way. She discussed the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, noting that the City cannot ban telecommunication services from the City. She discussed several aspects of the Federal Telecommunications Act and explained how these relate to the City and the new Ordinance. These topics included a significant gap analysis, gap versus capacity, standards for denial, and FCC requirements as to how a city must act "within a reasonable time frame". Ms. Lopez discussed State law and the California Public Utilities Code which includes right-of-way management and time, place, and manner rights. She discussed Senate Bill 649 which has passed on the Senate Floor and is legislation pending in the Assembly. She explained this Bill would strip local authority of any discretionary approval and allow only ministerial permits. She also noted it would allow for equipment up to 21 cubic feet within the public right-of-way. Ms. Laymon added that there is a Coastal Zone exemption included in the Bill. In researching this, she found that the Bill states that coastal zones that are under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission are exempt from the by-right small cells. She explained that it is rather vague as to what the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over, and that it could be argued that communities with a Local Coastal Plan may not be considered under the direct jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Ms. Lopez discussed the City Ordinance, and explained the City's need for updated regulations. She stated there are currently 140 wireless installations in the public right- of-way, and the Ordinance will provide an established process so that the City can approve or deny an application within the Federal shot clock requirements. She noted that if the City fails to act within the shot clock period the proposed application is deemed approved. She explained that the City held several town hall meetings regarding the proposed Ordinance, seeking input from the community and carriers. She stated one of the things the community requested was that the Planning Commission review these applications. She stated there is a new application and process that has been implemented, with a three-tiered permitting process. She explained the notice requirements, including community notice for mock-ups, public hearing notices, and notice to the City prior to the shot clock expiration. She also discussed the new Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 3 submittal requirements and process. Ms. Lopez explained the provisions that were added to protect aesthetics and property values, including screening or camouflaging, landscaping, lighting limits, and noise limits. Finally, she discussed the findings that are required to be made by the Planning Commission in order to a permit an application. Assistant City Attorney Gerli reiterated that Federal Law prohibits the Commission from considering any health effects associated with wireless facilities, including any alleged affects of radio frequency emissions. She therefore stated that she very strongly urged the Commission that if there are any public comments related to health effects, not to follow up with clarification questions. She explained that sort of exchange with the public commenter can be considered as consideration of evidence of health effects. She also stated that at tonight's meeting the Commission is not considering any specific cell sites, as they will be coming before the Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. She requested the Commission not follow up or seek clarification from the commenter if they are discussing a specific cell site, as it may require that Commissioner to recuse themselves from the public hearing related to that cell site. Commissioner Emenhiser noted there are possibly twenty-six sites that may come before the Commission, and with each application everyone within a 500 foot radius is notified. He stated this could lead to very long meetings with many public speakers on each site. After a discussion on the shot clock and how it might be calculated, Director Mihranian stated that on a typical Planning Commission agenda there may be several applications to be heard by the Commission, and Staff may have to agendize special meetings that are solely dedicated to considering these permits so that it doesn't affect other planning applications Staff is processing. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the diminishing of value considered an affect in terms of aesthetics. Ms. Lopez answered that it is a valid topic the Planning Commission may consider when evaluating these sites. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the City still has jurisdiction over Edison poles that are subcontracted out in the public right-of-way. Ms. Lopez answered that all installations that go in the public right-of-way, including those owned by others, are governed by this Ordinance. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the Commission can consider cumulative view impacts, where there might be three or four cell sites on one pole, whereas one by itself does not create a view impairment but several may cause a view impact. Ms. Lopez stated there is at least one case law that deals with cumulative impact, and could be evaluated by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin asked if there is primarily one company filing these applications representing the various different carriers. Ms. Lopez answered that Crown Castle is currently the company filing the applications on behalf of the various carriers. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was any way to force co-use of antennas by the different carriers. Ms. Lopez answered that she did not think there was a way to force co-use of antennas. Chairman Cruikshank asked if it is allowed for the telecommunication companies to pre- install a mock-up prior to it being approved. Ms. Lopez explained that early in the process Staff learned that there were some cases where the underground fiber optic that lead to the antenna node had already been installed without the disclosure that it was installed in the right-of-way for the purposes of servicing an antenna node that didn't currently exist. Staff asked that this practice has discontinued, and it was written into the Ordinance that this was not a practice that is allowed in the City. She stated that Staff believes this practice has now stopped. Chairman Cruikshank reminded the public that this is not a public hearing to discuss any specific site and if anyone has a concern in regards to specifics on how the City and Commission will be processing these applications, this is the time to bring up those questions and concerns. Aaron Snyder(representing Crown Castle) stated he had a brief presentation to discuss wireless demand and the state of the industry. He discussed the current increase in wireless demand and the resulting problem of carriers providing a wireless network that allows users to obtain both coverage and capacity to efficiently use their devices. He noted applications that are in with the City and indicated that the Federal shot clock is in place. He stated that Crown Castle will diligently obtain permits for installation of the fiber networks, and is not a company that moves ahead without following the correct City process. In response to the question regarding potential impacts the sites may have on property values, he stated that there is none. He explained there has been a lot of research done on this and there has not been a correlation found between cell sites and real estate property values. Commissioner Emenhiser asked what the effective range is on these smaller cell sites. Mr. Snyder answered that depending on the size of the installation and how the antennas are located on the infrastructure, the range would be a series of blocks. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Snyder how their facilities handle earthquakes or floods. Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 5 Mr. Snyder answered that structural calculations from a certified firm are submitted with the plans Commissioner Tomblin referred to a map Mr. Snyder showed in his power point presentation, and asked if the map represented a Master Plan for AT&T and Verizon. He also asked how far out this map projected in years. Mr. Snyder answered that the map represents the current existing facilities as well as proposed facilities. He stated the wireless industry operates on a yearly basis and he won't know the projected building for the coming year until the conclusion of this year. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Snyder if his company felt they had clear guidelines in regards to the aesthetic requirements of the City. Mr. Snyder answered that City Staff has made it exceedingly clear what their expectations are in terms of aesthetics. Perry Cockreham stated he was the President of the Ridgecrest HOA, however he was speaking as an individual. He stated that after talking with Staff he felt the City was trying to find a solution that optimizes the values of the homes in the City as much as they can within the confines of the Federal Law. He stated it would be nice if Staff could post on the mock-up the anticipated shot clock expiration date, as well as the hearing dates with the Planning Commission and City Council. Don Carter stated that he very much opposed Senate Bill 649 and encouraged the City to fight the bill however possible. He stated that he understood the first few sites under consideration are in fairly benign areas, and encouraged the Commission to do their due diligence on these sites. Jamie Ehrl stated she did not feel there was a single person in the room who was in favor of these towers. She stated she was disappointed that the public was not brought into the process, but rather was told through a public notice what was being done. She stated she would have more to say when the hearing for a particular site is before the Commission. Jeff Wescott stated he understood if the Senate Bill passes there may be very little the City can do, and hoped the City would oppose the Bill. He stated that it was clear to him that companies such as Crown Castle will submit a large number of applications to try to overwhelm the City. He encouraged the Commission to follow the Ordinance that is in place, as it is the current law. Ms. Lopez stated that she was hearing a reoccurring sentiment from the speakers, which was that the speakers had come to this meeting to speak on site-specific issues. Since the City Attorney's office has stated this is not appropriate for this meeting, she encouraged the speakers to submit their comments in writing to the City, which can then Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 6 be made part of the public record that will go to the Planning Commission before that public hearing. Megan Wescott stated that she would like to stress that with the shot clock timeline in place she hoped that the Planning Commission and Public Works were adequately staffed to handle the substantial work load associated with these applications. Ananias Ebilane stated that he agreed with the comments made by Jeff and Megan Wescott. He added that when he bought his home it was very beautiful place, but felt it would now be ugly with such a cell site facility. He stated the mock-up looks like a cross and the back of a church. He stated he will say more at the appropriate hearing. Gene Steiger stated he opposes the proposed cell site at 28809 Crestridge Road and has the signatures of over 67 voters at 48 homes that oppose this site. He did not understand how Crown Castle selected this site, and stated he did not feel Crown Castle tried to find the least intrusive means possible, and set up to be the least visible. He discussed his opposition to the location and why he was opposed to it. He stated that he would like to maintain a rural environment, which means no utility poles, no sidewalks, no street lights, and no cell towers. He stated that he felt the proposed cell site will lower the values of the homes in the neighborhood, and asked that this cell site be moved out of the Ridgecrest neighborhood. Marlene Iseli stated she also lives in the Ridgecrest neighborhood. She stated her home is in a gap zone and she appreciates being able to use her cell phone to speak to her friends and family. She explained that last week the electric cable burned and she had no electricity for quite some time. She stated that the cables are starting break down, noting that last night she had no land line phone service. She stated she is therefore dependent on her cell phone and needs a cell tower in her neighborhood. She stated that this is something that the neighbors need to live with and is part of technology. She stated that a cell tower might be hidden in the trees or placed in such a way that it is not readily visible. Carol Mueller stated she submitted a letter to the Commission. She expressed concerns that this is a very confusing issue and did not know how it would be resolved. Denise Van Deuren stated that she hoped that in making their decisions the Planning Commission look at the application, look at where the gap coverage is, and look at the alternative sites. She noted the proposed Doverridge site and stated the she felt there had to be a better site for this structure. Carolyn Clark stated she agrees with everyone who has spoken, with the exception of one person. She requested the Commissioners drive around and look at these mock- up towers that have been erected in the City. She stated that she felt these towers are going to change the look of the City. Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 7 Gary Wu recommended the Commission look into the type of equipment that is going to be used at the various sites. He also stated that the FCC has criteria regarding radiation environmental assessments, and asked the Commission to pay attention to this information. Joy Caswell stated it wasn't too long ago that the neighborhood fought back against a similar effort by AT&T and stated she never thought she would see this happen again. She stated that ignoring health concerns or any real estate concerns anyone might have is completely irresponsible. Robin Rahn stated his concern that once the proposed tower in his neighborhood is approved, it's opening the door for other carriers to follow suit. He noted the City is currently inundated with applications, and questioned if there was any way the City can limit the number of applications over a specific time period. He stated he lives in a community where he does not have cellular service, yet he can make cellular calls because his carrier allows him to use Wi-Fi calling. He questioned if using the internet to make a Wi-Fi call would fill the gap, which might then alleviate the need for cell towers in the neighborhood where nobody wants them. He questioned if any of the Commissioners or City Council members would allow Crown Castle to place a 17 foot tall cell tower in front of their homes. Paul O'Boyle (Attorney representing Crown Castle) stated everyone knows about technology and how everyone uses their tablets and phones and wants the service. He stated Crown Castle does not want a neighborhood impasse and wants to work with the City to give the residents what they want and that cell phones are no longer a luxury but a necessity. Commissioner Tomblin stated that in a view application staff will take photos from view corridors or selected viewing areas, and asked if the Commission will get that type of analysis from Staff in the Staff Report. He also asked if there was adequate Planning and Public Works staff to process these applications because of the coordination needed between both departments to bring the staff report to the Commission. Director Mihranian answered that, in regards to views, the way the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance is written Staff will have to do a view assessment, which will be discussed in the Staff Report presented to the Commission for the project. In regards to the staffing and how it will impact the Commission, he explained this is an internal procedural matter. When the Commission receives the report in the agenda packet it should mirror a typical Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Tomblin questioned if the fee structure for these applications is enough to cover the Staff time necessary to provide the Commission adequate information to make a decision. He stated he was only bringing this up for the record for the City Council's consideration. Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 8 Vice Chairman James referred to the map provided by Crown Castle of existing facilities, and explained that in order for him to determine whether or not there is a significant gap in coverage, he would need to know where the existing and possibly proposed facilities are located in the neighboring cities. He asked if this is information the Planning Commission can be made aware of. Ms. Lopez answered that she anticipated this would be information the City would be able to obtain. She noted this is not something she has asked for, however if the Commission would like this information she can reach out to Crown Castle or the local adjacent communities. Commissioner Emenhiser encouraged Staff to really look into the gap versus capacity issue. He stated all of the major carriers have very detailed maps that show coverage and expressed his hope that these maps could be shared with the Commission. Commissioner Bradley encouraged anyone that has an opinion on SB 649 to contact their Assemblyman with their concerns. Commissioner Leon asked Staff if there were adequate resources to outsource some of the review. He suggested consultants that the City could charge the applicants for who could do the radio frequency (RF) analysis, check the gap analysis, and other technical areas that have very defined capabilities and margins. Ms. Lopez answered that was already in place, explaining the initial application review is submitted to an outside consultant for a technical review. As the application moves forward to the Planning Commission hearing it is likely the City will have a RF Engineer review the coverage propagation map. Commissioner Leon stated he was worried about the shot clock and would like to see the City turn around their side of the application quickly, while not having the City bear all of the costs of these analyses. Ms. Lopez explained the Ordinance requires the applicant bear the costs of the expert consultants and that Staff time is reimbursed through a trust deposit account. Commissioner Leon discussed his concern in regards to the cumulative impact. He also stated that Crown Castle has installed some mini-cells in his neighborhood, and if the same level of design and aesthetics is applied to the rest of the City as was applied to the mini-cells in his neighborhood, there will be an outcry from the residents. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if there are any other applications, other than what has been submitted by Crown Castle. Ms. Lopez answered that no other applications have been submitted as of yet. She explained a tower company who provides services to Sprint has contacted the City, and Staff will be meeting with them to see what type of installation they are considering. She Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 9 stated Verizon has also reached out directly to the City, as has Southern California Gas to place antennas to facilitate their advanced metering system. Chairman Cruikshank stated his concern was that there is a lot of work ahead for the City and the Commission, and possibly not a lot of time to do it. He also discussed the number of cell towers currently in the City and stated that it seemed there were smarter ways to do things and the Commission is just at the beginning of their education process, and appreciated all of the public input. Vice Chairman James moved to receive and file the report, as recommended by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved without objection. Commissioner Nelson noted that included in the staff report was the eleven page application. He questioned if Staff could shorten their prep time by selectively looking through the application and providing the Planning Commission with comments taken directly from the application. He stated he was not looking forward to a 100 page report for one application. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 11, 2017 Director Mihranian reviewed the pre-agenda, noting Staff will be recommending the Cal Water item be continued to the July 25th meeting. Commissioner Nelson requested Staff prepare for the Commission some type of review of the residential zero net energy action plan that will become effective on January 1, 2020. Director Mihranian stated he would like to gather more information on the plan, talk to the South Bay COG about it, and agendize this request later this summer. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 27,2017 Page 10