Loading...
PC MINS 20170725 Approved 8/22I14 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 7:06 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Bradley 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, Deputy Director So Kim, Associate Planner Amy Seeraty, Public Works Deputy Director Jules, Public Works Associate Engineer Eder, Special Counsel Lopez, Assistant City Attorney Gerli and E.S.A. Consultant Heidi Rous. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved with Commissioner Nelson requesting item No. 3 be moved above item No. 7. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the July 18th meeting, the City Council approved a service agreement with Cotton, Shires and Associates to provide the Community Development Department with Geotechnical services. Director Mihranian noted that City Council approved to amend the municipal code to codify a permit process for haul routes. Director Mihranian reported that late correspondence has been handed out and reminded the Commission that a mandatory sexual harassment training will occur on August 29th and to contact the City Clerk for further information. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the training is mandatory. Director Mihranian confirmed the training is mandatory and Commissioners should contact the City Clerk's office for more details. Commissioner Leon acknowledged staff for providing the pre-agenda for the next two Commission meetings. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Joan Davidson commented on unpermitted antennas installed at the 7-11 building located at Hawthorne and Granvia Altamira. She indicated the building currently has 42 antennas on the property. She asked for updates regarding the status update on the property from code enforcement. Jeff Calvagna commented on the City's wireless telecommunications ordinance and SB649. He commented on a flyer distributed by Crown Castle to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Gene Steiger commented in opposition to the proposed cell tower located at 28809 Crestridge Road, Crown Castle ASG No. 31. Commissioner Tomblin asked for a staff update on the antennas at 7-11 and the code enforcement case on a future agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR The consent calendar was approved as presented (6-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining from the adoption of the July 11, 2017 since he was absent from the meeting. 1. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 27, 2017 MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 11, 2017 MINUTES CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. STATUS REPORT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 172 REVISION "C" (Z0N2015-00230): Cal Water, 5837 Crest Rd. (AS) Director Mihranian indicated that an updated landscape plan had been distributed with late correspondence. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 2 Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report and gave a status update on the history of the project and noted staff held regular meetings with Cal Water to address noise, dust and aesthetic concerns. She reviewed the proposed landscape plan and updates made to the site since the last meeting. She noted a noise study on the daily operations has been performed on the site and the report will be presented at a future meeting. Director Mihranian acknowledged Cal Water for their recent efforts and working collaboratively on the landscape plan with neighbors. He noted there has been heavy involvement by both parties and if the Commission agrees to receive and file tonight's Staff Report, Staff will continue working with the neighbors and the applicant to finalize the landscape plan, and then proceed with the remaining items of the Conditional Use Permit. He noted that there may not be enough time to address the operational issues before the continued September 12th Planning Commission meeting and Staff may need to request to continue the item at that meeting to allow additional time to complete the CEQA document. Commissioner Emenhiser asked for the status on approval of the diesel tank and if the project would have an annual review as a condition of the CUP. Director Mihranian answered staff needs to complete analysis of the project in order to come back in September. Staff has been focusing on the landscaping. Commissioner Bradley asked if there will be an assessment of the current Conditional Use Permit. Is Cal Water acting within their current Conditional Use Permit and what are the legal ramifications if they are not? Director Mihranian answered staff is looking at the Conditional Use Permit and current operations at the site. Dan Armendariz stated that he is the District Manager for Cal Water, responsible for all South Bay Operations. He thanked the Commission, residents, and staff for working towards everyone's best interest. He introduced the Cal Water team attending the meeting and indicated he is committed to seeing the project through to the end. Commissioner Emenhiser thanked Mr. Armendariz for attending and stated that a frustration in the past was not getting Cal Water's attention. Alan Nagamoto stated he was a resident on Scotwood Drive and expressed concerns regarding construction in the past and that the neighboring residents are being harmed by the current noise, dust and the impact of overall quality of life. Janet Feigle stated she opposes the proposed diesel tank and does not want to see a refueling station in what is zoned as a residential neighborhood. She stated concerns regarding noise, dust, and traffic in the neighborhood. She stated she is opposed to Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 3 planting flowers over the reservoir as her daughter has allergies and would much rather see the area painted green. Joe DeVenuto stated significant progress has been made with the landscaping. He stated staff still need to address the operations issues and continuous dumping on the site of spoils material. He stated the dumping is affecting the quality of life and should be moved to a commercial facility. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if Rancho Palos Verdes is the only city that does not allow storing of dirt or materials at job sites. Director Mihranian stated that the city has a policy not to store material related to a construction site in the public right-of-way to avoid adverse impacts to the roadway. He stated an encroachment permit can be obtained from Public Works to allow storing of material in a truck but not stock piled in the right-of-way. Denise DeVenuto stated none of the neighbors have received the revised landscape plan prior to the meeting except Joe DeVenuto. She stated adequate time was not given to neighbors to review the landscape plan. She remains adamantly opposed to the current operations and will do whatever it takes to stop operations at Cal Water. She stated concerns with waiting until September to complete the landscaping. Director Mihranian addressed the speakers stating the landscape plan was added as late correspondence, it was posted on the website, and a list sery message went out to the Community. He noted it is a revised plan, not a final plan, and was revised in response to comments received from the neighbors, and Staff wants to continue to receive input from the neighbors before the landscape plan is accepted as final. He also noted that certain steps need to be completed before the planting can be completed. He stated there are more steps than just planting and staff does not anticipate planting to start before the end of summer. Joan Davidson asked for clarification if the dirt at Cal Water is stock piled or is the dirt in vehicles. She asked why Cal Water isn't stock piling the dirt in Torrance at their main office. Director Mihranian responded that for work that takes place in the public right-of-way, the City is issuing Encroachment Permits to allow Cal Water to contain the material that is related to that work within a vehicle. The material that is actually being stockpiled is occurring at the actual Cal Water site. He added that one of the issues Staff is working out with Cal Water is related to the stockpiling of the spoils and storage material, and determining whether or not the site is appropriate for these uses. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the reason for not allowing stock piling within the public right-of-way is safety issues. Director Mihranian answered yes safety reasons, and water quality issues if there is run- off. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 4 Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he understood the operations are not before the Commission this evening, however the speakers raised some important issues in regards to late night drops at the site. He stated that part of the issue is Cal Water has emergencies in the middle of the night, and are then bringing the spoils to the site, which is disruptive to the neighbors. He asked Staff to consider some type of exemption or alternatives that if there is a breakage after a certain hour at night the spoils are left at the work site and picked up the next morning. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve Staff's recommendation to receive and file the status report, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT NO. ASG 10: Los Verdes Drive West of Avenida Classica (CE) Director Mihranian explained that the Telecommunications Facility Permits being considered by the Planning Commission are applications that the Public Works Department is processing He introduced the Public Works team present this evening as Associate Engineer Eder, Public Works Deputy Director Jules, and Special Counsel Lopez. Associate Engineer Eder presented the staff report, reviewing the neighborhood, the existing conditions, the proposed site, and the scope of the proposed project. He displayed renderings of the proposed antennas to be placed on a new street light in the public right-of-way. Special Counsel Lopez reviewed the findings that must be made in order to approve the proposed project. She also noted that in the staff report there is a detailed analysis on what requirements the applicant must meet in terms of meeting the City's Design Guidelines. She noted that the existing application is proposed to be installed on existing vertical Street light, the antennas will be painted to match the pole, they do not interfere with any public or residential views, and the proposed location has the least impacts than other locations and meets the applicant's coverage needs. She noted that to comply with the City's Municipal Code, Staff has added a condition that the mechanical equipment be installed underground or that the applicant provide proof that they cannot be placed underground, as well as requiring the applicant provide additional drought-tolerant landscaping consistent with the present landscaping around the proposed retaining wall. She discussed the exceptions and findings and noted that because of some missing information, as well as information received in late correspondence, Staff was recommending that this public hearing be continued to the August 8, 2017 meeting to allow staff additional time to complete its analysis. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 5 Chairman Cruikshank noted that there are several people requesting to speak, and because all seven Commissioners are in attendance, he felt it would be beneficial to hear the public comments. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff who owns the actual light pole where the antennas would be placed. Special Counsel Lopez answered the light pole is owned by a private company, however once the new light standard is in place and the antenna attached, Staff would like to see ownership turned over to the City. However, the light standard would be maintained by the applicant. Director Mihranian noted that Commissioner Tomblin is within the 500 foot radius of the project, and should consider recusing himself from this item. Commissioner Tomblin left the dais. Commissioner Bradley asked Staff the current status of the shot clock, and if there is time to continue the public hearing. Special Counsel Lopez answered that there is a very limited amount of time left on this item, and strongly recommended this item be either approved or denied at the next meeting. Commissioner Bradley asked, if a new pole is being installed, would it be possible to integrate the antennas within the pole design as opposed to the antennas being an add- on. Special Counsel Lopez stated that whether or not that would be technologically feasible would be a question that would have to be answered by the applicant. In regards to being least intrusive, Commissioner Bradley asked Staff if anyone had looked at putting the antennas on the side of the apartments as opposed to in the public right-of- way. Special Counsel Lopez answered that the applicant has a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which allows and entitles them to install in the public right-of- way. She stated she was not aware of any way to force the location onto private property, including under a least intrusive means analysis. Commissioner Bradley asked if the City receives revenue from the installation of a commercial device in the public right-of-way. Special Counsel Lopez explained that State Legislation was passed quite some time ago that antennas are entitled to go into the public right-of-way rent free. However, if the City owns certain infrastructure, the City can charge a leasing rate. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 6 Commissioner Emenhiser asked if one of the goals of this antenna was to fill a gap in service. Special Counsel Lopez stated that in order for the City to determine that the least intrusive means have been used, consideration must be given as to whether or not a gap was being covered. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to the coverage maps submitted, and stated that he felt they were difficult to read and possibly inaccurate. He stated that inaccurate maps may be a reason to refuse the applicant's request. Special Counsel Lopez explained that case law says that if the City prevents a carrier from filling a significant gap in service, the City has violated the law. She stated that, from a legal perspective, if the applicant establishes a gap and the City denies the application, the City has quite a bit of legal exposure. Commissioner Leon stated that the antenna sites he has seen around the City have very little aesthetic treatment other than a coat of paint. He stated that he hoped what the City would pursue would be smaller antennas, integrated poles, wiring that is concealed. He stated that in no cases should the City approve antennas on arms that are over the sidewalk and street. He questioned large antennas versus small antennas, and stated it appears small antennas are substituted for large antennas when they want to be less impactful. He asked if the City is looking at the size of the antennas and trying to make sure they are putting on the smallest antenna that are technically available to solve the gap issue. Special Counsel Lopez answered that was something that has been considered, and since Staff is recommending the item be continued, it is something that Staff can investigate further. Vice Chairman James referred to the Coverage Objective Map that was distributed to the Commission, and asked Staff if there was some information that hasn't been given to the Commission to help determine if there is a gap in coverage and the best way to fill that gap. Special Counsel Lopez answered Staff will provide the Commission with the Propagation Maps in the next staff report that have been reviewed by the experts to come to the conclusion that there is a gap in coverage. She stated that was part of the documents that were submitted as part of the application process, however they were not attached to the staff report. Vice Chairman James asked if the City has independently made any determination as to whether there is some kind of other equipment that cover a larger area that could be used to solve the coverage problems, or is the City just relying on what the applicant tells the City. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 7 Special Counsel Lopez stated that technologically the City is not in a position to decide what equipment will meet the coverage needs. She stated that macro sites cover much larger distances, however these antennas most likely will not fit in the public right-of-way. Vice Chairman James asked if it was the Commission's job to decide if they would like to see fewer, larger antennas or more and smaller antennas. He stated that he has no information to tell him what the choices might be. Special Counsel Lopez stated she was not aware of any authority that can require the applicants to propose macro sites or to go onto private property, which is where a macro site would have to be placed. Vice Chairman James referred to the staff report and the discussion on the alternative site analysis. He noted that the Commission has not been given that analysis, do not know where the alternative sites are located, and do not know why those sites were rejected over the proposed site. Special Counsel Lopez stated that information will be made available to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Nelson asked if this application meets all of the requirements of the City's Ordinance. Special Counsel Lopez answered that, arguably, if the application were approved with the conditions of approval being recommended by Staff, it could meet the requirements of the City's Municipal Code. Chairman Cruikshank suggested that if, in future applications, there are impacts to views, that photos be included to show those impacts. He also requested a discussion on cumulative impact. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the Commissioner's may be at a disadvantage in terms of the RF information. He stated that he appreciated having the legal advice, however he stated that he felt the Commission was missing input and feedback from an RF consultant. Commissioner Leon commented that what would help his technical needs is to have an antenna pattern overlay on top of the Aerial and Coverage Objective Map, which would show how the proposed antennas solve the proposed coverage objective. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Gerli reminded the Commission that Federal Law prohibits the Planning Commission from considering any health effects associated with wireless facilities, including any alleged affects from RF emissions. She stated that engaging Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 8 speakers regarding such affects will likely constitute consideration of such health effects, and may make it much more difficult for the Commission to deny an application. Aaron Snyder (Representing Crown Castle) displayed a power point slide depicting the existing RF coverage in the area of the proposed antenna, as well as a slide depicting the proposed RF coverage. He also briefly discussed the alternate locations that were considered. He stated the benchmark test that was completed showed a significant gap in coverage. He explained this is an industry test that is used, and one that Crown Castle has used in thousands of applications throughout Southern California. He explained that the chosen location is the least intrusive to fill this significant gap in coverage. He stated it is away from residential apartments and homes and is located along a change in elevation and existing landscaping. He reiterated that there is no private or residential impact from this proposal, the proposal does not obstruct the public use of the right-of- way, and the proposal meets the relative sections of the Ordinance. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Snyder how far the coverage is for the micro sites. Mr. Snyder answered that the coverage is several hundred feet, based on the layout and topography. He explained the locations in the overall network will provide coverage at street level as well as the surrounding area, and to some extent, coverage inside of homes within a given vicinity. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if RF signals go over hills. Mr. Snyder answered that it is line-of-sight, and to some extent one can take into consideration the topography, based on the height of the antenna. Commissioner Bradley reviewed the coverage map, noting the alternative sites that were reviewed. He noted that all alternatives were in the public right-of-way and no analysis was done on the possibility of putting antennas on the corner of one of the apartment buildings. He noted that by doing so, the antennas would be raised 30 or 40 feet above the grade where the current proposal is located. He felt this would get a much propagation for the golf course and the apartment buildings. Mr. Snyder explained that Crown Castle has the legal ability to deploy their networks within the given right-of-way. He stated they have a network and contract for this deployment that is designed in a manner to provide coverage along the immediate street level, as well as in-home coverage. He stated that it is designed in a method to fulfill those certain elements, and Crown Castle does not consider use of private property based on the fact they hold a CPCN within the City. Commissioner Bradley asked that, even when a private property location would be much better technically and with better coverage, it would not be considered. Mr. Snyder responded that was not necessarily correct, and that one must also take into consideration that these locations are designed along the right-of-way and taking into Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 9 consideration the specific equipment being used, bands that are deployed, going towards coverage and capacity, and going towards 4G and 5G. He stated they are bringing the direct signal source to the end user along the street level. Commissioner Bradley commented that Mr. Snyder seems to be pushing along the legal authority as opposed to the technical coverage. Vice Chairman James asked if one or more of the alternate sites were chosen, the mechanical equipment box could be placed underground. Mr. Snyder answered that, based on the location, different equipment configurations could be considered. Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Snyder if it was his view that, using the existing location where there is already a pole, even though they will be adding an equipment box, is preferable to locating somewhere else where they would have to put in a new pole, but could underground the equipment box. Mr. Snyder responded they are trying to come up with the least intrusive design using an existing piece of vertical infrastructure. He explained that the idea is to replace the existing street light pole with a new street light pole, and adding a cabinet would be the least intrusive. Vice Chairman James asked if a bigger antenna were put on the pole, would that increase the area of coverage. Mr. Snyder answered there would be some change to the coverage Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Snyder if there was any risk to the City that Crown Castle will come back in two years with new objectives and want to cover new areas next to the ones currently being considered. Mr. Snyder answered that was a possibility. He also pointed out that the Commission is considering one application for one carrier. He noted that Verizon and AT&T are different carriers and have different technologies. He stated technology is always changing and he could not predict when the carriers would come back with new requests. Commissioner Leon stated there has been an assertion that Crown Castle's electronics are compatible with other carriers, and asked Mr. Snyder if that was true, or if a whole new set of electronics would be needed to let other carriers onto an existing antenna. Mr. Snyder explained this would be a case-by-case decision, looking at current technology and the technology that is being proposed. In addition, there are limitations with the equipment that is used, the radio units, and antennas that are in place. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 10 Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Snyder to address the antenna size issue, as some applications have 50 inch antennas and some have 14 inch antennas. Mr. Snyder explained that they initially had a design for this network with much larger antenna sizes. He stated it has taken several years of negotiations with the City to get to this point to present these applications. He stated all 26 locations that will be before the Commission have different variations of antenna sizes, between 21.4 inches and 24.5 inches. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Snyder if he will be able to mount the antennas in such a way that they are not just antennas put on a pole with exposed wires, but are integrated into the pole structure with some type of aesthetic consideration. Mr. Snyder answered that a palette of different design options has been submitted to Staff. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Snyder when he submitted the coverage map. Mr. Snyder clarified that the propagation maps were initially submitted with the applications that are on file with the City. The subsequent coverage maps were also submitted as part of the exhibits within the applications, as part of the Ordinance. He stated that both the propagation maps and the RF coverage maps should be part of the applications on file and he thought part of the staff report. Chairman Cruikshank asked if some of the equipment can be placed underground. Mr. Snyder stated that per the SCE Electronic Service Regulation Booklet, there is a 48 inch minimum required for the SCE meter pedestal, meaning it has to be 48 inches above ground. He explained that they would like to propose a joint cabinet that would have both the radio equipment and the meter pedestal. He also noted that some of the proposals are on a hill and if there is an underground vault a retaining wall would have to be built around the perimeter of the vault. Chairman Cruikshank asked if each carrier creates a master plan for coverage. Mr. Snyder answered that he submitted a master plan as part of this application, which includes the current proposals for both AT&T and Verizon. There are also details relative to the existing AT&T, Verizon, T Mobile, and Sprint sites in the City. Jeff Calvagna stated he had concerns about Mr. Snyder's comments regarding significant gap. He noted that significant means significant, and is not just a gap. He stated that he did not object to this site specifically, but wanted to comment on undergrounding. He showed a photo of the site, pointing out an existing electric meter. He stated that Crown Castle could get permission from the owner of that meter, which he believed is the City, and not be required to install another meter. He also showed a photo of a mock-up in Palos Verdes Estates that includes highly intrusive ventilation stacks, which Crown Castle said were required. He then showed photos of underground vaults in Rancho Palos Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 11 Verdes where ventilations grates, flush with the surface were used. He stated there is no need for ventilation stacks. He stated the Municipal Code requires minimally intrusive underground vaults, and there is no compelling engineering or technical rationale to grant Crown Castle an exception to this requirement. He stated Crown Castle is likely requesting them as they are cheaper and more convenient to install, access, and maintain. He asked that the City's wireless facility ordinance be strictly enforced. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Calvagna if he was an RF Engineer by trade. Mr. Calvagna answered that he is an RF Engineer. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Calvagna if the map presented by Crown Castle was an accurate map. Mr. Calvagna responded that he wanted to make it clear he was speaking as a private citizen. He stated that, personally, those maps give him a lot of trouble. He stated that he believed the map Commissioner Emenhiser was referring to was a coverage target map. He also stated that what Mr. Snyder showed the Commission was a drive map, which was for only one frequency band and does not necessarily represent the aggregate coverage for the area. Vice Chairman James stated in the staff report there is a comment that, due to existing infrastructure, the equipment cannot be placed underground and must be ground mounted on this application. He asked Staff to clarify if there was no way to go down because of other infrastructure. Special Counsel Lopez explained that Staff has not investigated locations that are within70 feet. She stated that her understanding from Mr. Calvagna is that it's a possibility and something that Staff would like to investigate with the applicant to see if there is a location where there is not a conflict with existing underground infrastructure. Deputy Director Jules added that at the current proposed location there are existing utilities in the right-of-way, including water, gas, and other telecommunications. She explained that at the existing location undergrounding may not be possible as porposed, but the existing utilities could be relocated. Noel Park stated he was speaking because he is the President of the HOA that surrounds Hesse Park, and the members are extremely concerned about the aesthetic impact of the cell sites. He felt the Commission should take time to view aesthetics in making their decisions. He also noted that the City has retained an RF consultant, and that this consultant should be present at the upcoming Planning Commission meetings to answer any of the Commissioner's questions. He stated that he was concerned to hear that there is an unlimited potential for these types of sites in the City. Joan Davidson stated that Ordinances, just like laws, are meant to be amended. She stated that the City might consider amending some of these so that the City is within the Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 12 law but also protects the residents who live in the community. She stated that filling the gap is a matter of opinion, specifically Crown Castle's opinion. She stated that on Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira there is a mock-up ready to be built, however everyone there gets perfect AT&T coverage, and a half a block up is the 7-11 building with 40 antennas, many of which are AT&T. Lastly, she suggested looking at the City of Irvine and other communities, which have a Master Plan. Connie Semos questioned where this demand comes from and who is complaining. She asked what agency is responsible for testing emissions. She stated that if one drives through other cities, you do not see these types of antennas, as they are hidden. She stated that over 110 cities in California oppose SB 649, and asked if the City has official opposed this Senate Bill. Chairman Cruikshank stated the City has officially written a letter with the League of California Cities opposing the bill. Ms. Semos stated that these discussions revolve around rights-of-way and easements and asked if these areas could be quit claimed back to the residents. Aaron Snyder (in rebuttal) addressed comments made in regards to vaults, explaining Crown Castle strictly looks at these proposals to ensure they fill a significant gap in the least intrusive means. He stated the decision as to time, place, manner, and aesthetic control lies with the City. He referred to the photos shown of flush surface grates and explained these are commonly associated with macro-sites and there is the ability for a technician to go wholly into the vault. He questioned if this is the least intrusive solution, noting their proposal is for a joint meter cabinet that has the SCE meter and the radio equipment rather than a rather large substantial vault with a retaining wall. He discussed the topic of where the equipment is relative to the antennas and proposal, and explained they have to keep that within a certain distance and there has to be a certain, justifiable, technical reason to have distance between the pole and equipment. He stated that typically it has to be a range of 30 to 50 feet in order for the site to properly function. Lastly, he stated the Commission has the ability to make a decision on time, place, manner, and aesthetics. The FCC has preempted a local jurisdictions ability to make a decision on these applications based on RF engineering. Kevin Peacock stated he lives two houses away from a proposed cell site and noted he has perfect coverage from his home. He stated that he questioned if these proposals are legitimate and needed. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that anyone who has checked their email when they are outside of the house, used an iPad, or watched a video on a device is demand driving this. He stated 5G is coming through wireless and the companies are trying to meet consumer needs and do it as least expensively as possible. He stated these sites should be along arterials and not in residential areas unless they are placed out of sight. He also stated the mechanical equipment should be vaulted and the responsibility should be on the Telecom Company and Crown Castle to show the Commission the propagation maps and where Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 13 the true gaps in service are. He stated that if there is not neighborhood opposition then some of these cell sites will most likely be approved. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to the August 8, 2017 meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff, based on their recommendation to continue this public hearing, what information will be presented at the next meeting. Special Counsel Lopez answered that there is additional information Staff would like to present so that the Commission can make a meaningful decision on this proposed site. She stated the goal would be for Staff to be able to gather this information in short-order and have it all included in the next staff report. She stated that this will be done with the intent that the Commission will be able to make a decision on this particular site at the next meeting. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was a down-side if a decision were to be made tonight. Special Counsel Lopez stated she did not think there was a down-side, however she thought there were questions from the Commission that needed answers and further expertise that needed to be provided so the Commission could feel comfortable with the information that was submitted during the application process. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he will vote against the motion, as he felt enough information was presented for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Nelson noted that he specifically asked the question earlier in the meeting as to whether this application meets all of the requirements of the City's Ordinance, and Ms. Lopez answered that it does. However, he stated that in his mind, with the above- ground equipment, the answer is no. He stated he would like to give Crown Castle the opportunity to come back with underground equipment. Commissioner Leon stated that before the Commission approves something like this he would like to see conditions crafted associated with the aesthetics of the installation. He stated he felt it would be beneficial for the Commission to provide some suggestions to Staff now that they can consider between now and the next meeting. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (4-2-1) with Commissioners Bradley and Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin recused. Commissioner Leon reiterated his comment that he would like to see Staff craft some conditions on the aesthetics of the installation, assuming this type of installation might end up on many of the City's light poles. He stated that, where possible, there should be underground electronic installations, and if they can't be underground, they should be Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 14 screened in some way. He stated there should be an antenna package on the lighting stock that is fully integrated. He requested that all of the above ground wiring be concealed, and would like to see data on what Crown Castle is proposing as significant gaps and how well the solution they propose closes that gap. Commissioner Bradley stated he agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments, and in addition stated he would like to see Staff come up with some recommendations for alternative styles that are less intrusive. He stated he did not feel what has been presented with this application is meeting the standard of the least intrusive installation possible. Commissioner Emenhiser stated this is the first of possibly two hundred of these types of applications, and stated that once this is built it will be there for possibly thirty years. He stated that he felt a higher standard should be set in this City. Vice Chairman James noted this is the first application of this type before the Commission and stated he was disappointed the expert reports were not included in the staff report. He stated that what the experts have to say is important and he wanted to hear it. Chairman Cruikshank stated that the same information is needed when looking at each antenna application and stated that he did not feel the Commission had that necessary information to render a decision this evening. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments as to what kind of things can be done with the aesthetics of the antenna, whether undergrounding can be done, and is this truly an area that has a gap problem. 6. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT NO. ASG 33: Across 6480 Chartres Drive (CE) Commissioner Tomblin returned to the dais. Associate Engineer Eder presented the staff report, showing a photo of the existing conditions at the proposed site, and noting there are no existing utilities in the vicinity. He discussed the proposed site and layout of the area. Special Counsel Lopez explained that the necessary findings for this site are the same as with the previous site, with the difference being a new pole must be installed at this site where at the previous site there is an existing light pole being replaced. With no existing structure in the right-of-way, the applicant has alleged this is the only way to fill the gap in service and if the City prohibits a significant gap in service from being filled, that increases the amount of legal exposure to the City. She stated the antennas will be painted to match the pole, the view analysis showed that the pole does not interfere with any public or residential views, and based on alternative site analysis, the proposed location has less impacts than other locations and meets the applicant's coverage needs. She noted that additional conditions of approval have been proposed for this site, including the requirement to underground the equipment and additional landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 15 Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if they had done an analysis of best practices in other cities, such as Montecito, for undergrounding as part of the process. Special Counsel Lopez answered that, to her knowledge, this had not been done. She noted that the Ordinance requires equipment be placed underground unless the applicant establishes that is not technologically feasible. Commissioner Tomblin stated that if the Ordinance requires undergrounding, then why is the Commission being presented with an above-ground request. Special Counsel Lopez stated that would be a question for the applicant. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he felt this should be a staff analysis and something to consider with future applications. Commissioner Tomblin questioned why the City was not looking at and following a Master Plan for these types of installations. Director Mihranian responded that in the past the Commission has seen a Master Plan for various telecommunication proposals, however these were facilities located on private property and as part of a Conditional Use Permit, one of the requirements is to have the carrier provide the City with their Master Plan. Since that time, however, technology has changed and there has been a shift to place antennas in the public right-of-way rather than on private property. Special Counsel Lopez stated that Staff has some information which indicates where the existing AT&T sites are, as well as proposed sites that may assist the Commission and Staff will ensure that information is included with the next staff report. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there is a light pole near the subject site that should be considered. Special Counsel Lopez answered that in this particular area there is no above-ground vertical structure such as a light pole. Commissioner Tomblin stated, that since this is an area with no vertical structures, should there not be some study done so that the different carriers bundle their services on the one pole and not have five individual poles at the site. Special Counsel Lopez stated that Staff can look into trying to anticipate future installations and see if they can locate on the same pole. Commissioner Tomblin stated this is why a Master Plan is needed. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed the gap issue, and whether the carrier or sub- contractor are proving there is a gap. He referred to a section in the staff report discussing Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 16 the gap and no measurements or calculations provided to support the application. He asked Staff to clarify this section, as the way he was reading it there was either not a gap or the applicant has not demonstrated there is a gap. Senior Counsel Lopez explained that the consultant has requested additional information, as the information that was provided through the application process did not provide enough information for the consultant to determine the coverage gap issue. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the shot clock continues to run while the consultant waits for this information. Special Counsel Lopez stated that Crown Castle will make the argument that the shot clock does continue in this situation. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff, if Crown Castle hasn't demonstrated a gap, and the City's consultant cannot get the needed information from Crown Castle, is then one of the significant issues needed in order to approve the application has not been met and the City can deny the project. Special Counsel Lopez stated that what Commissioner Emenhiser was saying was not inaccurate. Commissioner Emenhiser noted the gap that supposedly needed to be filled was for approximately twenty homes. If the twenty homes did not want the cell site, perhaps that should influence the Commission's decision. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff if this application meets all of the requirements of the City's Ordinance. Special Counsel Lopez answered that in order to address those proposals that do not comply with the Ordinance, Staff has added conditions of approval so that, as installed, it will comply with the Ordinance. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff, if the Commission finds the applicant has not complied and votes to deny the project, then the City has complied within the time limit set by the shot clock. Special Counsel Lopez answered that would be correct. The applicant could then appeal the decision to the City Council or submit another application for a new site. Vice Chairman James asked if the applicant or the City have any knowledge as to how many of the homes this gap in coverage would fill are actually AT&T customers. Special Counsel Lopez answered that she does not have that information, and did not know whether or not the applicant had that information. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2017 Page 17 Vice Chairman James asked if, hypothetically, none of those residents are AT&T users, would that be a factor the Commission could consider when making a decision. Special Counsel Lopez stated that is something the Commission can consider, but the Commission must also consider the drive tests as the applicant is alleging a coverage gap for people in vehicles. She stated that a significant gap in coverage does need to be significant. Vice Chairman James asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to condition the new pole so that co-location be required if needed at a later date. Special Counsel Lopez stated that is possible, but cautioned the Commission that in order to co-locate on the pole there is technological distances between the antennas that must be met, and this may result in a pole taller than anticipated. Commissioner Bradley discussed alternate sites, and noted that other viable sites are those that Crown Castle says are viable, not ones that an independent expert has said are other viable ways of meeting the gap or if there is even a significant gap. He stated that defining if there is a significant gap should be verified, and that there is no other way to fill that gap. An applicant could have three very intrusive solutions, one less intrusive, and that would be the solution chosen. Special Counsel Lopez stated that is a decision for the Commission to make. Commissioner Leon stated that, given the size of the antenna patterns, he would suppose that all of the houses within the immediate area have been noticed. Associate Engineer Eder answered that notices were provide to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Leon asked if there is a definition of significant gap. Special Counsel Lopez answered that there is not a specific definition, rather it is factually specific. She explained it has to do with a number of different factors. She stated the case law is very fact specific and would look at such things as how many residents in the area have difficulty with service, as well as the drive maps. Commissioner Leon asked, if the residents don't feel they have a gap, would there then not be a gap. Special Counsel Lopez explained this would be evidence for the Commission to weigh when considering if there is a gap in service. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if the City could ask Crown Castle to extend the shot clock to allow the Commission and Staff the opportunity to research and understand this application, rather than denying the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 18 Special Counsel Lopez answered that a time extension request could definitely be an option. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Aaron Snyder (Representing Crown Castle) presented a power point presentation, showing the existing RF coverage and stated they are proposing a primary, as well as a variety of alternative locations in the immediate area to suffice that need. He showed a map depicting the proposed RF coverage for this proposal antenna. He stated there is not a lot of verticality to work with in this area, and felt that the proposed location was the least intrusive. He stated the view corridors of the surrounding homes face west or south, and there is not a direct line of sight to that particular location on that side of the street. In regards to the applications in general, he explained he was the person in charge of submitting the 26 applications to the City, which included propagation maps and drive test coverages. He also established trust deposits for the City Consultant's review. He stated an RF consultant has reviewed each one of the applications. He stated that there have been subsequent submittals and incomplete letters, but at no time has the City Attorney or Public Works Staff asked him to supplement information, stating that asking for new information now is very, very late in the process. He stated that the application is deemed complete as it is being heard by the Planning Commission, yet he was asked just last night for more information from the City's new RF consultant. He stated that the FCC states that local authority does not have the ability to force undue delays on the permit application, and this is a very clear example of an undue delay that is extremely last minute. Commissioner Emenhiser understood the frustration, however he noted that this was Staff and not the Planning Commission. Mr. Snyder stated he agreed, but noted that it's Crown Castle's job to put information in place for the Planning Commission to review at a public hearing. Commissioner Bradley asked if there is a reason a rectangular pattern is used to show proposed coverage on the map, as he stated that a circular pattern might pick up more area. Mr. Snyder explained that this is one of 26 proposed locations in the City, and there is a much larger network established on the Peninsula. Each of these locations are like puzzle pieces, and are designed to provide coverage from one location to the next. He stated that there is a much larger map showing everything that is proposed in terms of the entire city. Commissioner Bradley stated he would like to see that larger map. Mr. Snyder replied that he has submitted a master plan and propagation maps that have that information in detail. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 19 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Snyder if he would be willing to consider an extension to the shot clock if the Commission felt they needed more time to review and consider this application. Mr. Snyder answered that he would have to confer with Crown Castle on that request. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Snyder how many carriers Crown Castle represents. Mr. Snyder answered Crown Castle builds infrastructure for all major carriers. Commissioner Tomblin asked if any of the other major carriers have approached Crown Castle about co-locating on any of these poles, or if Crown Castle has approached any carriers on this subject. Mr. Snyder answered no to both questions. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Snyder if, when talking about significant gap coverage, if that was for households, or streets, or both. Mr. Snyder explained these locations are designed in a way to provide coverage for users in the right-of-way and the surrounding residences. Commissioner Leon explained the question for him was whether full coverage for one driving on these residential streets was really necessary. Mr. Snyder responded that Crown Castle is here because there is a need, and if there wasn't a need he wouldn't be putting proposals in front of the Commission. He stated Crown Castle is about building to accommodate all of the increase in demand and need. He stated that this current proposal shows a need for coverage in this specific neighborhood. Commissioner Leon noted that there are plenty of vertical structures in this neighborhood if private property is considered, and trying to locate the structure in the public right-of- way, where there are no vertical structures, is the issue. Mr. Snyder stated Crown Castle is not in the position to deploy their networks on private property, but have the ability to deploy within the right-of-way. He added that it is not under the purview of the City to ask them to go onto private property, and the Planning Commission should be managing and coming to some sort of compromise and decision based on that right-of-way status and not pushing them to private property. Vice Chairman James noted the staff report states the application would be conditioned so that the mechanical equipment is placed underground. He asked Mr. Snyder if he objected to that condition. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 20 Mr. Snyder answered that if the Commission approves the application with the condition that it be designed with an underground vault, he will be more than happy to do so. Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Snyder what happens when other carriers request similar facilities, and how the City can avoid having four or five of these towers up and down the street. Mr. Snyder stated he appreciated the question, and stated that if Crown Castle proposes subsequent applications and it is written in the Ordinance, Crown Castle will actively look for co-location based on Staff direction. Don Brigus stated that as a Palos Verdes Estates resident he has been highly engaged with that city's Planning Commission to ensure towers are placed thoughtfully and intelligently. He stated that Mr. Calvagna, who spoke during the previous item, is an invaluable resource to the City as an engineer. He stated that one of the key lessons learned from Palos Verdes Estates was Crown Castle's consistent omission of evaluating and proposing less intrusive and more aesthetically pleasing alternate locations. He stated that nearly each of Palos Verdes Estates Crown Castle proposals did not include or consider viable alternate locations, and that the two proposals before the Commission this evening would indicate the same tactic is now being used in Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that in Palos Verdes Estates there were discrepancies between the AT&T and Crown Castle coverage maps regarding signal level thresholds and coverage. Lastly, he stated Crown Castle insists they provide full signal coverage simultaneously on all frequencies when there is no technical need nor legal requirement for this level of coverage overkill. He stated that when the applicant does not provide the complete design picture, options must be evaluated through means other than consultants. He explained that in Palos Verdes Estates the other means has been the independent work of qualified residents who identified, analyzed, and presented more aesthetically pleasing alternate locations that Crown Castle overlooked or ignored. As a result, several towers have now been located in more aesthetically pleasing locations, three sites have been denied, and others withdrawn because they would have been denied. He stated that one does have rights and choices in the City, in particular, the right to require Crown Castle the most aesthetically pleasing and least intrusive site. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Brigus if he was aware of any lawsuits brought by Crown Castle against Palos Verdes Estates. Mr. Brigus stated he did not know the answer to that question. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Brigus to briefly describe how Palos Verdes Estates dealt with getting to the point of finding better alternative sites. Mr. Brigus answered that it was an effort both on the part of the City and residents, as well as Crown Castle. He stated that he felt it was the persistence of the citizens and the education of the Planning Commission that, over a long period of time, gave everyone a better understanding of what the City's options were and the City clarifying to Crown Castle Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 21 what they required from them in their proposals. He stated it was a lot of work over a long period of time, however in the end, maybe everyone did not get exactly what they wanted, but found solutions that were aesthetically acceptable and, from a coverage standpoint, similarly acceptable. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Brigus approximately how long this took. Mr. Brigus stated that there is one particular site that was presented to the City a year ago that is now close to being approved after many modifications. Commissioner Leon asked how the City dealt with the shot clock in that situation. Mr. Brigus responded that Crown Castle was accommodating in terms of being willing to give extensions, attend additional meetings, and come back with additional data. Jeff Calvagna began by noting several Commissioners have asked about a Master Plan, however he stated that his opinion is the Ordinance is the Master Plan, as it has design requirements and location specifications. He stated that Crown Castle chose to submit several applications to the City that do not comply with the Ordinance. He stated that for this project, there is a new site and a neighborhood location, so the Planning Commission has to find an exemption in order to approve this site. He displayed the propagation map that was submitted by Crown Castle, which shows terrible coverage in the Monaco neighborhood. He then displayed a coverage map prepared by AT&T and submitted to Palos Verdes Estates which shows much better existing coverage than the recently submitted map. He stated these maps should be identical, but they are not. He stated there is no reason for this, and either the original maps submitted to Palos Verdes Estates are wrong, or the current maps submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes are wrong. He stated that, regardless of how this happened, it must be fixed, and he questioned how Crown Castle can ask the Commission to grant exceptions based on huge discrepancies in the maps. He stated he has characterized the Peninsula extensive, and his opinion, the Palos Verdes Estates maps are the more accurate maps. Noel Park stated he was here because of aesthetic concerns in his neighborhood and knowing that he wanted to weigh in at the beginning of the process and stand in solidarity with his neighbors. He stated this has been an education for him with the presentations by the speakers and the questions the Commissioners have asked. He stated that, if the City does not trust the figures for the significant lack of service, the Commission has a duty to verify them, whether they are right or wrong. He stated that, at a minimum, the City's expert should be at the next meeting to answer questions and the Commissioners can verify in their own minds whether or not this expert is qualified. If he's not, the City needs to find somebody who is. He asked that the Planning Commission make the applicant do these antennas in the right way. Melitta Chen stated the proposed site is next to her house, and her AT&T coverage works perfectly in her house. She questioned why this tower was needed. She stated there are Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 22 no street lights in the Monaco neighborhood and she did not want this pole in front of her home. She asked the Commission to help protect their neighborhood. Lisa Juelle stated she is a resident of Palos Verdes Estates and is here to offer her experience, as a resident, in navigating the cell tower process in Palos Verdes Estates. She explained she first became involved when she found out Crown Castle was proposing a cell tower to be placed at the corner of her lot, which she and the other neighbors opposed. She stated that under applicable State and Federal law it is clear the Commission does not have to accept whatever locations Crown Castle deems appropriate for its network. She stated that at first Palos Verdes Estates appeared to be operating under this impression, but as their Planning Commission and City Council became more engaged and educated in the process, they realized they had a right to fight for the aesthetics of their City. She stated that Palos Verdes Estates has denied three sites and Crown Castle has withdrawn several other sites that would have been denied based on aesthetics. She commended the Commission for already asking the correct questions, and encouraged the Commission to continue asking questions particular in regards to whether or not the applicant has presented the truly least intrusive location. She explained that in many cases residents have brought to Crown Castle's attention alternate sites that Crown Castle had not used in their comparisons. She stated this is not correct, as it is Crown Castle's burden to provide the least intrusive location. She stated that, as a Planning Commission, do not focus only on design specifications, but instead focus on the actual placement of the pole in question. She asked the Commission to focus on how the pole placement impacts surrounding aesthetics, does it detract from the neighborhood, is it in keeping with the appearance of the neighborhood, have residents paid for underground utilities, are there negative impacts on the views of the residents, is the pole being placed near residential structures, and is there a lack of foliage to screen the pole. She stated these are all legitimate grounds for denial and if such factors exist, let the record reflect it, and exercise the City's right to deny the request based on aesthetics. Vice Chairman James stated that one of the problems he had when driving up and down the streets was finding an alternative site that was any better than the proposed site. He asked Ms. Juelle if she had any suggestions. She stated this is also a major problem in Palos Verdes Estates, noting that when a proposal is in the middle of a neighborhood it has been very problematic, and some have been withdrawn by the applicant. Carlos Juelle stated that as the City and residents become familiar with this process, they will realize that Crown Castle will try to work with you. He stated the City has the right to decide whether or not a proposed pole fits aesthetically in a neighborhood. He also stated the Commission is taking the right approach by asking questions such as why here and to show proof there is a significant gap in coverage. He stated the best asset the City has is Mr. Calvagna, especially since he can look at coverage maps and determine if they are correct and if there truly is a significant gap in coverage. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 23 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Calvagna to return, and asked if the maps he produced are a matter of public record. Mr. Calvagna answered that the maps are public record and he has copies of the maps available. Aaron Snyder explained his goal is to get these applications reviewed and approved, and he has gone through the Ordinance and taken the needed steps. He stated that he would appreciate going forward if the applications are addressed one at a time under applicable Federal and State rules. Secondly, he stated if there is additional information that he needs to submit in order to speed up the process, he felt that would be beneficial to all parties if the staff report contains information the Commission has asked for several times, and he hoped the next round of applications being presented will be better presented. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Snyder if he feels he will be able to work more closely with the residents in Rancho Palos Verdes, similar to what he has done in Palos Verdes Estates. Mr. Snyder responded that some residents at the meeting tonight have already approached him about a specific proposal not on tonight's agenda and asked if they can sit down and have a conversation. He stated he is available to have these discussions and hear the comments, and field specific walks with Staff's involvement. He stated that this would be beneficial in coming to a decision on specific applications going forward, and negating the need for continue delays. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to deny the application, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was undecided on this issue. He agreed with the motion, however he also stated that he would like to give the applicant and Staff more time to answer the Commission's questions. Vice Chairman James stated that if this motion fails his assumption was that the next motion would be to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. At that meeting he stated Staff has indicated there would be someone to give expert testimony and additional information. With that, he stated he would support a motion to continue rather than to deny the application. Commissioner Leon stated that he too would like to have more information, specifically he would like to see data from the City's RF expert in terms of measurements of signal strength around the neighborhood and have that correlated to the maps that have been presented. Commissioner Nelson stated he would also like to have more information presented before making a decision, and could not support the motion. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2017 Page 24 Chairman Cruikshank stated he also could not support the motion, stating that he would like to have the necessary clarification. He stated the RF expert should be at the next meeting, as the Commission had too many questions to have included in a staff report in a manner that was easy to understand. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that Crown Castle did not demonstrate to his satisfaction a signification gap in coverage. In addition, he noted the neighborhood opposition and the statement from the neighbor regarding her excellent AT&T coverage from her property. The motion to deny the proposal failed, (2-5)with Commissioners Tomblin, Nelson, Leon, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank dissenting. Vice Chairman James moved to continue the public hearing to August 8, 2017 as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Bradley explained that he was in favor of the motion to deny because he did not feel the significant gap nor the least intrusive findings were made. He stated that he hoped the Commission will be receiving much more information at the next meeting, and if he doesn't receive enough information to be able to vote in the affirmative he will still be very negative about this application Commissioner Tomblin stated he will not be in attendance at the August 8th meeting. Chairman Cruikshank noted that there will be other antenna applications on the next agenda and that the RF expert's opinion will also be needed on those applications. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Bradley and Emenhiser dissenting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Cruikshank noted that, per the Planning Commission rules, the Commission must vote to suspend the rules to hear any new item after midnight. Commissioner Nelson moved to suspend the rules to hear the remaining two items, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the last two items are important issues that deserve the Commission's full attention, and he therefore stated that he felt the Commission should adjourn the meeting. The motion to suspend the rules and hear the remaining items on the agenda was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 25 3. REVIEW OF 2017 TECHNINCAL STUDIES FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: Citywide (SK) Deputy Director Kim presented an overview of the staff report. She noted the purpose of the item is for the Planning Commission to review the technical studies that will be used as a basis to update the General Plan and related studies. The technical studies examine worst case scenario effects to traffic, noise, air, and greenhouse gas impacts under a complete build out scenario of the city. She noted Staff found some minor errors and typos that will be corrected in the reports. She stated that if the Commission considers the content of the technical studies are acceptable, Staff recommends the Commission direct Staff to proceed with making final updates to the draft General Plan and prepare the environmental document. She noted the traffic study was reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee over two meetings, it was accepted, and they recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to incorporate the study into the General Plan. She stated that Staff anticipates three months to make all the updates and bring back a final draft to the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he appreciates staff is moving forward again on the General Plan. He also asked while reviewing the greenhouse gas technical report we don't get to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes until page 27 of the report. Director Mihranian answered by introducing E.S.A. Consultant Heidi Rous who prepared the technical study. Ms. Rous stated it is not surprising there is a lot of material that includes regulatory and scientific background that is not specific to the City, since this is not a local issue but a global issue. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to pages 40 and 41 of the solution section, regarding bicycles and street designs. He asked Ms. Rous if the study took into account how many people in the City ride bicycles. Ms. Rous answered that the Traffic Impact Assessment covered that information, and this study mirrored the previous study. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to page 45 regarding emissions, and asked if things are getting better with the General Plan update or getting worse. Ms. Rous answered by stating that emissions of greenhouse gases are going down with time from existing sources and new sources. Commissioner Nelson commented on the noise and vibration section, noting the report discusses ocean noise, birds, and lawn mowers. However, what was not a noise was air traffic noise as discussed on page 6. He also noted that motorcycle noise was not commented on in the report. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 26 Ms. Rous agreed, noting that they would tend to blend in with all noise recorded during the day when the readings were taken. She added a sound like that is so much more noticeable when the ambient is quieter. Commissioner Leon asked if dba levels were average or peak. Ms. Rous answered there is short-term average, which is one hour, as well as 24-hour. Both where used in the study. Commissioner Nelson asked what is the other related environmental document mentioned in the report. Deputy Director Kim stated Staff will be preparing an MND that will address all related impacts related to the city. Commissioner Nelson stated there were 756 buildable lots with buildout by 2040. Deputy Kim stated the General Plan makes an assumption that all vacant lots can be built out. It does not exclude areas that cannot be built, such as the vacant lots in the landslide moratorium area. Commissioner Emenhiser commented on page 20 under land use and planning asking if landscape areas reduce noise. Ms. Rous answered yes it does, but not as effective as a sound wall. Commissioner Emenhiser seconded Commissioners Nelsons comments regarding motorcycle noise and also asked if the City will regulate noise. Director Mihranian stated this element will help to create a noise ordinance, which Staff is currently working on, which primarily deals with private property and not roadways. Commissioner Tomblin supported what was previously mentioned regarding motorcycle noise. He also mentioned aircraft noise concerns and noise at the top of Crenshaw and Crest Road on the weekends. Deputy Director Kim explained that the flight paths are not over the City. However, in the recent months, FAA has directed some jets to deviate from its flight path for safety reasons. The City's LAX Roundtable liaison expressed concerns with this practice to FAA and will continue to monitor the matter. Chairman Cruikshank asked how often the appendix report will be updated in the General Plan since it is a separate report. Ms. Rous stated since we looked at full build out it should not have to be revisited for 20 years. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 27 Chairman Cruikshank asked a question regarding RPV population and the discrepancies in the document. Ms. Rous stated there were a lot of numbers out there and it does not match SCAG. Deputy Kim explained that the population projection will be based on the methodology in the City's updated General Plan and provided an overview of the calculations. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve Staff's recommendation to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Nelson motioned to continue the meeting until 12:40, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin, approved on (6-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 7. ARTERIAL FENCE AND WALL MASTER PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE: (AS) Commissioners Tomblin, Bradley and Nelson volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to assist staff in preparing an Arterial Fence and Wall Master Plan and the Commission agreed on a vote of(7-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON AUGUST 8, 2017 9. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON AUGUST 22, 2017 The Director stated that notices have gone out for the pre agendas items. The Commission approved the pre agenda with Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ASG No. 10 and ASG No. 33 added to the agenda on August 8, 2017. The Director noted there will be an Adjourned Regular meeting on August 30, 2017. He also confirmed that all August meetings will start at 6:00 PM. Commissioner Nelson motioned to approve both agendas seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser, on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:48 A.M. Planning Commission Minutes July 25,2017 Page 28