Loading...
PC MINS 20170822 ADJ Approved 1 1 �q 9/ 2/ �►, � CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 6:21 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Associate Planner Silva 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, Associate Planner Silva, Assistant Planner Caraveo, Assistant Planner Anaya, Contract Planner Bashmakian, RF Engineer Lee Afflerbach, Assistant City Attorney Gerli, and Assistant City Attorney Laymon. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman James suggested moving Agenda Item Nos. 9, 10, and 11 and placing them after Agenda Item No 2. Approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their August 15th meeting, the City Council adopted an Ordinance amending Title 15 to create an exception category that allows Ms. Joannou to submit a development application pursuant to the Council-approved Settlement Agreement. The City Council also approved a Grading Permit revision for retaining walls associated with the construction of a new single-family residence on Crownview Drive and approved modifications to an appeal of the Commission-approved Height Variation for a new residence on Rue Langlois. Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence for Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5. He then introduced the City's contract planner, Art Bashmakian, and the City's RF Engineer Lee Afflerbach. Assistant City Attorney Laymon noted no reportable action on the closed session item. Chairman Cruikshank reported on his attendance at the August 15th City Council meeting to answer questions on the Rue Langlois appeal. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 25, 2017 MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 8, 2017 MINUTES Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Tomblin recused from the August 8, 2017 minutes. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 53: 6504 Monero Drive Director Mihranian stated that Staffs recommendation is to continue the public hearing for this item to the September 12, 2017 meeting, with no discussion. Commissioner Nelson moved Staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to the meeting on September 12, 2017, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Approved without objection. 10. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 31: 28809 Crestridge Road Director Mihranian stated that, as with Agenda Item No. 9, Staff is recommending this public hearing be continued to the September 12, 2017 meeting. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to September 12, 2017, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Approved without objection. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 64: South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Mihranian stated Staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to September 12, 2017. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to September 12, 2017, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. HEIGHT VARIATION/GRADING PERMIT/SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2017-00037): 6501 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief review of the previously submitted project, and comparing it to the project currently before the Commission. He described the proposed drainage plan, as well as the revised structure size. He stated Staff's recommendation is to conditionally approve the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was not in attendance when the item was originally heard by the Commission, and therefore recused himself from this item. Commissioner Leon asked if there were any provisions for the drainage in case of a power outage. Director Mihranian answered that there is back-up generator that will turn on in case of a power outage. He stated that the maintenance agreement will be addressed in the Building and Safety plan check phase. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (designer) stated that he took the Commission's previous comments into consideration, and felt he successfully addressed the Commission's direction and concerns into the revised plans. He stated he was available for questions. Ghada Young (owner) stated she was available for any questions. Rajat Bhaltnchaya (owner) stated he was also available for questions. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as recommended by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Vice Chairman James commented that he had previously voted to deny this project, however the owner and designer have done a good job of addressing the concerns and suggestions of the Planning Commission and he could now support the project. Commissioner Emenhiser stated his concerns at the previous meeting were with the drainage and the size of the project, and he could support this newly designed project. Commissioner Bradley stated he still has problems with the overall bulk and mass of the proposed project as compared to the other structures in the neighborhood. While some Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 3 reduction was made, he stated he did not feel enough was done to address the bulk and mass. He stated that he also had concerns with neighborhood compatibility. The motion to approve the project as conditioned by Staff was approved and P.C. Resolution 2017-21 was adopted, (5-1-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. 4. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 10: Los Verdes Drive west of Avenida Classica Commissioner Tomblin recused himself from this hearing, as his home is within 500 feet of the proposed tower, and left the dais. Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and showing photos of the area. He briefly discussed the original proposal and compared it to the revised proposal. Director Mihranian explained that the applicant has agreed to, in addition to installing the mock-up at the site, to set up several mock-ups at City Hall near the maintenance yard. These mock-ups will represent four different prototypes of poles consisting of two examples of street light type poles and two examples of street sign poles. These mock- ups will have a canister on top with the panel antennas, as well as a canister with a shroud taper sleeve piece. He stated that once mock-ups are installed a Listserve will be sent out. Planner Bashmakian explained that overall the objective of the Ordinance is to consider design alternatives that minimize the visual the impacts to the surrounding community. He noted that the Code recognizes antennas will be visible, but the idea is to make the impact as minimal as possible. Commissioner Leon asked if removing the taper piece on the pole, would the overall height of the pole be three feet less. Planner Bashmakian answered that the overall height would not be three feet less, as the taper is just to hide some of the antennas, equipment and cables. Commissioner Leon asked the RF Engineer, Mr. Afflerbach, if he felt 36 inches at the base of the antenna would be necessary to hide any cabling. Mr. Afflerbach answered the cabling will be in the pole itself. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff if Southern California Edison owns the street light. Director Mihranian answered that it was his understanding that Southern California Edison owned the street light. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 4 Commissioner Nelson stated that it was his understanding that there is a proposal before the City Council to have the City buy all of the street lights. Director Mihranian answered that was correct. Commissioner Nelson asked if there will be any impact to this application with the City owning the street light. Director Mihranian answered that, to his knowledge, there would be no impact. Commissioner Nelson asked when the City Council plans to buy the street lights. Public Works Deputy Director Jules answered that at the last City Council meeting Staff brought forward an item for the City Council to consider acquiring all of the street lights within the City. The street lights are currently owned by Southern California Edison, and there are approximately 2,000 street lights citywide. The City Council did approve a purchase and sell agreement with Southern California Edison to acquire those street lights. She explained the process will take approximately nine months before it is approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. After the approval by the California Public Utilities Commission SCE and the City will discuss the nuances related to the purchase and sale. She estimated the entire process to take from nine months to one year to complete. Commissioner Bradley stated that he did not see coverage maps as part of the staff report, and asked Mr. Afflerbach if there was a reason he did not address the coverage maps. Mr. Afflerbach answered that he did address the coverage maps in the context of where they are to meet the target areas they were trying to cover. He explained they looked at whether or not there was service in the area and would the design cover the area Crown Castle was proposing to service. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Aaron Snyder(Crown Castle) began by explaining the vault shown in the simulation is to house the radio equipment and there will be a secondary, much smaller vault, to house the fiber for the site and the vault to power the facility. He explained in his consultant's report it was noted that there is a definite lack of coverage in this area. He also explained that Crown Castle is trying to build these locations as dominate sources of signal for users of the right-of-way to allow them no gap in service. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that this particular antenna is mostly out of the sight of the neighborhood, and this is the type of effort demonstrated by Crown Castle that the Commission will look for in future applications. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 5 Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Snyder if a monopole antenna could be used instead of the proposed antennas. He stated that he understood it is not quite as efficient, however it is used in other locations and it would have a much smaller footprint as compared to the one being proposed. Mr. Snyder answered that their idea was to use an existing piece of vertical infrastructure, and placing a monopole would be a new pole in the area which is not supported by the City's ordinance. Commissioner Leon clarified he was suggesting a quarter or half way monopole that would fit on top of existing infrastructure. Mr. Snyder explained that would be a much older antenna design and they aren't designed to support certain bands that Crown Castle is designing their network on. They don't provide that type of coverage, and the characteristics of the antennas don't match what they're designing in terms of this proposal. Commissioner Leon stated he was looking at one of the AT&T installations and noticed the electronic package may be of a size that may fit into a pole and asked if Crown Castle might be amenable to a condition that would give them an either/or situation, put the electronics in a vault or conceal it in a pole. Mr. Snyder stated that in that situation they might want to take direction from the Community Development Director, as he has been very clear what he expects in terms of the proposals. Jeff Calvaqna stated that in evaluating these sights, location is everything. Something that might be acceptable at this location very well might not be acceptable somewhere else. He stated that coverage is not good in this area, and has measured it himself. Whether this is a significant gap or not, he couldn't say. He stated that if the Commission wants to approve a site that looks like this one in this location, that doesn't mean they have to agree to this type of structure going forward in other neighborhoods. He stated that this is actually not a bad location, as it is not in front of someone's home, it is not of someone's living room or bedroom window, and will not affect property values. Therefore, the Commission might be willing to accept something here that they wouldn't accept in another location. He stated that he did not feel there were a lot of good reasons to deny this application unless the Commission really doesn't like the design. He reiterated that approving this design here does not mean it has to be approved in other places. Michael Shonafelt (Counsel for Crown Castle) stated he had also attending the previous Commission meetings regarding the proposed cell sites. He stated that it appears the deliberations of the Commission is fairly free-ranging, land use zoning deliberations, similar to what would take place for a CUP application. He stated it is not that, as this is an area of telecommunications and he wanted the Commission to be aware of some of the legal overlays on this particular matter. He explained there is a Federal overlay, noting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to foster a nation-wide telecommunications network, Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 6 and to decrease barriers to that network to facilitate competition and deployment of rapidly evolving telecommunication technologies. He briefly discussed State law, noting companies such as Crown Castle have the right to go into public rights-of-way to build these types of sites. He explained that this is a telecommunications service, and not just about what games can be played on the computer. He stated that we need the services, noting that over 45 percent of households have dropped their land line service. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon stated he appreciated the efforts of the applicant to somewhat integrate the antenna infrastructure and increase the aesthetics of the pole. He stated that he felt we are part of the way there, but there is more that can be done. He encouraged Staff and the applicant to look at an integrated pole design and come up with one that might be applicable to use as the Rancho Palos Verdes pole. He also noted that he would like to see an additional condition added to the application that Crown Castle come up with an integrated pole design that puts the electronics in the pole, in-lieu of having an underground vault. Vice Chairman James asked if there was some way to approve this application but still allow for looking at the options mentioned by Commissioner Leon, or if Staff has an opinion on the suggestions at this time. He added that he was not sure he was in a position to say the side-mounted or the canister on top version is less intrusive. He stated he thought it would make a difference, and questioned if this would be setting a precedence in future cases. Director Mihranian explained that these facilities are being looked at on a case-by-case basis, as certain facilities may work in one location but may not be appropriate in another location. In terms of this proposal before the Commission, he explained that Staffs recommendation was derived primarily by aesthetics, as Staffs understanding was that the Commission wanted the panel antennas and the hard wire concealed in a canister or shroud. He explained that the shroud before the Commission for this AT&T facility is very different than a shroud for a Verizon, T Mobile, or Sprint, as equipment is different for each carrier. Vice Chairman James asked if Staff felt the application before the Commission, with the shroud on top, was the least intrusive. Director Mihranian answered that is Staff's recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Laymon suggested asking the applicant, as well as Mr. Afflerbach as to whether the fully integrated pole design is a feasible design for something that has a luminaire. Chairman Cruikshank re-opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 7 Aaron Snyder explained Crown Castle presented several options to Staff, going from above ground equipment to below ground equipment. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Snyder if antennas could be placed underneath each other, with the antennas facing in different directions, but vertically in line with each other, rather than the antennas being placed side-by-side facing out. Mr. Snyder responded that, in regards to stacking the antennas on top of each other, there has to be a specific mount for each antenna, required spacing between the antennas, and other technical requirements. With that, it tends to lend itself to being a larger piece of equipment than what is currently proposed. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was the capability to create an integrated luminaire design that integrates the antennas into the actual structure of the pole, thereby creating a more aesthetically pleasing structure. Mr. Snyder explained there would have to be some flexibility in the design and the designs would tend to be much larger and bulkier than typical. He stated that the pole before the Commission is a more slim line profile and shroud. He also explained they are trying to stay within the confines of the Ordinance, which speaks to a very restrictive proposal for these types of installations. Stephen Garcia (Crown Castle) stated he understood what the Commission was asking, noting Crown Castle had presented a few different options similar to what the Commission was describing, and working with Staff they could bring a design to the Commission to review. He also felt that this could be one of the mock-ups placed at City Hall, one being an integrated shroud at the base of the pole, the other being a transition piece with a canister at the top of the pole. Assistant City Attorney Laymon asked how much wider the base of the pole would be if the equipment were integrated at the base. Mr. Garcia answered that would be one of the schematics that would have to be designed. Director Mihranian stated that when Staff was working with Crown Castle, a pole that had the equipment at the base was considered. However, Staffs direction was to pursue vaulting because the base was at a size Staff felt was out of character with the other light poles in the City. He explained Staff was trying to apply a design concept that is consistent with the other street light poles so that the pole wouldn't stand out, especially the base of pole that is visible at eye level from walking or driving position, and is more visible than equipment at the top of the pole. Mr. Garcia asked if these ideas are somewhat exploratory, as these features will take some time to design. He asked if Crown Castle will be able to operate their facilities temporarily while going through this design evolution. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 8 Director Mihranian stated that his understanding is the Commission would like to see a type of pole where the antenna is integrated into the pole, and questioned the diameter of that pole. He questioned if it would be contingent on whether it is a free-standing pole with no luminaire, and does that change with a luminaire. Mr. Garcia responded that this is why it is exploratory. The diameter may be 12 inches or it could be larger or smaller. As far as a pole with a luminaire on top, he did not think this would be a conflict. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson noted that in January 2016 the City Council approved an Ordinance regarding this subject. He stated this is a very foundational application and there has been quite a bit of discussion on the subject. He asked Staff if this application is in accord with this Ordinance. Director Mihranian answered that this application is in accord with the Ordinance. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve Staff's recommendation, to approve the application as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Leon moved a friendly amendment to add a condition of approval to explore an integrated pole with a limited diameter that could be used in lieu of underground electronics. Commissioner Nelson noted there is a September 30th deadline for this application, and questioned if it was possible to have such a design before the deadline. Assistant City Attorney Laymon stated that she did not want to see a condition added that wasn't feasible. She stated that if the City is in the process of purchasing the SCE light standards, perhaps a condition could be added that simply states that upon the City's purchase of the light standard then the integrated design would be explored and implemented. Commissioner Leon clarified that all he was suggesting was that Crown Castle may propose an integrated design, subject to Director approval, in lieu of putting their equipment underground. Director Mihranian stated that, if a decision is being made on this site this evening, and there is a condition of approval directing the applicant to work with the Director to come up with that design, then a decision has been rendered and Staff will work with the Applicant prior to installation. Commissioner Nelson agreed to the friendly amendment for the purposes of future applications, however for the purposes of tonight, his motion was to approve ASG 10. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Leon. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 9 Assistant City Attorney Laymon asked, if during the exploration of the integrated design it is found it is technically infeasible, would there be a backup condition that the design as presented is approved. Commissioner Nelson stated that his motion was to approve this site, and approve a condition for future work at other sites. Vice Chairman James stated he agreed that this motion was to approve the application before the Commission, and the added condition was to give the Director, at his discretion, the authority to consider a no-less intrusive modification at some future date. Commissioner Nelson agreed. Chairman Cruikshank stated he felt that having the antennas at the top of the pole is more of an obstruction than actually bringing them down and placing them side-by-side. Commissioner James stated he has driven by this are several times, and in this neighborhood he did not think placing the antennas side-by-side would make that much of a difference. Commissioner Bradley stated he agreed with Commissioner James that this is a good design in this area. However, he did not know if this would be a good design in every area. Therefore, he stated that he agreed with the idea of creating an integrated design that would be aesthetically pleasing with a more common implementation path throughout the City. Commissioner Leon stated he did not mind the side-by-side antennas, and he suggested putting the shrouds below it. Director Mihranian noted errors/typos in the Resolution that would be corrected. The motion to approve Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 10 as amended, and thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-22 was approved, (6-0-1)with Commissioner Tomblin recused. 5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 33: Across from 6480 Chartres Drive Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report, providing a brief overview of the location as well as aerial street views of the location. He compared the original proposal with modifications in the current proposal, and explained that since the last meeting the applicant has been able to underground previous visible equipment. He stated staff is recommending that instead of a new pole the antenna be integrated with the existing stop Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 10 sign at the intersection of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive with a proposed canister shroud. Commissioner Bradley asked questions regarding the height of the stop sign and if the height is within regulations. Director Mihranian answered that the height of the stop sign with the added equipment would be within code. Planner Bashmakian reviewed height and size of the proposed equipment compared to the height and size of the existing stop sign pole. Commissioner Tomblin stated the proposal was a much better design and asked what color the stop sign pole would be. Planner Bashmakian stated staff has looked into various colors of green and brown so that the facility is it least visible. Director Mihranian added that in the conditions of approval the stop sign pole and canister would be painted brown but could be changed to green based on the Commission's direction. Commissioner Tomblin asked about landscaping to hide the underground vault. Planner Bashmakian stated landscaping will be completed along 3 sides of the underground vault so that the equipment can be accessed. Vice Chairman James asked once the antennas are approved the Commission ws informed at the August 8th meeting they could go up 10% in height without approval from the Commission. Staff was asked if Commission should take that into consideration. Assistant City Attorney Laymon replied that Commission can take it into consideration with limitations. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the underground vault can also be painted green or brown. Planner Bashmakian stated the color of the vault could also be a condition to minimize visual impact. Commissioner Tomblin also asked if a view analysis was completed. Planner Bashmakian stated yes and with no impact. Commissioner asked if Staff took view photos from the neighboring house. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 11 Director Mihranian stated a view analysis was completed but no photos were taken from the viewing area of the neighboring house. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the vault can be placed in the street. Director Mihranian stated that can be explored. Deputy Public Works Director Jules stated there may be safety issues with placing vaults in the street. Chairman Cruikshank opened public hearing. Aaron Snyder (Crown Castle) commented on the landscaping and size of the pole. He stated that he felt this was the least intrusive design, and was looking into integrating it into an existing piece of infrastructure and not adding a new pole. He stated they were not obstructing the public's view from the right-of-way or the City's intersection visibility triangle. He noted that landscaping can be placed on all four side of the vault to further screen it from the public's view. Commissioner Leon noted the staff report calls out a four inch pole in diameter, and asked Mr. Snyder what the minimum diameter size pole for this location would be. Mr. Snyder clarified that the specs have the pole called out at six inches in diameter. Deputy Public Works Director Jules added that six inches is a little larger than the City's standard poles, which are typically three to four inches in diameter. Jeff Calvaqna commented on the proposed antenna and his opposition to the location. He questioned if this pole was something one would want to see outside of their home. He also stated that he has done quite a few measurements at this site in terms of gap issues, and his measurements were virtually identical to Mr. Afflerbach's measurements. He noted this pole will service twenty-nine properties plus the occasional car that drives by. He questioned if the City was willing to accept this pole for twenty nine properties, and stated this area was not a significant gap. He stated that he did not feel this was the best that Crown Castle could do. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he spoke to a resident near this site and she confirmed that she has no trouble with her AT&T coverage. He also reminded the Commission that this is a neighborhood that has underground utilities and that this pole was opening the door for others. J.D. Dickerson commented on his opposition of the antenna and that the poles are ugly and block views. He also brought up safety factors as the antenna is too large and visibly unattractive. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Dickerson if the ground vault was also objectionable. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 12 Mr. Dickerson answered that the ground vault was very objectionable. Commissioner Leon asked if the antenna were only three inches in diameter and stood two feet above the existing stop sign, would this be objectionable. Mr. Dickerson answered that it may or may not, as he would have to see the design before commenting. Pamela Martin commented on her opposition of the antenna appearance and location of the antenna. She stated the antenna is not acceptable and should not be placed in the City. She discussed the home that was for sale near this proposal, and stated that this antenna will affect property values. Vice Chairman James stated that, hypothetically, something may have to go up at this site. He asked Ms. Martin if putting the equipment in a pole and doing away with the undergrounding would make the situation better. Ms. Martin questioned why this structure has to go in front of someone's home rather than in the street or in a grey area. Commissioner Leon noted there is currently a stop sign and a street sign on that corner, and asked Ms. Martin if that was acceptable. Ms. Martin answered that the stop sign and street sign were acceptable. Commissioner Leon continued that if one couldn't tell there was a cell tower in that stop sign or street sign, would that be acceptable. Ms. Martin answered that would be acceptable if one didn't know it was there. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked if Staff can look at master antenna sites. Director Mihranian answered that staff had been tracking cell sites on private properties, and Staff has those maps. In terms of facilities in the public right-of-way, Public Works Staff has been tracking those sites, and the map is available on the City's website. Assistant City Attorney Laymon added that, even though there may be a Sprint antenna at a site, AT&T is also entitled to be in the area and the City encourages co-location whenever possible. As carriers come in and need to install in certain areas, there will be aesthetic judgements that will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Director Mihranian added that the City is communicating to the applicant that the City discourages the installation of new poles throughout the City. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 13 Commissioner Tomblin questioned if there are five applications from different carriers on this one corner, can five antennas be put on one 14-foot tall pole. Mr. Afflerbach answered that five antennas from five different carriers could not be put on one pole, however there is some type of consolidation that could be put in place. He added that the different carriers have different needs, and it would be more likely the carriers would not use the same sites and would be in different neighborhoods. Assistant City Attorney Laymon discussed the accumulative impacts of different carriers coming into a neighborhood, Staff had no way to plan for this, as Staff has no way of knowing what their coverage needs are or will be in the future. She stated that Staff cannot know where a facility will be proposed by a different carrier in the future for purposes of trying to calculate out what the cumulative impacts are. In addition, to the extent that a significant gap exists, Federal law preempts any legislation the City has in the Code or Master Plan if the City prohibits or bans them from trying to cover a gap without addressing the least intrusive means. She stated the Courts have largely focused on the least intrusive means as being the scope of the City's authority as opposed to significant gap. Chairman Cruikshank asked Ms. Laymon if it is the Commission's role to decide whether or not there is a significant gap. Assistant City Attorney Laymon answered that initially at this stage the Planning Commission would make that determination, however if there is a court challenge the carriers could bring in new evidence that was not presented to the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he has not heard one resident stand before the Commission and say they do not have cell coverage. He stated he will be voting against this application as he feels it is in an intrusive location, he does not like the fact that it is vaulted. He did like that it is on a stop sign and doesn't necessarily interfere with anyone's view. He stated that there is the possibility that if the Commission let's this site in it will lead the way to a cell site on every block. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to deny the application, without prejudice, and for Staff to come back with a Resolution at the August 30, 2017 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Emenhiser clarified that the denial was based on the effect the site will have on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon stated that there is an interesting concept in terms of the balance of a significant coverage gap and aesthetics, and how the Commission views that in commercial areas versus residential areas versus other residential areas. He stated he felt there was also a cumulative aesthetic impact that the Commission should consider. He therefore stated the Commission should be more stringent on the aesthetics of this Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 14 single site than they would be in areas where the aesthetic constraints don't exist. In this particular neighborhood, he stated the pole needs to look like a stop sign since there is an existing stop sign. He stated he would therefore be inclined to deny the project. Vice Chairman James referred to the staff report and the statement that Mr. Afflerbach concluded the signal levels in this area are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern customer needs. He asked Mr. Afflerbach if there is a bigger coverage problem going from the corner and up Chartres Drive or Cartier Drive. Mr. Afflerbach explained that coverage issues rotate, and explained how that worked based on the time of day and how many services were being used. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Afflerbach his opinion on the possibility of cumulative carriers on this one pole. Mr. Afflerbach explained that when one carrier goes in they may provide better service, so therefore the other carriers will want to provide equal service. The motion to deny ASG No. 33 without prejudice was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Nelson and Vice Chairman James dissenting. Commissioner Bradley stated he was questioning whether there is a significant gap in this area and was concerned about the aesthetics. Commissioner Leon stated that the coverage gap is not significant by virtue of being as small as it is, and is exasperated by the cumulative impact of the aesthetics. Commissioner Tomblin stated the design has come a long way, however he looked forward to more information on the cumulative situation and more information on what is coming in the future. He stated his vote was predicated on the aesthetics and that there was not a significant gap. Commissioner Nelson stated he was in favor of the project, as he felt the aesthetics were as good as they could get. Secondly, he noted that not one person from the neighborhood spoke to the Commission to complain about this site. He stated that, while he appreciate the speakers comments regard the sale of the house, the Commission has been told that they could not consider economics in their decision. Vice Chairman James explained he was not 100 percent clear on whether there was a significant gap in coverage or if this was just a dead spot. He stated, however, that he was persuaded by the City's RF Engineer that there are significant gap issues in this neighborhood. He stated that he felt there was more gain that could be made in the design of the tower. Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not have enough evidence to show there is a significant gap in this area. He stated he also felt the application is out of character in this Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 15 neighborhood. He stated he would like to see continued progress in designing something that is less intrusive. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would have to recuse himself from the rest of the meeting, and left the dais. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. CUP REVISION (CASE NO. ZON2016-00398): 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that he is a customer of the Animal Hospital, but did not feel this would prejudice his decision. Commissioner Leon stated he is also a customer of the Animal Hospital, and is a neighbor of Ms. Jones. Commissioner Nelson also stated he is a customer of the Animal Hospital. Assistant Planner Anaya presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the application and noted that Staff has also made minor updates to the existing conditions of approval. He stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the CUP Revision request as outlined and conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the proposed sign is within code and asked how it compares to the Commission-approved signs at the Golden Cove shopping center. Director Mihranian answered that the Commission approved a Master Sign Program for the Golden Cove shopping center that allows the on-site signs to deviate from the code. Chairman Cruikshank asked how many times the applicant had to come back with information requested by Staff. Assistant Planner Anaya explained when the application was originally submitted, and that it was deemed incomplete on several occasions because of missing information, adding that Staff was in communication with the applicant to address the City's requests on several occasions. Chairman Cruickshank opened public hearing Cassie Jones (applicant) stated the application took a long time to process because she received a number of different answers from different planners over the course of the application process. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the work was completed without City approval. Ms. Jones stated the sign was painted on the façade and completed without a permit. Chairman Cruikshank closed public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 16 Vice Chairman James moved to approve Staff's recommendation to revise the Conditional Use Permit's Master Sign Program to approve the new sign, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved and P.C. Resolution 2017-23 was adopted, (6-0). 7. INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO. ZON2017-00227): 19 Albero Court Chairman Cruikshank noted he has known the applicant for 40 plus years but did not feel it will prejudice his opinion. Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the interpretation was being requested to allow the Director to approve an upper floor addition at the front facade of the residence. He read the 1989 City Council approved condition 0(1) for the tract discussing unbroken, vertical two story facades. He explained why the applicant believes the home complies with Condition 0(1), and the Director's interpretation of the condition of approval, as detailed in the staff report. He stated that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission affirm, via minute order, the Director's interpretation that the City- approved floor plan for this lot requires the upper floor of the front façade be set back from the lower floor a minimum of six feet, pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 0(1) of Resolution No. 89-41. Commissioner Nelson stated he lives within 500 feet of the property and recused himself. He left the dais. Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that while he was on the School Board he worked with Mr. Rigg, but stated there was no conflict. He then asked Staff to clarify if the Director denied this application based on this condition of approval. Director Mihranian explained he has not taken action on the application, and what is before the Commission is a request by the applicant for the Commission to review the Director's interpretation of this condition. Commissioner Leon asked when staff began to allow roofs over decks. Director Mihranian answered it occurred during the original development of the tract based on the interpretation of the then-Director in 1990. Commissioner Leon asked if the then-Director in 1990 made the interpretation of the condition of approval to allow a roof over the deck. Director Mihranian answered that it was his assumption, as there is no written explanation memorializing the interpretation. Commissioner Leon asked if someone in this tract could put up a glass railing on the deck, and continue the glass up to the top of an arch. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 17 Director Mihranian answered that a glass railing would be allowed, however if the glass were to continue up to enclose the space, that part would not be allowed, whether it was habitable space or not. He explained this would be removing any articulation and creating a horizontal facade. Commissioner Leon stated that in driving the neighborhood there seemed to be many houses that were not in compliance with this condition of approval. Commissioner Tomblin agreed, and questioned if the Commission should then penalize this property owner, or penalize the property owners that illegally enclosed those patios by making them a code enforcement issue. Director Mihranian responded that Staff has not researched the address files to see if permits were ever issued for those properties that have enclosed the balconies. Commissioner Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Allan Riqq (representing the owner) gave a presentation of the proposed project. He noted that before even one home was proposed the condition of approval was violated because of the way the condition was written. He stated there are covered decks and balconies throughout the tract. He stated that it was his opinion that the way the condition was written, it left the door open for properties to get redeveloped, as there were options as long as the articulation was continued and the mass was diminished. He showed a photo of the applicant's home, pointing out the roof elements breaks up the facade, there is a large setback for a majority of the home, and the landscape screens much of the home. He stated the proposal retains the roof element, the setback for the majority of the home remains, the tower height is reduced, and the new roof design reduces massing of the facade. He asked that the Commission not look at this as simply a modification, but rather does it preserve the intent of reducing mass and increasing articulation. In conclusion, he stated the condition of approval was flawed from the beginning and the developer was approved for plans that conformed to the intent of the condition. This proposal reduces the mass from the street and conforms to the intent of the original condition, and the majority of the homes in the tract were allowed to do exactly what he is proposing with this design. Commissioner Leon asked if this tract has an HOA, and if so, has the HOA reviewed and approved this proposed project. Mr. Volkan (homeowner) stated he has gathered signatures from neighbors that would be most impacted, with no objections from the neighbors. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Director Mihranian reminded the Commission that the design of the home is not before the Commission at this time, only the interpretation of the condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 18 Commissioner Bradley stated that he felt what the applicant wants to do appears to be completely reasonable, however based on reading the condition, he understood the Director's interpretation, and agreed with the interpretation. Commissioner Leon asked if the condition of approval were revised, could it be done lot- by-lot, or would it have to be done for all lots. Director Mihranian answered that this specific condition would apply to the entire tract, and the HOA would have to endorse the revision request. Vice Chairman James stated that the original condition is clear and the decision by the prior Director in 1990 was wrong. He asked the Director if he agreed with the 1990 decision. Director Mihranian answered that he disagreed with the 1990 decision. Commissioner Leon commented that he did not see how the Commission could overturn the interpretation, and what really needed to happen was to revise the tract's conditions of approval. Commissioner Bradley moved to affirm the Directors interpretation decision as outlined in Alternative No. 1, seconded by Vice Chairman James. The decision was affirmed via minute order(5-0-1) with Commissioner Nelson recused. Director Mihranian suggested the applicant speak to the HOA and the HOA author a revision to the conditional use permit to correct this condition for the entire tract, which is what Alternative No.1 of the staff report recommends. He noted this request would be heard by the City Council and not by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson returned to the dais. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION (CASE NO. ZON2016-00235): 29661 Western Avenue Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the background and the scope of the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision. He stated that Staff was recommending the approval of the requested CUP revision as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Bradley asked if the sound survey that was performed included the inside of the building. Assistant Planner Caraveo answered the Code requires the survey be completed from the property line, and therefore the survey was not performed on the inside. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 19 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve Staff's recommendation to approve the Conditional Use Permit Revision, seconded by Leon. The motion was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-24 was approved, (6-1). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 12. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON AUGUST 30, 2017 13. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 Director Mihranian gave an overview of the pre-agendas for the next meetings, and the pre-agendas were approved without objection. The Commission and the Director discussed possible dates to hold special meetings for the Crown Castle applications. Director Mihranian stated he would get back to the Commission on upcoming dates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2017 Page 20