Loading...
PC MINS 20170830 SPC Approved 9/21/17Z CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 30, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 6:53 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson, and Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Commissioners Leon, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman James were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Public Works Associate Engineer Eder, RF Engineer Mike Afflerbach, Assistant City Attorney Gerli and Deputy City Attorney Laymon. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Deputy City Attorney Laymon noted no reportable action on the Closed Session. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that the City Council will consider adopting the Los Angeles County Fire Code at its September 5th meeting. He distributed late correspondence for Agenda Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and introduced the City's RF Engineer, Mike Afflerbach, and noted the new email address for Wireless Telecommunications inquires. He also noted that construction in the City is prohibited on Labor Day. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the Traffic Safety Committee meeting on August 28th. Chairman Cruikshank reported that he met with a representative from Crown Castle. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 33: Northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive (AB) Director Mihranian presented the staff report, noting at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission moved to deny this application and directed Staff to come back with the appropriate Resolution. He stated that before the Commission is the denial resolution, which was distributed as part of the late correspondence. Chairman Cruikshank asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to comment on the Resolution before the Commission. There were no comments. Commissioner Bradley moved to approve the Denial Resolution as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-25 on a vote of 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 08: Across 30505 Calle de Suenos Drive Director Mihranian presented the staff report, noting the staff recommendation was to continue the public hearing, without discussion, to the October 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. He stated the applicant has agreed to toll the clock to allow additional time for this item to be considered at a future hearing. Chairman Cruikshank asked if there were any public speakers. There were no public speakers. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2017, as recommended by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (4-0). 3. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 09: 30452 Camino Porvenir Associate Engineer Eder presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the original proposal and comparing it to the new proposal to replace an existing street light pole. Director Mihranian added that since the last meeting Staff reached out to Crown Castle and visited the proposed project site, as well as some of the alternative locations. He explained that Staff ultimately felt that the proposed location was preferred for this neighborhood. He stated that Staff had discussions with Crown Castle to screen the facility by encasing the panel antennas and cables in a canister that would be placed at the top of the pole. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 2 Commissioner Bradley noted there was no discussion in the staff report on the gap issue and why Crown Castle wants to put the antennas at this site. He asked if there was a gap analysis for the site. Director Mihranian referred to page 53 of the report, and deferred the question to Mr. Afflerbach. Mr. Afflerbach explained the data collected as reflected on pages 53 and 54 of the report. Commissioner Bradley questioned how there can be a significant gap when the City has already authorized an antenna in the general area, across the golf course, that will have a direct line of sight to this neighborhood. He stated that piece-mealing each of these applications in a vacuum and not assessing the project in relation to the entire proposed network was troubling. He noted that the staff report does not take into account the increased band width of the previously approved facility and was not sure how to look at these in their totality, or evaluate whether there actually will be a significant gap in coverage. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Aaron Snyder(Crown Castle) referred to the gap analysis, explaining the analysis shows a significant gap in this area. He also displayed the alternative location analysis map. He discussed the least intrusive analysis that was performed, showing a photo of the before and after photo simulations. He stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Snyder how he factors into the gap analysis the newly approved sites in the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder noted that there would continue to be a gap in the area where ASG 09 is located even with the approval of ASG 10. Commissioner Bradley stated that the gap analysis is not current because it does not account for the approval of ASG 10. Mr. Snyder explained they have the ability to take these measurements into account, adding that ASG 10 is not in line-of-sight with ASG 09, and one must take into account a drastic elevation change, landscaping on both sides of the golf course, and landscaping that abuts the residences on Camino Porvenir. He also stated that they have received an approval for ASG 10 at a certain height, with a set antenna, and these antennas are low-signal propagations so therefore it would not provide adequate coverage in the ASG 09 area. Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Snyder if, when looking at the cell site for ASG 10, if he considered putting the antennas on the side of the apartment buildings in the area to have a better line of site and coverage for ASG 10 and ASG 09. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 3 Mr. Snyder answered that Crown Castle was concentrating on City-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, as there are the applicable Federal and State laws to be able to build there and that is the design of this network. Commissioner Bradley stated he had done some research and found there is new technology with more integrated designs that are much less intrusive. He asked Mr. Snyder how much work Crown Castle has done to look at this new technology and doing some research and development to come up with an integrated package design that doesn't look like a cell tower, but rather resembles other light standard in the City. From the City's and residents' point of view it could almost be unnoticeable that antennas were being installed to existing infrastructure. Mr. Snyder stated that Crown Castle has and will continue to look at action items from previous Planning Commission meetings to address least intrusive design. He explained the equipment housed in these facilities is very expensive, and Crown Castle is looking at integrated pole types. He also stated that Crown Castle is trying their best to give the City what they are asking for in terms of design. He stated that the technical details does not warrant or apply itself to the band networks they are building. Commissioner Bradley encouraged Mr. Snyder to do as much research as possible, and that they will find in the long run that it will be cheaper and more expedient for Crown Castle. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this current design is much better than the previous designs, and that vaulting the mechanical equipment is a big improvement. Commissioner Nelson commented on errors he found in Mr. Snyder's report. He referred to pages 75 and 76 of the report, noting references to ASG 70 rather than ASG 09. He also referred to page 82, and asked Mr. Snyder to explain the Spectrum Act. Stephen Garcia briefly explained the Spectrum Act, which relates to the overall goal of the FCC to deploy networks, and how cities should go about doing business in regards to permitting new facilities. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Snyder why he did his noise impact analysis in Torrance and have it apply to Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Snyder answered it was because this project is the first where they are deploying this particular type of radio equipment, and there were locations previously built in Torrance to conduct a comparative analysis. The noise study was conducted with the Acoustics Engineer, and the study was conducted in Torrance but run under baseline requirements for Rancho Palos Verdes. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Snyder about his schedule for the mock-ups that will be installed at City Hall. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 4 Mr. Snyder apologized for the delay, stating that they are trying to come up with a prototype design that takes into consideration an improved integrated option, and as soon as they have that vetted with their client they will install the mock-ups. Jeff Calvagna referred to the ASG Coverage Objective and ASG 10 coverage maps provided by the applicant. He discussed megahertz coverages and stated that by putting 1900 megahertz on the map it doesn't represent the true extent of the coverage. He stated he ran his own coverage of the area and will be happy to provide his parameters to the City's RF Engineer. He stated that it very clearly spills over onto Camino Porvenir, and stated that one has to question if this is really appropriate for the small number of houses. He explained that his analysis showed that this antenna would be serving approximately 55 people. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Calvagna why he thought Crown Castle would present a map with 1900 megahertz rather than with a lower frequency with a better penetration. Mr. Calvagna stated that it was his opinion, and only speculation, that Crown Castle wanted to claim Rancho Palos Verdes as their area as part of the 5G build out. He stated that he thought Crown Castle picked a lot of sites without any regard how the sites affected the residents. He also stated that he felt they put in a lot of excessive equipment in order to stake their claim to the area. Dr. Akbarian stated she loves her neighborhood, pointing out that all of the utilities are underground so that all that is visible are the houses, trees, and the ocean and she wants to keep it that way. She objected to the fixtures being put up in her neighborhood. She stated she has good cell coverage and stated that she felt the poles were being put up for no good reason. Shinya Mizoguchi stated the proposed cell tower is directly in front of his home. He questioned how he would know whether or not that cell tower will decrease the value of his home if he tries to sell in the near future. He also questioned why this cell tower was needed. Samson Munn stated there is an Ordinance that has some discussion on neighborhood compatibility and character. He stated that he did not think there was one person in the room, including the applicant, who would say the antenna canister on top of the pole is actually attractive. He stated this is not an aesthetically positive attribute to the neighborhood. He stated that in order to approve this, one would have to say it was either aesthetically pleasing or grant some type of variance to the Ordinance. He stated that a vast majority of these poles should be denied, otherwise the City is not following the Ordinance as it is written. He asked how the Commission can review ASG 09 without knowing the location of ASG 08. Erwin Rieder stated that all of the comments by the public speakers should be heavily considered when review this project and making a decision. He noted that nobody has Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 5 spoken in favor of the project. He felt the City should consider the health of everyone living near and around this and other poles. He stated there will be an impact on property values and asked that the request be denied. Joseph O'Neill stated he was speaking in opposition to all of the cell towers, but especially the ones proposed for Calle de Suenos and Camino Porvenir. He stated he drove around the neighborhood and could find no areas where he had no cell coverage. He stated this is a problem that doesn't need to be solved, and every square mile of the earth doesn't need cell phone coverage. He noted that all utilities in this area are underground and he did not want to start seeing clutter of the landscape by putting up cell towers. Louis Fraix stated that for the past two years Comcast and AT&T have been trying to do this kind of work, and the City Council has adopted a good Ordinance in regards to antennas. He noted that in the past year Comcast has already built vaults for the cable. He stated there is no analysis of the sound or analysis of the propagation of the air waves. He asked that the City ask Crown Castle what the benefit of these towers are. Noel Park stated he is representing his Homeowners Association, and the Association is standing in solidarity with their neighbors on this issue. He complimented Mr. Calvagna's analysis and stated Mr. Calvagna has more credibility than Crown Castle. He stated that there are many less intrusive options that have not been thoroughly looked at, and questioned if Staff can do an independent analysis of what antenna options actually exist. Judy Zimmerman expressed her strong objection to the proposed cell site. She questioned the effect of the tower on her property value, and also noted a site in Rolling Hills Estates where the fan appears to be running 24/7. She asked that the Planning Commission and the City Council keep the choices and needs of residents above those of Crown Castle. Sonny Gan stated he lives a few houses from the proposed site. He explained that he chose to live in this neighborhood despite the long commute to his job. He discussed neighborhood character and the value of this character. He noted he would have not bought a house in this neighborhood if a cell tower had been in place at the time. He encouraged the Commission to deny the proposal. Tamara Rubel stated her preference is to not have a cell tower in this location. She stated that she understood what was being proposed would be an improvement to what is in front of her house. She questioned if the proposed tower was worth it considering it would only service approximately 55 people and there is now an approved cell tower near the golf course that might provide additional coverage to this neighborhood. Aaron Snyder (in rebuttal) stated Crown Castle does not turn a blind eye to the conversations being held relative to the concerns of the City and the residents. He has submitted multiple revisions of the design, there have been conversations about continued improvements to the design. He discussed Mr. Calvagna's comments regarding the mapping at the 1900 megahertz band, and explained Crown Castle builds Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 6 to all four bands, and builds to the ever increasing demands. He stated that Crown Castle is here on behalf of the carriers to build networks. He noted there is an ever increasing demand for service that is not going to go away any time soon. Finally, he noted there has been quite a bit of discussion on coverage, but stated they are also focused on increasing the capacity side. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated the major reason he will be voting against this proposed cell site is the neighborhood opposition. He stated that the customers and wireless users in this neighborhood have spoken and expressed their desire that the neighborhood stay as it is now as opposed to having better wireless coverage. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to deny the proposed Major Wireless Telecommunication Permit ASG No. 09, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Bradley complimented Crown Castle on their improved designs. However, in this particular case he stated that he did not think there was a demonstrated significant gap in the area. He stated that with the approval of ASG 10, this area will see significant improvement in their coverage. He stated he will be voting in favor of the motion. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff if this application meets all of the guidelines in the City's Ordinance. Director Mihranian answered that the application is in compliance with the Ordinance. Commissioner Nelson stated that this design represents to him the best the City is going to get for a street light design. He stated he cannot support the motion, however he stated that if he needs to vote yes on the motion in order for this motion to pass, he will do so. Chairman Cruikshank stated that Planning Commissioners live amongst their fellow neighbors and understand that nobody necessarily wants this in their neighborhood. He explained that one of the things the Commission was instructed not to look at was speculation, and speculation is not a reason to say yes or no on a particular issue. He stated he listened to every person who spoke, and all had valid concerns. He stated that unfortunately, even though the comments were valid, he had to consider most of the comments as speculation, as there wasn't enough fact presented to consider it as not speculation. He stated that, even though he would like to support the motion, he would have to vote no on the motion. The motion to deny the proposed Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 09 failed (2-2) with Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Cruikshank dissenting. Director Mihranian explained that the tie vote in this case leads to a denial of the project, and the adoption of P.C. Resolution 2017-26, and therefore the project is denied. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 7 Deputy City Attorney Laymon explained that the law requires the City to provide the findings for the denial in writing. She noted Staff provided the Commission with a draft Resolution for denial, and she recommended each Commissioner review the draft Resolution and the listed reasons for denial so that it is all read into the record. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested Staff review the video of the meeting and make the modifications to the Resolution based on the discussion viewed on the recording. Deputy City Attorney Laymon asked if the Commission wanted to review the Resolution with the changes before having the Chairman sign the Resolution, or if this was something that could be done without bringing it back to the Commission for review. The Commission agreed that this Resolution did not have to come back to the Commission for review. 4. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 32: Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive Associate Engineer Eder presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the original proposal for ASG No. 32 and comparing it to the new proposal. Commissioner Nelson referred to page 3 in the project description and asked for a definition of the term "two ions and a power meter". Director Mihranian stated that it's a reference to the mechanical equipment and he would have to defer the specifics to the question to the applicant. Chairman Cruikshank asked what is the minimum height the lamp has to be above the road and is there flexibility with the height of the lamps. He also asked if the same flexibility applies to the color of the lamp pole. Associate Engineer Eder stated he believe its set at a 17 foot minimum and the current proposal is at 27 feet in height. Director Mihranian stated there is flexibility with the height and color, however, they would want to remain consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if there is another cell site around the corner from the proposed cell site. Director Mihranian stated the Commission may want to ask the applicant. Commissioner Nelson pointed out an error on page 13 referring to ASG 09 when the proposed project is for ASG 32. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 8 Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Aaron Snyder (Crown Castle) presented the same series of slides of the previous proposal. He discussed the least intrusive analysis that was performed, showing a photo of the before and after photo simulations. Mr. Snyder reviewed the cable management technics. He also noted the proposed site would connect to 13 cell towers. He noted there are several existing AT&T sites but nothing in close proximity. Commissioner Nelson asked on page 37 what it means by "remove existing juniper". He also noted errors on the project description from Crown Castle. Mr. Snyder answered that some landscaping may need to be removed during installation of the pole. Chairman Cruikshank asked a question regarding the size of the shroud making it less intrusive. Mr. Snyder replied by saying he would have to look into it and take it back to the project managers. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he is not a fan of having cell towers located in a residential area. He questioned why the cell tower couldn't be placed on a main street such as Crest Road. Mr. Snyder replied by saying they are looking at the need to supply coverage to these areas. He stated there are areas where they are looking at moving the cell tower out of residential areas and on to collector streets. Jeff Calvagna addressed the Commissioners with a brief presentation regarding compliance with the City's ordinance. He stated the cell tower is not in compliance citing Section 12.18.190, rather the applicant is submitting Exceptions. He touched on location of sites in opposition to the Code. Noel Park stated he is in agreement with Jeff Calvagna. The 2016 Council-adopted Ordinance strongly discourages locating in residential neighborhoods. He noted the noise of the cell towers should be analyzed more and commented on the cell towers being intrusive and a visual insult to the community. Commissioner Bradley asked if he thought the fairing design was better than the bouton design. Mr. Park replied no he believes there are other options. He stated staff should independently look at options available. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 9 Dr. Samson Munn asked that his previous comments be reiterated on this agenda item. He also agreed with Mr. Calvagna statements regarding location and noise. He stated he believes staff is interpreting the ordinance incorrectly. Dr. Munn also stated he believes it's a conflict of interest to allow this kind of tower. He also noted he believes there is no reception gap within the location proposed and that the applicant is trying to solve a non- issue. Ardi Tavakol stated he lives directly in front of the proposed tower. He concurred with previous speakers on this item and the previous item. He stated residents should be asked if they want the tower since there are other means of reception. He commented on the current light pole and lighting in the area stating changes are not necessary. Pamela Marton thanked the Commission for denying previous proposed cell tower applications on Chartress Drive and on Comina Proviar. She noted why she loves RPV and lives here for the nature and peaceful atmosphere. She stated noisy vaults with fans are not acceptable. She stated it's a fact that the cell towers are highly intrusive and are not in alinement with the aesthetics of the neighbors. She stated they degrade the value of property and the proposed designs should meet and be within the current infrastructure. J.D. Dickerson— noted facts are being stated in the meetings and if the Commission is listening to them. He stated if residents have poor reception or 911 issues they most likely will get the most up-to-date technology or a landline. He stated no one is guaranteed to have service in all area if there is a significant gap. Ms. Tavakol stated she is the captain for the neighborhood watch in the Whitney Collins neighborhood. She noted her address is directly in front of the proposed cell tower. She stated she works from home and the first thing she sees is the cell tower when looking out of the window, 50 feet from her window. She noted if the tower is approved she would like it to remain concrete and not steel. She also asked how minimal people are impacted by the gap in the area. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff for a visual on the overhead of the location of Mrs. Tovakol house. He stated the cell tower is literally in Mrs. Tavakols front yard. Aaron Snyder noted he has read the ordinance front to back and staff has agreed with location of the proposed cell tower. Mr. Snyder pointed out the meetings should stay on topic which is least intrusive, analysis of significant gap, and RF consultant being on board that an exception can be granted for these types of proposal. He stated the City cannot dictate technical need for AT&T networks. He noted for consideration a blanket denial in residential areas can very well be a prohibition of service. Commissioner Emenhiser asked a question regarding a photo in the late correspondence item which was referenced. He asked Mr. Snyder is this slim design is a viable option. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 10 Mr. Snyder answered by stating the equipment looks like a Verizon 2G location on the photo was 10 years ago and a much smaller network. He stated the equipment and bandwidth with the proposed cell tower is much larger and doubled in size. Commissioner Nelson asked what is meant by two ions and a power meter. Mr. Snyder replied it's a radio unit that is used. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the surrounding arterials were considered in the review in terms of what can be utilized. Mr. Snyder explained the process they go through in determining a location and the specific perimeter and design objective they have to take into consideration. He explained locations along the collector street wouldn't work in this particular location. He stated they are looking at future agenda items and trying to make a move from residential to the collector streets. He stated that they have to focus their alternatives on what would fit the coverage objectives. Another major consideration is the topography of the area. Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Snyder what his definition of"least intrusive" would be, or what their threshold for not being least intrusive was. Mr. Snyder answered that it was his opinion that if Crown Castle submits an application and goes through the necessary reviews from Staff level, with a secondary review from an RF Consultant, and they provide a review with their comments discussing the least intrusive option, that hits the bar for least intrusive. In addition, having a good working partnership with Staff to visit the sites and look at alternative designs is very important. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he is not a fan of these cell sites in residential neighborhoods, noting the aesthetics are a serious concern. He also discussed neighborhood opposition, and noted that he has yet to hear a speaker say their coverage is bad and they want this cell tower in their front yard. Commissioner Nelson moved to adopt Alternative No. 1 of the staff report to deny ASG No. 32, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Bradley stated he understood part of the reason the City is going through these applications in the PUC Act that grants by right a utility's ability to come into the right-of-way to put in public service utilities. However, he stated he was not aware of a clause in this Act that drives competition. He stated that now multiple companies are trying to impose those types of by-right issues, and asked how that is resolved. He noted that there could potentially be three sets of power poles right next to each other by-right. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 11 Deputy City Attorney Laymon explained the competitive portion referred to by Commissioner Bradley actually comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and discussed some of the case law. Commissioner Bradley asked Staff if they could get together with Staff from other cities and have a discussion on this topic, and come back to the Commission with a recommendation on how the Peninsula cities can join forces and have a consolidated opinion throughout the Peninsula. Commissioner Nelson asked if this application fulfills the terms of the City's Ordinance. Director Mihranian answered that it does, with the understanding that exceptions are being made. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff if they considered these exceptions major. Director Mihranian responded that in the Ordinance certain facilities can be permitted in certain locations, provided additional findings are made. Deputy City Attorney Laymon pointed out the exceptions can be found on pages 12 through 14 of the staff report. Deputy Public Works Director Jules stated a comment was made by a member of the public asking whether or not the City receives revenue from Crown Castle for the placing of their facilities on City owned property. She stated the answer is yes, the City does, explaining the City has a right-of-way use agreement with Crown Castle which allows the City to collect up to five percent of the revenue generated for every location a site is placed on City infrastructure. In addition, there is also a flat fee charged for each site. She stated that, on average, the City receives approximately fifty thousand dollars total for all of the sites within the City. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Afflerbach if there was a potential opportunity to utilize nearby streets, not necessarily in front of someone's home, for this site. Mr. Afflerbach referred to page 57 of the report, as well as pages 63 through 66 which shows the topography from each one of the six test points. He stated that, without having studied the area, in theory there may be a possibility of putting a cell tower on Crest Road. Director Mihranian added that putting a cell tower on Crest Road also has the potential of impairing someone's view of the ocean, regardless of what side of the street it is placed on. He explained that when Staff goes to the site they are not looking at the proposal from an engineering perspective, but rather on an aesthetic perspective. He explained Staff has told Crown Castle that the City doesn't want to see any new poles or above ground infrastructure, and putting a facility on Crest Road might mean introducing a new pole, which is contrary to the direction Staff is giving Crown Castle. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 12 Chairman Cruikshank asked staff about the comment made by a speaker concerning the noise that is emitted from these structures. Director Mihranian responded that Staff can have a noise consultant do a review of the noise study. Deputy City Attorney Laymon added that in the proposed conditions of approval there is a condition that sets a noise standard of no louder than 55 decibels. She noted this might sound high, but in actuality 55 decibels is very quiet. The motion to adopt Alternative No. 1 to deny the project without prejudice was approved, and Resolution P.C. 2017-27 was adopted, (4-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 Commissioner Emenhiser expressed his concerns about the pre-agenda as it appears there are several items on the agenda that will take several hours each to hear. Director Mihranian stated that the two public hearing items would most likely not include a lengthy discussion and be relatively short. He also noted that one or two of the antenna items may be withdrawn. The pre-agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes August 30,2017 Page 13