Loading...
PC MINS 20170926 Approved 1 0/1 0/1 7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 6:05 PM. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Calvagna 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 and Special Counsel Lopez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the last Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Nelson indicated that a notice had been given for the appeal of the Crown Castle applications at a special City Council meeting scheduled for October 9th. He stated the notice was published, however the notice was not sent out to the public, which was an inadvertent error on Staff's part. He stated that, at this time, the October 9th City Council meeting has been cancelled, and Staff will publically notice the cancellation of that meeting. He stated the appeal hearing is tentatively scheduled for either the November 16 or November 30th meeting. Director Mihranian explained that many of the Crown Castle items have been continued, and the October 24th Planning Commission agenda will have approximately seven of these applications on it. Therefore, he noted that the meeting may have to start at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to the latest copy of the City's Quarterly Newsletter and noted that the image on the front page was that of a slim-line canister for wireless facilities. He stated this photo was very different from what the Commission has been seeing in the last several months. Director Mihranian explained that was a stock photo that was used to illustrate, in general, wireless telecommunication facilities, and does not represent what Crown Castle is proposing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson noted there will be a City Council candidate forum on October 11th at 7:00 p.m. at PVIC. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Les Chapin stated he lives on Verde Ridge Road and all of the utilities in the Pacific View HOA are underground. He stated there is an upcoming wireless antenna application that will be heard before the Commission and stated he felt the location was inappropriate and was not attractive. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. AFTER THE FACT GRADING PERMIT AND COASTAL PERMIT- (CASE NO. ZON2017-00115): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South Director Mihranian presented the staff report, noting this item was last heard by the Planning Commission in June, at which time there was a request to continue the public hearing because of additional information the City was obtaining from the Applicant. He stated the City is still in the process of finalizing that information and Staff plans on bringing this application back to the Commission at a later date. Therefore, Staff was requesting the public hearing be continued to a date uncertain. Commissioner Leon asked Staff when this item was first brought to the attention of code enforcement. Director Mihranian answered that it was in 2014. Commissioner Leon stated this will be the second or third request for continuance, and asked Staff if they could state categorically that the excess grading on the site is not causing any adverse environmental impacts. Director Mihranian answered that to the best of his knowledge, it is not. He explained Staff is working with the Applicant's engineer to come up with a design that will stabilize the slope and address the City's concerns. He noted that it was also his understanding that no additional habitat has been lost in that area. Commissioner Leon stated he was reluctant to continue to keep granting continuances on this case, noting three years is quite a while. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 2 Director Mihranian agreed, however he stated that Staff has been working diligently with the property owners with different iterations of plans. He explained that Staff was trying to ensure the after-the-fact grading that encroaches onto the City's property is properly engineered so that there is little to no impact on the City's property. Vice Chairman James stated he agreed with Commissioner Leon's concerns, particularly with Staff's request that the public hearing be continued to a date uncertain. He stated he would be happier if the item was continued to a date certain. Director Mihranian stated that he did not recommend continuing to a date certain. He explained that, depending on the information Staff receives, the appropriate CEQA document must be prepared, and if Staff does not have all of the information and hasn't done the full environmental analysis, Staff would be coming back to the Commission to request another continuance. By continuing the item to a date uncertain, it requires Staff to re-notice to all property owners within 500 feet. Continuing the item to a date certain does not require a new notice to the neighbors. He added that Staff anticipates this application coming back to the Commission in two or three months. Commissioner Nelson questioned if this property or use of the property pays taxes, noting that the museum has never been opened to the public. Therefore, he noted that most likely the property owners have not paid any property taxes for this property over the last three years. He also stated he agreed with the Vice Chairman's concerns about continuing the item to a date uncertain. Director Mihranian noted that, per the Permit Streamlining Act, this item must be heard before January 2, 2018. Chairman Cruikshank called a speaker. A resident expressed concerns with the proposed wireless facility located near her home on Ridgegate. Director Mihranian indicated that the speaker was commenting on a different agenda item that will be considered later this evening. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman James. The motion was approved, (7-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 35: 6722 Abbottswood Drive Director Mihranian presented the staff report, stating that the applicant has requested the public hearing be continued to October 24, 2017 to allow the applicant additional Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 3 time to explore co-locating the facility onto an existing wireless infrastructure on Trailriders Drive. Commissioner Bradley asked if a request from the applicant to continue a public hearing gives an abeyance to the shot clock. Director Mihranian answered that when the applicant requests a time extension Staff requests that the Applicant extend the shot clock, which they have to October 31St. Commissioner Bradley stated that while he encourages the Applicant to come up with a better solution, he was somewhat troubled that the Commission will be put into a position where they will have to make a decision on the application at the October 24th meeting. Commissioner Tomblin stated he encourages co-location on existing poles, but asked Staff if this new location is a better location than the original location. Director Mihranian explained that the Applicant was originally proposing to add new equipment to an existing light pole. Staff identified an existing utility pole with infrastructure a few hundred feet away from the proposed site, and felt this was a better location. He noted this site wasn't identified as one of their alternatives, and therefore Crown Castle would have to do some additional engineering to determine if the site is feasible or not. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the Applicant changes the location to the existing utility pole, will this be something the Planning Commission will still make a decision on. Director Mihranian explained that this location may be an eligible facility under Section 6409, and those applications by law do not require discretionary review and would not come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked why the Commission wouldn't just deny the current application at this meeting rather than continue the public hearing. Director Mihranian explained that it hasn't been determined if this new location is where the Applicant will place the facility. Commissioner Bradley asked if the Applicant, under Section 6409, has the latitude to put anything at the site, with no bounds on the aesthetic quality. Director Mihranian answered that the City still has the ability to put conditions on the permit in terms of aesthetics. He also stated the City may have the ability to require the equipment be placed underground, but that has to be explored. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 4 Special Counsel Lopez stated it may not be cut and dry under the law, explaining the actual language of Section 6409 is not clear. She noted that how the City may condition the permit is a less than clear idea under the law. Commissioner Bradley stated that the early deployment of some of the sites around the City are non-aesthetically pleasing, and asked if the City has any avenue to go back and ask the current operators to improve the aesthetic quality of those sites as the City continues to evolve towards a more comprehensive plan on the small cell site deployment. Special Counsel Lopez answered that the Code has a provision for non-conforming wireless sites, and there may be an opportunity for the City to require sites to conform to the City's code. Director Mihranian added that for applications on private property or those that have a Conditional Use Permit, applications that have come in that are eligible under Section 6409, Staff has required they meet the current City's design standards. Chairman Cruikshank asked Staff when the mock-ups will be available at City Hall. Director Mihranian explained there has been a delay in installing the mock-up because Crown Castle is trying to come up with a slimmer design for the canister. Crown Castle doesn't want to install the mock-up until they have finalized the design. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvagna stated that all of these locations were chosen as far back as January 2015, and maybe before. He stated that it was his opinion that Crown Castle could have found new locations that comply with the City's ordinance over a year ago, and the only reason they're doing it now was because the Commission has denied sites. He stated there are many tests to determine if a site falls under Section 6409, and he stated he is fairly certain this site does not. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Calvagna to clarify why he did not think this site would qualify under Section 6409. Mr. Calvagna explained that Section 6409 applies to modifications to existing sites, and one of the key points in Section 6409 is that the installation that was previously approved was legally installed. He stated that he believes there are several aspects of this location that were not installed in accordance with what the City approved, and explained why. Therefore, because it is not a legal installation it does not fall under Section 6409 and should come back to the Planning Commission for review. Special Counsel Lopez agreed that Section 6409 does not apply to sites that are illegally installed. She stated that if it is true that this site was somehow illegally Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 5 installed and it cannot be corrected before the new installation goes in, then the tower company is not entitled to the protection of Section of 6409. Director Mihranian commented that the statements made by Mr. Calvagna need to be verified, and Staff has not investigated this site. He stated that if it is found that there is something illegal with the installation, Staff must pursue it through code enforcement and give the company the opportunity to correct the violation. Noel Park stated that he almost feels a premeditated intent with the way the Applicant has flooded the City with these tower installation applications. He stated he objected to the location at 6722 Abbottswood Drive, as he can see the mock-up from his home. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the Commission had the option to deny the current application, rather than continue the public hearing. Special Counsel Lopez stated that the Commission does not have a full record before them, as the information of the proposed ASG 35 documentation was not included with the staff report. She stated she was therefore concerned that without the full documentation, she would be concerned if the Commission took any action on ASG 35. However, because it is agendized and it has been publically noticed, she did not feel a decision would be prohibited. She cautioned the Commission that per Federal Law, a denial must be based on substantial evidence in the written record, which at this time is not before the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he would not be proposing to deny the cell site, but rather this specific location. The Commission can then hear the alternate site information at a later date. Director Mihranian stated that because the Commission does not have the full analysis before them, as well as the findings, he would not recommend the Commission deny the project at this time. Additionally, the public was informed that the recommendation was to continue the public hearing, therefore there may be members of the public who did not come to this meeting to express their opinions and are waiting until October 24th. For those reasons, he stated he would recommend the Commission adopt Staff's recommendation and continue the public hearing. Vice Chairman James stated that he did not feel this was a good path to go down. He stated he very much appreciates the hard work Staff, Crown Castle, and members of the public have done to try to work out some of these matters. For the Commission to be fully prepared to deny something without the proper paperwork before them, on matters where there is a recommendation to simply continue the item, would be a mistake. Vice Chairman James moved Staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to the October 24, 2017 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 6 Chairman Cruikshank agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments. The motion to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2017 was approved, (6- 1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 3. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO.37: Northside of Ridgegate Drive Director Mihranian presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting the item be continued to October 24th. He explained that in looking at the proposed location Staff recognized that it wasn't ideal in terms of the close proximity to the homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommended that the applicant explore locating the facility at the intersection of Ridgegate Drive and Highridge Road, where there is an existing light pole facility. He also noted that up the road from this location is another application that is scheduled to be heard by the Commission in October, and Staff is attempting to consolidate these two into the one location and has asked the applicant to explore doing so. Commissioner Leon asked if combining the two and possibly making the structure taller will qualify the structure under Section 6409. Director Mihranian responded that if it is located on the existing light pole it may be eligible under Section 6409, however he did not believe Crown Castle had interest in locating the antennas on the light pole with an existing facility because it may belong to another carrier. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvagna stated he felt that combining two sets of antennas onto one pole was a good idea. He stated this area is a collector and there are no homes in this immediate area. Noel Park stated he was in favor of getting these antennas out of neighborhoods and into more appropriate locations such as this one. He stated that the mock-ups installed do not seem to reflect what the final product looks like. He stated that if the mock-ups were presented to look more like what it was going to look like, perhaps the neighbors would not get so upset. Katrine Otsuki referred to the photo that was displayed and asked if the antennas on the light pole was a cell phone tower. Director Mihranian answered that the structure is a wireless tower. Ms. Otsuki stated Ridgegate is a community of 362 residents, condensed into one small area. She stated she was concerned with the proximity of the tower to residential Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 7 homes, and stated she was against the location of this tower and wanted to know how to get it down, and what steps were needed. She stated that this cell tower is detrimental to their health. Chairman Cruikshank explained that this tower is already up and is not under the purview of the Planning Commission. He suggested Ms. Otsuki speak to Planning Staff about her concerns and if she has any options. Commissioner Leon moved Staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved (7-0). 4. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 48: Terminus of (lower) Mossbank Drive west of Basswood Avenue Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining that earlier in the afternoon Staff received an email from the Applicant requesting to continue this item, which was handed out as part of the late correspondence. He explained that what was conveyed to Staff was that a facility on Silver Spur Drive was recently installed and that this facility may not be necessary or may need to be modified because of its location. Because of this, the Applicant is requesting a continuance to a date uncertain to reassess the coverage. He explained that in order to continue to a date uncertain he suggested the Commission call the applicant up to the podium and confirm they are going to toll the shot clock. He also noted that Staff would like feedback and direction from the Commission as to whether a utility pole used to support a wireless facility is acceptable and if the Commission's preference is to have the antenna encased in a canister shroud or if the preference would be to see side panels affixed to an arm. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Scott Swendner(representing Crown Castle) stated Crown Castle is willing to toll the shot clock through the end of November. Director Mihranian requested the clock be tolled to November 30, 2017. Mr. Swendner agreed to toll the clock to November 30, 2017. Commissioner Leon stated it was his understanding the UPC has certain standards for mounting hardware on poles. He then sees Crown Castle's equipment boxes that are hard mounted to the poles, and don't seem to have the 18 inch separation from the poles. He asked Mr. Swendner why we can't have the antennas mounted to the poles as well. Mr. Swendner stated he did not have a specific answer, but would take the question back and get the answer for him. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 8 Jeff Calvagna stated he was glad to hear Crown Castle acknowledge the network might be over-built and recognizing some of these sites are really not required. Noel Park stated that looking at the visual simulation he did not see how that simulation matches the description on the agenda. He discussed Section 6409 and stated he would like to see the Commission to be as aggressive as they can, and if they don't think Section 6409 is applicable or if the Commission feels they have grounds to object, then do it. He asked about cooling fans, and if the equipment is vaulted are there still cooling fans needed in the vault, and how do you figure out the impact of noise coming out of the vault. Director Mihranian answered that cooling fans are required for the vaulting of the equipment and there are noise requirements that are stated in the conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Park's comment regarding the visual simulation, Director Mihranian explained that what is before the Commission is the second iteration of the project. Staff has since recommended that the Applicant put the panel antennas in a canister shroud and the equipment be vaulted. Therefore, the photo simulation is not an accurate depiction of what is described in the staff report. He noted on Page 4 of the staff report is a visual simulation that is more in line with the current proposal. Becky Karlmann stated she has also submitted a letter to the Commission. She reiterated that it was her hope the Commission denies this application if it comes back at the continuance hearing. She stated she submitted a picture from her living room window and her backyard, showing that she can see the antenna from both areas. She asked the Commission consider the potential impact to her property values. She also stated that everyone she knows in the area who has AT&T has good coverage, and questioned what the significant gap is. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was any type of landscaping that could be proposed at the site to help it visually. Director Mihranian stated that there are conditions of approval that require landscaping be planted to screen the facility. Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Karlmann if landscaping would help lessen the effect of what is seen from her window and backyard. Ms. Karlmann answered that she would still have other concerns, noting she would still know the antennas are there and it would still impact her property values. Kevin Peacock stated it was his opinion that the bigger issue is whether or not the cell coverage is really needed. He stated that he found the coverage was adequate in the area. He stated that he made a chart of cell strength along the street, and he questioned how many bars is considered adequate coverage. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 9 Commissioner Leon stated that in addition to coverage there is the question of capacity. He asked Mr. Peacock if he has ever had any delay in service when downloading apps or obtaining service. Mr. Peacock stated he has never had this type of problem. Andrew Leet stated he agrees with statements made by Ms. Karlmann and Mr. Peacock. He explained that neighbors have invested a lot of time and money into their homes and stated it was disheartening to think a cell tower would now be seen from their homes every day. With respect to the gap, he stated he uses AT&T and has had no problem with service in his home, nor in the vicinity of where the tower is proposed. Vice Chairman James moved to continue the public hearing to the November 28, 2017 meeting, contingent upon the applicant signing, by the end of the week, the tolling agreement to the end of November. Director Mihranian stated that he would prefer to have the agreement signed by the end of the day tomorrow. He also noted his concerns in continuing the public hearing to November 28th, noting Staff may be able to bring this back to the Commission on November 14th. Vice Chairman James added to the motion that if the applicant does not submit the signed extension agreement, the motion would be to deny the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Bradley moved a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the public hearing to no later than November 28th, giving Staff the flexibility to bring the item back sooner if they are ready. Vice Chairman James accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Cruikshank stated that Staff had requested feedback from the Commission in regards to shrouds or canisters used on an existing pole, as well as the use of side panels. Director Mihranian displayed images of existing poles with canisters and asked the Commission for their feedback. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (7-0). Commissioner Bradley stated he prefers the canister design rather than the panel antennas. He felt a rounder design with smoother edges was less intrusive. He added that the smoother and most integrated design into the current structure. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 10 Commissioner Emenhiser stated that in terms of the design, the smaller the better. He stated that one cylinder is better than two panels. He stated that in terms of color, brown or green would be preferable. Commissioner Nelson stated that in terms of aesthetics, he would like to see panels put flush against the pole and the box underground. Commissioner Tomblin stated he preferred the cylinder design, and also wanted to see the equipment vaulted. Commissioner Leon stated his first choice would be to have the smaller antennas flush mounted to the pole. If the antennas have to be off-set from the pole, he stated he would prefer the antennas be placed in a cylinder shroud. He also stated the equipment must be vaulted. He noted there have been a number of public comments in regards to the noise from the equipment, and he suggested fans be included with the mock-up. Vice Chairman James stated that in terms of aesthetics, he felt that flush mounted is preferable as well as matching colors. Chairman Cruikshank stated he agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments. Director Mihranian stated that in terms of the noise, there are conditions in the staff report limiting the noise to 55 dba. He stated that if the Commission wants an example of the noise, he suggested visiting the underground vaulted equipment at the intersection of Ridgegate and Highridge Road. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. Commissioner Tomblin stated he will not be at the September 28th meeting. Commissioner Bradley stated he also will not be in attendance on September 28th. 6. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON OCTOBER 10, 2017 The Commissioner reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. Chairman Cruikshank stated he will not be in attendance at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes September 26,2017 Page 11