Loading...
PC MINS 20170912 ADJ Approved 10/10/17':;, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 6:17 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank. Commissioner Tomblin arrived at 6:22. Absent: Commissioner Leon was excused. Also present were Director of Community Development Mihranian, Associate Planner Seeraty, Associate Engineer Eder, Contract Planner Bashmakian, Deputy Public Works Director Jules, RF Engineer Mike Afflerbach, Assistant City Attorney Gerli, and Special Counsel Lopez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the September 5th meeting, the City Council introduced as an Ordinance the Los Angeles County Fire Code, and will consider the second reading of the Ordinance at its September 19th meeting. He added that the City Council will receive a report on the Peninsula-wide efforts addressing coyotes at its September 19th meeting. Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence for Agenda Item Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. He reported on a lunch meeting with the Community Development Directors of the cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates to discuss, among other things, the processing of wireless telecommunication applications. He also reported that pursuant to the amended Minor Modification Ordinance, the Commission will be receiving, via email, the Director's Notice of Decision for a minor modification to P.C. Resolution 2016- 10 for a lot split and grading permit on Palos Verdes Drive East. Special Counsel Lopez provided the Commission with a brief update on SB 649. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 22, 2017 MINUTES Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 172 REVISION "C" (ZON2OI5-00230): Cal Water, 5837 Crest Rd. Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, giving a brief history of this item and explaining Staff, Cal Water, and the neighbors are working together to seek solutions to the issues involved. She discussed several recent updates provided to Staff, but noted Staff has not been able to meet with the applicant and the neighbors prior to tonight's meeting, but is in the process of setting up a meeting in the near future to discuss the revised landscape plan, as well as the recent project developments. Therefore, Staff was recommending the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the December 12, 2017 meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser reported that he was able to view the site from the backyards of four homes on Stonecrest Road. He stated it was his impression that progress has been made on finding a resolution to the problems. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Matteo Villain (5827 Sunmist Drive) stated that if the diesel tank is approved and installed, it will be at a higher level than the proposed future reservoir. Secondly, he stated he would like to ensure Staff verifies the ability to store a secondary containment for the diesel. He stated he was concerned that a crack or an earthquake will generate a diesel spill. Lastly, he asked Staff if they had knowledge of a neighbor's email that had contacted the Sanitation District in regards to receiving the spoils of the site. He stated that the comment from the Sanitation District was that they would not accept the spoils, as they may consider it toxic. He asked how it was possible that spoils considered too toxic to be accepted by the Sanitation District can be stored next to a reservoir with water that the public drinks. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 2 Director Mihranian stated that Staff will continue to work with the neighbors and continue to have neighborhood meetings. He explained the CUP that is moving forward is to document the current operations as modified in the memo. The proposed reservoir will follow a separate track and is not part of the analysis that will be presented to the Commission in December. He noted that at this time Cal Water has not submitted any applications to the City for a new reservoir. In regards to the comments made by the speaker in regards to the Sanitation District, Director Mihranian stated Staff will be researching this and will be prepared to respond to the neighbors and present more information at a future meeting. Denise DeVenuto stated she was speaking to express her concerns, as well as those of several of her neighbors. She stated that Cal Water is dumping material at the Crest Road location during the day, but is dumping the material somewhere else at night. She stated it was a reasonable question to ask why the spoils couldn't be dumped at this alternate location during the daytime as well. She stated Cal Water is asking for unrestricted use of the diesel tank, and she stated that was ludicrous. She stated there has to be conditions put on that, as the residents did not want to see this facility become a de facto fuel depot. She stated landscaping has been discussed for over a year, and the situation has only gotten worse. She stated that Cal Water has done nothing to improve the situation, and it has been all talk to this point. She discussed the proposed wall for noise mitigation and stated that it will not work, as it will only push the noise up to the second story windows of the homes. Vice Chairman James moved to adopt Staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (6-0). 3. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 31: Adjacent to 28809 Crestridge Road Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report, explaining that after further assessments of alternative sites, the applicant has proposed a new location for this facility. Because this new location qualified for an administrative approval per the City's wireless ordinance, the Applicant has withdrawn the application and will be submitting a new application for the revised location. He displayed an aerial view and photos showing the originally proposed location, as well as the new proposed location. He stated that because the Applicant has withdrawn the application and the new proposed site qualifies for an administrative approval, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Director Mihranian explained that Staff and the Applicant went to the site to look at the proposed location, and Staff raised concerns about this facility in a neighborhood that doesn't have any above-ground infrastructure and that this facility could be located on an existing utility pole along Crenshaw Boulevard, which will be explored by Crown Castle. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff to clarify what an administrative permit meant. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 3 Director Mihranian answered that administrative applications are reviewed and considered by the Director of Public Works. He- explained that the current Ordinance states that equipment that is collocated on existing infrastructure and on a major arterial street as identified by the General Plan could be processed as an administrative application. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the utilities had to be vaulted. Director Mihranian answered that is a requirement, and in this case, because it is behind a screened wall, Staff was able to make an exception. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there will be a 500 foot notice sent to the residents. Director Mihranian answered that the administrative applications are not required to be publically noticed. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there is an appeal process for administrative applications. Special Counsel Lopez clarified that once a decision is made on the administrative applications, a notice of decision will then be sent to all interested parties. She stated that decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there was a fee for the appeal. Director Mihranian answered the typical appeal fee is $2,275, however this fee was reduced by the Council for residents appealing wireless applications and he was not sure of the exact amount. He added that if there is a change in the decision the appeal fee is refundable. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there is any type of review of an administrative application by the Planning Commission. Director Mihranian stated that the Planning Commission is not required to review administrative applications, unless appealed, however Staff would report approval of these applications to the Commission and the City Council through the weekly Administrative Report. Commissioner Tomblin expressed his opinion on his uneasiness of these types of applications being approved administratively. He stated he was also concerned that part of the Planning Commission's approval process was being stripped away. Director Mihranian explained that the applications the Planning Commission heard in the past were on either private property or public parkland, and not in the public right-of-way. He stated this is the first time that the Planning Commission has been asked to review Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 4 these applications in the public right-of-way, which is based on the Wireless Ordinance adopted by the City Council. He stated that the majority of the applications will be heard by the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that the more he hears, the less he likes about these administrative reviews. He noted that for the public to respond and voice opposition to a cell site, they have to anticipate a cell site being put near their house or in their neighborhood, they have to have the good sense to subscribe to the City's Listserve, and then they have to pay money to have the City consider their appeal of the site if it is approved. Assistant City Attorney Gerli clarified that there is no public hearing for this item, as the application has been withdrawn. However, because the item is on the agenda if members of the audience wish to speak they may do so. Gene Steiger stated he and his wife have expressed their opposition to the location of the proposed site several times, as they did not feel it was compatible with the underground facilities and rural atmosphere of the neighborhood. In addition, he stated he did not feel it met any of the provisions of the City's Wireless Ordinance. He stated he is now very pleased that the location has moved, and thanked Staff and Crown Castle for finding a solution to their concerns. Dorthea Liebich stated the original proposal would have affected property values, and she feels this new proposal is a viable solution. Daisuke Fujisawa stated the original site was directly in front of his home and he was extremely worried about the health of his children and the value of his home. He stated he was pleased the location had changed. Michael Kim explained that when he first moved into his home he had terrible cell service. However with new technology, his service has improved. He stated that the Commission should be looking at the cost and the benefit. He stated that if the benefit to the residents is better cell coverage there are available alternatives. He stated the pace of technology moves much faster than City government. Robin Rahn thanked Staff and the Commission for listening to the neighborhood concerns, as well as Crown Castle for working to find an alternative. Jim Hathaway appreciated Staff and the Applicant looking at alternative sites for this tower. Jeff Calvagna thanked Mr. Snyder of Crown Castle for finding this solution. He questioned, however, why this site was not considered from the beginning. He stated he was also concerned with the administrative permit process, noting the Ordinance says Staff may issue an administrative permit. He stated that even if there is an administrative permit the Public Works Director can refer it to the Planning Commission for review at Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 5 any time. In addition, if an administrative permit is issued and it is later found that the site is not compliant, the Ordinance requires the Public Works Director to convert it to a major wireless permit and it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In regards to this site, he encouraged Staff and Crown Castle to do everything they could to make it minimally intrusive. Noel Park stated he was glad to see this happen and it is a good thing for this neighborhood. He stated he would be more than happy to see the tower proposed for his neighborhood move up to Hawthorne Boulevard. He stated he wanted to echo the concerns of the Commissioners and Mr. Calvagna on the administrative permits. He stated that these towers are such a sensitive issue to many people that he would hate to see the Commission let go of any control of these applications. He noted there are so many applications that have been submitted to the City, and he questioned if there was any way to have some sort of Master Plan so that everyone could see how this will look when it's all built out. Finally, Mr. Park referred to an article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the new IPhone and the huge increase in the memory capability. Camille Feldman stated she is a resident of Palos Verdes Estates, but is attending this meeting because she has deep empathy for the residents in Rancho Palos Verdes. She stated she is very sensitive to how quickly these towers can get out of control in the neighborhood. She stated that she felt every resident on the Peninsula is affected by this cell tower tsunami that is coming to the hill. She noted that a new tower was recently put in on Palos Verdes Drive West and Via Coronel, which was approved a little over a year ago. She stated the tower does not look like the mock-up that was in place, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that she felt many of the cell towers being requested are over-kill and unnecessary. Paul O'Boyle (Crown Castle) stated this is what happens when the neighborhood, Staff, and the Applicant work together. He stated he was supportive of the administrative permit process, and noted that residents would be notified with each submitted permit application. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he agreed this is a good example of what can happen when the neighborhood, Staff, and the applicant work together. However, he stated he was concerned that the City is opening a door with these administrative permits that the City might come to regret. He stated that by making it easier for the Planning Commission, Staff, and Crown Castle, the danger is that it might become too easy. He stated that the time may come when the City realizes that by cutting off the public they are laying the groundwork for losing local control of land use decisions. Commissioner Tomblin stated it concerns him when the Planning Commission get stripped of its duties that were appointed to them, which he stated was overseeing keeping the integrity of Rancho Palos Verdes intact. He referred to the over-the-counter approval of the Green Hills project by a former Staff member, which ended up costing the City tremendous amounts of money, resignations, firings, and investigations. He also referred to the Crestridge project where he stated a former Staff member granted an over- Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 6 the-counter approval for walls and changed the Commission approved grading plan. He stated that he very strongly opposes the Commission being stripped of the duty and authority given to them by the City Council and will take this opposition up the ladder if this continues in the current direction. Commissioner Nelson stated these towers only extend a signal out four blocks, and there could be hundreds of these types of towers throughout the Peninsula. He stated that not all of these will be on arterials and he hoped that Director Mihranian can tell the Commission how many of the thirty-nine sites will be on arterials and the Commission will be eliminated from considering them. He stated this is not a Planning Commission Ordinance, but rather it is a City Council Ordinance, and the City Council included a section of the Ordinance to address administrative approvals. He stated that the public has been listened to, and he hoped the public would be listened to in the future. However, he stated he was afraid that the public may be listened to after-the-fact. Commissioner Bradley stated he very much appreciated the job that Staff and Crown Castle have done to take what was a very shaky placement, and make something much better and much more in keeping with the general vicinity of the neighborhood. He stated he has a bit of an issue that it took too long to get there, and that the original site that was proposed was so much more intrusive to the neighborhood. He stated he shared Commissioner Tomblin's concerns about going into an administrative process, over-the- counter approval process where something could be is approved that may be controversial or does not meet the intent of what the Commission is trying to do. He encouraged Staff to be as conservative as possible in these decisions. Chairman Cruikshank stated the he encouraged Staff, if there is any doubt about a location, the Commission is willing to do the work to hear the application and make a decision. He agreed with Commissioner Nelson's comments that the administrative approval is in the Ordinance which was written by the City Council, and that it appears that Staff is doing their job by following the Ordinance. He stated there is still a lot of work to do, as it appears there are many cell towers coming to the City. He stated that neighborhood involvement is crucial and that without the neighborhood input the Commission may not be making the best decision possible. Director Mihranian stated that of the applications submitted for AT&T, thirteen are being processed administratively. In response to the Notice of Decision, he stated he looked at the Code and explained the City's Wireless Ordinance makes reference to the Development Code and the Notice of Decision. He stated that the Development Code requires that for the administrative decisions a Notice of Decision is issued to the applicant, any interested party, and any Homeowners Association related to the subject site. Added to that, he stated it is Staff's commitment to make sure the process is completely transparent and to that extent Staff can explore expanding that and issue a Notice of Decision to property owners within a certain radius. Lastly, he stated he looked up the reduced appeal fee, which is $1,275. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 7 Special Counsel Lopez stated that the mock up provisions would still be placed for administrative applications. That would include the posting at the site, as well as notices sent to property owners within 500 feet. Commissioner Tomblin asked the interim Public Works Director how Public Works would respond to residents who object to the location of a tower that is subject to an administrative approval. Interim Public Works Director Rodrigue explained the process would be similar to what has already happened in that Staff will work with the Applicant and the residents to try to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties. He stated Staff can also refer the application to the Planning Commission if they feel there is not a solution amenable to both parties. There being no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Cruikshank ordered the report be received and filed. 4. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 53: Adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report, showing an aerial view of the proposed location, as well as photos of the visual simulation. He showed several photos of the original proposal as compared to the revised proposal. Commissioners Nelson, Emenhiser, Tomblin, and Chairman Cruikshank stated they had visited the site. Commissioner Bradley and Vice Chairman James stated they had not visited the site specifically but were very familiar with the site. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Aaron Snyder(Crown Castle)showed photos of the original and revised proposals, briefly highlighting the changes that were made. He discussed the three additional alternative sites that were considered, and noted there is an alternative analysis section in the staff report. He showed an existing coverage map and displayed a slide with Staff and the RF Consultant's Report summary. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to Exhibit 5 on page 53 of the staff report, and noted this cell site will service approximately ten homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and approximately thirty homes in Palos Verdes Estates. He asked if there is another cell site in Palos Verdes Estates that Rancho Palos Verdes residents can benefit from. Mr. Snyder answered that he looked at alternatives on Granvia Altamira and is of the opinion that choosing an existing utility pole with an installation would be the least intrusive means to deploy this particular node. He stated his stress point for this particular Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 8 location is consideration of the surrounding location, as the location is designed to have a handoff of the remaining nodes around it. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if Rancho Palos Verdes residents are benefiting from this site, or are we carrying the load for the benefit of Palos Verdes Estates. Mr. Snyder stated the point is that both cities are benefiting from this network, enabling users of Granvia Altimara to go from Palos Verdes Estates to Rancho Palos Verdes and hold the call through the general area. Joan Davidson noted there is an antenna at Cataluna Place in Palos Verdes Estates and several AT&T antennas at the 7 Eleven building, and questioned the coverage gap. She also questioned the aesthetic integrity of the community, stating she did not care about the financial bottom line of Crown Castle. She stated that she does, however, care about the beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes and the entire Peninsula. She stated there are several light poles across the street from this proposed location, and they are not near anyone's homes. She stated she was hoping the City would select one of these other poles so that the home value of the resident next to the proposed site is not affected. She asked why the tree has to be removed, and why it can't stay to help hide the antenna. Jeff Calvagna discussed the slide showing the proposed RF Coverage without ASG 53. He noted that at Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altimira there is a macro-site on top of the 7-Eleven Building. He explained a macro-site is a high powered site that has much further coverage than any of the other sites. He stated that based on the measurements he has made, the coverage from that macro-site extends at least to Monero Drive and well past it. He stated that if there is a dead spot it is quite a bit north in Palos Verdes Estates. He also pointed out that ASG No. 05 was recently installed in Palos Verdes Estates and he did not believe it was on line yet. However when it is on line it will provide even more coverage. He stated that he did not understand why Crown Castle was proposing an antenna at this site when the macro-site is just 800 feet away. Chairman Cruikshank asked Staff to display the map prepared by the City's RF Consultant, which is in the staff report. He stated that it appears to him there is quite a bit of a coverage gap, at least within the street. Mr. Calvagna stated his concern was that the location of the site did not make much sense, and reviewed the coverage map. Mr. Afflerbach explained the map and what the dots meant in terms of coverage. Mr. Calvagna stated it was not clear whether or not the RF Consultant's analysis included 700 megahertz coverage, or if it was limited to 1900 to 2100 megahertz. Commissioner Emenhiser reiterated his concern that this proposed site, several feet from the Palos Verdes Estates border, will serve primarily Palos Verdes Estates. He Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 9 questioned if the site should be located in Palos Verdes Estates rather than Rancho Palos Verdes, and asked Mr. Calvagna his opinion. Mr. Calvagna stated he is not aware of laws in regards to cell sites in different municipalities. However, he stated it certainly seems to be that the primary intent of this site is to fill the gap between the macro site at the 7-Eleven building and the new site that's going live in Palos Verdes Estates, and in his opinion, this site appears to be more for the benefit of Palos Verdes Estates. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if they could confirm if there is an AT&T site on top of the 7-Eleven building. Director Mihranian answered that he would have to look at the Resolution that was recently approved by the Commission. He recalled there are multiple carriers at the site, but could not confirm if one was AT&T. Noel Park questioned if it is easier to get a permit for a cell tower in Rancho Palos Verdes than it is in Palos Verdes Estates. He briefly discussed the administrative permit process, and stated that soon there could be a very serious clutter of these antennas down the arterial streets of the City. He suggested the Commission ask Staff to perform a comprehensive search or study of the real potential of the coming technology and how that affects cell antennas. Connie Semos stated she lives within 500 feet of this proposed tower. She pointed out that on all of the notices she has received from Public Works regarding this antenna, the wrong address for the tower is given. The address given is across the street from the actual site. She stated that there appears to be conflicting information coming from the City's RF Consultant and Crown Castle, as the maps are different. She stated she has AT&T and has excellent service at her home and around her home. She also noted that until the new site in Palos Verdes Estates is activated, this site should not be discussed, as we do not know what the coverage is in the area. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Snyder to return to the podium, and asked him if he was aware of AT&T being one of the carriers on top of the 7-Eleven building. Mr. Snyder answered that he does not have one hundred percent confirmation on that, but based on the prepared map showing existing coverage, there is coverage in that general area. Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Snyder to again clarify the information on the displayed Proposed RF Coverage without ASG No. 53 map, and asked if the macro sites at 7- Eleven are taken into account on this map. Mr. Snyder explained that the slide depicting this deployment does not take into account the macro site or the specific bands they operate at. He explained they are looking to building a 4G LTE coverage network. He stated that they do not deploy these networks Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 10 and take into consideration where there are existing macro sites. They deploy this network to magnify and create further extensions of signals. The macro site is a second or third generation. He stated they are adding additional sites in the area to concentrate and add additional coverage capacity. He explained they are not looking at macro sites in the deployment of their specific networks, but rather are looking at sites to augment what is already existing to provide added coverage and capacity. Commissioner Bradley explained that the criteria that the Commission is looking at is significant gap. He stated that to him, significant gap is a frequency dependent tail off in an RF signal and therefore not a capacity gap. Mr. Snyder responded that there is a staff report that is in support of this proposed location, the RF Consultant prepared a report that is in support of the location, there is literature in the Consultant's report that speaks specifically to gaps in coverage, low industry standards, and the fact that this location would fill that gap. Commissioner Bradley stated he understood, however noted that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to take a critical eye on the things that come before the Commission. He stated the Commission is not going to accept on face value the staff report or the Applicant's report, as their job is to ask questions. He stated that least intrusive and significant gap are subjective, and he is simply trying to understand what that is. Chairman Cruikshank stated the Code says the City cannot prohibit personal wireless service, but does not say the City shall prohibit the latest and greatest band widths. Special Counsel Lopez stated that is correct and stated that the case law is not clear in regards to the coverage versus capacity issue and if the lack of capacity is sufficient to establish a gap. She explained that the reason this is relevant is because the capacity issue on the 1900 megahertz band is different than the capacity type of coverage that is on the 700 megahertz band. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Snyder if he could do what he is proposing by utilizing the existing 7-Eleven building. Mr. Snyder answered that it could not. He explained Crown Castle is doing its best to find locations that can fit into this network. He stated that these consistent denials in residential applications trends very much towards prohibition of service for Crown Castle and AT&T and the deployment of this network. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated there are things about this application that are positive, such as it is on an existing pole, the equipment is vaulted, and is not technically on a neighborhood street. However, he stated he will not be voting in favor of the application, as he felt this location will be mostly serving Palos Verdes Estates. He stated that if the Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 11 City accepts this cell site, it accepts the visual clutter and Palos Verdes Estates will benefit from the coverage. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if Crown Castle is proposing these sites strictly to improve cell phone service or are they doing this for accommodation of future or current new technology. He explained he was asking this question because their report does not include macro site at 7-Eleven and he didn't understand why that isn't part of the equation. He stated that it may be what they are being asked to improve on is the higher technology that is coming and not making sure people have uninterrupted coverage. Mr. Afflerbach answered that is a fair representation, explaining Crown Castle is trying to build out for the future, an depending what your view of the future is it could be 4G LTE or the 5G coverage. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is obligated to provide a cell site to provide service for Palos Verdes Estates. Special Counsel Lopez answered that the City is not obligated to provide service to any other jurisdiction. She stated that she has never seen a case where a gap analysis was looked at where a site covered another jurisdiction's alleged gap. Commissioner Bradley moved to adopt Alternative No. 1 of the staff report to deny without prejudice Permit ASG No. 53, as the application does not reach the standard of showing there is a significant gap in coverage, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Vice Chairman James stated that a number of questions asked by the Commissioners focused on a perceived difference between what might be considered a significant gap in providing service today and what the applicant seems to be looking for, which is the ability to provide service in the future. He asked the City's RF Engineer if he focused on one or the other of those things during his testing. Mr. Afflerbach explained how the modern smart phone works, looking for the most preferred frequency going towards high speed capacity. He explained how they did their testing based on how the smart phone works. Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Afflerbach, given the hypothetical that there was no more demand than we have right now today on our cell service. He asked if AT&T has enough coverage right now for cell phones to work. Mr. Afflerbach answered that the cell phones would work, but not to their full capacity. Commissioner Nelson stated he could not support the motion. He read from a statement by Mr. Afflerbach that said from an engineering perspective Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. Mr. Afflerbach stated he had independently examined these areas and found signal levels Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 12 are lower than industry guidelines suggest to support modern 3G and 4G customer needs. Additionally, Mr. Afflerbach stated that the engineering design for ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity to support AT&T's 3G and 4G services. Commissioner Nelson stated that the Commission must make a decision on significant gap, and Mr. Afflerbach has stated there is a gap. In addition, the Commission must make a decision on aesthetics, and he stated that a cone looks much better than a couple of drawers up to a pole. He also stated he was concerned about the denial of service. Commissioner Emenhiser explained his issue was not so much the aesthetics of the tower, but more that Rancho Palos Verdes will be acquiring the visual clutter for the benefit of another city. He stated the question in his mind was whether the City was willing to accept the clutter and if the City was willing to have a cell site on every block or every other block so that we can watch videos as we walk down the street. He stated that as far as he was concerned, we are not ready for that and will support the motion. Commissioner Bradley stated this is in no way an attempt to deny service. He stated he was merely trying to interpret what the City's Guidelines are and interpret what a lack of coverage and a significant lack of coverage is. He stated that Crown Castle has made a tremendous improvement on the aesthetics. He reiterated this is not an attempt to deny service, but rather it is to try to make sure the City approve a site in the least intrusive and most aesthetically pleasing way to fill significant gaps within the City's boundaries. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Bradley's comments. He stated that it was unfortunate that the City doesn't have all of the carriers coming forward. He also stated he was bothered that the AT&T site on top of the 7-Eleven building was not considered in any of the discussions. He stated he would support the motion. Chairman Cruikshank stated he will also support the motion. He agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser that the City should not bear the burden of another City, however he believed we have neighbors we need to work together with. He stated that he felt if we could share the burden, if there is a burden, and what would be the best solution. He explained that from looking at maps and hearing explanations from speakers and Staff, the City is really looking at significant gaps for personal wireless service, not for one type of frequency. Therefore, if the Ordinance said we have to provide for the latest and greatest technology that would be one thing, however that is not what the Ordinance says. With that, he stated he does not feel there is a significant gap. Director Mihranian explained that attached to the staff report there is a Resolution that does not reflect what he is hearing from the Commission. He asked that the Commission take a short break to allow Staff to draft a Resolution of denial based on the motion for the Commission to review and adopt. He explained there is a clock ticking on this application and Staff would like to timely issue the Notice of Decision. The Commission took a 20 minute break. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 13 Assistant City Attorney Gerli explained that this evening the Planning Commission is going to an action on a Resolution to deny ASG No. 53. She explained the Director will summarize the findings in the Resolution and a vote will be taken to approve or deny the Resolution. The Resolution will be given to the Chairman tomorrow for his signature. Special Counsel Lopez provided a brief summary to make sure the Resolution proposed is consistent with what the Planning Commission decided. She stated one finding was that there was nothing in the record to establish the facility would serve a significant number of homes in Rancho Palos Verdes. She asked Mr. Afflerbach to identify the number of Rancho Palos Verdes homes that could potentially be served by the proposed site. Mr. Afflerbach estimated twenty to twenty five homes in Rancho Palos Verdes would be served by this site, with the majority of the site being served were outside of Rancho Palos Verdes. Special Counsel Lopez stated that a finding that, based on the evidence submitted at this meeting, it would appear the proposed installation could potentially serve approximately twenty homes in the jurisdiction of Rancho Palos Verdes. Similarly, the proposed site would extend a certain number of feet, and asked Mr. Afflerbach to opine as to the potential radius or service area. Mr. Afflerbach stated that based on the documents provided by Crown Castle and the type of antennas, he opined approximately 1,000 feet in direction mostly to the east and north of the proposed site. Special Counsel Lopez continued that further the Commission came to a conclusion that this facility was unnecessary visual clutter and that there were concerns that there was not sufficient evidence put before the Commission with respect to coverage. She stated there were concerns with the aesthetic impacts with respect to this site at the proposed location. Director Mihranian added that based on the information provided, the Commission determined the information was not compelling that there was a significant gap, the proposed facility served residences primarily outside of the Rancho Palos Verdes jurisdiction, and that there was direction that the applicant continue to work with the neighboring city to share the burden in regards to the application. The motion to deny, without prejudice, the proposed Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 53, and thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28 was approved, (5-1)with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser commented he voted for the motion because of aesthetics. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 14 Commissioner Nelson stated he voted against the motion on the basis that he believed we should provide ample signal intensity and he had no issue with the proposed aesthetics. Commissioner Tomblin stated he voted in favor of the motion based on his previous comments. Commissioner Bradley commented that he voted in favor of the motion noting his issue was the lack of preponderance evidence demonstrating a significant gap. He stated he does not have an issue with the aesthetics, nor does he have an issue with the number of residents being served. Vice Chairman James stated he voted in favor of the motion as he too did not think the Applicant has proven there is a significant gap. He did not think the Commission could deny a tower based on an argument that a majority of the coverage would be in another City. Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not think a significant gap was proven, adding that we should work with our neighboring cities to shoulder the burden equally. 5. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 64: South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report, explaining the Applicant has withdrawn the application and has proposed a new location for this facility. Because this new location qualified for an administrative approval, the applicant has withdrawn the application and will be submitting a new application for the revised location. He displayed an aerial view and photos showing the originally proposed location, as well as the new proposed location. He explained the revised location would be 165 feet to the north east of the previous location and would utilize an existing street sign. He stated Staff is recommending the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Director Mihranian gave a bit of background information on how this new site was identified, explaining that Staff's initial concerns with the original proposal was that it would be a new pole, located in a Coastal Zone, and located in a view corridor. With that, Staff could not support the location and expressed these concerns to the Applicant. He noted that there are two poles on the seaward side where Crown Castle could have considered collocating onto these poles. However, based on the current Ordinance recently adopted by City Council, it was Staff's position that they did not want to add two poles and exasperate existing conditions in the Coastal Zone that will further impair or adversely impact the visual corridors identified in the General Plan. With that, the Applicant looked at relocating the pole on the landward side outside of the Coastal Zone and considered a replacement pole. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 15 Commissioner Emenhiser stated although he has concerns with the administrative procedures, he was in favor of the new location and asked if the neighborhood along Palos Verdes West had been notified. Director Mihranian stated the residents within a 500 foot radius were notified of the original application which is close proximity to the revised location. Commissioner Nelson noted there are two existing poles, one a mock up and one live, in the proximity of the proposed location. He asked when the live pole was approved. Director Mihranian stated the live pole was approved four to five years ago through an Encroachment Permit. Chairman Cruickshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvagna stated he understood why Crown Castle wants to put a site in this location. He questioned why collocation wasn't more seriously considered. He stated concerns with the administrative permit and that Staff should take another look at the Ordinance and how it's interpreted. He questioned when a pole is considered a replacement pole versus a new pole. Noel Park agreed with Mr. Calvagna's comments. He stated Staff needs to have better control over the process and the Commission needs to maintain their oversight over this process. He stated he is offended by the whole process of the shot clock and that it becomes denial of service and threat of litigation. He stated he did not agree with such pressure to surrender the atheistic of the community. Javier Verdura stated the previous proposed location would have been impaired his backyard ocean views. However, the new location is in the direct path of their ocean view from the terrace overlooking the ocean. Approval of this antenna will give him two antennas in his ocean view. Commissioner Bradley asked the speaker how much higher his property is from the road. Mr. Veruda answered approximately twenty to twenty-two feet. Assistant City Attorney Gerli cautioned asking questions about the location, as the application is not before the Commission at this time. She stated if the application is appealed it may create problems if there are discussions on the location. Commissioner Bradley withdrew his question. Commissioner Emenhiser stated this is the very problem with the administrative process. He stated sooner or later this will create problems for the City. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff how the speaker was notified. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 16 Director Mihranian answered a public notice went out for the meeting to properties within 500 feet. Commissioner Tomblin asked if he was allowed to ask Mr. Verdura if he received that notification. Assistant City Attorney Gerli stated there are two different things happening, the notice for the original public hearing for the pole and there is an upcoming notification for the administrative application. She stated there is not a problem asking about notification for the original public hearing. Mr. Verdua stated he received a notice for the location on ocean side, however but the pole next to his house was new information to him as of the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Gerli explained that a Notice of Decision on the administrative permit will be sent to residents. Special Counsel Lopez stated that part of the application process for an administrative permit is the requirement of a mock up, and prior to the installation of a mock up, there is a requirement of a notice to the properties within 500 feet. Commissioner Nelson noted the mock up is in place but the notification has not gone out. Special Counsel Lopez stated the mock that has been installed is at the original location, which has now been withdrawn. Commissioner Nelson asked if the administrative application will be processed through the Public Works Department rather than Community Development. Director Mihranian answered it will be a collaboration with Public Works and the Planning Department. However, the decision will be made by Public Works as to the location of the antennas. Mr. Verdura asked if there is an appeal process he can go through if he does not agree with the decision. Assistant City Attorney Gerli stated when the notice goes out for the mock up no decision has been made. The residents within 500 feet will have the opportunity to comment. When a decision has been made on the application, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the residents, and residents will then have the opportunity to appeal that decision. Pamela Martin thanked the Commission for allowing residents to voice their opinion. She stated she is opposed to cell towers being placed in residential areas. She stated she doesn't want to live in a place that has ugly equipment, poles and canisters. She questioned why the poles and equipment can't be placed underground. She also questioned where the residents that support these towers are. She stated there are many Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 17 people in the area without a cell phone and do not have issues with 911. Lastly, she noted she ministers weddings and does not want cell towers in the background of wedding photos. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is considering how to formally bring forward to the City Council his concerns with the administrative approvals and that the process should not be taken away from Planning Commission consideration. He noted that he would be speaking to the City Council as an individual and would not be speaking on behalf of or representing the Planning Commission in his comments. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Tomlin. He encouraged Staff to come up with some kind of oversight of the administrative application process. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. REVISION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 AND FENCE/WALL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2017-00032): 2947 Vista Del Mar Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, giving an overview of the modified structure and showing the original and proposed site plans. She stated Staff received comments from the neighbors, and revisions were made to address the neighbors' concerns. She noted a revised landscaping plan has been submitted as part of late correspondence for the property. She stated Staff recommends approval of the revisions. Commissioner Tomblin asked if this is the house currently under construction on Vista del Mar, or on the vacant lot below that. Associate Planner Seeraty stated it's on the vacant lot on Vista del Mar. Commissioner Emenhiser mentioned late correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Hanger and it appears they are satisfied with the proposed modifications. Associate Planner Seeraty stated she spoke to Mr. Hanger and he was satisfied with the revisions. However, Mr. Melton, who lives on Vista del Mar, still has some concerns about lot coverage. Chairman Cruikshank noted the current configuration of the gazebo and hillside, and asked Staff if this was facing more toward the ocean rather than the neighboring homes. Director Mihranian stated a good portion of the lot is oriented towards the ocean and a small portion is oriented towards the Mediteranea neighborhood. Chairman Cruikshank asked if staff received any concerns from the Mediteranea residents. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 18 Associate Planner Seeraty responded that no concerns where brought forward regarding noise. Commissioner Bradley asked if the deck and the large gazebo was intended solely for private use and not meant as a type of venue for public gatherings. Associate Planner Seeraty replied that was Staff's understanding. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public speaking Louie Tomaro (architect) briefly explained the redesign of the house, noting he tried to keep the redesign very much as the original design. He stated he had a meeting with the neighbors to address their concerns, and felt he was able to accommodate the majority of concerns. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bradley moved to approve the revisions as recommended and conditioned by Staff, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Vice Chairman James stated his only concern about this project was the amount of grading, but since the grading is being required by the Fire Department he will be voting in favor of the motion. The motion to approve the revisions was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-29 was adopted, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2017. Director Mihranian gave an overview of the agenda items. Commissioners Tomblin, Emenhiser, and Bradley noted they will not be at the September 21st meeting. The pre-agenda was approved as presented. 8. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2017. Director Mihranian noted this meeting is a regularly scheduled meeting, however it is scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m. The pre-agenda was approved as presented. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2017 Page 20