Loading...
PC MINS 20170921 SPC Approved 7A, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 7:15 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Commissioner Tomblin was excused absent. Also present were Director of Community Development Mihranian, Contract Planner Bashmakian, RF Engineer Mike Afflerbach via telephone, Public Works Deputy Director Jules, Public Works Acting Director Rodrigue, and Deputy City Attorney Laymon. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the last City Council meeting, the City Council adopted the Los Angeles County Fire Code and received a report on the Peninsula-wide efforts to address Coyotes, including a presentation on the city developed web app intended to tracking coyote activity. Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence including corrections to the resolution for ASG No. 41 and reported that SB 649 is on the governor's desk and that the city will be sending a letter expressing opposition to signing the Bill. Commissioner Nelson reported that the City Council will conduct a Special Meeting on Monday, October 9th to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on four wireless telecommunication applications, however, Director Mihranian stated this meeting has been cancelled. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 30, 2017 MINUTES Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (4-0-2)with Commissioner Leon and Vice Chairman James abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 41: Palos Verdes Drive South —West of Seacliff Drive Vice Chairman James recused himself as he lives within 500 feet of the proposed site. He left the dais. Commissioner Leon disclosed he had a meeting with Director Mihranian to catch up on the small cell tower proposals and also spoke to two representatives from Alliance Composites regarding poles for cell sites, some of which are sold to Crown Castle. Commissioners Emenhiser, Nelson, Leon and Chairman Cruikshank stated they had visited the site. Commissioner Bradley stated he had not visited the site. Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report with an aerial view of the general location of the proposed cell site using a power point presentation. His presentation compared the original project to the revised project. Director Mihranian explained that when staff met with the applicant, direction was given to conceal the panel antennas and cables in the canister. He stated that Staff would like to hear from the Commission on their design preference between the side-mounted panel antennas and the antennas encased in a canister shroud. He also stated this location is not within the coastal zone, but there is a view corridor. He stated there are conditions to paint the pole and a requirement to landscape and screen the vault. Commissioner Emenhiser asked for an estimate of the area encompassing the shroud versus the side-mounted panel antennas. Director Mihranian stated he did not have that information, but estimated the measurements. He stated an exhibit in late correspondence was submitted with dimension information but noted this was not staff generated information. Commissioner Leon asked questions regarding the height of the shroud and the pole. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 2 Commissioner Bradley also asked questions regarding the overall height of the pole with regards to side-mounted panel antennas versus the canister shroud. He stated his understanding was that the side-mounted antennas would have the same vertical distance from the road. Commissioner Leon asked the RF Engineer technical questions regarding both designs. Commissioner Leon asked if the proposed pole with street sign can be moved further landward to alleviate some of the view corridor impacts. Director Mihranian stated he would confirm with Public Works as to whether or not the pole with the sign can be set back further from the road. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvagna addressed the Commission with a presentation stating the shroud was a good idea gone bad. He stated coverage through the area has improved dramatically in the past few weeks because of the installation of new facilities in the immediate area. He recommended that the pole be limited to a height of 14' with several conditions that, if approved, the Commission should consider. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Calvagna what he thought about the recommendation by Commissioner Leon to move it further back from the street. Mr. Calvagna agreed with Commissioner Leon's suggestion. Commissioner Leon asked if it would necessary for the pole to be a different height if a shroud were added. He also asked if 3' would make a difference with the signal. Stephen Garcia (Crown Castle) answered the top of the antenna, with or without a shroud, should be the same height. He was not sure if this was an administrative error in the Crown Castle proposal. He stated the height can be reduced, however, if the pole is moved further back, he had some reservations in regards to reducing the height of the pole for coverage purposes. Chairman Cruikshank asked if there was any reason the antenna could not be flush with the top of the sign pole. Mr. Garcia stated if the pole and sign where the same size with exposed cables they tend to use 90 degree connectors that hide the cables. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Garcia if he would object to adding that as a condition of approval. Mr. Garcia had no objection. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 3 Commissioner Leon asked if a small tapered fiber glass pole can be used instead of 9" steel tube. Mr. Garcia stated they are open to the tapered pole as long as the diameter will accommodate the coaxial cables. Commissioner Bradley asked if any headway has been made on the integrated design of poles. Mr. Garcia stated, yes on dimensions on the antenna, however, they were still looking at the pole. He stated this is something they intend to mock-up for the City once AT&T approves a new design. Chairman Cruikshank asked if there was any reason the bottom of the antenna could not be flush with the sign. Mr. Garcia answered it could be flush if the sign is at the same height as the antenna. Commissioner Nelson asked how the vaults and antennas hold up in weather. Mr. Garcia stated the vaults have sump pumps with remote site monitors and was not aware of any water or wind damage. Deputy City Attorney Laymon added that, for the record, Mr. Calvagna is not a retained consultant with the City. She also stated that the Public Works Department should be consulted in regards to any questions about the sign height. Chairman Cruikshank closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Leon presented information for the Commission's consideration on aesthetic design guidelines. Each Commissioner gave feedback on their aesthetic opinion, comparing the side-mounted and canister shroud designs. Chairman Cruikshank re-opened the Public Hearing Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Garcia about each presented option by Commissioner Leon. Mr. Garcia answered questions regarding each option presented on the poles, type of pole, cabling, and options that potentially would work. Commissioner Leon asked if Crown Castle is willing to work with PUC. Mr. Garcia answered they are not opposed to it, but there are guidelines and restrictions. Planning Commission Minutes September21,2017 Page 4 Chairman Cruikshank closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Bradley stated he would prefer to continue this item to get another RF Survey done by the City's consultant to see what is actually going on this area, and if there is truly a significant gap. RF Consultant Afflerbach stated the original tests were performed on August 29th, with additional work done on August 30tH Commissioner Bradley explained that the problem with approving multiple sites in a small geographic area is that they are going to significantly change the footprint of the RF coverage and the gaps are going to change. He stated that as these come before the Commission he is going to be hesitant to approve more than one in a local geographic area at a time until the City sees what happens with the RF propagation in that area. He stated that any of these have a detrimental aesthetic effect on the area, so the City needs to be very careful about where they are placed to minimize the impacts to the neighbors, the views, and the view corridors. Chairman Cruikshank asked when the current shot clock for this application expires. Director Mihranian stated that if the Commission is going to ask the Applicant to go back and make some design modifications and have the City's consultant reassess the coverage in the area, the Commission should ask the Applicant to agree to extend the shot clock, as it currently expires on September 30th. He also stated that if this application is extended to October 10th, would that be enough time for the Applicant to submit the design modifications and the City's RF Engineer to perform his surveys. Chairman Cruikshank re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Garcia stated he would like to make an alternative recommendation that, as a condition of approval, Crown Castle provide an RF report that confirms a gap still exists. He stated that analysis would also allow Crown Castle to determine how far the pole can be moved back from its current location. Chairman Cruikshank stated that approving something with the condition that there is a significant gap at a future date would be difficult for the Commission. He stated the he personally would feel more comfortable if everything the Commission mentioned they wanted clarification on was incorporated into what is brought back to the Commission for review. Director Mihranian stated the next meeting is on October 10th, which means Crown Castle would have to have all of the information to Staff by October 3rd Mr. Afflerbach did not think he would be able to do his analysis until the second week in October. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 5 Commissioner Emenhiser moved Staff's recommendation to approve the application with conditions that there be no shroud, the pole be moved eight feet from the right-of- way, addressing of the wires, and vaulting. Seconded by Commissioner Leon. Assistant City Attorney Laymon noted Mr. Garcia's offer to provide a further analysis to substantiate the gap in service. Mr. Garcia stated that there seems to be a new compromise with the approval of this application, with the additional information and setting the pole back five feet from the back of curb. He stated he supported that compromise. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Garcia if he would still be willing to extend the shot clock. Assistant City Attorney Laymon pointed out that under the Federal Rules, in order to extend or toll a shot clock, which can only be done by written agreement executed by both parties. A verbal statement on the record would not suffice. Mr. Garcia asked if the City's RF Consultant's report would also opine on the pole being moved away from the road and the antenna height. Mr. Afflerbach responded that this may not be as much of a gap issue as it is a capacity issue. He stated that he would be surprised if the numbers change between his first study and the ensuing study. Commissioner Bradley discussed his concerns regarding capacity issues and the number of antennas that may be required to meet full capacity issues, and the need for some type of technical grounds for where the City aesthetically puts these towers especially in areas where there is no above-ground infra-structure. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. A discussion ensued between the Commissioners and the Deputy Public Works Director on roadside signage. Chairman Cruikshank asked Staff to repeat the current motion. Director Mihranian stated the current motion is to adopt P.C. Resolution 2017-30 to approve, with conditions, ASG No. 41, as amended to eliminate the shroud, neatly address the cables with a cover case, the antennas are to be flush mounted, the pole is to be a tapered at a maximum height of 14 feet and set back 5 feet from the curb. Commissioner Leon stated the cables should be neatly dressed and not add the condition for a cover case. The Commission agreed. The motion to approve the project was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 6 3. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 43: Across From 5721 Crestridge Road Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report and a power point, displaying an aerial view of the site, as well as street shots of the location. He briefly compared the original proposal with the revised proposal. He also showed several visual simulations of the proposed wireless facility. Director Mihranian added that this application is unique in that this is actually a new pole. He stated that the previous applications have involved either replacement poles or location on an existing utility pole. He noted that Staff has discouraged the installation of new poles, however in this case Staff recommended approval of the new pole as it was Staff's understanding that the existing utility poles in the area could not accommodate the proposed wireless facility. He stated that since the staff report was distributed, Staff has had additional conversations with Southern California Edison and now understand that the existing utility poles may be able to accommodate this proposed wireless facility. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there were any view considerations the Planning Commission should be looking at. Director Mihranian answered there were no view issues at this proposed site. Vice Chairman James noted that the staff report discusses four alternative sites, however two of the alternative sites do not meet the applicant's RF coverage objectives. He asked who, in this case, selected the alternative sites. Director Mihranian answered that the alternative sites discussed in the staff report were proposed by the applicant. Vice Chairman James referred to the comments that Staff now believes it may be feasible to locate the antenna on an existing utility pole in the area. He asked if Staff has a location recommendation. Director Mihranian answered that, based on the information Staff has obtained, Staff would recommend the Applicant explore locating the facility on one of the existing utility poles to the west of the proposed site. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvaqna stated he strongly supported a utility pole co-location. He noted the utility pole is only 160 feet away and he felt the location would meet the coverage objectives. He displayed a brief history of the ASG 43 site. He also noted the alternative site may not be an arterial, but it is a collector per the City's General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 7 Chairman Cruikshank asked the Applicant to the podium, and asked Mr. Garcia if using the existing utility pole would be an alternative that could be utilized. Mr. Garcia (Crown Castle) explained it has always been their understanding that SCE prohibited attachments to their high-power poles. He stated that the recent information from SCE that co-location is now allowable is new to them, and they are certainly interested in attaching their equipment to the existing utility pole. He stated that he would have to verify that the pole would meet their objectives, however just by looking at it, he stated that he felt it would, however he did not have enough information to confirm that. He stated he would also need some sort of certainty that SCE had changed their prohibition policy on attaching equipment to a high-power pole. Chairman Cruikshank asked Staff if they had more information in regards to the possible attachment to the SCE pole. Director Mihranian explained that Staff will have to work with the Applicant and SCE to explore the feasibility to co-locate on the utility pole. He noted that the shot clock deadline for this application is September 30th so a continuance should be contingent on extending the shot clock. Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Garcia if Crown Castle would be willing to extend the shot clock on this application. He noted that using the existing utility pole might be a win-win situation in that Crown Castle might be able to obtain more coverage and there would be one less pole in the area. He stated he would be willing to make a motion that the Commission continue the matter to a future date to allow Crown Castle and Staff to explore using the SCE pole for the location of their equipment. Mr. Garcia explained that there are criteria and circumstances he is not familiar with in terms of using this pole that must be explored. Vice Chairman James stated he has been to the site and understands Staffs recommendation. However, this new information that SCE might allow location on their existing pole seems ideal. He noted the RF Engineer has found that there is a coverage gap and he questioned why Crown Castle wouldn't give the City the time to make sure we get this right. He felt it was a reasonable request on the City's part. Mr. Garcia agreed it was reasonable, however he questioned the credibility of the SCE compromise. He stated that if this a valid offer from SCE they would be more than happy to extend the shot clock. He questioned when that shot clock extension would be needed and asked Staff the date the shot clock would be extended to. Director Mihranian stated that if Staff can get the information timely, this item can be brought back to the Commission at the October 10th meeting. Assistant City Attorney Laymon stated that under Federal Law any change to the shot clock must be in writing and executed by both parties. Planning Commission Minutes September21,2017 Page 8 Vice Chairman James moved to continue the public hearing to October 10, 2017 on the condition that Crown Castle agrees to extend the shot clock in writing by the close of business day on September 22, 2017. Failure to extend the shot clock will result in denial of the current application, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Assistant City Attorney Laymon stated that it is her understanding that the basis of the denial would be the least intrusive means availability of the existing pole that is down the street. Vice Chairman James stated that was correct. All Commissioners confirmed that they had visited the site. The motion was approved, (6-0). 4. MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 55: Adjacent to 30001 Via Rivera Planner Bashmakian presented the staff report and a power point, showing an aerial view of the site, as well as street views. He briefly compared the original proposal to the revised proposal. He also showed a photo simulation of the proposed design. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff how far this facility is from Palos Verdes Estates. Planner Bashmakian answered it was approximately 20' to 25' from the Palos Verdes Estates border. All Commissioners except Commissioner Bradley stated they have visited the site. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Jeff Calvaqna noted there is nobody in attendance opposing this installation. He noted this site is between two macro sites at Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall and Lunada Bay Plaza. He pointed out that there are existing utility poles which are a potential in Palos Verdes Estates. Vice Chairman James stated he had a question for Mr. Garcia from Crown Castle, and asked if Crown Castle had made an application in Palos Verdes Estates that would cover all or part of this area. Mr. Garcia answered Crown Castle has 22 locations in Palos Verdes Estates, and none were available at this location. He stated they explored the existing utility poles noting there are no street lights or vertical infrastructure on the Palos Verdes Estates side to accommodate the proposed facility. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 9 Commissioner Leon moved to approve Staff's recommendation to approve ASG 55 as conditioned with the appropriate aesthetic modifications, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion to conditionally approve ASG 55 with the condition that the shroud be removed and the antennas be side-mounted to the pole and vaulted equipment was approved and P.C. Resolution 2017-31 was adopted (5-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that he was concerned once again that Rancho Palos Verdes was carrying the load for Palos Verdes Estates. NEW BUSINESS 5. CITY PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ADMINISTRATIVE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY APPLICATIONS: Citywide Public Works Deputy Director Jules presented the staff report, briefly explaining how an application would qualify for an administrative review. She stated that the City is taking the position that any application that qualifies for an administrative review will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. She noted there are a few instances where applications are considered eligible facility requests that would not require a discretionary approval per federal law and would be processed as a general encroachment permit. She explained those types of eligible facility requests are maintenance type activities that would apply for existing sites. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff how many arterials and collector roads are in the City. Deputy Director Jules answered there are six to eight arterials and quite a few collector roads. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff how the public is notified if something is approved over- the-counter by the Director of Public Works. Deputy Director Jules answered that for an application that falls under Section 6409 as an eligible facility and is a minor modification to an existing site, Staff would not typically notify the public as it is considered a maintenance activity. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that any site that has even a hint of opposition should be brought before the Planning Commission as opposed to Staff and the Public Works Director carrying the burden. Commissioner Nelson moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (6-0). 6. CITY REVENUE AND LEASE PAYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: Citywide Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 10 Deputy Director Jules presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the Right-Of- Way Use Agreement with Crown Castle allowing the placement of telecommunications equipment on City-owned infrastructure. She stated the City is compensated a flat fee of$500 per pole annually in addition to a right-of-way use fee. She summarized the fees that have been collected since 2011-2012. She also briefly discussed the Wireless Application Fees. Commissioner Bradley asked Staff how the collected fees are audited. Deputy Director Jules stated that she did not believe they were audited. She explained the fee is received by the Finance Department. Commissioner Leon moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2017. The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda as presented. 8. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2017. The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes September 21,2017 Page 11