Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_04_01_02_Appeal_of_CUP_Revision_28041_HawthorneCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN CAMPBELL APRIL 1, 2014 CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECENT APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION FOR A NEW ROOF-MOUNTED ANTENNA STRUCTURE ON THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 28041 HAWTHORNE BLVD (CASE NO. ZON2013-00111). REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER@ Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner .fV' RECOMMENDATION Determine whether to appeal the Planning Commission's February 25, 2014 decision to conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit revision application related to a proposed antenna modification by Sprint PCS at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (Case No. ZON2013- 00111). BACKGROUND On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 (5-1 vote, with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Chairman Emenhiser recused), conditionally approving a Conditional Use Permit Revision, allowing Sprint PCS to replace 6 existing roof mounted antennas with 3 new antennas within a new decorative encasement at the east end of the roof of an existing commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd (7-11 building). The February 25th Planning Commission Staff Report, Draft Minutes and adopted Resolution No. 2014-10 are attached for City Council's review. On February 26, 2014, Staff sent a notice of the Planning Commission's decision to the applicant and all interested parties identifying a 15-day appeal period with a deadline of 2-1 March 12, 2014. On March 11, 2014, prior to the expiration of the appeal period, the Acting City Manager was notified in writing by Councilman Campbell (email attached) requesting that an item be placed on the March 18th City Council agenda to consider whether the Planning Commission’s February 25th decision should be appealed by the City Council. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.80.130, this item is being presented to the City Council for discussion and consideration. DISCUSSION According to Section 17.80.130 of the City’s Municipal Code – Appeals by the City Council, a commission’s final decision on an application may be appealed by the city council in the following manner: A. Any one city council member may contact the city manager and request that an item be placed on the next city council agenda so that the entire city council can consider whether to appeal a commission’s decision on an application. The request from the council member must be made in writing within 15 calendar days of the commission’s final decision on an application. B. If an appeal request from a council member is received by the city manager, the appeal period for the city council shall be automatically extended by 30-additional calendar days. This extended appeal period shall apply only to city council appeals in order for the city council to determine whether to appeal the commission’s decision. C. An applicant or any other interested person may file an appeal with the city before or after an appeal request has been made by a council member, provided the appeal is filed within the standard 15 day appeal period. An applicant or any other interested party may not file an appeal during the city’s extended 30 day appeal period. D. The city council shall determine by a majority vote whether to appeal the commission’s decision. As a result of Councilman Campbell’s request to consider an appeal, the appeal period for the City Council is automatically extended by 30 days, with a deadline of April 11, 2014. However, the appeal period for the general public remained at 15 days. No appeal by an interested party was filed by the March 12th appeal deadline. If the City Council agrees to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, a City Council hearing date will be set and a formal public notice will be provided to all interested parties regarding the appeal hearing. At the future appeal hearing, the City Council can decide whether to take action on the appeal itself or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional review. If the City Council agrees not to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, the Planning Commission’s February 25th decision will become final and no further action will be taken. 2-2 As a courtesy, Staff notified the project applicant and all interested parties of the City Council’s consideration of whether to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Silhouette The applicant removed the mock-up of the proposed antenna encasement sometime after the February 25th Planning Commission meeting because of some issues related to the landlord and the roof. Given Councilman Campbell’s request to consider appealing the Planning Commission’s decision, Staff requested that the applicant re-install the mock-up immediately. In response, the applicant re-installed the mock-up on March 26, 2014. Public Comments After the Planning Commission’s February 25th decision to approve the subject Sprint PCS antenna project, Staff was contacted by two interested parties who spoke at the Planning Commission hearing with concerns that the Planning Commission’s decision was based on a misleading Staff photo simulation. Specifically, Joan Davidson and Mr. Kerkhof, the property owner of 6332 Villa Rosa, raised a number of issues via email (see attached correspondence). As a result, Staff visited the property at 6332 Villa Rosa on March 10th and met with the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Kerkhof along with Mrs. Davidson. At the site, the Kerkhof’s and Mrs. Davidson provided Staff with photos taken from the Kerkhof’s property prior to the February 25th Planning Commission hearing that showed the mock-up silhouette as seen from the Kerkhof’s rear yard. The photos, which were not submitted to the Planning Commission at the February 25th hearing, are attached as ‘Additional Correspondence’ for City Council’s review. As explained in the attached February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report, Staff was not able to visit the Kerkhof property prior to the February 25th Planning Commission meeting because the Kerhofs did not contact Staff after receiving the notification of the public hearing (for more details, please refer to the P.C. Staff Report). In meeting with the Kerkhofs, they explained that they were out of town for most of the public noticing period. Notwithstanding, Staff attempted to document the project’s impact from the Kerkhof property by using a photograph taken in 2007 related to a previous AT&T antenna proposal of their view from their viewing area and approximating the area, size and height of the proposed antenna encasement to determine whether or not there would be adverse impacts. In doing so, Staff determined that the proposed project would impact a small portion of the ocean view and the sky, but that it would not be significant. The Kerkofs attended the February 25th Planning Commission meeting and spoke of the view impact, however, they did not submit any photos or provide any evidence that Staff’s depiction of the silhouette or the details in the Staff Report were incorrect. Ultimately, like the 2007 and 2012 antenna projects on the west end of the same roof, the Planning Commission found that there would be no adverse impacts as a result of the proposed project. 2-3 Since the February 25th meeting, Staff has received a number of other public comments regarding this matter. All of the comments are attached. CONCLUSION At the request of Councilman Campbell, the City Council is being requested to consider appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit Revision application related to the Sprint PCS’s antenna enclosure and antennas on the rooftop of a commercial building at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Should the application be appealed, the project would be heard de novo through a duly noticed public hearing at a future City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Councilman Campbell’s request to consider the grounds of an appeal • Additional correspondence • P.C. Resolution 2014-10 • P.C. Draft Minutes (February 25, 2014) • P.C. Staff Report (February 25, 2014) • Photo Simulations 2-4 Councilman Campbell's Request (March 11, 2014) 2-5 So Kim From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:43 AM To: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Appeal of PC decision Joel, I'd like to go ahead and formally exercise my ability to appeal this PC decision to the council. I've done some additional research on this case and I think there is new/additional data available that warrants another look and to get the full council's input. Thanks, Brian Brian Campbell Councilman City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-7 400 cell + text 424-237-2582 office 888-855-9619 fax RPV Website: W"WW.palosverdes.com/rpv Twitter: http:/ !twitter .com/CampbellforRPV This e-mail message, and any attachments to it. are for the sole use of the intended recipients, and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review. use. disclosure or distribution of this email message or its attachments is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email do not necessarily represent those of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Finally, while the company uses virus protection, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 2-6 Additional Correspondence (Received after the Feb. 25th P.C. Mtg.) 2-7 So Kim From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com> Monday, March 24, 2014 10:55 PM CC; Joel Rojas; So Kim Re: 28041 Hawthorne Blvd and new Sprint antennas and new roof chimney structure villa rosa house #2.jpg; villa rosa homes looking down onto 28041 hawthorne.jpg Follow up Flagged Dear RPV Councilmembers, I am writing to address the concerns re: the Sprint new wireless antenna system and new roof top construction at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. I believe that the case deserves to be reheard with the current photos of the property that will show the significant adverse impacts to the view and property values. The new installation and new chimney structure have Significant Adverse Impacts to the immediate neighbors especially along Villa Rosa. This structure will obstruct views of the ocean; obstruct views along the Hawthorne view corridor; and obstruct the view enjoyed by the homeowners since the time of purchase. In doing so, the homeowner's property values are at risk and will be diminished. Sadly, no staff member or planning commissioner visited the home at 6332 Villa Rosa to see first hand the impact to the home before the February hearing. Rather the current staff report included a 2007 photo and a best-guess simulation depicted by dotted lines at how high the chimney structure will be. The structure is considerably higher and the girth blocks the view. (Please see attached photos showing the proximity of homes to the roof at 28041 Hawthorne. Photos do NOT show the proposed chimney antenna structure that will be high along the roof line immediately adjacent to homes backyards and in line with the roof) In addition, the 28041 Hawthorne building is much lower than the homes along Villa Rosa. Thus the backyards are in a continuous line to the rooftop of this building. When the silhouette was constructed on the rooftop, it appeared to be a part of the home's backyard. It is not an aesthetic addition to a residential property or to the city, to have a chimney propped up at the edge of a home's lawn, that is popped up from a commercial property below. Rather it is quite detrimental. 1 2-8 RPV has reviewed the issue of cell antennas in the Right of Way and the same consideration must be consistent and given to residents who have the same concerns of negative impacts to views and properties. Folks are not asking to stop Sprint from deriving the coverage they seek. There are many alternatives for location at the property. Folks are asking that Sprint not deprive an RPV resident of his view enjoyed; and the view that was there when the home was purchased; and folks are asking that RPV City defend the RPV residents right to uphold the value of his RPV home. This project clearly has a significant adverse expense to this private property. Mr. Yeh, at 6338 Villa Rosa has brought up concerns re: noise. He is only 30 feet from the roof line. The noise .and vibrations are also a concern of those who rent space in the building. The noise, vibration, etc is already quite noticeable without the new structure and additional equipment. There is no way to deduct noise and vibrations with the addition proposed, in line with homes and on top the roof that has very little space to 2nd story building level. Additionally, staff reports indicate 'structural' issues for months named by Sprint in trying to build the silhouette for the project. Are these structural issues within the building itself? This resolution was not included in the staff report. Thank you very much, Joan Davidson 310-378-6719 2 2-9 2-10 2-11 So Kim From: Sent: To: Subject: Maggie Kerkhof <maggiekerkhof@gmail.com> Monday, March 24, 2014 9:28 PM CC; Joel Rojas; So Kim Proposed cell phone structure on 7-11 building Attachments: 7-11 cell tower 5.JPG; New structurejpeg; 7-11 cell tower 6.JPG; 7-11 cell tower lOjpg Dear Councilmen and Councilwoman, My name is Rudy Kerkhof and I live at 6332 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV. My house/property is next to/east of the 7-11 building at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. My home is also in a direct line and level with the roof of this building. I am writing to address the proposed structure to enclose Sprint cellular phone antennas which is to be built on the east end of the roof of the 7-11 building. I am opposed to the building of the structure because it will significantly adversely affect my property and it 's value for two reasons. 1. The structure will block a significant portion of the ocean view from my home and backyard. 2. The location of the cell towers, which emit radio frequency (RF) waves (at the same height as my backyard and 34' from my property line), present a potential health hazard to me, my family, and any future buyers of my property and must be disclosed to any future buyer. The planning commission was provided with a 2007 photograph by city staff with a drawn in good- faith estimate of the size of the structure, but which was totally inaccurate. After seeing the mock-up, I left two messages with city hall personnel but never received a call back. I later learned that one of the parties was not in the office when I called. At no time was I contacted regarding taking current photos of the proposed structure. Attached you will see some recent pictures accurately showing the amount of impairment (I tried to approximate the size of the structure by comparing where the mockup blocks part of the 7-11 trees and the building parapet). The RF waves emitted by the antenna are focused on the horizon and are shaped like a disc, very wide (approx. 120 degrees, hence 3 antenna cover a full circle or 360 degrees) and thin horizontally, 1 2-12 not many waves emitted up or down. The strength of the waves also greatly diminish with distance from the antenna (one chart showed a significant drop after 30 yards or so). What these "conservative" websites do say though is that there is a danger to persons (and they point out roofers, HVAC workers, etc.) who might be working on the same roof as these antenna are mounted and say their time there should be limited to no more than six minutes or take other measures (wear protective equipment, turn off the antenna, etc.) The roofline of the 7-11 building is roughly even with my backyard and at a distance of 34' from my property line. This in essence, puts anyone in my backyard in the same position as a worker on the roof of the 7-11 building. Whether you or I believe these cell towers cause cancer at this distance doesn't matter. There are some, and I believe many, potential buyers would pass on buying our house with cell antennas located this close to and at the same height as our backyard. I am sure there are city guidelines and just plain common sense says there should be an attempt to balance commercial and private rights when deciding these issues but I believe an emphasis should be on protecting RPV residents. I believe this can still be accomplished. Sprint can still gain greater coverage by seeking alternatives on this property. What I would propose is that the existing parapet be extended forward approx. 6' or so encompassing the older cell antenna and have the newer antenna placed therein. Sprint's needs are met and there is no additional impairment of me or our neighbors views and the distance these cell antenna are located is increased from 34' to a safer 104' from our property lines. To me this is at least a win for them at least no major loss to me or my neighbors. When people drive by this building no one notices these roof top structures, but we see them on a daily basis and their significance is great. Especially the loss of view and property value. What people do notice is that the building is dated and run down. I understand you can't require someone to update or maintain their commercial building but this approach at the cost of resident's views and home values is not the answer. I thank you all for your time and consideration of this matter. Rudy & Maggie Kerkhof 6332 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 maggiekerkhof@gmail.com (310) 377-8392 cell (310) 567-6241 2 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 28401 Hawthorne -So Kim 28401 Hawthorne Connie Semos <bconmast@msn.com> Mon 3/24/2014 2:29 PM To:Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; CC <CC@rpv.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; PlanningCommission < PlanningCommission@rpv.com >; Please allow the Kerchoffs to plead their case before the Planning Commission by granting their appeal. Page 1of1 None of the Planning Commissioners visited the site to personally witness the view impairment that will surely result in a decrease to their prope1iy value. I know that in past situations when there is a view question the Planning Commissioners have visited the property in question. Why not here. I also believe that the photos submitted by the Planning staff were 7 years old and absolutely not an accurate or a true picture of their view. These reasons should be reason enough to allow this issue to be re-heard. The Kerchoffs situation aside, the planned "matching" structure makes an ugly roof top even uglier. The ATT antenna box looks like it's hanging off the edge of the building and adding another one at the opposite end makes it worse, unless of course, the intent is an antebellum look. That corner is a mess and these past decisions only make it worse. The signage on both corners is monstrous. Hasn't anybody noticed? Respectfully, Connie Semos 6512 Monero Drive RPV https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-18 CUP Appeal 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (Sprint) --April 1, 2014 counc ... -So Kim Page 1of3 CUP Appeal 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (Sprint) --April 1, 2014 council meeting John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Mon 3/24/2014 2:02 PM To:CC <CC@rpv.com>; cc:Joel Rojas <Joe!R@rpv.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; 2 attachments Staff Report Photo simulation 6332 Villa RosaJpg; villa rosa cell antenna 4.silhouette blockedJpg; Mayor Duhovic and City Council members: Please vote to appeal and reconsider the Planning Commission's prior decision. "Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.60.050, the Planning Commission may grant a Conditional Use Permit revision, only if it finds . . . 3. That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof ... " [emphasis added] Significant Adverse Effect (see attached pictures) The February 25, 2014 staff report to the Planning Commission states "Staff believes that the proposed encasement would impair a minimal amount of ocean view". [emphasis added] Minimal? No. Actually it is significant. That fatal statement and conclusion by the Staff probably contributed to the lack of on-site visits by the Planning Commissioners, and the project's ultimate erroneous approval. None of the Planning Commissioners indicated they actually visited any of the residents that have significant adverse view blockage, especially the home of Mr. & Mrs. Kerkhof, 6332 Villa Rosa. Instead, Commissioners were just shown this Staff Report depiction from 2007. If this old picture is the only visual representation provided, then it is no wonder the Planning Commissioners erroneously concluded there was no significant adverse effect. Does that small red or small orange box show the reality of the adverse effect? Aren't (or shouldn't) Planning Commissioners be required to actually visit the applicant and adjacent properties that they are reviewing? https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-19 CUP Appeal 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (Sprint) --April 1, 2014 counc ... -So Kim Page 2of3 Now consider this picture of actual silhouette mockup recently taken by Mr. Kerkhof looking west towards their ocean "view". Would you want to live at 6332 Villa Rosa Dr. looking at (not through) this box? What would be the value of this home with or without that box? Please affirm the appeal and reconsider the Planning Commission's prior decision. Thank you, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-20 CUP Appeal 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (Sprint) --April 1, 2014 counc ... -So Kim John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ Page 3of3 3/24/2014 2-21 28041 Hawthorne Blvd -So Kim Page 1of1 28041 Hawthorne Blvd So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Mon 3/24/20141:21 PM Tojcinpv@cox.net <jcinpv@cox.net>; cc:Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; Hi Ms. Ciniero, As you are aware, the Planning Commission approved Sprint PCS's request to remove 6 existing antennas on the roof and replace them with 3 new ones within a new encasement. As a result, the total number of antennas will be reduced by 3 and none of the Sprint antennas will be visible. During the 15-day appeal period following the Planning Commission's decision, the City Council decided to put this item on their April 1st agenda to consider appealing the project. If the City Council decides to appeal the project, a formal notice will be sent out and published prior to an appeal hearing. If the City Council decides not to appeal the project, the Planning Commission's decision will be final. Any written correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission and the minutes from that meeting will be forwarded to the City Council's April 1st hearing. If you would like to submit any written correspondence, please forward it to my attention and it will be given to the City Council. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kirn Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes [](310) 544-5228[#] I sok@rpv.com https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-22 FW: 28041 Hawthorne Blvd-So Kim Page 1of1 FW: 28041 Hawthorne Blvd So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Mon 3/24/2014 1 :36 PM To:Eddie Yeh <edyehoo@yahoo.com>; Hi Mr. Yeh, As you are aware, the Planning Commission approved Sprint PCS's request to remove 6 existing antennas on the roof and replace them with 3 new ones within a new encasement. As a result, the total number of antennas will be reduced by 3 and none of the Sprint antennas will be visible. During the 15-day appeal period following the Planning Commission's decision, the City Council decided to put this item on their April 1st agenda to consider appealing the project. If the City Council decides to appeal the project, a formal notice will be sent out and published prior to an appeal hearing. If the City Council decides not to appeal the project, the Planning Commission's decision will be final. Any written correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission and the minutes from that meeting will be forwarded to the City Council's April 1st hearing. If you would like to submit any written correspondence, please forward it to my attention and it will be given to the City Council. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes [](310) 544-5228[#] I sok@rpv.com https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-23 RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal -So Kim Page 1of4 RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Mon 3/24/2014 11:40 AM To:John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>; cc:Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>; Hi Mr. Freeman, The following are the interested parties for the 28041 Hawthorne/Sprint antenna project: • Rudolf Kerkhof (submitted written correspondence & spoke at the meeting) • Joan Davidson (submitted written correspondence & spoke at the meeting) • Yuhung Edward Yeh (submitted written correspondence) • John Freeman (submitted written correspondence) • Connie Semos (submitted written correspondence & spoke at the meeting) • Joy Ciniero (spoke at the meeting) • Kim Nguyen from Core Development Services, representing Sprint PCS (applicant) As you are aware, Joel sent an email to Mr. Kerkhof, Ms. Davidson, and yourself. I spoke to Mr. Yeh and Ms. Nguyen. I was not able to contact Ms. Ciniero because I do not have her email, phone number or address as she did not submit anything to the City prior-or post-the February 25th PC meeting. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:15 AM To: John Freeman; So Kim Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-24 RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal -So Kim Page 2of4 John I understand from So that the interested parties are aware of the April 1st consideration. Let me check with So. I do want to reiterate that the item on April 151 is not an appeal hearing. It is intended to be a discussion amongst council members on whether the Council as a whole wishes to appeal the PC's decision. If there is an appeal, then all interested parties and property owners within 500 feet will be formally notified by public notice. Joel From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:49 AM To: Joel Rojas; So Kirn Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal Joel, OK. So are you sure "the interested persons to this application were aware that on April 1 the City Council is going to consider whether to appeal the PC's decision"? I've contacted a few myself but none indicated they were made aware via email or otherwise by you or So Kim of the April 1 council meeting and appeal. What other interested parties have been made aware (and when)? I just want to make sure all interested persons are or have been notified. John From: Joel Rojas [rnailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:38 AM To: John Freeman; So Kirn Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal Importance: High John I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my March 12 email. Since the item on April 1st is not an appeal hearing, no public notification is required. However, as a courtesy, we wanted to make sure that at least the interested parties to this application were aware that on April 1 the City Council is going to consider whether to appeal the PC's decision. The sentence in my email referred to other interested parties besides yourself as I was considering my https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-25 RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal -So Kim Page 3of4 email to you on March 12 as notification. I apologize if the sentence led you to believe that some sort of formal notice was going to be mailed out. Again since the item on April 1st is not a hearing item, there is no deadline for public comments. Public comments can be submitted up to the time of the meeting. As I noted to you back on March 12, any public comments that we have received prior to tomorrow we will attach to the staff report. Joel From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:01 AM To: Joel Rojas; So Kim Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal Joel, Have you or So Kim sent out any notifications of the April 1st city council appeal consideration yet? On March 12 you said 11 Interested parties will be notified of the April 1st appeal consideration. 11 I haven't gotten any official notification and your email below indicates the public deadline for comments is today. That gives interested parties only a few hours to prepare comments and meet your deadline. Or maybe you already sent notifications? Or is the council agenda date some other date, and not April 1s1? John From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:39 PM To: John Freeman Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal John Yes, a staff report will be prepared for the April 1st appeal consideration which will essentially be a summary of the PC decision. Interested parties will be notified of the April 1st appeal consideration. Any correspondence received before Tuesday, March 25th will be included in the staff report. Please provide any input to So Kim as she will be preparing the Staff Report. Joel From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:08 PM To: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-26 RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal -So Kim Page 4of4 Joel, Will you be preparing another staff report with additional information for the April 1st CC agenda? And will you be notifying and soliciting input again from everyone within 500 feet of the property? What are the expected public input deadlines you are looking for, or should anyone just email them in time for the April 1st meeting to the council? John From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:19 PM To: John Freeman; So Kim Cc: Joan Davidson; maggiekerkhof@gmail.com Subject: RE: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal John Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.80.130, a Council member has contacted Staff and asked that an item be placed on a future City Council agenda to consider whether to appeal the PC's decision. This appeal consideration is tentatively scheduled to occur at the Council's April 1•t meeting. If on April 1•t, a majority of the Council agrees to appeal the PC's decision, then an appeal hearing will be set for a date in the future and public notice of the appeal hearing will be given. If on April 1, the Council agrees not to appeal the PC's decision and no other appeal has been filed by any other interested party, then the PC decision will be final. At this time, there has not been an appeal filed by any interested person. The deadline for filing such an appeal is tomorrow by 5:30 pm. Joel From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:36 PM To: So Kim; Joel Rojas Subject: 7-Eleven/Sprint Planning Commission appeal Joel, Has there been an official appeal of the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission decision in the 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. matter (Sprint cell phone antennas ZON 2013-00111 )? Generally speaking how long before appeals are agendized and heard by the City Council? John https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-27 RE: 7-11 antennas installation -So Kim Page 1 of2 RE: 7-11 antennas installation So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Mon 3/24/2014 10:57 AM To:Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; 2 attachments Item 1_RPVPC_SR_2014_02_25_28041 Hawthorne.pdf; 2014-10.pdf; Hi Ms. Osborne, Thank you for your email. The Planning Commission recently approved an application by Sprint to remove 6 existing antennas and replace them with 3 new ones within a new antenna encasement on the rooftop. As a result, the number of Sprint antennas will be reduced by 3 and none of them will be visible. Attached is the Staff Report that was presented to the Planning Commission and the Commission adopted resolution on February 25th. Additionally, a public hearing will be held on April 1s1 , for the City Council to consider appealing the decision rendered by the Planning Commission. Your email will be distributed to the City Council for the April 1st hearing. If the City Council decides to appeal the project, a formal notification will be distributed. If the City Council decides not to appeal the project, the Planning Commission's decision will be final. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Ellen Osborne <theosfam@.gmail.com> Date: March 23, 2014 at 6:28:24 PM PDT To: "cc@rpv.com" <cc@rpv.com> Subject: 7-11 antennas installation Hello ... my name is Ellen Osborne and I live at 6343 Villa Rosa Dr in RPV. It has come to my attention that another antenna is to be installed atop the 7-11 store in close proximity to my property and my neighbors'. I feel it would cause significant adverse impact on the views and health of the residents in my neighborhood. Please do not install any more https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-28 RE: 7-11 antennas installation -So Kim antennas on the 7-11 store. Thank you, Ellen Osborne 310 433 3809 Sent from my iPad https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ Page 2 of2 3/24/2014 2-29 RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? -So Kim RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Wed 3/19/2014 9:51 AM To:So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; So Kim, OK. Thanks for the explanation. John Freeman From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:56 AM To: John Freeman Cc: Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost Subject: RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? Importance: High Hi Mr. Freeman, Page 1of4 In 2000, 4 antennas were approved as the Staff Report indicates. Subsequent to that approval, there were two additional approvals for AT&T, where 2 of the 4 antennas were removed. In the end, there are two on the back side of the roof that remain, which were indicated as "unidentified" at the recent hearing. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:38 PM To: So Kim Subject: RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? Hello Ms. Kim: Thank you for sending the documents. https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-30 RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? -So Kim Page 2of4 The October 24, 2000 CUP authorized Pac Bell to remove one whip antenna and install four (4) new antennas. Yet previously, you said that there were "two unidentified antennas" there; then subsequently you said that those two were authorized to Pac Bell in October 24, 2000. Is it 2 or is it 4? How many are on the roof. now and if not four (two on north side two on south side of roof), then when did that change? Was another CUP then issued to approve that? Here's part of the Staff Report you sent me: Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Use Permit No. 196 Revision 'A' 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. October 24, 2000 Page3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the removal of an existing omni whip antennae to allow the installation of four (4) new roof top antennae panels. Of the proposed antennae panels, two (2) will be mounted on the roof of the north side of the existing structure, and the remaining two (2) antennas will be located on the roof top of the south side. The proposed antennae panels will not exceed the height of the existing roof ridgeline and will be painted a color that matches the clay tiles on the roof. Additionally, the applicants propose replacement of the existing base transceiver cabinets (bts) with two new cabinets located within the same location. Section Q,: Fo,r the foregoing rea:sons and based on the i findings included in the Staff Report, M:inutes and other records of p Planning ,Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby apprc Use Permit No. 196 Revision 'A', thereby approving the rem,ova,f of a antenna for the ptacement ,of four (4) roof mounted antennae panels Wireless, on the roof of the Center Professional Building and the instaHE support equipment cabinets, on property located at 28041 Hawthc subject to th,e conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto ar hereof, which are nece:ssary to protect the public health,, safety and welf• John Freeman From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:28 PM To: John Freeman Cc: Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost Subject: RE: 2 unedified antennas Hi Mr. Freeman, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-31 RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? -So Kim Attached is a scanned copy of the minutes, adopted resolution and the staff report. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:31 PM To: So Kim Subject: RE: 2 unedified antennas Hi Ms. Kim: · Page 3of4 Can you please email me a copy of the Staff Report for the October 24, 2000 agenda item, and also the minutes for the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting? I looked on the RPV website and it only goes back to 2001. Thank you. John Freeman From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:59 AM To: John Freeman Cc: Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost Subject: RE: 2 unedified antennas Importance: High Hi Mr. Freeman, Upon further research, the two antennas in question were approved for Pacific Bell Wireless (now AT&T) by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:15 PM https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-32 RE: 2 unidentified antennas or is it 4? -So Kim Page 4of4 To: So Kim Subject: 2 unedified antennas So Kim: At the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting you stated that there were "two unidentified antennas" on the 7-11 roof. Have you identified those antennas yet as to what they are, what kind they are, what purpose they are, and who claims responsibility for putting them there yet? Are they authorized or has Code Enforcement been notified that they are un- authorized. John Freeman https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-33 Appeal Consideration for 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 1of1 Appeal Consideration for 28041 Hawthorne So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Wed 3/12/2014 5:19 PM To:Kim Nguyen (knguyen@core.us.com) <knguyen@core.us.com>; cc:Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>; Greg Pfost <gregp@rpv.com>; ·1 attachment $35(-414031215400.pdf; Hi Kim, Attached is a copy of the email from a Councilman requesting the matter be placed on the City Council agenda so that the entire City Council can consider whether to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the application. As mentioned over the phone, this issue has been agendized for the April 1st meeting. Although the content of the attached email says otherwise, the purpose of the meeting is for the City Council to decide whether or not to appeal the proposed project. If they decide to appeal the project, a public notice will be distributed and a subsequent hearing will be scheduled for an official appeal hearing. If the City Council decides not to appeal the project, the Planning Commission's decision will be final, unless an interested party appeals the decision. The deadline for an interested party to appeal is 5:30pm today. It is 5:17pm and no appeal has been filed by an interested party so far. Also, the silhouette needs to be installed immediately and needs to remain at least until the April 1st meeting and longer if appealed by the City Council. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-34 RE: Sprint antennas -So Kim Page 1 of 2 RE: Sprint antennas So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Wed 3/12/2014 8:24 AM To:John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>; cc:Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>; Greg Pfost <gregp@rpv.com>; 2 attachments Photo Sims 11-8-13.pdf; Agenda Item 1_RPVPC_SR_2014_02_25_2804"1 Hawthorne.pdf; Hi Mr. Freeman, Both the photo simulations and the Staff Report are attached. The only reference made in the Staff Report is the removal of 6 antennas and installation of 3 new antennas. I do not mention the height of the antenna panels itself as they will be fully screened inside the new antenna enclosure which is proposed at 5.67' in height. In any case, the dimension of the antennas are 53" to 55" in height and 3.15" to 4.3" in width. You may look at the plans that show the dimensions of the proposed antennas in more detail at City Hall, as I will not be able to release the electronic version due to copyright reasons. The RRHs (Remote Radio Head) are attached to the back-side of the antenna panels and are supposed to enhance connectivity while reducing interference. The PDF I found on-line is helpful in understanding what is and the purpose of RRHs (http://www.altera.com/literature/wp/wp-01096-rrh-4g.pdf). The existing Sprint PCS panel antennas range in height from 1' to over 3' in size. I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:17 AM To: So Kim Subject: Sprint antennas Hello So, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-35 RE: Sprint antennas -So Kim Page 2 of2 Do you have any drawings or photographs submitted by Sprint/PCS that clearly shows the design and dimensions of their proposed 3 new antennas? The staff report only shows "PROPOSED SPRINT 4'-0" ANTENNAS AND RRHS ON PROPOSED PIPE MOUNT". What are the dimensions (height) of the 6 existing Sprint/PCS antennas? What does RRHS mean? Thanks, John https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-36 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 1of6 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Tue 3/11/2014 1:28 PM To:Maggie Kerkhof <maggiekerkhof@gmail.com>; Hi, The mailing labels and maps and provided by the applicant. Typically, the applicants hire a company that generates the labels based on a 500' radius of the property boundary lines. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310} 544-5228 From: Maggie Kerkhof [mailto:maggiekerkhof@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:59 PM To: So Kim Subject: Re: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne Hello Ms Kim, Thank you so much for the addresses. I figured they received it but just didn't really take a close look. Most people are too busy with work etc. to pay attention to these notices. Do you guys have a program that overlays the location and automatically prints these or do you just aim far and figure it covers it because you definitely got everyone? Very nice. Thanks, Rudy. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:15 AM, So Kim <SoK(illrpv.com> wrote: Hi, Attached are the mailing labels and an interested parties list where the notices were sent to. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 https :// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-37 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 2of6 j From: Maggie Kerkhof [mailto:maggiekerkhof@gmail.com) I Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:36 PM I To: So Kim ! Subject: Fwd: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne I I Hi Ms. Kim! I I Can we have the mailing list of the residences notified regarding the Sprint cell phone tower I installation? Thank you much for your help! I I Thanks, I Rudy and Maggie I I ----------Forwarded message ---------- ! From: Joel Rojas <JoeIR@rpv.com> Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:22 PM j Subject: RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne To: Maggie Kerkhof <maggiekerkhofCa{gmaiLcom> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> The notification is 500 feet from the property line of the applicant's property. I have copied So Kim as she has the mailing list and can tell you if they are on it. From: Maggie Kerkhof [maggiekerkhof@gmail.com] I Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:17 PM I To: Joel Rojas I Subject: Re: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne Hello Joel, I Thanks for your quick reply. We have just been contacted by neighbors regarding the house across the street and their proposed addition. The mock up flags went up yesterday and today. We I mentioned the 7-11 cell antenna issue and several said they never received a notification. How far I from the location are notices sent. Was it 500 feet or 500 yards? I Thanks for your help. Rudy Kerkhof. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com<mailto:JoelR@rpv.com>> wrote: Joan Thank you for facilitating the meeting with Mr. Kerkhof on his property today. l have spoken to the City Attorney about this matter and she affirmed that there is no possibility for the Planning Commission to re-hear the matter. She points out that even if obvious procedural errors did occur (which I believe is not the case here), the only remedy to change the PC's decision would be through the filing of an appeal. As I sated today, if an appeal is successfol, the appellant receives a refond of all or Yz of their appeal fee. Therefore, pursuant to the Notice of Decision that you previously received, you, Mr. Kerkhof and any https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-38 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 3of6 I other interested party have until Wednesday, March 12, 2014 to file a timely appeal. As noted in the ·1 Notice a Decision, the appeal needs to be filed by 5:30 pm and must include the appropriate appeal fee and reasons for the appeal. If an appeal is filed, the applicant will be directed to re-construct the I . . . I mock-up that was recently removed. I I I I also intend to notify the City Council of thiS matter since I have received inquiries from some I Council Members about the PC's decision. I I Joel . 1 • From: Joan Davidson [mailto:j135cooper@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:56 PM To: Joel Rojas; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com<mailto:Subrooks08@gmail.com>> Cc: Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com<mailto:clynch@rwglaw.com>>; So Kim I Subject: Re: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne Dear Susan et al, The powerpoint put together by the City Attorney, Ms. Lynch, re: cell antennas, states that the RPV current city procedures are: *If negative comments are received from the public regarding the antenna, staff advises the 1 applicant of the concerns and attempts to resolve the issues, and the process returns to step one. I I If no negative comments are received, the City issues a permit for construction. There has been no attempt to my knowledge of the city staff to resolve any concerns received in writing or phone. The Staff had many Negative Comments in writing; 2 residents whose view is clearly impacted and obstructed were addressed; and these residents sent in photos as well. The Staff photos are not at all representative of the backyards today. They must have been· photoshopped. The backyard has not had a swing set for years! Who put the photos together? Did any Commissioners or staff recently visit these homes on Villa Rosa? The Staff also stated that there are 2 unidentified cell antennas. How can the staff put together a report without all the facts? And ignore the Negative Comments that are considered "City Procedures"? I am asking for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and asking that Staff actually go to https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-39 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 4of6 I the impacted homes and take a real photo of the backyard as it is in 2014. Then the Staff and Council I can see the impacts and the Council can look into alternative sites for these antennas. I Even though the antennas are being reduced from 6 to 3 the Sprint map shows an increase in I coverage. When I asked the Sprint representative to provide details to me regarding this issue, she I stated she could not talk to the issue because. she was not an engineer. That is not sufficient in these circumstances. The Community and residents and home owners have a right to know the exact details of this project and have rights to protect their home values, etc. I I asked for a 90-day extension--the exact accommodation given to Sprint by RPV when Sprint could I not build the frame on the roof top due to structural issues. I am asking again now in writing. I This item does not need action until April 23, 2014. The community should have the time to talk to staff and get more information. To do otherwise is a disservice to all. I Thank you, Joan I On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1: 11 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@nw.com<maiito:JoelR@mv.com>> wrote: Susan The application before the PC last night was for Sprint to remove their 6 existing cell antennas that 1 are currently visible on the roof of the 7-11 building (at Gran via Altamira and Hawthorne) and replace I them with 3 new antennas that would be placed inside a decorative roof enclosure. Four speakers I objected to the proposal citing mostly concerns with the visual impact of the enclosure and the i radiation emissions from the high number of antennas at the location (there are 28 existing antennas on the building which will now be reduced to 25). After considering the testimony, the PC approved the application on a 5-1 vote because the Commission felt that there would be no visual impact from the new antennas as they would be housed inside a decorative architectural feature and thus not visible to anyone, the amount of view impairment caused by the new architectural feature that will encase the new antennas would be minor and because the City is preempted by federal law for considering antenna applications based on I, concerns with antenna emissions since such emissions are regulated by the FCC (this is noted in Carol's 2-19-2013 presentation which is included in Joan's email). Interested parties can appeal the j PC's decision to the City Council. l I To avoid multiple antenna locations throughout the City, the City's Wireless Antenna Guidelines I encourage the co-location of antennas and the City's Code does not establish a maximum number of 'i antennas at a property. Not having a limit on the number of antennas has not been an issue in the past I since almost all of the celJular antennas that have been approved in the last 15 years are not visible or have been pretty well screened. Plus, th.e need for antenna carriers to place their antennas away from ! other carrier's antennas to avoid interference tends to limit the total number of antennas at a location. Given the Federal Telecommunications Act, I will need to check with Carol on the City's ability to I set an absolute limit on the number of commercial antennas on a particular property. Joel https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-40 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 5of6 From: Councilwoman Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] 1 Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:15 PM II To: Joan Davidson . Cc: Joel Rojas I Subject: Re: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne ! I i Thanks. I I'm cc'ing Joel so we can discuss just why the towers were approved despite resistance from I neighbors, especially when one is directly in the view outside a residential window. I ! Also, Joel-how can we address the issue regarding limiting the number of cell towers on commercial I property? Would this be another appeal? Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787<tel:310%2F%20707-8787>(cell) Sent from my iPhone On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Joan Davidson <jl35cooper@yahoo.com<mailto:jl35cooper(a),yahoo.com>> wrote: I Susan, here is the staff report link in the PC agenda-thanks--please scroll towards the end to see residents photos and comments-thanks Joan http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/ AGENDAS -Current Agendas/PlanningCommission/201 4/2014 02 25 Planning Commission Agenda/ I . I On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:13 AM, Joan Davidson <j 135cooper@),yahoo.com<mailto:j135cooper(a),yahoo.com>> wrote: Dear Susan, I wanted to bring this to your attention so that the city can review the decision made last night at the Planning Commission. I am attaching The LAUSD prohibiting cell telecommunication 1 equipment on or near schools. I am ataching the powerpoint created by city attorney Lynch Feb. 2013 where the comments below are stated. http://vvww.palosverdes.com/rpv I citycouncil/ agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-02-l l 9/Wireless-Regulations. pdf I In this ppt page 15 states: "If negative comments are received from the public regarding the antenna, I staff advises the applicant of the concerns and attempts to resolve the issues, and the process returns I to step one. l If no negative comments I are received, the City 1 1 issues a permit for 1 construction." ' https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-41 RE: FW: cell antennas at 28041 Hawthorne -So Kim Page 6of6 Although this powerpoint also states that the city could not reject a cell tower according to FCC reg's 1 LAUSD along with many others already have laws prohibiting such towers \ Four people spoke against this last night including myself. Two home owners on Villa Rosa oppose the project because the new 'chimney' structure to be built atop the eastern portion of the building will be essentially right in their backyard. The chimney does obstruct the home views, and does de-value the property values. I Although I asked the commissioners to take the effected home values and views into consideration and find an alternative location for this antenna, the commissioners simply stated that they could do I nothing about this because of FCC regulations. That is simply not true. l The city does have planning commission guidelines and this does fall into the Guideline 4; View Corridors and Guideline 5·; Balance of Public and Private Costs Benefits. There are currently 12 AT+T antennas on this building; 10 Verizon antennas; and 6 Sprint. Equals 28. So Kim stated that there are 2 'unidentified antennas' as well. (Is that legal?) The city makes no tax revenue on these cell antennas. There are between 78-98 cell antennas in the RPV city. That means that RPV has allowed 25% to 33% of the city cell antennas to be clustered at 1 one small commercial limited property. The city does not have a Code addressing the number of cell antennas on one property or size of property, etc. I am asking the city to review this Sprint application so that it will not impact the views and property , values of the people on Villa Rosa, which may mean changing the location of this antenna on the property. The back parking lot is used by Verizon and could be used by Sprint as well. i And I am asking the City Council to create a Code on the number of cell antennas allowed one one I commercial property. I thank you very much for your consideration. Joan Davidson, 310-378-6719<tel:3 l0-378-6719> I < LAUSD CellPhoneTowers_PressRelease_2009 _0529.pdf> < RPV Wireless-Regulations--ATTY L YNCH.pdf> https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-42 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 ... -So Kim Page 1of5 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> Tue 3/11/2014 9:10 AM To:So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; FYI From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:55 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Thanks Carol! We can talk today at the staff meeting about what meeting to wedge this item onto.© CP From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:29 AM To: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Okay. I should have copied Joel and Carolynn on the last email, so I am doing so now. From: Councilwoman Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:02 AM To: Carol W. Lynch Subject: Re: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Carol. Thanks. I would appeal this, and use it as an example for the Planning Commissioners about the need to do site visits. When I was on the OC, everyone had to do site visits. What happened? So, you can put my name behind Brian's. Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) https :// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-43 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 ... -So Kim Page 2of5 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:57 AM, "Carol W. Lynch" <CLynch@rwglaw.com> wrote: Hi Susan. First, Brian has said he will appeal if the residents do not. We can put your request behind his, if you want. Second, the affected property owner next door did not effectively present his view issue and never requested staff to come to his property to assess the view impact. Joel went there yesterday with Joan and has told me that the view impact was more than the amount staff estimated without an inspection. Please remember that the city cannot take rf emissions into consideration. Let me know what you want to do regarding an appeal. Carol Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Councilwoman Brooks <subrooks08(a!,gmail.com> wrote: Carol. Here I am in Costa Rica with very limited phone access until Sat. Can you please giver your professional advices on this in a short email? Is it worth the appeal? That makes 2 for me in two weeks. I don't want the OC to hate me, but there's more than meets the eye on this. Thanx. Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) [webkit-fake-url://BD7 AB3 5C-0982-428E-896D-6BOE600F66A 7 /imagejpeg] Sent from my iPhone [webkit-fake-url://70232A25-28D3-4EBF-89AE-970AB8382AC5/imagejpeg] On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:58 PM, "Carol W. Lynch" <CLynch(fl)rwglaw.com<mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com>> wrote: https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-44 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 ... -So Kim Page 3of5 I write to further clarify Joel's email. There is no provision in the Code that allows the Planning Commission to reconsider its decision after the Commission adopts the resolution regarding the particular application, because that is the Commission's final action regarding the matter. Of course, if an appeal is filed, the Council has the option of remanding the matter back to the Commission; in other words, if that is the option that is chosen by the Council, it would have the effect of alloWing the Commission to reconsider its prior decision. -----Original Message----- F rom: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:14 PM To: CC Cc: Carol W. Lynch; So Kim Subject: FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Dear Council Members As a follow-up to my email below from last Friday, today I met with Joan Davidson and Mr. and Mrs. Kerkhof at their property. They provided photographs to Staff that show that the proposed Sprint antenna structure which was approved by the PC on February 25 will impair more of their ocean view than was depicted in the view simulation photo presented to the PC by Staff. As a result, they believe that there should be re-hearing of the PC decision. Staff acknowledges that it presented an estimate of the potential view impact based on a 2007 photo because Mr. Kerkhof did not respond to the public notice and thus Staff could not access his back yard. Mr. Kerkhof also attended the recent Feb. 25th PC hearing to voice his concerns but did not present the actual photos of his view impact. Mr. Kerkhof stated that he was on vacation for most of the notice period and did not have his photos at the time of the PC hearing. Staff has spoken to the City Attorney about this matter and she affirmed that there is no possibility for the Planning Commission to re-hear the matter. She points out that even if obvious procedural errors did occur (which is not the case here), the only remedy to change a final PC decision would be through the filing of a timely appeal. Joan Davidson and Mr. Kerkhofhave been notified of this and reminded that they have until Wednesday, March 12, 2014 to file a timely appeal. As discussed recently, any City Council member who wishes to have this matter put on a future agenda to discuss whether to pursue an appeal of the PC's decision must notify the City Manager by the same March 12th deadline. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:57 PM https :// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-45 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 ... -So Kim To: cc@rpv.com<mailto:cc(a),rpv.com> Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com<mailto:clynch(q)rwglaw.com>>; So Kim (SoK(ibrpv.com<mailto:SoK@rpv.com>) Page 4of5 Subject: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Dear Council Members Since I have heard from two Council members about this, it appears that a resident by the name of Rudy Kerkhof is contacting Council members about a recent PC decision. Here is some information about the matter. The issue involves an application by Sprint to relocate their existing visible antennas that are presently on the roof of the 7-11 building at Gran via Altamira and Hawthorne into a new enclosure that would be placed at the east end of the building's roof. The PC approved the application at their February 25th meeting on a 6-1 vote (with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Emenhiser recused). Mr. Kerkhof attended the meeting and informed the Commission of his concerns as summarized in his email below. One of the reasons the PC approved the application was because it felt the new enclosure would not significantly impair Mr. Kerkhofs view. After the decision, I was contacted by Joan Davidson who also testified before the PC in opposition to the antennas. Her concern was that the photograph Staff used to depict the view impairment was old and not representative of the actual view and project impact. As such, Joan Davidson is considering an appeal of the PC's decision. At Joan Davidson's request, I am scheduled to visit Mr. Kerkhofs property on Monday to view the issue from his rear yard. If an appeal is filed by the appeal period deadline of Wednesday, March 12, the matter will be brought before the Council for consideration. Joel NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ==>> to report this email as spam. https:// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-46 FW: Proposed Antenna Structure on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7 ... -So Kim Page 5of5 https :// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-47 Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd -So Kim Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd Kim Nguyen <knguyen@core.us.com> Mon 3/10/20141:12 PM To:So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; So, I've left you a message. Please get back to me when you can. Thank you. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:03 AM, So Kim <SoK@rgv.com> wrote: I FYI ... this may lead to an extended appeal period. I . l Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner I I City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Kim Nguyen [mailto:knguyen@core.us.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:03 AM To: So Kim I Subject: Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd I I So, I apologize for what has happened. I'll get back to you ASAP with what is going on. I On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: Hi Kim, https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ Page 1of5 3/24/2014 2-48 Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd -So Kim Page 2of5 I I was told that the silhouette was removed. I specifically informed you that the silhouette needs to stay in place (please refer to email below). This may cause some unanticipated problems as the project may be appealed to the City Council. I Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544~5228 I I l From: So Kim Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:14 AM To: 'Kim Nguyen' Subject: RE: 28041 hawthorne blvd Hi Kim, , Attached is the final version of the resolution. The signed version will not be available until later. I I will be mailing out a notice of decision with the conditions of approval included. Since there are interested parties, an appeal period of 15-days will apply. The silhouette will need to stay in place during this time frame. If the appeal period is exhausted without a timely appeal (March 12), the Planning Commission's decision is final. If someone appeals the project, then I will schedule a City Council hearing for the proposed project. I will update you again at the end of the appeal period. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-49 Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd -So Kim Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Kim Nguyen [mailto:knguyen@core.us.com] Sent: Wedn~sday, February 26, 2014 8:44 AM To: So Kim Subject: Re: 28041 hawthorne blvd Good morning So, Page 3of5 Again, thank you for last night's meeting. I wanted to reach out to you to see if you can send the final resolution so that Sprint may review as condition #16 was one they were concerned about. When you get a chance, please forward me the resolution thanks. On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Kim Nguyen <knguyen@core.us.com> wrote: Ok. Thank you. On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:51 AM, So Kim <SoK@Jrpv.com> wrote: Hi Kim, Please ignore the last email. I found them. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-50 Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd -So Kim I I ! I , l www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: So Kim Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:41 PM To: Kim Nguyen (knguyen@core.us.com) Subject: 28041 hawthorne blvd Hi Kim, Page 4of5 Are you able to send me electronic copies of propagation maps? I seem to have misplaced them. I I l I I -- Thank you in advance. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosyerdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 <Photo Sims 11-8-13.pdf> , I Kim Nguyen Zoning Manager 1714-323-8905 (cell) I https:/ I owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-51 Re: FW: 28041 hawthorne blvd -So Kim 714-729-8404 (office) 714-333-4441 (fax) j l CORE Development Services 27 49 Saturn Street Brea, CA 92821 www.core.us.com Kim Nguyen . Zoning Manager 714-323-8905 (cell) 714-729-8404 (office) 1714-333-4441 (fax) 1 CORE Development Services j 27 49 Saturn Street I Brea, CA 92821 1 www.core.us.com Kim Nguyen Zoning Manager 714-323-8905 (cell) 714-729-8404 (office) 714-333-4441 (fax) CORE Development Services 2749 Saturn Street Brea, CA 92821 www.core.us.com https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ Page 5of5 3/24/2014 2-52 RE: 7-11 antennas -So Kirn RE: 7-11 antennas So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Mon 3/10/2014 9:54 AM To:Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; Hi Joel, No I did not tell them to remove the mock-up ... I will contact them immediately. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:51 AM To: So Kim Subject: RE: 7-11 antennas Page 1 of2 OK. sounds good. On Friday, I noticed that the mock up is gone. This is not good as the appeal period has not expired and there could be an appeal. Did they receive permission to remove the mock up? I'm afraid this is going to complicate things. From: So Kim Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:55 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: 7-11 antennas Hi Joel, Yes, I can make it. Also, the property owner of 6332 Villa Rosa and I spoke to each other over the phone. So, everything was verbal. But, I will take the Staff Report that shows the approx. location of the silhouette. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 11:44 AM https://owa.rpv.corn/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-53 RE: 7-11 antennas -So Kim Page 2 of2 To: So Kim Subject: 7-11 antennas So I spoke to Joan Davidson who is contemplating an appeal of the PC's recent decision because she believes the view analysis was not done properly. She wanted to meet to show us photos of the view impact from 6332 Villa Rosa. I told her we should rather just meet at the property. Thus, we are meeting there on Monday at lpm. Hopefully, you can make it. I noted to her that you told the property owner to contact you so you could assess the impact from his back yard and he never responded. She contests that so please be prepared with any documentation that you may have to support our position. Thanks Joel https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-54 RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on ro ... -So Kim Page 1of3 RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) RPV Councilman B Campbell < b.camp@cox.net> Fri 3/7 /2014 3:46 PM To:Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; Cc:So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>; Joel, can you let me know what you think after your site visit on Monday? Thanks, Brian From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:35 PM To: Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) The appeal period expires on Wednesday, March 12. The vote was 5-1 with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Emenhiser recused. Joel From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:33 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Joel, when does the appeal time period expire? Also, what was the PC vote? From: Joel Rojas [mailto:JoelR@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:25 PM To: Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Brian https :// owa.rpv .com/ owa/ 3/24/2014 2-55 RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on ro ... -So Kim Page 2 of3 This issue involves an application by Sprint to relocate their existing visible antennas that are presently on the roof of the 7-11 building at Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne into a new enclosure that would be placed at the east end of the building. The PC approved the application at their February 25th meeting. Mr. Kerkhof attended the meeting and informed the Commission of his concerns as summarized in his email to you. One of the reasons the PC approved the application was because it felt the new enclosure would not significantly impair Mr. Kerkhof's view. After the decision, I was contacted by Joan Davidson who also testified before the PC in opposition to the antennas. Her concern was that the photograph Staff used to depict the view impairment was old and not representative of the actual impact. As such, Joan Davidson is considering an appeal of the PC's decision. At Joan Davidson's request, I am scheduled to visit Mr. Kerkhof s property on Monday to view the issue from his rear yard. If an appeal is filed, the matter will be brought before the Council for consideration. Joel From: RPV Councilman B Campbell [mailto:b.camp@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:58 PM To: PlanningCommission Subject: FW: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Joel, staff and Commissioners; do any of you have additional info you can share with me on this issue? I drive by there every day and know what it looks like but have not had any council dealings with it. Thanks, Brian From: Maggie Kerkhof [mailto:maggiekerkhof@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:09 PM To: brian .campbell@rpv.com Subject: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (7-11 building) Dear Councilman Campbell, Hello there. Sorry to bother you but my name is Rudy Kerkhof. This email is regrading the proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on the east edge of the roof at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. (the 7-11 building) Our home is immediately adjacent to/east of the property and looks out to the ocean over the roof. https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-56 RE: The proposed structure to house Sprint cellular antennas on ro ... -So Kim Page 3of3 Therefore the structure is also immediately adjacent to our home (approx. 35 ft.) Our back yard lawn is level with the roofline of the 28041 Hawthorne building and from the perspective of our backyard/livingroom, the structure appears quite large and obstructs our view. Our home will suffer significant adverse impacts. The proposed structure will impact our view of the ocean along the Hawthorne View Corridor. This problem will diminish our property value. The staff did not come out to take any recent pictures of the view from our home. The staff photos did not depict the actual significant impacts to our home. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did not have the adequate information to make a judgement due to the simulated photo in the staff report. There are several other homes that will also have significant impacts and view obstn1ctioQ. As RPV residents, we need your help in resolving this situation. Thank you so much for your service and for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to call or email me anytime. Rudy and Maggie Kerkhof 6332 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cell: (310) 567-6241 Hm: (310) 377-8392 https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-57 RE: 2 unidentified antennas -So Kim Page 1of1 RE: 2 unidentified antennas So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Wed 3/5/2014 10:07 AM To:Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com>; Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com>; cc:Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>; Greg Pfost <gregp@rpv.com>; Hi Ms. Davidson, The 2 unidentified antennas mentioned at the public hearing are the same ones in your photo. Based on further research, these two antennas were approved for Pacific Bell Wireless (now AT&T) by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Joan Davidson [mailto:j135cooper@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:28 PM To: So Kim; Joel Rojas Subject: 2 unidentified antennas Dear So, Can you please identify the location of the 2 unidentified ownership antennas that you mentioned at the Feb. 25, 2014 planning commission meeting on an aerial google photo or map. And can you please tell me the owner of the antennas on the back roof line of the 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. building as shown in the attached photo that I took March 1, 2014. Thank you, Joan Davidson https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-58 Notice of Decision for 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. -So Kim Page 1of1 Notice of Decision for 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Wed 2/26/2014 2:38 PM To:bconmast@msn.com <bconmast@msn.com>; 'j135cooper@yahoo.com' <j135cooper@yahoo.com>; John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>; Eddie Yeh <edyehoo@yahoo.com>; 'bjhilde@aol.com' <bjhilde@aol.com>; 1 attachment Notice of Decision & Reso 2014-10.pdf; Good Afternoon, Attached is the notice of decision and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 for the Sprint antenna project approved at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-59 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 26, 2014 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has approved, with conditions, a Conditional Use Permit revision (ZON2013-00111), allowing Sprint PCS to remove 6 existing antennas and install 3 new antennas within a new 5.67' tall, 78ft2 decorative encasement on the east end of the roof of an existing commercial building and upgrade equipment within an existing leasing area on the ground level located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. LOCATION~ 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. APPLICANT: Core Development Services (representing Sprint PCS) LANDOWNER: Paul & Kay Lupo Said decision is subject to the following conditions of approval set forth in the attached Resolution No. 2014-10. This decision may be appealed, in writing, to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this notice, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Director's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact So Kim, Associate Planner, at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at sok@rpv.com. ~ Attachment: Staff Report & Exhibit 'A' cc: Property Owner Interested Parties Gregory Pfost, Deputy Community Development Director Project File 30fl40 111\WlHORNf;; BLVD I !o&\NCHO !>.\!.OS VERDES. Cr\ no275-53fll Pl Af'iNIN(; & I ;t)[.)L lf'l! Ol~r.:LMLN f DIVISION (:l10i S44 S?2B /lll!llll!Nll & Sf'H l 'l DIVISION (~llOl ?G5·7800 I DFl'1 FAX (~)10) b44·5293 L +•l,\ll 1 'Li\NNIN '.<a:l~I '\' CO"'I / \VW\V I '1\l OS VI l\DL S COM/!~! 'V 2-60 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION (ZON2013~00111 ), ALLOWING SPRINT PCS TO REMOVE 6 EXISTING ANTENNAS AND INSTALL 3 NEW ANTENNAS WITHIN A NEW 5.67' TALL, 78FT2 DECORATIVE ENCASEMENT ON THE EAST END OF THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 28041 HAWTHORN.E BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 214 to allow Sprint PCS to install 6 rooftop antennae panels with related support equipment on the ground floor of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd; and, VVHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commiss-ion adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-21, allowing AT&T to replace existing antennas with new antennas within a modified encasement on the west end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March 20, 2013, Core Development Services representing Sprint PCS submitted an application (CUP Revision -Case No. ZON2013-00111) requesting removal of existing antennas on the roof and installation of new antennas within a new decorative chimney- like structure at the east end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March 28, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information; and, WHEREAS, after subsequent resubmittals, the application was deemed complete on November 18, 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that the Conditional Use Permit revision will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on November 21, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the applicant notified Staff that they need additional time to erect the required temporary silhouette as they ran into structural issues while attempting to construct it on the roof and granted a 90-day extension to the decision deadline; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission granted the applicant's request and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date, to allow the applicant P.C. Resolution No. 2014~10 Page 1of6 2-61 additional time to construct the required certified silhouette that depicts the proposed antenna enclosure; and, WHEREAS, on January 29, 2014, the applicant notified Staff that the silhouette was completed; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on February 6, 2014, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the proposed project includes the removal of six existing antennas and installing three new antennas within a new decorative encasement that matches the AT&T encas.ement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft"), height (5'~8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement Section 2: That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title (Title 17 -Zoning) or by conditions imposed under this section (RPVMC 17.60.050) to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood. More specifically, the new antennas and related equipment are proposed on the roof of an existing commercial building and related equipment are proposed in the existing leasing area. Therefore, no additional space will be required. Additionally, the proposed decorative encasement will match the color (beige exterior finish with decorative designs on the fayades), material and design (red clay tile gable roof with same roof pitch) of the buflding, which is identical to the AT&T encasement located on the west end of the roof. Section 3: That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use becaus.e there will be no additional traffic generated by the proposed project since it wlU be included as part of the monthly routine maintenance schedule for the existing antennas and equipment. Section 4: That in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. More specifically, the view impact caused by the proposed antenna encasement is not significant as it only impairs a minimal view of the ocean, the existing parapet on the commercial building and the sky from a single property located at 6332 Villa Rosa. Additionally, the proposed project would remove the individual antennas on the roof of the commercial building and consolidate them, fully screened within a decorative encasement that matches one at the other end of the roof currently under construction. Given the size, location and design, the encasement does not appear bulky or massive. Furthermore, the property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa raised concerns related to noise from cooling equipment on the subject property. Although the noise does not originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibels from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 5: That the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because as proposed and conditioned, the project implements goals and policies of the General Plan to "ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining P.C. Resolution No. 2014~10 Page 2of6 2-62 the quality of the environment" and "require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks". More specifically, the proposed antennas will update communication services to the residences while the visual impacts of the additional antennas will be less than significant and the new antennas will be located within a decorative enclosure, which will match the building color, design and material. Additionally, the proposed enclosure will provide symmetry to the building roof as it will match the previously approved enclosure on the west side of the roof, which is identical in size, height, materials and color. Section 6: That the subject site is not located within any of the Overlay Control Districts. Section 7: That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed (including but not limited to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title {Title 17 -Zoning), as described in the conditions of approval of the attached Exhibit 'A.' More specifically, the proposed antenna panels and support equipment comply with both the development standards of the Commercial General district and the special standards for commercial antenna from RPVMC Section 17.76.020. Additionally, the size, placement and screening methods for the proposed encasement are such that additional conditions are not necessary to reduce visual impacts. Furthermore, based on noise concerns from cooling equipment on the subject property that does not appear to originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibels from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 8: That the approval of the proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines because this permit request is being heard by the Planning Commission less than sixty (60) days from the date a one-time, 90- day extension was granted; the proposed antennas and support equipment will be located on an existing commercial building; the proposed antennas will be co-located on the rooftop of an existing building that house antennas from other carriers; the location and design of the antennas and related equipment preserves view corridors; there is a balance of public and private costs and benefits; the applicant has submitted a network master plan; a temporary mock-up was erected; a periodic update on wireless communications technology is being required; the screening of support equipment is adequate; and the issuance of the permit is being granted for a 10-year period. Section 9: That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit revision is consistent with limitations on local zoning authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the City's conditional approval of this permit does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally-equivalent services, or prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; the City has acted upon this request within a reasonable period of time after the request was duly filed, considering its nature and scope; the decision to approve this permit has been made and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record; and the City's conditional approval of this request has been made irrespective of any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions, to the extent that the proposed project complies with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 3of6 2-63 Section 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. An appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decfsion will be final at 5:30 PM on March 12, 2014. Section 11: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Conditional Use Permit revision, allowing Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and installing three n.ew antennas within a new decorative encasement (78ft2 in size and 5'-8" in height) on the east side of the roof that matches the AT&T encasement on the west side of the roof of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd (ZON2011-00106). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 251h day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: c'ommissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Tomblin ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: Chairman Emenhiser ABSENT: None Dave Emenhiser, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page4 of6 2-64 General Conditions: EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2013-00111 (Sprint PCS -28041 Hawthorne Blvd.) 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 3. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the commercial development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 6. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration. a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 5of6 2-65 immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 11. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. Project Specific Conditions: 12. This approval allows Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and install three new antennas within a new decorative encasement that matches the AT&T encasement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft2}, height (5'- 8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. Sprint PCS will not be required to modify their encasement to match any future changes approved by the City to the existing AT&T encasement. 13. The related equipment shall be installed only within the leased area of the equipment well and shall not exceed the parapet height. All mechanical equipment shall be housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level not to exceed 65dBA at the project site's property lines. 14. Sprint PCS shall submit periodic updates on Wireless Communications Technology for their respective systems to the Community Development Director every five years, from the date of this approval. These updates shall identify both new and emerging technologies, as well as outdated or obsolete technologies whose facilities and infrastructure (i.e. antennae, monopoles, etc.) could be replaced or removed. 15. This approval shall be valid for a period of 1 O years from the date of the City's final action, or until February 14, 2024. The applicant and/or its successor(s) interest may request an extension of this approval, in writing and accompanied by the applicable fee, so long as such extension request is filed with the City on or before the date of expiration. 16. No building permit for this application shall be issued until the temporary AT&T antennas are placed inside the new encasement to ensure compliance with the original approval (P.C. Resolution No. 2012-21). P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 6of6 2-66 RE: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 -So Kim Page 1of3 RE: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 So Kim <SoK@rpv.com> Wed 2/26/2014 11:09 AM To:'Eddie Yeh' <edyehoo@yahoo.com>; Morning, It was approved with minor modifications to the conditions of approval. However, these minor changes do not affect the scope of work. I will be mailing out a notice of decision with all the conditions of approval included later today. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv (310) 544-5228 From: Eddie Yeh [mailto:edyehoo@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February26, 201410:12 AM To: So Kim Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 So, I am Eddie Yeh who lives right next to 7 /11 building. Sorry that I was occupied by my job last night and totally forget about the meeting. Can you let me know result of the meeting? Eddie From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:03 AM To: Eddie Yeh Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 Hi, The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 25th at 7pm at Hesse Park Community Bldg, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. When you come, please fill out a blue speaker slip located on a desk in the hallway and submit it to any Staff. This will allocate time for you to speak on the item during the hearing. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes https://owa.rpv.com/owa/ 3/24/2014 2-67 2-68 2-69 kr-~~ A .'''''Wf@@-1>'-&;.,;~)i, ·:::::;;). 2-70 2-71 2-72 2-73 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 (Adopted on February 25, 2014) 2-74 P .C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION (ZON2013-00111), ALLOWING SPRINT PCS TO REMOVE 6 EXISTING ANTENNAS AND INSTALL 3 NEW ANTENNAS WITHIN A NEW 5.67' TALL, 78FT2 DECORATIVE ENCASEMENT ON THE EAST END OF THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 28041 HAWTHORNE BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 214 to allow Sprint PCS to install 6 rooftop antennae panels with related support equipment on the ground floor of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd; and, WHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-21, allowing AT&T to replace existing antennas with new antennas within a modified encasement on the west end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March 20, 2013, Core Development Services representing Sprint PCS submitted an application (CUP Revision -Case No. ZON2013-00111) requesting removal of existing antennas on the roof and installation of new antennas within a new decorative chimney- Jike structure at the east end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March 28, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information; and, WHEREAS, after subsequent resubmittals, the application was deemed complete on November 18, 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,· California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that the Conditional Use Permit revision will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on November 21, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the applicant notified Staff that they need additional · time to erect the required temporary silhouette as they ran into structural issues while attempting to construct it on the roof and granted a 90-day extension to the decision deadline; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission granted the applicant's request and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date, to allow the applicant P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 1of6 2-75 additional time to construct the required certified silhouette that depicts the proposed antenna enclosure; and, WHEREAS, on January 29, 2014, the applicant notified Staff that the silhouette was completed; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on February 6, 2014, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the proposed project includes the removal of six existing antennas and instalJing three new antennas within a new decorative encasement that matches the AT&T encasement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft2 ), height (5'-8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. Section 2: That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title (Title 17 -Zoning) or by conditions imposed under this section (RPVMC 17.60.050) to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood. More .specifically, the new antennas and related equipment are proposed on the roof of an existing commercial building and related equipment are proposed in the existing leasing area. Therefore, no additional space will be required. Additionally, the proposed decorative encasement will match the color (beige exterior finish with decorative designs on the fac;ades), material and design (red clay tile gable roof with same roof pitch) of the building, which is identical to the AT&T encasement located on the west end of the roof. Section 3: That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because there will be no additional traffic generated by the proposed project since it will be included as part of the monthly routine maintenance schedule for the existing antennas and equipment. Section 4: That in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. More specifically, the view impact caused by the proposed antenna encasement is not significant as it only impairs a minimal view of the ocean, the existing parapet on the commercial building and the sky from a single property located at 6332 Villa Rosa. Additionally, the proposed project would r.emove the individual antennas on the roof of the commercial building and consolidate them, fully screened within a decorative encasement that matches one at the other end of the roof currently under construction. Given the size, location and design, the encasement does not appear bulky or massive. Furthermore, the property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa raised concerns related to noise from cooling equipment on the subject property. Although the noise does not originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibels from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 5: That the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because as proposed and conditioned, the project implements goals and policies of the General Plan to "ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 2of6 2-76 the quality of the environment" and "require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks". More specifically, the proposed antennas will update communication services to the residences while the visual impacts of the additional antennas will be less than significant and the new antennas will be located within a decorative enclosure, which will match the building color, design and material. Additionally, the proposed enclosure will provide symmetry to the building roof as it will match the previously approved enclosure on the west side of the roof, which is identical in size, height, materials and color. Section 6: That the subject site is not located within any of the Overlay Control Districts. Section 7: That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed (including but not limited to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; "'.ehicular ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in ·conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title (Title 17 -Zoning). as described in the conditions of approval of the attached Exhibit 'A' More specifically, the proposed antenna panels and support equipment comply with both the development standards of the Commercial General district and the special standards for commercial antenna from RPVMC Section 17.76.020. Additionally, the size, placement and screening methods for the proposed . encasement are such that additional conditions are not necessary to reduce visual impacts. Furthermore, based on noise concerns from cooling equipment on the subject property that does not appear to originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibels from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 8: That the approval of the proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines because this permit request is being heard by the Planning Commission less than sixty (60) days from the date a one-time, 90- day extension was granted; the proposed antennas and support equipment will be located on an existing commercial building; the proposed antennas will be co-located on the rooftop of an existing building that house antennas from other carriers; the location and design of the antennas and related equipment preserves view corridors; there is a balance of public and private costs and benefits; the applicant has submitted a network master plan; a temporary mock-up was erected; a periodic update on wireless communications technology is being required; the screening of support equipment is adequate; and the issuance of the permit is being granted for a 10-year period. Section 9: That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit revision is consistent with limitations on local zoning authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the City's conditional approval of this permit does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally-equivalent services., or prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; the City has acted upon this request within a · reasonable period of time after the request was duly filed, considering its nature and scope; the decision to approve this permit has been made and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record; and the City's conditional approval of this request has been made irrespective of any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions, to the extent that the proposed project complies with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 3of6 2-77 Section 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. An appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on March 12, 2014. Section 11: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Conditional Use Permit revision, allowing Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and installing three new antennas within a new decorative encasement (78ft2 in size and 5'-8" in height) on the east side of the roof that matches the AT&T encasement on the west side of the roof of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd (ZON2011-00106). PASSED,, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 251h day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Tomblin ABSTENTIONS: None .RECUSALS: Chairman Emenhiser ABSENT: None Dave Emenhiser, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 4 of 6 2-78 , .• EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2013-00111 (Sprint PCS -28041 Hawthorne Blvd.) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Ur:iless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 3. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the commercial development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 6. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. · 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 5of6 2-79 immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandc;med or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 11. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. Project Specific Conditions: 12. This approval allows Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and install three new antennas within a new decorative encasement that matches the AT&T encasement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft2), height (5'- 8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. Sprint PCS will not be required to modify their encasement to match any future changes approved by the City to the existing AT&T encasement. 13. The related equipment shall be installed only within the leased area of the equipment well and shall not exceed the parapet height. All mechanical equipment shall be housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level not to exceed 65dBA at the project site's property lines. 14. Sprint PCS shall submit periodic updates on Wireless Communications Technology for their respective systems to the Community Development Director every five years, from the date of this approval. These updates shall identify both new and emerging technologies, as well as outdated or obsolete technologies whose facilities and infrastructure (i.e. antennae, monopoles, etc.) could be replaced or removed. 15. This approval shall be valid for a period of 1 O years from the date of the City's final action, or until February 14, 2024. The applicant and/or its successor(s) interest may request an extension of this approval, in writing and accompanied by the applicable fee, so long as such extension request is filed with the City on or before the date of expiration. 16. No building permit for this application shall be issued until the temporary AT&T antennas are placed inside the new encasement to ensure compliance with the original approval (P.C. Resolution No. 2012-21). P.C. Resolution No. 2014-10 Page 6of6 2-80 P.C. Draft Minutes (Dated February 25, 2014) 2-81 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00111): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd Chairman Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project, including the antennas and the encasement. She stated staff was able to make the required findings in order to recommend approval. She noted minor changes to the Resolution, beginning with Condition No. 4. She stated the condition makes reference to "residential" development standards, which was changed to "commercial" development standards since this property is a commercial property. Secondly, in reference to Condition No. 12, she noted the modified language so that it no longer ties the AT&T project with Sprint PCS. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to clarify the modified language in condition No. 12. Associate Planner Kim explained that the AT&T enclosure will match the Sprint PCS enclosure in terms of height, size, and color, however Sprint PCS objected to the language in case at some point in the future AT&T or Sprint decided to modify the enclosure. Sprint was concerned that if some point in the future the Planning Commission made a change to the AT&T encasement that Sprint would have to also make the same change to their encasement. Associate Planner Kim added that condition No. 16 of the resolution is unique to Sprint, explaining that AT&T currently has temporary antennas outside of their encasement, as they are building a new encasement. Once the encasement is complete the antennas AT&T is required to put the antennas back into the encasement before the building permit is finaled. To ensure that is done, staff added condition No. 16 which requires the AT&T encasement to be finaled by Building and Safety before permits can be issued to Sprint for their work. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Kim Nguyen (Sprint PCS) stated Sprint was able to review the staff report and the public comments submitted to the City. She noted that this is a minor modification, in reducing the number of antennas from six to three, thus reducing the radio frequency emissions that some residents expressed concern over. In regards to Condition No. 16, she stated that Sprint respectfully requests the Commission reconsider this condition, as Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page 2 2-82 they feel it does hold up Sprint's ability to provide better service to their customers. She stated that in the event that AT&T does not complete their project, it technically prohibits Sprint the ability of serving its customers effectively. Sprint feels the condition should be removed as AT&T has a separate approval and conditions they must abide by, and the two applications have no relation to each other in terms of scope of work. Commissioner Lewis noted that Sprint currently has antennas on the building, and the purpose of this application is to improve the service. He asked Ms. Nguyen how Sprint customers would be adversely affected if there was a delay in the implementation of this application. Ms. Nguyen answered that this application is to improve the technology, and a delay in the project will cause a delay in improving the technology for Sprint customers and therefore impacting their network. Vice Chairman Leon asked if the RF energy from this enclosure will be directed equally 360 degrees or if it will be directed away from the neighbor which is in the direct line of sight. Ms. Nguyen explained there are three antennas, one shooting north at 340 degrees, one shooting southeast, and the third shooting southwest. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if it was the City's intent to have the two enclosures match now, and forever in the future. Associate Planner Kim explained the City's intent was to have some type of symmetry, and hopes it is maintained in the future. She stated that any proposed change in the future to either enclosure that does not maintain the symmetry would most likely not obtain staff's support or approval. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if it was their expectation that staff would be seeking to have both of these enclosures reasonably match each other continually in perpetuity. Director Rojas explained that this level has achieved not by design but rather through different proposals over the years. The question becomes what will happen if one of the carriers says they need a larger enclosure for bigger antennas, and there will be a discussion that the two enclosures will be asymmetrical. The Commission may have the authority to open and modify the Conditional Use Permit to require they be symmetrical. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what will happen if a third carrier requests antennas on this building with a third enclosure. He suggested it may be a good idea for the building owner to discuss a long range plan with staff in regards to the antennas. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page 3 2-83 Director Rojas stated there is one property owner, and the approvals are through the property. Therefore, there is the ability to require some type of master plan for the antennas, but the questions is at what point does the City require that. He suggested that since this application is attempting to achieve symmetry, it may be appropriate to have that discussion with the next application. Rudy Kerkhof (Villa Rosa Drive) explained he was not opposed to the first enclosure built on the building, however this is now a second enclosure and it is very close to his property line. He was concerned with what will happen when a third carrier wants to build a similar enclosure on top of the building, and questioned at what point does the City stop these carriers from blocking the views from neighboring properties. He questioned if these cell towers this close to his property will affect his ability to sell his property in the future. He stated he is losing more and more of his view and the radio frequency waves are moving closer and closer to his property. Connie Semos referred to a discussion in the staff report regarding Sprint v the City of Palos Verdes Estates which says that if a City denies or conditions a wireless facility project, the decision must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. She asked if the City has anything like this to protect its residents, their health, and their views. Further, the City must prove its decision was authorized by law. She questioned if the City has such law, as she only aware the City has Guidelines. She asked where the resident's protection is of their property values in the immediate neighborhood, not just Mr. Kerkhofs. She felt there were several antennas on the building, stating that staff has noted there are unidentified antennas on the building. She also read from the staff report that to successfully challenge a decision regarding a particular application the wireless provider must prove a significant gap in service exists. She stated, that looking at the maps that all the Commissioners have, those gaps are in Palos Verdes Estates, not Rancho Palos Verdes. She noted the project has been delayed due to structural issues, and questioned what those issues are and if they are safety issues. Joan Davidson stated that recently a Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman stated that the health and safety of its residents is the foremost responsibility of the City. She felt the City needed to look at this building, noting there are twenty eight cell antennas on the roof, and felt it was an antenna farm. She also noted for this application the number of antennas will be reduced from six to three, however the coverage will be intensified and spread. She felt that this will result in an increase in power and radiation throughout the community. She referred to the City Guidelines, and asked if encouraging co-location meant allowing twenty eight antennas on a small commercial building. She asked if the intent of co-location was to affect the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods, and ask why the City does not have a Municipal Code requirement capping the number of antennas on small commercial properties. She referred to Guideline No. 4 addressing view corridors, and asked the Commissioner if they had visited the affected properties. She did not feel the pictures did justice to the actual view impairment from the affected properties. She referred to Guideline No. 5 regarding the balance between public and private benefits, and felt the City could Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page4 2-84 benefit it the antennas were placed on City land rather than this private property. She stated this project will cause adverse impacts by view impacts, noise, and property devaluation. She was asking for a ninety day extension, because the residents deserve the same accommodation as was giveffto Sprint, to allow residents to discuss the issues with staff. Joy Ciniero stated she had the same concerns that were already addressed. She was also concerned that this property is one of the early impressions that one gets when entering the City, and that the building is an eyesore as it stands now. She asked exactly how many antennas are currently on the roof, as she has not been able to get a clear answer from staff. She asked if there is a plan for antenna locations in the City, and why there are so many antennas located at this one location. She asked to what extent there has been a study of the environmental impact of these antennas and what is the size of the perimeter that is affected by the antennas. She felt it was premature to proceed ~ith any further increase in antennas until these questions have been addressed. Kim Nguyen (in rebuttal) felt all of these comments have been addressed. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they are familiar with the laws and regulations that govern these antennas. Director Rojas answered that staff is aware of the laws and regulations, as staff has processed a number of applications over the years. He stated that staff has consulted the City Attorney in regards to this application and noted that cities are preempted from regulating the radiation aspects of antennas. Commissioner Lewis asked that if the Planning Commission determined that the radiation emanating from these antennas is a problem and therefore rejected the application based on radiation, would staff expect that decision be appealed to the City Council, and possibly challenged in court. Director Rojas felt the applicant would most likely appeal that decision to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis stated he goes to this particular 7-11 quite often and doesn't like the look of the towers. He asked if he were to side from an aesthetic point of view that the building would look better without those towers; would that be a basis for him to vote against this application. Director Rojas stated that the application before the Commission is a Conditional Use Permit, and one of the findings is that the project will not result in an adverse impact to surrounding properties, and aesthetics may be a factor in making this finding. However, with antennas the Federal Communications Act must be taken into account and if Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page 5 2-85 denying the project somehow affects the right to provide telecommunication services to the public, then that overrides the aesthetic findings. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they would be supportive of keeping condition No. 16 and adding language saying the Sprint enclosure has to match the AT&T enclosure as it was approved, but Sprint shall not be required in the future to match any changes AT&T may make in the future. Director Rojas answered he would be supportive of such a revision. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if the City Attorney found this application to be in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Commissioner Nelson noted there are three antennas within ten feet of the building silhouette at Crenshaw and Highridge, and he has heard no objections. There are nine antennas around St. John Fisher Church, and there have been no complaints. He stated he is in favor of this application. Commissioner Tetreault stated that as much as the Commission may have questions and concerns in regards to radio frequency, he referred to Title 47 of the United States Code which prohibits the City from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the facilities comply with regulations concerning these emissions. He stated there are other areas where the City may have discretion, however radio frequency emissions is not one. He asked staff if they have discussed with the applicant, or requested any alternatives to this proposal. Associate Planner Kim answered that the proposed project before the Commission is a result of the City requesting aesthetic upgrades to the building which staff has been working with Sprint on for over a year. The original proposal was to replace the existing antennas on the roof with larger antennas. She stated staff was not in support of that, explaining staff's intent is to try to clean up the roof top of the building so it doesn't look like a proliferation of antennas. In regards to alternative locations, that was not considered in this application since Sprint already has antennas on this building. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff where the six antennas are currently situated on the building. Associate Planner Kim pointed out where the six antennas are currently located. Commissioner Tomblin stated that the Commission gets these antennas in a piece-meal situation and it is very difficult to control the number of users and antennas on a building. He was considering asking the Commission to consider a continuance of this Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page6 2-86 application to allow staff and the owner to come up with a master plan as to what will happen with antennas in the future. Director Rojas explained there is an application before the Commission and, because of the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be rendered within a certain time frame. The only way to deny the application is if the Commission cannot make one of the findings. If the Commission wants to continue the item, within the time constraints of the Permit Streamlining Act, and have a discussion with the owner about a master plan this can be done. He noted, however, that staff has found is that the antennas are now staying in their existing locations and merely upgrading the antennas based on technology. He noted the decision deadline for this application is April 23rd. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, if this item is continued, and if the Commission asks the property owner to come up with a master plan in regards to the antennas, and if the Commission were not happy with the submitted master plan, could the Commission use that as a basis to deny the current application. Director Rojas answered that the Commission could not use that to deny this current application. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission asked for a master plan and it didn't happen, could the failure to produce a master plan then be used to deny this current application. Director Rojas answered it could not. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if one of the reasons staff was supporting this application was because the overall number of antennas was being reduced. Director Rojas answered that staff is supporting the application because the number of antennas is going to be reduced, thus helping to clean up the rooftop of the building. Secondly, staff believes the encasement does not cause any significant view impairments. However, the Commission may disagree and noted the finding is very broad in that it says significant adverse effect. Commissioner Tomblin understood, however he suggested the Commission look at this with regards to cumulative view impacts. He felt this approval could set up another enclosure for another user, and he felt there would be a cumulative view impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Tetreault discussed condition No. 16. He agreed with the applicant's concerns over the condition that this may hold up Sprint's project. He stated he has not seen a condition such as this before, where the City is tying approval of a project to something that is completely extraneous and external as to the applicant. He asked if the City Attorney had reviewed condition No. 16. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page 7 2-87 Director Rojas stated that condition No. 16 was suggested by the City Attorney. He explained that AT&T has temporarily placed antennas outside of the structure, and there is no incentive for them to place these antennas inside the structure for another year. However, the City Attorney felt that since it is the property owner who is the recipient of the Conditional Use Permit, the burden can be put on the property owner to make sure AT&T finishes their job so that Sprint can add their antennas to the building. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations as modified: 1) Section 5 of the resolution be modified to add language stating "The finding is made, in large part, based on the current symmetry of the two proposed enclosures on the roof." 2) Condition No. 12 be modified to add "Nothing stated in this condition shall require the applicant to update the look or construction of the improved encasement should AT&T's encasement have a different look or construction in the future." Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the restrictions on the enclosures are restrictions on Sprint or the building owner. He felt that it's not Sprint's enclosure but rather the building owner's enclosure around Sprint's equipment. Director Rojas stated the Conditional Use Permit is binding on the property owner. Commissioner Gerstner suggested referring to it as Sprint's enclosure rather than the building owner's enclosure. Director Rojas stated that change can be made. Commissioner Tetreault noted Section 5 states the finding is that these antennas will increase communication services to the residences. He stated that he has not seen in the staff report, nor has he heard anything at this public hearing as to whether staff has received evidence in support of that statement. Director Rojas answered that staff has not received such evidence, and suggested changing the word "increase" to "improve" as stated by the applicant during the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion to modify the work "increase" in section 5 to "improve". The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion to approve staff's recommendation as modified, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-10 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2014 Page8 2-88 P.C. Staff Report (Dated February 25, 2014) 2-89 CITY OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY OEVELDPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN~C~ FEBRUARY 25, 2014 u J/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION {ZON2013-00111) 28041 HAWTHORNE BLVD. (7-11 BUILDING) CORE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (REPRESl:NTING SPRINT PCS) LANDOWNER: PAUL & KAY LUPO STAFF SO KIM ~ , a........ _ __;.;,.;..;;:.~:.=.....:==..::.::...:=:....:..==~----' COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANNER' I} I"' N: ALLOW SPRINT PCS TO REMOVE 6 EXISTING ANTENNAS AND INSTALL 3 NEW ANTlENN A NEW 6.S7' TALL, 78FTll OJ!:CORATIVE ENCASEMENT ON THE EAST END OF THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 28041 HAWTHORNE BLVD, RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-_; THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL US.E PERMIT REVISION (CASE NO. ZON2013-00111 ). REFEfU:iNCES: ZONING: LANO USE: CODE SECTIONS: GENERAL PLAN: TRAILS PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN: CEQA: ACTION DEADLINE: COMMERCIAL LIMITED 7-11 STORE AND OFrlCE 17,14, 17.60, 17.76.020, 17.80, WIRELESS ANTENNA GUIDELINES COMMERCIAL NONE NONE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15301) APRIL 23, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275·5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544,5228 / BUILDlNU & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 I DEPT. FAX (310) 544·5293 E-MAIL PLANNl!~G@RPVCOM I VVWWPALOSVERDES.COM/f~PV 2-90 BACKGROUND On September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 214 to allow Sprint PCS to install 6 rooftop antennae panels with related support equipment on the ground floor of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Other antenna companies, such as Verizon and AT&T also have approved antennas on the rooftop. Verizon, for example has 10 antennas within a parapet at the center of the roof. AT&T originally had a box~like enclosure approved in 2007 that allowed 6 antennas to be placed within it. In 2012. the Planning Commission allowed AT&T to enlarge and aesthetically upgrade this enclosure to allow i 2 antennas within it This project was issued a bullding permit and is in progress of being constructed. To date, a decorative encasement has been constructed and the new antennas have been temporarily placed around the casement. These antennas must be ultimately placed inside the casement in order to obtain building permit final. On March 20, 2013, Core Development Services representing Sprint PCS submitted an application (CUP Revision -Case No. ZON2013-001i1) requesting removal of existing antennas on the roof and installation of new antennas within a new decorative chimney-like structure at the east end of the roof. On March 28, 2013, this application was initially deemed incomplete based on insufficient information. After subsequent resubmittals, the application was deemed complete on November 18, 2013. Subsequently, a notice of the pending application was sent to all property owners residing within a 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News on November 21, 2013. Staff received no public comments related to the proposed project. On November 25111, the applicant notified Staff that they need additional time to erect the required temporary silhouette as they ran into structural issues while attempting to construct it on the roof and granted a 90·day extension to the decision deadline. As such, on December 10, 2013, the · Planning Commission granted the applicant's request and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date, to allow the applicant additional time to construct the required certified silhouette that depicts the proposed antenna enclosure. On January 29, 2014, the applicant notified Staff that the silhouette was completed. After verifying the silhouette, Staff prepared a new notice of the pending application and sent it to all property owners residing within a 500' radius of the subject site and published it in the Peninsula News on February 6, 2014. Staff received one phone call and five written correspondence from related to the proposed project The content of correspondence is detailed under the 'Additional Information' section below. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is approximately an acre in size, zoned Commercial-Limited, and located at the northeast corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Granvia Altamira. The subject lot is developed with a two-story building occupied by 7-11 and other uses. The surrounding land uses are limited to residential (single-family and multi-family), with exception to the Valero service station/convenience store to the southwest. The 7-11 building currently has antennas installed on the rooftop, belonging to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint PCS. 2-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Currently, Sprint PCS has 6 individual antennas installed on the roof that are painted to match the color of the clay tile roofing material. Initially, the applicant proposed replacing the 6 existing antennas in the same general location with 3 larger antennas. Given Staff's concerns related to visual impacts from the proliferation of antennas on the roof, Sprint PCS revised the project. The revised project involves the removal of the 6 existing Sprint PCS antennas from the roof and replacing them with 3 new antennas within a new decorative encasement on the east side of the roof that matches the AT&T encasement on the west side of the roof. The proposed encasement is intended to be identical in size (78ft2 ), height (5'-8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. As a result of the proposal, most of the currently visible antennas will be removed and will be fully shielded from view. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revision The stated purpose of the City's regulations for commercial antennae (Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.76.020(A)(1)) is "to minimize visual impacts of towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening; to avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure· through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; to maximize use of an existing transmission or relay tower to minimize the need to construct new towers; and to ensure that fi.ntennas are compatible with adjacent uses." The proposed upgrade of existing antennas require.s a revision to the originally approved Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the Planning Commission has adopted development guidelines for wireless communications antennas that impose supplemental requirements upon CUP applications for commercial antennas. Finally, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the City's ability to regulate certain aspects of commercial antenna operations. Staff's analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable guidelines and regulations are noted below. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.60.050, the Panning Commission may grant a Conditional Use Permit revision, only if it finds (in bold font): 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for alt of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood; The proposal is to remove 6 existing antennas and install 3 new antennas within a new decorative encasement on the east end of the roof of an existing commercial building and upgrade equipment Within the existing equipment area on the ground floor. Since the new antennas are proposed on an existing building and related equipment are proposed in the existing teasing area, no additional space on the property is required. As such, the subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. Additionally, the proposed decorative encasement will match the color (beige exterior finish with decorative designs on the fa<;ades), material and design (red clay tile gable roof with same roof pitch) of the building, and will be ic;lentical to the AT&T encasement located on the west end of the roof which will give the roof a more symmetrical appearance. As such, the proposed decorative encasement design integrates with said use and this finding can be met. 2-92 2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use; No additional traffic will be generated by the proposed project because the new antennas will be subject to the same routine maintenance as the existing Sprint PCS antennas on a monthly basis. As such, this finding can be met 3. That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof; The number of overall Sprint PCS antennas will be reduced from 6 to 3. Additionally, the new antennas will be located and screened inside a decorative encasement on the roof. The new encasement will be identical in size and height as the recently approved AT&T encasement at the west end of the roof. The exterior fac;ade will match the beige stucco exterior and the roof will match the colored material of the existing commercial building. In 2007, it was determined by the Planning Commission that the view from the adjacent residential property located at 6332 Villa Rosa would be slightly impacted, but not significantly, by the then proposed AT&T encasement on the west end of the roof. In 2012, the Planning Commission granted approval that allowed AT&T to enlarge and visually upgrade the encasement to allow additional antennas to be placed within it. Staff spoke to the property owner about the current proposal by Sprint and he only relayed concerns related to the temporary AT&T antennas that ar.e currently placed outside of the approved encasement on the west side of the roof. Staff Informed Mr. Kerkhof that the AT&T antennas must be placed within the encasement to obtain building permit finaL Additionally. since the proposed Sprint's project silhouette was not constructed at the time of the conversation, Staff advised the property owner that when the silhouette is erected to contact Staff if there are any concerns with the proposed project. Subseq1.,1ently, once the silhouette was completed, a new public notice was sent to the property owner, but he has not contacted Staff to date. Notwithstanding, in reviewing the past photographs taken from the viewing area of this property, Staff believes that the proposed encasement would impair a minimal amount of ocean View. The photograph befow was taken from the viewing area of 6332 Villa Rosa. The red dashed box represents the approximate location of the proposed encasement and the purple box represents the previously approved AT&T encasement. As shown below, Staff does not believe that the proposed project by itself or combined with the previous AT&T project would cause significant view impairment from 6332 Villa Rosa property. 2-93 The property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa (Mr. Yeh) has raised concerns with view impairment as a result of the proposed encasement on th~ roof. Staff visited the property and the photograph below was taken from the viewing area at the rear of the residence. As shown below, no views are impaired except for portions of existing residential buildings and the sky which are not protected views pursuant to the City's Code. The proposed project would not cause any impacts to existing ocean views from this property. Mr. Yeh also raised concerns related to bulk and mass of the proposed encasement. Staff feels that the amount of added bulk or mass to the commercial building as a result of the proposed encasement is minimal, as shown in the photograph below. Further, given that the finished encasement will match the existing commercial building's stucco, color and roof material, Staff does not believe the finished product will appear industrious as purported by the neighbor. Mr. Yeh also raised concerns with cooling fans on the 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. property. Given that there are several pieces of equipment serving both the building and antennias, Staff nor could the property owner positively identify the equipment emitting noJse that is concerning Mr. Yeh. However, in visiting the site, Staff found that the noise levels within the Sprint PCS leasing area were minimal and louder noise could be heard originating elsewhere. Regardless, Staff adcled a condition of approval to Exhibit 'A' that reads, "Alf mechanical equipment shall be housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level not to exceed 65dBA at the project site's property lines" to ensure that reasonable noise levels are maintained from at least the Sprint PCS equipment area. In conclusion, Staff believes that removing existing approved antennas on the roof and consolidating them within a fully enclosed casement that matches a previously approved AT&T encasement at the west end of the roof, using the same material and color as the existing commercial building, aesthetically improves the commercial building as viewed from surrounding properties. Additionally, noise levels from the antenna related equipment will be maintained at minimal levels and the amount of added bulk or mass from the proposed encasement will be minimal. Therefore, Staff believes that there will be no significant adverse impact on adjacent properties and this finding can be met. 4. That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan; Applicable General Plan policies include "ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment" and "adequate 2-94 landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks (Infrastructure Policy No. 8)." The proposed antennas will increase communication services to the residences and as described in the previous findings, the visual impacts of the new antennas will be less than significant; and the new antennas will be located within a decorative enclosure, which will match the building color, design and material. Additionally, the related equipment will be located within an existing equipment area. Therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be met. 5. That, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and The subject site is not within any of the o\lerlay control districts and this finding does not apply. 6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. have been impo$ed (including but not li.mfted to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls.; lighting; vehicular ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaph1g; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs:; $entice roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set fonh in, this tltle {Title 17 -Zo.ning). The size, placement and screening methods for the proposed encasement on the roof are such that additional oonditions other than the o.m~s imposed are not necess~ry to protect the health, safety and general welfare. However, given the noise concerns raised by a property owner, Staff added a condition of approval limitfng the noise level of the antenna related equipment to 65 decibels from a.II property lines. Theref°-re, thi$ finding can be met. Wireless Communications Antenna Develo.pment Guidel.ines ~n 1997., the Planning Commission fi.rst adopted guic.lelines to assist in the review of applications for wireless communications facilitres. The Guidelines were revised by the Planning Comml$sion in October 2004. Staff has prepared a brief analysis of the consistency of the proposed pr0jectwith the Guidelines for the Commission's reference (in bold font). • GUlDELINE tr Expeditious Processing of Applications This permit request is being heard by the Planning Commission less than sixty (60) days from the date a 90-day extenslan was granted. • Gt)lOELIN.E ~: Preference for Exit;ting, Non-Single-Family Structures as Antenna Sites The new antennas are proposed on an existing commercial building. • GUIDEUNE 3! Encourage Co-Location The proposed antennas and eqµipment are being co-located on a commercial building that house antennas from multiple carriers. Currently there are 28 City approved antenna panels on the commercial building, 6 of which are visible on the roof. If the current antenna request is approved, there will be a total of 25 City approved cell antennas on the commercial building, all of which will be screened from view. 2-95 • GUIDELINE 4: Preservation of View Corridors According to the General Plan, there are no view corridors identified in the subject location. Additionally, there are no views from residential properties that will be significantly impacted by the proposed project • GUIDELINE 5: Balance of Public and Private Costs and Benefits The benefit provided by increasing cellular service by upgrading existing antennas outweighs public/private costs because the proposal will not cause any significant adverse impacts. 11 GUIDELINE 6: Submittal of Network Master Plan Required The applicant has submitted a Network Master Plan as part of the application submittal. 11 GUIDELINE 7: Photographic Simulations and Full-Scale Mock-Ups Required PhQtographic simulations (attached) have been submitted as part of the application package and a full-scale mock-up has been erected on-site. " GUIDELINE 8: Periodic Updates on Wireless Communications Technology Required Staff added a condition in 'Exhibit A' to the attached resolution requiring Sprint PCS to submit periodic updates on Wire.less Communications Technology every five years, from the date of this approval, to be reviewed by the Community Development Director. " GUIDELINE 9: Screening of Support Equipment and Struot.ures Required The proposed antennas will be screened within a decorative encasement on the rooftop that wilf match the color, material and roof pitch of the existing buitding and the AT&T enclosure at the west end of the roof. • GUIDELINE 10: Expiration of Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant this permit for ten (10) years, and language to this effect has been included on the draft P.C. Resolution. Based upon the summary presented above, Staff feels that the request ls consistent with the above guidelines. Telecommunications Act of 1996 The provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 establish limitations upon the City's authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial telecommunications applications (in bold font): • Subsections 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I} and (II} state that the City's regulation of commercial antennae "shaJI not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and ... shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." Staff is recommending approval to the proposed project and the types of conditions of approval recommended for this project are substantially similar to conditions applied to other commercial antenna applications that have been approved by the City. • Subsection 47 U.S.C. 332(o)(7}(B)(ii} requires the City to "act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonabl,e period of time after the request is duly filed with such 2-96 government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request." This application has been processed in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA. • Subsection 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) states that" any decision ... to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." Staff is not recommending denial of the proposed project. Additionally, all substantial evidence to justify Staff's recommendation is in this Staff Report and the attached resolution. Once heard by the Planning Commission, the minutes from the public hearing are further supporting evidence for a decision made on this matter. • Subsection 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) prohibits the City from "regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." The City acknowledges that radio frequency emissions are not within the City's purview to consider or regulate. Therefore, Staff's recommendation is not based in any way upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions. Based upon the foregoing discussion, S.taff believes that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit revision is consistent with the local zoning authority reserved to the City under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmental Assessment Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Class 1 (Section 15301 -E:xisting Facilities) consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensini;}, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities., mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The key consideration is whether the projects involve negligible or no expansion to an existing use. Replacing exls:trng antennas and adding equipment as proposed is a minor alteration and does not involve any significant change to the existing use. As such, Staff determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt (Class, 1 -Existing Facilities) from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines. Public Correspondence Staff received one phone call and five written comments related to the proposed project. Details are discussed below. Phone Call from the property owner of 6332 Villa Rosa (Mr. Rudolf Kerkhof) As mentioned in Conditional Use Permit finding no. 3 above, the property owner (Mr. Kerkhof) of 6332 Villa Rosa contacted Staff raising concerns related to the temporary antennas located outside of the AT&T encasement located on the west side of the roof. To date, AT&T obtained a building permit and has constructed the encasement pursuant to the Planning Commission 2-97 approved plan. Additionally, antennas have been temporarily placed around the encasement to maintain cellular service while the project is under construction. Mr. Kerkhof is concerned that these temporary antennas will remain outside of the encasement, creating additional view and visual impacts from his property. In response, Staff checked with the Building & Safety inspector and verified that said antennas must be placed inside the encasement in order to receive a building permit final, consistent with the Planning Commission approved plans and informed Mr. Kerkhof of such. Neverthe.less, to ensure that this is done without unnecessary delay, Staff added a condition of .approval that does not allow the building permits to be issued for the currently proposed antennas on the subject property until the temporary AT&T antennas are placed inside the new encasement. Written correspohdence from Dr. Sanford Davidson & Mrs. Joan Davidson Mr. & Mrs. Davidson, residents of Palos Verdes Estates, raised several concerns related to the proposal which are shown in detail below. Comments from the letter are shown in italics and Staff's responses are in regular text. 1) In reviewing online information on City·•Data, it stettes that Rancho Palos Verdes has 78 cell towers in the City ... Has the etpp/icant notified the FCC regetrdlng all instetllettions on the roo.f at 28041 Hawthorne? Both the. Planning Diviaion and PUbHc Works Department do not have any information on..:line that shows the total number of cell towers in the City. It is unolear where this informatipn Qf 78 cell towers is orl9inat,!ng from and whether rt applies to both antennas scattered throughout the City's, trghts~of-way or on private property. There are approximately 12 separate approved cell sites located on private property throughout the City with each site eontainf~g multlple ~ntennas from various wire.less carriers. Licensing and registration of antenn6ls is the purview of the FOC and not the City. Notwiths:tand.tng. Staff contacted the FCC ;:\nd was informed that e<tch wireless company Is given an opportunity to purchase ~fre'(ls defined by the FCC and as long as they are installing antennas within their p4rchased areas. the wireless compemi'es do not have to file any apptic1;ttions With the PCC tor individual antennas. The FCC r(':)p:resenta:tive also stated that tttere is no limit to the number of antennas that the wfteless carriers can install within their purchase¢! are.as, unless near sensitive uses, such as Indian Tribal land or aitporb~.. The FCC representative affirmed that all antennas are required to comply wtth radio frequency safety rules but that the FCC doe.s not conduct site visits or monitor each antenna site for qompltance with RF rules. However, if the FCC receives a complaint alleging that an antenna. site is not in compliance with RF r1u1es and verifies such, the wireless company wlll be fined $35,000. The FCC representative noted that Wireless carriers genetalty comply with RF rules as the fine is hefty. The representative also explained that typically the cena.ern with RF radiation is limited to 15' directly in front of a directional antenna and areas not in line with an antenna1s direction and/or more than 15' away generally com,r>fy with the FCC's RF Safety Rules. Finally, the FCC representative mentioned that a standard digital TV may often emit higher RF than cefl sites. 2) Is the intent of the city municipal code to allow one small commercial properly to house 113 of the cities cell towers? ls the PC planning on adding to the Municipal Code to address the growing number of cell towers on this particular property? Will the owner be allowed to create an antenna farm? ... How wJ1! the emissions affect them? 2-98 All antenna projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and there is no provision in the City's Municipal Code that dictates the total number of antennas on a partlcu!ar property. Additionally, as evidenced in the 'Telecommunications Act of 1996' section above, radio frequency emissions are not within the City's purview to consider or regulate. 3) What are the cumulative impacts of 25 cell towers wfthin a densely populated neighborhood and the homes in a direct line of these towers? Scientific studies have concluded that these /ow-level radiation levels are dangerous on a 2411 basis. There is no single location in the City that house 25 cell towers. Staff believes that Mrs. Davidson means '25 cell antennas' not 'cell towers'. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, radio frequency emissions are not within the City's purview to consider or regulate as these matters are regu.lated by the FCC. 4) Did the city send out notices to the neighbor at large to notify businesses and residents of the new cell tower installation and did the city explain that 25 towers wilt be installed at the one site? The Planning Commission approved 10 Verizon antennas in 2007 and 12 AT&T antennas in 2012 on the subject property. The current proposal is to allow Sprint to remove 6 existing antennas and replace them with 3 new antennas. As a result, the cumulative total of all three carriers will be reduced from 28 to 25 antennas. Notification of all commercial antenna applications at this property were properly given to all property owners within 600' radius of the site and published in the Peninsula News prior to public hearings. 5) ... I do not believe that there is a "gap in service" at this comer unless the AT&T can prove so. 'If there is no "gap" in seTVice, the permit should be denied'. Sprint PCS is requesting to remove 6 existing antennas and replace tnem with a reduced number of 3 antennas. As there are existing antennas in the current location, there is no "gap in service" the carrier Is trying to fill. Instead, Sprint PG'$ like other carriers are simply requesting to Improve thelr service by upgrading older ante.nnas. 6) .. .'there must be sufficient parking for personnel for antennas' ... 25 cell towers on the roof and rear of property, is this in itself a new business? An antenna farm? Does RPV have a Municipal Code for antenna farm? Does the city permit this business and does the city receive tax revenues for this business? All three carriers on the subject property (Verizon, AT&T and Sprint PCS) perform monthly routine maintenance which involves personnel being on site for approximately an hour. Removal and replacement of existing Sprint PCS antennas does not affect the routine maintenance schedule and therefore no additional parking space is required. Cell antennas are frequently approved by the City at various locations and often locations have multiple antennas. This is because the City's Wireless Communication Guideline No. 4 encourages co~location of antennas. Cell antennas and cell towers are allowed in the City with an approval of a CUP application. Additionally, there is no category for an 'antenna farm' under business licenses and therefore the City does not collect tax revenues. 2-99 Written correspondence from the property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa (Mr. Yuhung Edward Yeh) The property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa (Mr. Yeh) submitted a letter with concerns related to 1) the temporary antennas immediately aro.und the previously approved AT&T enclosure at the west side of the roof; 2) view impacts of the ocean from the proposed project; 3) noise level from equipment; and 4) bulk and mass of the proposed encasement. As mentioned above, the temporary antennas currently located outside of the new AT&T encasement will be placed inside the encasement prior to project completion. per the Planning Commission approved plans and a building permit final will not be issued until all applicable conditions are met. The concerns related to view impacts, equipment noise and bulk/mass are discussed in Conditional Use Permit finding no. 3 above. Written correspondence from Mr. John Freeman Mr. Freeman notes in his letter that ha is satisfied that the proposed antennas will be shielded from public view within a decorative casement for aesthetic reasons. However, he feels that guidelines should be established limiting the maximum number of antennas on a property based on safety and signal radiation concerns. Currently, there is no limit to the number of antennas allowed on a property. Additionally, all antennas and related equipment or structures are required to obtain a building permit which requires a series of inspections to ensure that all structures would be in compliance with the Building & Safety guidelines to ensure structural safety. Furthermore, as mentioned above, radio frequency emission impacts are not within the City's purview to consider or regulate. Written correspondence from Ms. Connie Semas Ms. Semas raises concerns with AT&T antennas. As mentioned previously, AT&T antennas were previously approved on the roqf of the subject commercial building by the Planning Commission in 2007 and in 2012. Staff will assume her concerns apply to the proposed Sprint PCS .antennas instead. She mentions that the number of cell towers is too high on the small lot. It should be noted that Sprint PCS is proposing to reduce the number of antennas from 6 to 3. She also mentions that there are too many cell towers on the subject property. The City's Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guideline No. 3 above encourages co- locatJoh, rather than the erection of a new cell tower. The intent of this guideline is to minimize the proliferation of cell towers and to integrate antennas on existing structures or buildings. Ms. Semas, similar to Mrs. Davidson, also mentions that the City has a total of 78 cell towers in the City and that the proposal is for 25 cell towers on the subject property. Again, it is unclear where the claim of 78 towers is originating from and the proposal is to reduce the number of Sprint PCS antennas from 6 to 3. In other words, while there is a cumulative total of 28 antennas on the subject property, the proposal is to reduce this number to 25. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, all required findings and guidelines can be met. As such, Staff recommends conditional approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit revision to replace six existing antennas with three new antennas within a decorative encasement on the east end of the roof of an existing building and upgrade equipment in the existing leasing area located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd {Case No. ZON2013~00111). 2-100 ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Identify any issues of concern, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit revision with modifications and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate Planning Commission resolution and conditions of approval for consideration at the next meeting. 3. Deny the Conditional Use Permit revision without prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_ • Public Correspondence • Visual Simulations • Master Network Plan • Plans 2-101 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION (ZON2013-00111 ), ALLOWING SPRINT PCS TO REMOVE 6 EXISTING ANTENNAS AND INSTALL 3 NEW ANTENNAS WITHIN A NEW 5.67' TALL, 78FT2 DECORATIVE ENCASEMENT ON THE EAST END OF THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 28041 HAWTHORNE BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, the Pfanning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 214 to allow Sprint PCS to install 6 rooftop antennae panels with related support equipment on the ground floor of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd; and, WHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-21, allowing AT&T to replace existing antennas with new antennas within a modified encasement on the west end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March 20, 2013, Core Development Services representing Sprint PCS submitted an application (CUP Revision -Case No. ZON2013:-00111) requesting removal of existing antennas on the roof and installation of new antennas within a new decorative chimney- like structure at the east end of the roof; and, WHEREAS, on March .28, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information; and, WHEREAS, after subsequent resubmittals, the application was deemed complete on November 18, 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the ptovislons of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelin.es, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.. the City's local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(1) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that the Conditional Use Permit revision will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been foond to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on November 21, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2012, at whi.ch time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the applicant notified Staff that they need additional time to erect the required temporary silhouette as they ran into structural issues while attempting to construct it on the roof and granted a 90-day extension to the decision deadline; and, WHEREAS, on December 1 O, 2013, the Planning Commission granted the applicant's request and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date, to allow the applicant P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 1of6 2-102 additional time to construct the required certified silhouette that depicts the proposed antenna enclosure: and, WHEREAS, on January 29, 2014, the applicant notified Staff that the silhouette was completed; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on February 6, 2014, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25, 2014, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the proposed project includes the removal of six existing antennas and instal.ling three new antennas within a new decorative encasement that matches the AT&T encasement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft2), height (5'-8"), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. Section 2: That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title (Title 17 -Zoning) or by conditions imposed under this section (RPVMC 17.60.050) to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood. More speclfically, the new antennas and related equipment are proposed on the roof of an existing commercial building and related equipment are proposed in the existing leasing area. Therefore, no additional space will be required. Additionally, the proposed decorative encasement will match the color (beige exterior finish with decorative designs on the fa~ades), material and design (red clay tile gable roof with $ame roof pitch) of the building, which is identical to the AT&T encasement located on the west end of the roof. Section 3: That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because there will be no additional traffic generated by the proposed project since it will be included as part of the monthly routine maintenance schedule for the existing antennas and equipment. Section 4: That in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. More specifically, the view impact caused by the proposed antenna encasement is not significant as it only impairs a minimal view of the ocean, the existing parapet on the commercial building and the sky from a single property located at 6332 Villa Rosa. Additionally, the proposed project would remove the individual antennas on the roof of the commercial building and consolid<::1te them, fully screened within a decorative encasement that matches one at the other end of the roof currently under construction. Given the size, location and design, the encasement does not appear bulky or massive. Furthermore, the property owner of 6338 Villa Rosa raised concerns related to noise from cooling equipment on the subject property. Although the noise does not originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibels from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 5: That the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because as proposed and conditioned, the project implements goals and policies of the General Plan to "ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 2of6 2-103 the quality of the environment" and "require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks". M.ore specifically, the proposed antennas will increase communication services to the residences while the visual impacts of the additional antennas will be less than significant and the new antennas will be located within an upgraded screening enclosure, which will match the building color, design and material. Section 6: That the subject site is not located within any of the Overlay Control Districts. Section 7: That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed ln this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed (including but not limited to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will r:nake possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title (Title 17 -Zoning), as described in the conditions of approval of the attached Exhibit 'A' More specifically, the proposed antenna panels and support equipment comply with both the development standards of the Commercial General district and the special standards for commercial antenna from RPVMC Section 17.76.020. Additionally, the size, placement and screening methods for the proposed encasement are such that additional conditions are not necessary to reduce visual impacts. Furthermore, based on noise concerns from cooling equipment on the subject property that does not appear to originate from the Sprint PCS equipment area, any new equipment are limited to 65 decibel.s from all property lines to ensure reasonable noise levels. Section 8: That the approval of the proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Communi.cati'ons Antenna Development Guidelines because this permit request is being heard by the Planning Commission less than sixty (60) days from the date a one-time, 90- day extension was granted; the proposed antennas and support equipment will be located on an existing commercial building: the proposed antennas will be co-located on the rooftop of an existing building that house antennas from other carriers; the location and design of the antennas and related equipment preserves view corridors; there is a balance of public and private costs and benefits; the applicant has submitted a network master plan; a temporary mock-up was erected; a periodic update on wireless communications technology is being required; the screening of support equipment is adequate; and the issuance of the permit is being granted for a 10-y:ear period. S.e.ction 9: That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit revision is consistent with limitations on local zoning authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the City's conditional approval of this permit does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally-equivalent services, or prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; the City has acted upon this request within a reasonable period of time after the request was duly filed, considering its nature and scope; the decision to approve this permit has been made and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record; and the City's conditional approval of this request has been made irrespective of any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions, to the extent that the proposed project complies with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 3of6 2-104 Section 1 O: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant Any appeal letter must be flied within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. An appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on March 12, 2014. Section 11: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Conditional Use Permit revision, allowing Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and installing three new antennas within a new decorative encasement (78ft2 in size and 5'~8" in height) on the east side of the roof that matches the AT & T encasement on the west side of the roof of a commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd (ZON2011-00106). PASSEQ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Department; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Dave Emenhiser, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 4 of 6 2-105 General Conditions: EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2013-00111 (Sprint PCS -28041 Hawthorne Blvd.) 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 3. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, Which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herern, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 6. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project er not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 7. ln the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 5of6 2-106 immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 11. Ari construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. Proiect Specific Conditions: 12. This approval allows Sprint PCS to remove six existing antennas and install three new antennas within a new dec-orative encasement that matches the AT&T encasement on the east side of the roof. The proposed encasement is identical in size (78ft2), height (5'- 8''), color and materials of the recently approved AT&T encasement. 13. The related equipment shall be installed only within the leased area of the equipment well and shall not exceed the parapet height. All mec!lanical equipment shall be housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level not to exceed 65dBA at the project site's property lines. 14. Sprint PCS shall submit periodic updates on Wireless Communications Technolog·y for their respective systems tQ the Community Development Director every five years, from tile date of this approval. These updates shall identify both new and . emer§'ing techn·ologies, as well as outdated or obsolete technologies whose faciJities and infrastructure (Le. antennae, monopoles, etc.) could be replaced or removed. 15. This approval shall be valld for a period of 1 o years from· the date of the City's final action, or until February 14, 2024. The applicant and/0r its successor(s) interest may request an extension of this approval, in writing and acc:ompanied by the applicable fee, so long as such extensiofl request is filed with the City on or before the date of expiration. 16. No building permit for this application shall be issued untll the temporary AT&T antennas are placed inside th.e new encasement to ensure c.omplh:lnce with the original approval (P.O. Resolution. No. 2012-21}. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 6of6 2-107 Public Correspondence 2-108 So Kim From: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:29 AM So Kim Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status; FW: 7-11 and cell towers Follow up Flagged From: Connie Semas [mailto:bconmast@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:2.3 AM To: PlanningCommission Subject: 7-11 and cell towers To RPV Planning Commissfoners, I am concerned about the additional cell towers to be installed at the 28041 Hawthorne building. The number of cell towers will climb to 25. A high concentration on a small lot. The towers could have been placed in the rear of the parking lot, in tree-like structures. Instead the applicant, AT+T chose to install on the roof line of the building, in direct line of adjacent homes. If the city does not have ~ code to address the number of cell towers on one small commercial property it is time to do so. The applicant/property owner will benefit financially~ The city of RPV could have used sites owned by the city, to increase their revenue. Instead the building owner will now profit. If the city only has 78 cell towers as seen on line, why is the city permitting om.~ small c01nmercial property to erect 25 of these towers on this small parcel? Perhaps it's time for a new code addressing the number of cell towers, their proportion r/t property size and site population density. Yours truly, Connie Semos, Monero Drive, RPV 1 2-109 1525 \'ia ,\rm Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Febrnary 18, 2014 'fo the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission re: Cell towers at 28041 Hawthorne Bh-<l. Dear Commi::sioners, I am a-ware that the building owner at 28041 Hawthorne Boulevard is reguesting 12 i\ T + T cell towern. This is in addition to the 10 V crizon cell towers and the Sprint .3 cell towers. Total of 25 cell towers on one property. I am addressing compliance with FCC and Municipal codes applicable to RPV. 1) In ~eviewing online information on City.Data, it states that Rancho Palos Verdes has 78 cell tO\vers within the city. If this is true, then the 28041 Hawthorne property '\Vottld be the location of 1/3 of the cell towers in Rancho Palos Verdes. Has the applicant notified the FCC regarding all installations on the roof at 28041 Hawthorne? I can find only one citation of one antenna at this property. Not 25 antennas. 2) Is the intent of the city municipal code to allow one small commercial property to house 1 /3. of the the cities cell towers? Is the Planning Commission planning on adding to the Muhicipal Code to address the growing number of cell to\vers on this particular prnpetty? Will the owner be allowed to create an antenna farm? Housed within this site are several tuto11ng and children oriented businesses. CA strict laws on environmental reviews for sensitive receptors should be investigated and characterized for any potential health hazards to the hundreds of children attending the classes and .religious school in this building. How will the emissions affect them? 3) What are the cumulative impacts of 25 cell towers within a densely populated neighborhood and the homes in a direct line of these towers? Scientific studies have concluded that these low-level radiation levels arc dangerous on a 24/7 basis. 4) Did the city send out notices to the neighbor at large to notify businesses and residents of the new cell tower installation and did the city explain that 25 towers will be installed at the one site? GeoEngineel'ing Watch, I<aren J. Rogers: "The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the U.S., which is expected to increase ten-fold over the ne:xt five years. The industry has set what are "safe levels"' of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of 2-110 doctors, physicists, and health officials who stronglv disagtee, and foresee a public health cris.i::;." 5) Sprint Ys. Palos \' erdcs Estates, 2009; Although much of this case addrcs::;ed aesthetics, the court also ruled: "111e appeals court panel disagreed, pointing to the company's own assertion that it already serves some 4,000 customers in the affluent enclave." Meaning that if there is no "gap in service" the city has the right to deny a cell tower installation. I do not believe that there is a "gap in service" at this corner unless the AT+ T can prove so. 'If there is no "gap" in service, the permit should be denied'. (Los Angeles City 1\ttomey, Final Cell To\ver Report, J unc, 2011, # R 11-0213) 6) According to the Municipal Codes: http://library.municode.com/HTML/16571/leveB/TIT17ZO_ARTVIIDEAPRE_CH17.7 6MfPEST.html#TIT17ZO_AR1'VIIDEAPRE_CH17.76MIPEST_17.76.020.AN 'there must be sufficient parking for perso1:1nel for antennas.' RPV accepted the 7 -11 Building plans for parking quite awhile ago. In the adoption of these plans the city acknowledged that the parking was inadequate for the 7-11 building and leased offictts. The dty required the owner, Mr. Lupe>, to enter an agreement with the the11 Mobil Station to use ample parking places. WhentheMobil Station sold to Valero Station the parking spots were no longer available to Mr, Lupo. Therefore, the parking does not me,et city standard requirements for parking places for t(}nants, and certainly does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Codes. The building is out of compliance. If the 28041 Hawthorne Boulevard property has 25 cell towers on the roof and rear of property, is this in itself a new business? An antenna farm? Does RPV have a '.Municipal Code for antettna farm:sr Does the city permit this business and does the city receive tax revenues for this business? Thank you for your consideration ofthese comments. I live in close proximity to the site. Yours truly, Joan DaV'idson 2-111 So Kim From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: John Joel Rojas Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:58 PM John Freeman; So Kim PlanningCommission RE: Cell phone towers at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd -Sprint PCS Antennas Follow up Flagged The City's code does not set a limit to the number of cell antennas that can be placed at any particular property, tower or structure. Typically, the maximum number at a particular location is dictated by either wave interference between antennas or a.esthf!'tic concerns. The City's planning review process focuses on aesthetic and view issues whlle the City's Building and Safety process ensures the antennas are structurally sound. It is not in the City's purview to regulate signal radiation as the FCC regulates signal radiation. The forthcoming staff report on this item will go into more detail on the issues that you raise. Joel From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:16 PM To: So Kim Cc: PlanningCommission Subject: Cell pbone towers at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd -Sprint PCS Antennas Ms.Kim, cc: Planning Commissioners, Ms. Kim, thank you for meeting with me today and answering some of my questions regarding the proposed modifications to the cell phone towers at the 7 Eleven building (28041 Hawthorne Blvd.) As I understand from our discussion, the Planning Commission previously approved changes by AT&T for 12 antennas to be placed in the SW roof encasement. Now the property owner is asking for approval for Sprint/PCS to place 3 antennas in a new encasement on the NE corner of the same roof. I am happy to see that both proposals will have the antennas shielded from public view and placed internally within decorative encasements for aesthetic reasons. Thank you for that. Is there any limit to the number of cell phone tower structures and/or cell phone antennas that can be placed on a given commercial property? I couldn't find any mention in the current RPV Municipal Code. Shaul.ct there be some limit, due to structural and/or cumulative safety and signal radiation concerns of ever increasing cell phone demands, at any one location? 1 2-112 If not as part of this agenda matter, could (should) guidelines for this be established at some future Planning Commission meeting? Thank you. John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes 2 2-113 FELLOW AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS February 17, 2014 SANFORD e. DAVIDSON, M.D., F.A.c.s. A MEDICAL CORPORATION 215 AVENJDA DEL NORTE REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90277 TELEPHONE 375-7726 OR 540-4433 To the Rancho Palos Verdes Plannrng Commission re: Cell towers at the 28041 Hawthorne Boulevard Building DlPLOMf\TE AMERICAN BOARD OP OPHTHALMOLOGY It has come to my attention that the building owner at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. is requesting yet additional cell towers at the 28041 Hawthorne BulJding. Although I practice in Redondo Beach, my home is located in close proximity to these requested towers. These ceJI towers located on the rooftop, are in a direct line to the immediately adjacent residences within the city. The total number of cell towers on the roof of the building is not clear, but clusters of cell towers of what appears to be a total of over 20 towers, in a densely populated neighborhood does not seem appropriate due to known health risks. Children attend1ng tutoring, music, religious and other classes in this building, and the residents may be facing serious health risks as noted in national and international health studies. · Please decline the request for additional cell towers at this location, and please review the scientific studies and data, that speaks to the serious nature of health risks and cell towers. Yours truly( I )lt. /) Dr. Sanford Davidson 2-114 So Kim Subject: Attachments: FW: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 DSC03784JPG;DSC03782.JPG From: Eddie Yeh [mailto:edyehoo@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:15 PM To: So Kim Cc: Greg Pfost Subject: RE: Conditional Use Permit Revision Case Nu Zon2013-00111 So, Here are two photos taken by you today. I agree with you t)lat it doesn't impair view or natural setting an that much. But, it is bulky, massive and right at my face. Makes people have funny feeling when sittlng in my living room. Can they use lower portion of roof or hide it inside the existing roof? Please advise. Let me know hearing date and time. I will be there. Eddie 1 2-115 2-116 2-117 RECEIVED To: Community Development Department of City of Rancho Pa!os Verdes FEB 11 2014 30940 Hawthorne B!vd, RPV, CA 90275 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT From: Yuhung Edward Yeh and Nancy Sh!ue Owner of 6338 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 ~lo~.::~N2.ot3-00ll f C~<-,~~ USe PeY1'1 1 it) Dear sir: We are owners of 6338 Villa Rosa Dr., RPV, CA 90275 which is directly behind property of 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. We have been stayed in this place since July of 1998 as our principal residence. Below is an illustration of proposed antenna relative to our house. Cooling facility (noise.) My House: 6338 Villa Rosa Rough location of pro posed antenna When the first time we heard about owner of 28041 wants to put cell phone antenna on roof back in 2004, we are kind of glad about it due to poor cell phone reception in general on the hill. At that time, 2-118 those antennas are kind of be!ow ridge !ine of structure and painted day color vvhich make them merged into roof structure well. Also, they are below our view frame from back yard and don't bother us all that much. We need to be within 5 feet of our property line to see those antennas. The only thing that is bothering us is noise from some sort of cooling fan iocated somewhere near red circle and is about 15 to 20 feet away from our house. It doesn't usually up and running. But, it is very annoying when it is up and running especially in summer night Not being a noise expert, we don't know its noise level in terms of DB but it is about the same level as human conversation 5 to 10 feet away from us. Roughly two years ago, owner of 28041 Hawthorne proposed another antenna structure which we believed will merge into structure well as last t!me. So, v,,;e did not pay too much attention to it. However, it is different this time. It doesn't merge into roof structure well at all. A picture is taken from our living room. Well, we need to say that this picture is zoomed in many times so it doesn't !ook al! that bad from our living room. For your reference, this antenna is about 175 ft away from my house. So, we don't' really llke it but it is acceptable to us. Right after the second sets of antenna were done about late 2013, we receive the 3'a set of antenna proposal notice. this time, it is about 50 feet away from my living area or 25 feet away from my property line. See picture tak.en from my living room below. 2-119 My concerns are in two folds 1) Esthetlcal!y, it really affects our view toward oce;:irL !t gives people funny feeling when you have very industrial structure right next to our "il1is defo1itely affects my property value for minimum 3% to 5% . 2) With all of these new antennas, cooling requirement wi!i increase. This will definitely increase noise level from cooling fan that we heard from past years. We urge owner of 28041 Hawthorne Blvd to relocate antennas to other location of properties which is at least not within our vievv frame or minimum 150 away from our living area. Besides, antenna structure should merge into roof structure weH and is not easily identified. We also want owner of 28041 Hawthorne Blvd to investigate noise generated from cooling facility. If possible, replace those motors with some other low noise level motors. Sincerely yours, 2-120 Photo Simulations (Presented at the Feb. 25th P.C. Mtg.) 2-121 Photosimulation Viewpoint Sprinf SPRINT VISION PROJECT LA34XC732 CENTER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 28041 SOUTH HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 _. __ _.,.-·- PROPOSED SPRINT 4'-0" ANTENNAS AND RRHS ON PROPOSED PIPE MOUNT INSIDE PROPOSED FRP ENCLOSURE ON IHlllllIDDll ~---, ~--: ::;:~~::R::::~IDE(E} FRP----~ ___ ..-~ ENCLOSURE ON (E} BUILDING ROOFTOP. Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site 2 - 1 2 2 :;;· ::: ill; t ·'.·:· I·. J ;~:; Photosimulation Viewpoint Sprint SPRINT VISION PROJECT LA34XC732 CENTER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 28041 SOUTH HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 9027S llUIJllllmD PROPOSED SPRINT 4'-0" ANTENNAS---------. AND RRHS ON PROPOSED PIPE MOUNT INSIDE PROPOSED FRP ENCLOSURE ON (E) BUILDING ROOFTOP (BEYOND). (E) AT&T ANTENNAS INSIDE (E) FRP ENCLOSURE ON (E) BUILDING ROOFTOP. Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site 2 - 1 2 3 Photosimulation Viewpoint Sprinf SPRINT VISION PROJECT ILA34XC732 CENTER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 28041 SOUTH HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site 2 - 1 2 4 Photosim ulation Viewpoint Sprint· SPRINT VISION PROJECT LA34XC732 CENTER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 28041 SOUTH HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site 2 - 1 2 5