MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS CALIFORNIA, HELD THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS CALIFORNIA, HELD THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 The following are Action Minutes only; citizens may view the full discussion on the Granicus System. Opening Matters Call to Order / Roll Call of Commission Members Chair Fritz called the Special Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Calabasas, California. Present: Chair Fritz, Vice Chair Mueller, and Klein and Sikand, and Alternate Commissioner Shumacher. Commissioner Brown arrived at 6:15 p.m. Staff: Tamuri, Bartlett, Whatley, Klein, and Goor. Members of the Communications and Technology Commission: M. Brockman and J. Daugherty. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chair Mueller. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Sikand moved, seconded by Vice Chair Mueller, to approve the Planning Commission Agenda of February 17, MOTION CARRIED 5/0. Announcements and Introductions None. Oral Communications - Public Comment James Moorhead, Los Angeles, suggested using root tubs when planting trees in parkways along streets and sidewalks. Chair Fritz stated his suggestion would be routed to Public Works. Consent Item(s) 1. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2010 and January 6, 2011

2 It was noted Vice Chair Mueller and Sikand shall abstain as they were not present on December 16, Chair Fritz moved, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Shumacher, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 16, MOTION CARRIED 3/0. Commissioner Sikand moved, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Shumacher, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, MOTION CARRIED 5/0. 2. Discussion of options to amend section (Antennas/Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Calabasas Municipal Code. Commissioner Brown arrived. Opening statements were delivered by CTC Chair Michael Brockman, California Wireless Association representative Jamie T. Hall, and Calabasas resident Liat Samouhi. The staff presentation was delivered by City Planner Bartlett. The City s RF Consultant Jonathan Kramer, Community Development Director Tamuri, Associate Planner Klein, Assistant City Attorney Whatley, CTC member Daugherty, and CTC Chair Brockman responded to questions. Planning Commission Break The Commission recessed at 7:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:05 p.m. 2. Discussion of options to amend section (Antennas/Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Calabasas Municipal Code. Community Development Director Tamuri outlined the staff recommendations in the report. Speakers (all Calabasas unless noted): Elise Kalfayan, Glendale, stated that in Glendale the shot clock starts after the municipality deems the application complete, Glendale found several safety violations and maintains a map of cell sites; Ben Rodriguez, stated all carriers maps show good coverage in Calabasas, the ordinance should be progressive, enforcement and training budgeted, time parameters should be outlined in order to comply with the FCC shot clock, City should protect citizens, carriers should be required to state what significant gap is; Mr. Steinberg ceded time to Ben Rodriguez; Linda Stock, discussed legality of setback provisions and referenced Town of Hempstead (New York) wireless ordinance, cited cases in Cobb County, San Diego, San Francisco, and Palos Verdes ; Sara Stock ceded time to Linda Stock; Geri Berger,

3 requested gap in coverage be defined and include a penalty for any false statements in an application, City should verify all information submitted by applicants, City should have an independent expert reviewing all projects; Steve Brecht ceded time to Geri Berger; Ken Marker, stated the Appraisal Institute highlighted the issue of cell towers effect on property values, opposed to cell towers near elementary or middle schools, supports taller towers in less impactful areas, encouraged expanded notice to 1500 ft; Kinsey Marker left/time ceded to Ken Marker; Leslie Kraut, suggested a Councilmember sit in on the Planning Commission for this item, suggested a moratorium on all new applications until we draft a new ordinance, also noting that the FCC is reviewing numerous guidelines; Brian Lincoln, against having a tower outside his window near an elementary school, against approvals at Director level hearings, in favor of school district notifying parents, noted no health studies for 4G; James Moorhead, Los Angeles, stated his brother-in-law passed away of brain cancer noting he was a radar and communications expert at LAX, supervising new installations in the U.S., City should use maximum safety improvements including live wave detectors; Mary Hubbard, Calabasas, representing the Malibu Canyon Community Association, recommends annual compliance monitoring cell sites using volunteers, moratorium on new applications, using a consultant, increasing setbacks, increase notification to 1500 ft, adding the private attorney clause, require a 5-year build-out plan for each carrier, and is concerned with using open space; Andrea Esterson ceded time to Mary Hubbard; Valerie Burkholder read a letter from Kinsey Marker, against cell towers at schools and outside her window; Steve Brecht state or local zoning permits for installation not creating an adverse aesthetic, etc., in favor of increased setbacks, requested Adamsville tank zoning be reviewed; Pamela Miller ceded time to Steve Brecht; Leslie Daigle, consultant representing Verizon, (City of residence not stated), commented that the direction of staff is good, notably opening up the gated communities providing HOAs with revenue potential, noted cell phones are a lifeline during fire emergencies and natural disasters, stated professional help is appropriate for technical reviews; Lucy Martin, stated residents would approve of more staff costs for further compliance monitoring, does not approve of director level decisions, noted noise of above ground sites, in favor of increased notification, and HOAs allowing sites if desired; Alicia Weintraub, in favor of increased public participation and real-time comments during meetings, City should talk with HOAs; Andrea Esterson, Calabasas, in favor of increased setbacks away from homes, schools, and parks, add funding in the beginning for testing; Fred Gaines ceded time to Andrea Esterson; and Liat Samouhi, discussed 9th Circuit decision that the gap must be truly significant, noted the need for setbacks, monitoring, technical assistance, and other parameters should be looked at before incentives. The Planning Commission made the following suggestions to City Council regarding the CTC recommendations in Exhibit A: CTC Recommendation 3(a)(i): The Planning Commission agrees that the City should hire a specialized attorney to assist in drafting a wireless ordinance if the City Attorney believes the additional services would be helpful.

4 CTC Recommendation 10(a-d): The Planning Commission recommends that the current ordinance be reviewed to ensure that the language is strong enough to address the issues raised by CTC in item 10(a-d). CTC Recommendation 11(a-c): The Planning Commission agrees that no wireless facility should be built in a residential area, including the public right-of-way, unless the carrier has proven that there is a significant gap in coverage. The Commission further recommends that the Council should consider allowing the possibility of constructing wireless facilities in residential and privately owned open space zones as an option of closing a significant gap in the least intrusive means. The Commission recommends against items b and c because the statements are too broad. The Commission also recommends that the ordinance include criteria to determine least impactful sites. For example, the least desirable site would be directly in front of a home. Furthermore, the Council should consider a setback, the distance to be determined later. CTC Recommendation 3(a)(ii): The Planning Commission agrees that the City should hire a specialized attorney to assist in reviewing future applications if the City Attorney believes the additional services are necessary. CTC Recommendation 4(a): The Planning Commission agrees that fees should be assessed to cover additional City expense to review projects, to the maximum extent allowed by law. CTC Recommendation 9(a-b): The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant be required to submit a complete application, to the extent allowed by law. Furthermore, the Commission would like clarification as to when the FCC shot clock starts. CTC Recommendation 9(c): The Planning Commission agrees that any new cell tower must be necessary and that the applicant must prove a significant gap in coverage before approval. The Commission would like the City Attorney to define what standard of proof should be required to determine what as significant gap is. CTC Recommendation 9(d): The Planning Commission recommends that applicants provide information to demonstrate that they have chosen the site and means that are the least intrusive to the community to close a significant gap in coverage. The City should use the General Plan to identify what locations would be considered least intrusive. Furthermore, the Commission recommends that the ordinance includes incentives for applicants to choose least intrusive sites. Such incentives could include an expedited process to encourage applicants to choose the least intrusive sites. CTC Recommendation 9(e): The Planning Commission recommends that applicants provide a good faith 3-year plan on all future wireless facility installations.

5 CTC Recommendation 9(f): The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant provide a complete RF study for new wireless facilities in accordance with FCC guidelines. CTC Recommendation 12(a-b): The Planning Commission does not object to the CTC conducting a technology review. CTC Recommendation 6(a): The Planning Commission does not support increasing the mailed notice from 500 to 1500 ft, noting that the increases would place an unnecessary burden on other non-wireless application types. However, the Commission recommends that the City investigate the use of alternative methods such as telephone and notification as a supplement to increase the notification distance. CTC Recommendation 6(d): The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council have staff look into what extent the City can extend the 10-day public notice period, bearing in mind the impact that the increased public notice period would have on other non-wireless application types, and on the FCC shot clock. CTC Recommendation 8(a): The Planning Commission recommends that publicly noticed meetings for commissions should be held after 6:00pm. CTC Recommendation 8(b): The Planning Commission does not object to the CTC making final decisions on significant gap in coverage, radio frequency compliance verification and technical matters. CTC Recommendation 8(c): The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider making the CTC the final decision making body for public right-of-way applications. Alternate Commissioner Rick Shumacher went on record (as a dissenting opinion) stating that he does not support any recommendation that would make the CTC a decision maker on some applications and the Planning Commission the decision maker on other applications. CTC Recommendation 8(d): The Planning Commission made no recommendation and stated that this is a policy decision for Council. CTC Recommendation 1(a-c): The Planning Commission stated that it is a policy decision by the Council to fund compliance checks of existing sites. However, the Commission recommends that approval of new wireless facilities should include a condition that requires the applicant or carrier to fund an annual compliance review by a City approved consultant. CTC Recommendation 2(a): The Planning Commission believes that an RF study on existing wireless facilities is a good idea, however, that is policy decision by the Council to provide funding for such studies.

6 3. Director s Report and Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Tamuri noted the Commission s suggestions will be compiled and staff shall return with recommendations at the next meeting. 4. Reports from the Planning Commission None. Adjournment Chair Fritz adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 10:30 p.m. to the next meeting, March 3, Respectfully Submitted: Nina Harvey