Loading...
2012 07 24 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 7:04 p.m. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Wright. PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Wilkinson, Weber, Wright and *Chairperson Barrows. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson /Alderson to approve the minutes of July 10, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. *Chairperson Barrows arrived at 7:12 p.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2011 -138 a request by Crown Castle — Susan Makinson - for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Single Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at Eisenhower Park located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima. Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2072 Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked if there was a rendering provided for the potential second and third arrays. Staff said yes and presented a slide showing the full impact of the additional arrays. Commissioner Weber asked if the relocation of the pole was to provide an opportunity for easier installation due to the proximity of the existing brick utility building. Staff said yes and explained that there was room inside the existing utility cabinet for the applicant to utilize, if they so desired. This had been confirmed with Community Services. If they chose not to, the utilities could be put adjacent to that location which would minimize having a pedestal in the middle of the park. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant had previously done installations in the City. . Staff said this was the first one they were aware of. Commissioner Wilkinson asked for a little background on Metro PCS. Staff responded it would be the first carrier. They are a smaller carrier but they do have a presence in the Valley. Staff added there was still the potential of adding two, additional carriers to this pole. Commissioner Wilkinson asked this carrier had other towers or cell locations in the City of La Quinta. Staff said the Commissioner might want to direct his question to the applicant. Commissioner Alderson asked if there had been any correspondence from the neighbors. Staff said there had been no written correspondence. They did have an adjacent neighbor (to the south, across Colima) come in and inquire about the application. Staff tried to contact them about tonight's -2- Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2012 meeting but were unable to reach them. So, unfortunately, they were not in attendance. One thing that was not previously mentioned was the discussion occurring with Crown Castle as to why it should be placed at this proposed location. Crown Castle had another option within the right -of -way. This type of antenna system has the right to locate within the public right -of -way without a lease. But staff and the applicant worked to facilitate the move of this pole to the park. The neighbor expressed favorable support to have it located within the park to minimize the aesthetic impact. Commissioner Alderson asked if their concerns were resolved. Staff had made several attempts to contact them but had not heard back from them. Commissioner Alderson asked about the removal of the current light; if its removal would require the park to be without lighting for any period of time. Staff responded the existing lighting would not be deactivated until the new pole was installed and the new light was ready to be activated. There being no further questions of staff, Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Steven Garcia, on behalf of Crown Castle, 15530 Lodosa Drive, Whittier CA 90605, introduced himself and said he urged the Planning Commission to uphold the staff's position. He then said he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Wilkinson asked where the current Metro PCs locations were. Mr. Garcia responded there were three macro sites (towers) within the City of La Quinta. There were also many other sites built throughout California; northern and southern. They were one of the five licensed carriers in California; Verizon, AT & T, Sprint, T- Mobile, and Metro PCs. 3- Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2012 Commissioner Alderson asked if the exhibits showed the entire tower or were there going to be attachments to it; i.e., tree limbs, faux palm fronds. Mr. Garcia said the exhibit was correct there were no attachments. He said most of their installations were placed on existing utility poles, or street light replacements just like the one pictured. Their installations were smaller in profile, lower in height and lower powered. Commissioner Alderson asked what were the differences between Design Option One and Design Option Two. Mr. Garcia explained that it depended upon what the City required. Some cities preferred a single carrier and that would utilize Option One. Option Two was designed to allow from one carrier to two or three carriers. It is up to each individual city to decide whether they want Option One or Two. As a company, they appreciate the opportunity to build for multiple carriers, but if it's a preference by the Commission or the City, they would limit it to one carrier. Commissioner Weber asked who would be responsible for the maintenance on the pole. Mr. Garcia said they prefer to maintain it, but this would be delineated in the use agreement between Metro PCS and the City of La Quinta. Their preference was to own, operate, and maintain the facility; including the light features. However, if the City had a preference for maintaining the light feature or any other aspect of that deployment they would defer to the City. The responsibilities would be outlined in the use agreement. Commissioner Weber asked if the City had a preference would the applicant then defer to the City. Mr. Garcia said that was correct. Commissioner.Weber went on to explain the reason for his concerns; including the improper maintenance of monopalms and the lack of care of the fronds and surrounding trees. He asked if staff had any comments on the maintenance. 4- Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2012 Staff said they still needed to complete all of the terms of the use agreement. The City was cognizant of the fact that upon occasion the existing light gets damaged and wanted to make sure the terms of the lease agreement allowed for prompt and expedient response should it not operate. In addition they were concerned about a quick response to aesthetic markings that may appear upon the pole. Overall, they wanted to make sure there was the ability for that to be quickly remedied and resolved should there be any issues with the light not operating due to vandalism or otherwise; as well as any graffiti that might be established on the pole. Commissioner Weber said he thought the applicant would be agreeable to cosmetic and safety issues being addressed by the City promptly, but otherwise the applicant will be responsible for the maintenance and aesthetics of the unit. Staff said they anticipated that was the direction it would go that the City would have the ability to make sure that the light continues to operate and function properly as well as responsibility for graffiti related matters. However, the majority of all of the other functions associated with the pole would be the responsibility of Crown Castle. These questions would all be worked out and there was a condition identified in the staff report that would predicate all that being worked out before the applicant could move forward with the building permit. Commissioner Weber asked how the structure was grounded. Mr. Garcia said he did not know, but that it did meet the electrical code established by the City as well as the national codes. It would be addressed in the Public Works building permit process. General discussion followed on the grounding of the unit. Chairperson Barrows asked for clarification with regard to maintenance; specifically in reference to Condition no. 9, which described the perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements including landscaping, access drives and sidewalks. She asked if that was the applicant's responsibility. WE Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2012 Staff responded that Condition. No. 9 was a standard boiler plate condition. It was all- encompassing and would obviously not be required beyond installation. They would not have to maintain the landscape of the park as that was the City's responsibility; as well as the sidewalk, etc. Between Conditions No. 9 and 17 the maintenance issues should be fully covered. The most important thing to remember was the agreement would be definitive with regards to maintenance and repair and addressing any concerns with aesthetic modifications. Chairperson Barrows said she understood there was a use agreement but just wanted to make sure the issue of maintenance was fully covered. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant had a problem with moving the controls to the utility box Commissioner Weber mentioned. Mr. Garcia said they would work with the City and the utility provider to locate it in the best location possible and as well as that preferred by the City. Staff suggested, if it was a concern of the Commission that they could stipulate either within or in proximity to, that existing facility. Mr. Garcia said the typical radius that the meter was allowed to be away from the pole location was about' 100 feet; which gave them a lot of flexibility to place it in the best location. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairperson Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber commented on the following points: • The adequacy of the coverage map. • The improvement of the signal in that area. • The aesthetics of the unit. .6- Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2012 There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber /Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012 -014 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2011- 138 as submitted with the addition of the following condition: 19. That the required facility's services shall be located either within or near the existing on -site utility cabinet. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council Meeting of July 17, 2012. B. Commissioner Wright is scheduled to report back on the August 7, 2012, City Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Update on Green and Sustainable report which was presented to the City Council on July 17, 2012. Staff commented that a new format would be used for future reports. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Wright [Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on August 28, 2012; since the Commission is dark on August 7, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. on July 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted, * Cram Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -7-