HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 01-28 - (2447 PCH)l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
ll
l2
l3
l4
lS
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
2 2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 01-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF
ROOF ANTENNAS TO AN EXISTING BillLDING
NONCONFORMING TO HEIGHT AT 2447 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 TO 10, BLOCK 2,
MONTMARIE TRACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order
as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by AT&T Wireless Services seeking approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for installation of rooftop antenna equipment pursuant to the
requirements of Section 17.46.240 of Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit on September 18, 2001, at which
testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the
Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission makes the following factual findings:
1. The applicant is proposing to install four panel antennas (54 inches tall by 6 inches
wide) on the parapet wall and a GPS antenna (4 inches tall by a 3.5 inches wide
base tapering to a point) on top of the parapet wall of an existing commercial
office building.
2. The subject lot is zoned SPA-8, Commercial Corridor.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing the Planning Commission finds:
1. The proposed rooftop location of the antenna equipment is co-located with other
similar facilities at the property at 2445 Pacific Coast Highway.
2. The antenna equipment shall be located so that it does not exceed the roofline of the
parapet wall. All such equipment located below the building parapet is exempt from
surface area calculations pursuant to Section 17.46.240.
3. Any antenna or satellite dish that is one meter or less in diameter and designed to
transmit or receive radio communication by satellite is exempt from local regulation
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
pursuant to Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
4. The proposed location of the facilities will not be materially detrimental to property
or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
5. The proposed GPS antenna will be placed on the rooftop with approximately ?
square feet on the widest side above the parapet wall and is not subject to area
limitation requirements due to size.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
subject Conditional Use Permit subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. An RF Environmental Evaluation Report shall be prepared by the applicant
indicating that the proposed wireless communications facility meets FCC
regulations and standards for construction, maintenance and operations ten
days after installation of the facility and every two years thereafter the
telecommunications service provider must submit a certification report
attested to by licensed RF engineer that the facility is compliant with applicable
FCC regulations for RF emissions.
2. The wireless communication facility shall be painted and maintained to match
the existing color of the building and finished in a non-reflective material to
blend with surrounding materials and colors. No logos or other commercially
identifying graphics shall be installed on the wireless communication facility.
Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and
the owners of the property involved have filed a the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and
agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
The Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department.
Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval
2 1 is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and
enforceable.
22
23
24
25
26
2 7
28
29
Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought
within the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly
notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in
the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no
thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may
be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this
grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its
sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such
participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition.
The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the
conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any
development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any
development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.
The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the
subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental
effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use.
Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision
of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must-be made within
90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
None
None
None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 01-28 is a true and complete record of
the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at
their regular meeting of September 18, 2001.
~f~
Sam Perrotti, Chairman
/.-I ~ --O.:.l
Date
Cupr0I-3
3