Crescent City Planning Commission Meeting

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: John Wendt, Chairperson • Ray Walp, Vice-Chair Betsy Dewar • Brad Kime • Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January 12, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. VIRTUAL VIA ZOOM The public may access and participate in the public meeting using one or more of the following methods: 1) Participate live online via Zoom (details below) or by utilizing the link to join the meeting posted on both the City of Crescent City – City Hall Facebook page and the City of Crescent City website (www.crescentcity.org), public comment may be made by using the raise hand feature on Zoom; 2) Public comments may be made in advance by submitting written comment via publiccomment@crescentcity.org or by filing it with the City Clerk at 377 J Street, Crescent City, California, 95531. All public comments (via email or mail) must be received by the City Clerk prior to 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the meeting date and agenda item to which your comment pertains in the subject line. Public comments so received will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and posted on the website next to the agenda. Written public comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Notice regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (707)464-7483, ext. 223. Notification 48 hours before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II]. For TTYDD use for speech and hearing impaired, please dial 711. A full agenda packet may be reviewed at City Hall, 377 J Street, Crescent City, CA or on our website: www.crescentcity.org ZOOM PHONE NUMBER: 1 (669) 900-6833 WEBINAR ID: 872 8398 7640 MUTE / UNMUTE PRESS *6 RAISE HAND PRESS *9 I. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA II. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public may address the Planning Commission on any item of interest that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction or that appears on the agenda. The Commission is not able to discuss extensively or act on any items that do not appear on the agenda. After receiving recognition by the Chairperson, please state your name and city or county residency for the record. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes or other reasonable limitations specified by the Chairperson on particular topics or individual speakers (Gov’t Code §54954.3(b)). III. CONSENT CALENDAR: (None) IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (None) V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: (None) VA. Approve UP22-03 to allow a 60-ft mono pole telecommunications tower to replace an existing 60-ft lattice telecommunications tower, by Frontier Communications. VI. NEW BUSINESS: VIA. Approve and Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-02, A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City Authorizing the consolidation of a Coastal Development permit for Caltrans Broadband Middle Mile Network project. VIB. Approve and Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-03, A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City Authorizing the use of Teleconferencing Provision under AB 361. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS: VIIA. Review the City of Crescent City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element and receive public comment. VIII. REPORTS, CONCERNS, REFERRALS: In accordance with Gov’t Code §54954.2(a)(2), Planning Commissioners or staff may briefly respond to public comment, make brief announcements or reports, or ask questions for clarification. Planning Commissioners or the Commission may also direct staff to report back on any matter at a subsequent meeting or to place a matter of business on a future agenda. VIIIA. Planning staff will provide a brief verbal update on planning related items. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the regular meeting of the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee scheduled for Thursday, February 9, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom. POSTED: January 9, 2023 By: Heather Welton Office Technician PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA  Crescent City Planning Commission 1/12/2023 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item#: V.A. Application #: UP22-03 RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: I) Open the public hearing. i) Receive the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit application. ii) Receive public comments on the Conditional Use Permit application. II) Close the public hearing. III) Adopt the Recommended Findings. IV) Take action on the application #UP22-03 with any additional conditions adopted by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. (A) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project: The proposed project (The Project) includes replacing a structurally unsound lattice telecommunications tower with a temporary telecommunications monopole. The project requires a conditional use permit to be compliant with City zoning codes. The conditional use permit would be retroactive as the project has already commenced under an emergency temporary use permit issued by the City Manager. Applicant Frontier Communications Site Address: 356 H Street Crescent City, CA 95531 APN: 118-130-026 Lot Size: +/- 14,940 sq. ft. / +/-0.34 acres Project Size: +/-900sq. ft. General Plan Land Use: Business Professional Zoning: Downtown Business District (C-1) Coastal: NO Surrounding Zoning/Uses: South - Downtown Business District (C-1) East - Downtown Business District (C-1) West - Downtown Business District (C-1) North - Downtown Business District (C-1) Page 1 of 8  Aerial Photo of Project Site Source: Google Earth, January 2023 (B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Frontier Communications owns and operates a 60 ft. tall self-support four-legged lattice tower with three (3) microwave dishes at its central office in Crescent City (APN: 118-130-026). The existing point-to-point transmission made possible by the microwave dishes on the existing lattice tower are a vital part of the phone and internet services made available to customers and subscribers, including first responders, located in the Crescent City area. In December 2020 the lattice tower structure was deemed compromised due to its aging condition. The tower was retrofitted in December 2020 with diagonal bracing and hardware. The retrofits were intended only to extend the life of the tower until Frontier Communications could secure additional funding for its replacement and obtain all Federal, State, and local requisite entitlements, licenses and permits necessary to replace it and relocate the microwave dishes. Two (2) of the three (3) existing microwave dishes has recently reached full capacity and are not able to carry the level of data and call traffic demands for the corresponding service area. This situation results in blocked and dropped calls and laten data transmission and may also negatively impact first responders who depend on the network. Despite the existing tower’s retrofits in December 2020 the tower is not sufficiently structurally sound to allow technicians to climb and work on the tower to replace the microwave dishes at capacity. Page 2 of 8 On October 11, 2022, Consulting Planning Director issued a Planning Determination Letter in support of an Emergency Temporary Use Permit and on October 12, 2022, City Manager, Eric Wier signed an Emergency Authorization allowing Frontier Communications to erect and operate a temporary tower with microwave dishes at its Crescent City central office located at 356 H Street. On October 12, 2022, following City Manager approval of the Emergency Authorization, Frontier Communications erected the temporary tower which consisted of a 60 ft. tall monopole bolted to a concrete ballast foundation. The temporary pole has one (1) 6-ft diameter microwave dish mounted at a centerline height of 56 ft. above ground level. Conditional Use Permit 22-03, if approved, will permit the temporary 60 ft. tall telecommunication monopole retroactively. (C) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The general plan designates the project site within the Business Professional (BP) Zone. The Business Professional land use designation reads as follows: Business-Professional (BP) This designation provides for a strong business/government/professional core in downtown Crescent City. This designation essentially serves as a transition between residential districts and commercial districts. Multiple-unit residential uses are permitted as a secondary use at a density of 6 to 15 units per acre. The maximum FAR for non-residential buildings in this designation is 0.85. Examples of specific uses permitted under this designation generally include the following: medical offices and clinics; law firms; accountant offices; insurance, real estate, and financial offices; government facilities (including corporation service yards); social services; entertainment; nonprofit organizations; travel agencies; retail stores, including specialty food production and sales; restaurants; and multi-family residential units. The General Plan envisions the BP district as a transitional area between residential and commercial uses harboring a strong business, government, and professional core uses including the proposed telecommunications monopole are consistent with this designation. The proposed project is consistent with Crescent City’s General Plan Business Professional land use designation. (D) ZONING CODE CONSISTENCY: The Crescent City Municipal Code (CCMC) section 17.20.025 defines the following uses as conditionally permitted within the Downtown Business District (C-1): 17.20.025 Uses subject to a use permit. The following uses may be permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit: L. Communications Towers; and N. Structural heights exceeding forty feet but not exceeding sixty feet Page 3 of 8 The Conditional Use Permit 22-03 would bring the proposed project into zoning code consistency as the proposed project can be defined by the sum of section L and N from section 17.20.025 of the CCMC. (E) SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW: The purposes of a site plan and architectural review are to permit the city to evaluate site plans and designs of structures to assure compatibility, harmony in appearance in neighborhoods, reduce negative impacts on adjacent properties and coastal visual resources, reduce the unnecessary destruction of the environment and ground cover to avoid the creation of hazardous conditions and drainage problems, to protect views to and along the coast and scenic areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, and to ensure that development is compatible with the character of its surroundings, and subordinate to the character of its setting in designated “highly scenic areas;” to avoid monotonous and otherwise non-aesthetic development injurious to the overall community; to provide a vehicle to encourage full development of streets servicing the properties, and to assure full installation of all public utilities necessary to serve such properties (CCMC 17.79.010(A)). According to the CCMC 17.79.035(A) [Site Plan & Architectural Design Review] Review Standards, the application shall be reviewed for consistency with the following items: Applicable Zoning: Downtown Business District (C-1) Resource Protection: none required for the proposed project (Off-street) Parking: none required for the proposed project Landscaping: none proposed or required for the proposed project Fencing: proposed temporary 6ft fence with 3 strands of barbwire on top erected around the temporary monopole. Signage: none required for the proposed project Street: none required for the proposed project Sidewalk: none required for the proposed project Public services requirements: electrical, the site is currently serviced by the appropriate public services and utilities and will not need additional services. (F) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: The purpose of issuing a use permit is to assure that a degree of compatibility shall be maintained with respect to the particular use on a particular site and consideration of other existing and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located. Specific topics relating to compatibility are discussed below and conditions of the use permit are recommended based on the following. CCMC 17.20.025 allows telecommunication towers and structural heights exceeding 40 ft but not exceeding 60ft within City limits, including the Downtown Business District, subject to securing a Conditional Use Permit. When considering the telecommunications monopole, the Planning Commission should consider the following: Page 4 of 8  17.54.010 [Use Permit] Purpose. A. These provisions do not negate the specific uses designated for each zoning district, but rather serve as a supplemental guide providing added protection to existing zoning districts and at the same time encouraging orderly growth. B. The purpose of issuing a use permit shall be: 1. To assure that the degree of compatibility shall be maintained with respect to the particular use on a particular site and consideration of other existing and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located, and 2. To recognize and compensate for variations in degree of technological processes and equipment as related to the factors of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors and hazards; 3. To assure that such use will be placed on a site that is both suitable and adequate and that the use will have a minor effect on present and future traffic and that such use will not become a nuisance to the neighborhood and such use conforms with the general plan and makes provisions for adequate off-street parking and loading, as well as landscaping and screen planning, as well as other matters pertinent to the particular case. (Prior code § 30-500) (G) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is eligible for categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under class 2 and class 32. The Class 2 “replacement or reconstruction” exemption applies to “…replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including but not limited to: (c) replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302). The Class 32 “ in-fill development projects” exemption applies to “.. project[s are] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. Proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332). Page 5 of 8 (H) STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that the proposed project be approved, with the Conditions of Approval found within Attachment B, based on the following analysis: A. Background Information: The proposed location of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. B. Project Description: The proposed activity, as conditioned (see Attachment B), will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. C. General Plan Consistency: The proposed telecommunications tower use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation as it provides a public service (cell reception) necessary for the transitional nature of the Business Professional District. D. Zoning Code Consistency: The proposed project is a conditionally permitted use defined as “telecommunications” and “Structural heights above 40ft and not exceeding 60 ft.” Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Downtown Business (C- 1) zone. E. Site Plan & Architectural Review: The project proposed use is consistent with the zoning (C-1) and land use designation (BP). Further discussion on the zoning and land use designations can be found in sections C and D. The project does not propose or require resource protection, off street parking, landscaping, signage, or street and sidewalk improvements. The project does propose fencing around the perimeter of the temporary telecommunications monopole. The fencing, as proposed, is 6 ft tall with three strands of barbwire on top and includes a gated entrance for access. Fencing within the City is governed by the Crescent City Municipal Code (CCMC) Section 17.40. Section 17.40.050 General Provisions (B) permits barbwire fencing as long as the barbwire material is six feet above grade. The project’s proposed fence is consistent with the CCMC fence regulations. The project site is serviced by electrical connections and will not require an increase in usage during the life of the temporary telecommunications tower. The temporary telecommunications tower has one connecting wire supported by temporary “durablocks” to keep the wire insulated from the ground and is routed to the exciting ice bridge and equipment shelter. F. Conditional Use Permit Review: The proposed project meets the above criteria for the following reasons: A) the proposed use is consistent with the Downtown Business (C-1) zoning district conditionally permitted uses; B) the proposed project is consistent with existing uses of the proposed location (See Background Information and Project Description Sections); C) the City has determined the proposed project exempt pursuant to Section 15302 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; D) the proposed project site is away from and does not facilitate or impede existing and future automobile traffic; E) the proposed project will not become a nuisance to the neighborhood; F) the proposed project conforms with the general plan, and other matters pertinent to the Business Professional and Downtown Business districts. (See General Plan Consistency, Site Plan Review, and Staff Analysis Sections). Page 6 of 8  G: Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under class 2 and 32. The proposed project would replace the existing lattice telecommunications tower with a telecommunications monopole at 356 H Street and would have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structures replaced. Projects in the same location and with the same purpose and capacity as the existing structure are exempt under class 2 CEQA categorical exemptions. The proposed project is exempt under class 32 CEQA categorical exemption for the following: 1)The Proposed project is located in the Business Professional (BP) land use designation and the Downtown Business (C-1) zoning district and is consistent with both designations and applicable policies and regulations. Further discussion of these can be found in section (C) and (D) above; 2) The proposed project site is approximately 0.34 acres and is within city limits; 3) The proposed project site was previously developed as commercial and is primarily covered with impermeable surfaces. Thus, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) The proposed project is well away from automobile traffic and would not obstruct existing or future traffic flow. The proposed project has potential to impact noise and air quality during construction but would not cause significant effects during its continued use greater than existing conditions as the use and capacity are to stay the same. The proposed project is located on developed land and will not cause significant effects to water quality; And 5) The project site is currently served by the necessary utilities and public services. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: Based on (H) Staff Analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings: A. The proposed location of the use permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity B. The proposed activity, as conditioned, will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. C. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan. D. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City Zoning Code. E. The proposed project is consistent with Site Plan and Architectural Review standards. F. The proposed project satisfies the use permit requirements. G. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under class 2 and 32. H. The proposed project will be approved with the Conditions of Approval found within Attachment D. Page 7 of 8 FURTHER ACTION: No further action on this item is necessary unless the Commission’s actions are appealed to the City Council within 10-days (CCMC 17.54.050). Upon approval, the staff will send the applicant an approval letter after the 10-day appeal period along with any conditions adopted by the Planning Commission during the public hearing. Upon denial, the staff will send the applicant a letter stating why the application was denied. Upon request for additional information by the Planning Commission, the staff will follow up with the applicant requesting the additional information to present at the next Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: A) Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP22-03) B) Emergency Authorization C) Planning Director Determination Letter D) Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 8  Project Description and Narrative Frontier Communications Central Office 356 H. St., Crescent City, CA 95531 APN: 118-130-026-000 Background: Frontier Communications owns and operates a 60 ft. tall self-support four-legged lattice tower with three (3) microwave dishes at its central office in Crescent City. The existing point-to-point transmission made possible by the microwave dishes on the existing lattice tower are a vital part of the phone and internet services made available to customers and subscribers, including first responders, located in the Crescent City area. It came to Frontier Communications attention that the existing lattice tower was structurally compromised due to its aging condition, and they took steps to structurally reinforce the tower with new additional diagonal bracing and hardware in December of 2020. Please see the attached structural drawings prepared by registered professional engineer Mr. Karl Kevin Tashjian dated December 9, 2020 and tower photos. The steps taken to reinforce the tower in December of 2020 were intended to secure and extend the life of the existing tower until such time Frontier Communications could secure funding for its replacement and obtain all Federal, State, and local requisite entitlements, licenses and permits to replace it and relocate the microwave dishes. Two (2) of the three (3) existing microwave dishes has recently reached full capacity and are not able to carry the level of data and call traffic demands for the corresponding service area. This situation results in blocked and dropped calls and laten data transmission and may also negatively impact first responders who depend on the network. If it were not for the compromised state of the existing tower, Frontier Communications would simply replace the existing microwave dish(s) and associated equipment to address the current capacity issue as part of its normal equipment maintenance protocols. However and despite the tower being reinforced in December 2020, it is not sufficiently structurally sound to allow technicians to climb and work on the tower nor to swap out equipment. On October 11, 2022, Principal Planner Mr. Bob Brown issued a Planning Determination Letter in support of an Emergency Temporary Use Permit and on October 12, 2022, City Manager, Eric Wier signed an Emergency Authorization allowing Frontier Communications to erect and operate a temporary tower with microwave dishes at its Crescent City central office located at 356 H Street. On October 12, 2022, following City Manager approval of the Emergency Authorization, Frontier Communications erected the temporary tower which consisted of a 60 ft. tall monopole bolted to a concrete ballast foundation. The temporary pole has one (1) 6-ft diameter microwave dish mounted at a centerline height of 56 ft. above ground level. Request: Frontier Communications is requesting Planning Commission approval of a retroactive Emergency Use Permit affirming the Planning Determination Letter issued by Principal Planner, Mr. Bob Brown, on October 11, 2022, and the Emergency Authorization approved by City Manager, Eric Wier, on October 12, 2022. Permanent Pole: Frontier Communications intends to also file a Use Permit application within the next 30-60 days requesting Planning Commission approval for a permanent replacement monopole on which to place its microwave dish(s). The proposed permanent replacement monopole will be 60 ft. in height and will be located within the same general location as the existing failing lattice tower. Photo 1: Example of rusting and compromised diagonal bracing found at various locations on the existing lattice tower. Photo 2: Example of rusting and compromised steel support leg found at various locations on the existing lattice tower. Photo 3: View of the actual temporary pole that will be deployed at the Frontier Communications Crescent City Central Office. The concrete ballast foundation is also shown in the foreground. Photo 4: The concrete ballast foundation and temporary monopole will be hoisted into place. The base of the pole is then secured to the concrete ballast and made plumb before the microwave dish and cabling is installed.  1717 S. BOULDER SUITE 300 TULSA, OK 74119 PH: (918) 587-4630 www.btgrp.com CRESCENT CITY Front er 356 H ST CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 Front er COMMUNICATIONS CRESCENT CITY COMMUNICATIONS EXISTING 60'-0" SELF-SUPPORT TOWER EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER 41.752417°, -124.198667° ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT SUMMARY LOCATION MAP DRAWING INDEX 356 H ST ZONING DRAWINGS SHEET # SHEET DESCRIPTION REV. # CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 PROJECT NO: 161513.004.01 CHECKED BY: RMC ISSUED FOR: NO SCALE CONTACT INFORMATION DRIVING DIRECTIONS 23 CODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS 10/3/22 · · CALL CALIFORNIA ONE CALL (800) 227-2600 R SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: CALL 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG! T-1 0  1717 S. BOULDER SUITE 300 TULSA, OK 74119 PH: (918) 587-4630 www.btgrp.com Front er COMMUNICATIONS CRESCENT CITY EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER 41.752417°, -124.198667° 356 H ST ZONING DRAWINGS CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 PROJECT NO: 161513.004.01 CHECKED BY: RMC ISSUED FOR: 23 10/3/22 EXISTING COMPOUND PLAN 1 SCALE: N SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: 0' 1' 4' 8' 20' C-1 0  1717 S. BOULDER SUITE 300 TULSA, OK 74119 PH: (918) 587-4630 www.btgrp.com Front er COMMUNICATIONS CRESCENT CITY EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER 41.752417°, -124.198667° 356 H ST ZONING DRAWINGS CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 PROJECT NO: 161513.004.01 CHECKED BY: RMC ISSUED FOR: 23 10/3/22 EXISTING COMPOUND PLAN 1 SCALE: N SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: 0' 1' 4' 8' 20' C-1.1 0  1717 S. BOULDER SUITE 300 TULSA, OK 74119 PH: (918) 587-4630 www.btgrp.com Front er COMMUNICATIONS CRESCENT CITY EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER 41.752417°, -124.198667° 356 H ST ZONING DRAWINGS CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 PROJECT NO: 161513.004.01 CHECKED BY: RMC ISSUED FOR: 23 10/3/22 EXISTING TOWER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOWER ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: 1 SCALE: N.T.S. 2 SCALE: N.T.S. C-2 0  1717 S. BOULDER SUITE 300 TULSA, OK 74119 PH: (918) 587-4630 www.btgrp.com Front er COMMUNICATIONS CRESCENT CITY EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER 41.752417°, -124.198667° 356 H ST ZONING DRAWINGS CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531 PROJECT NO: 161513.004.01 CHECKED BY: RMC ISSUED FOR: 23 10/3/22 PIPE MOUNT-TO-MICROWAVE ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL TEMPORARY BALLAST TOWER 1 SCALE: N.T.S. 2 SCALE: N.T.S. SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: C-3 0  Attachment D: Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit #UP 22-03: Telecommunications Monopole On January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the above application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for the project as described in the submitted Conditional Use Permit application (received 11/21/22) and included as Attachment A to the staff report. 2. The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City’s Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Chapters 17.20 (Downtown Business District). 3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the various City Departments including, but not limited to, the City Manager, Public Works Department, City Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Building Department, and Planning Department. Use Permit Notes: All use permits are not personal to the applicant and permission granted under a use permit is an incident of ownership of the property for which it is granted. The owner of the property shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of issuance of a use permit (CCMC 17.54.030(B)). All use permits are always revocable and may be made conditional and shall be issued by the planning commission or by the affirmative vote of the city council upon appeal for any of the uses for which a use permit is required (CCMC 17.54.020). Page 1 of 1  Crescent City Planning Commission January 12, 2023 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item#: VIA. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: I) Open the Discussion Item i) Hear staff report ii) Technical questions from the Commission iii) Receive public comment iv) Further Commission discussion II) Close public comment portion III) Discuss the staff presentation, provide comments and direction to staff (A) INTRODUCTION: The following item is before the Planning Commission to review and approve the recommend consolidated Coastal Development Permit process through the Coastal Commission process. Without consideration, the City would need to separately review and approve the project and then the project would need to be reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission, adding several months to the permitting process, not to mention the additional time and costs to the City. (B) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Referred to as the Broadband Middle Mile Network (BMMN) project, this effort involves installation of 10,000 miles of broadband infrastructure throughout the entire state to make high- speed internet service broadly available throughout California, particularly in unserved and underserved areas. The project is supported through funding by Senate Bill 156, which provides a $7 billion investment to implement the project over the next few years. Funding parameters require the issuance of permits by the end of 2024 and the completion of construction by the end of 2026. All broadband infrastructure will be placed within the State Highway System right-of-way owned and operated by Caltrans. Approximately 900 miles of the network will occur within the coastal zone, and approximately 3,654.88 ft will be installed in Crescent City’s coastal jurisdiction. The infrastructure will include fiber optic conduit and cable, network hubs, vaults, and markers. Caltrans is responsible for the planning, permitting, and construction of the project. The construction details such as the schedule, whether night construction will occur, and whether side streets will be impacted are not yet known. However, the Coastal Commission does set limits on lighting and requires public access to be maintained. Caltrans will be conducting Tribal Consultation as part of the project. It is a very small portion of the project that occurs within City limits. I have requested that the City be informed when construction will occur. Regular PC Meeting Page 1 of 3 January 12, 2022 (C) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: Caltrans District 1 (including Crescent City) is responsible for obtaining CDPs for their portion of the project. However, the project falls within multiple coastal jurisdictions. Section 30601.3 of the Coastal Act allows for a consolidated CDP process in cases where projects cross the Coastal Commission’s permitting jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a local government with a certified LCP, such as is the case here since the Commission retains permitting jurisdiction in multiple areas within Caltrans District 1. A consolidated CDP will assist Caltrans in meeting their highly compressed project timeline while reducing the burden on local governments and ensuring a smoother, more consistent approach to reviewing this project for compliance with the Coastal Act. Crescent City’s certified LCP would also serve as guidance during such a consolidated CDP review, and Commission staff is committed to ensuring that this project is consistent with both Coastal Act and certified LCP policies. (D) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The proposed project is supported by the City’s Municipal Code on the Coastal Zone: 17.84.036 Consolidated coastal development permit applications. A. Notwithstanding Public Resources Section 30519, the coastal commission may process and act upon a consolidated coastal development permit application if both of the following criteria are satisfied. 1. A proposed project requires a coastal development permit from both a local government with a certified local coastal program and the coastal commission. 2. The applicant, the appropriate local government, and the commission, which may agree through its executive director, consent to consolidate the permit action, provided that public participation is not substantially impaired by that review consolidation. B. The standard of review for a consolidated coastal development permit application submitted pursuant to subdivision A. shall follow Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Public Resources Code Section 30200), with the appropriate local coastal program used as guidance. C. The application fee for consolidated coastal development permit shall be determined by reference to the coastal commission’s permit fee schedule. (Ord. of 2-22-2011(1)) (E) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The proposed project is supported by the City’s Local Coastal Program goals and policies: Goal 3.G. To promote development of multimedia communications as a viable mode of transportation and commerce. Policy 3.G.1. The City shall encourage the development of the highest standard possible of broad band internet, multimedia communications, and videoconference facilities by Regular PC Meeting Page 2 of 3 January 12, 2022  local public utility providers, public and quasi=public agencies, and business community in general. Goal 4.H. To provide efficient and cost-effective utilities. Policy 4.H.1. The City shall facilitate the provision of adequate electric, communications, and telecommunications services and facilities to serve existing and future needs while minimizing noise, electromagnetic, and visual impacts on existing and future residents. (F) FURTHER ACTION: Caltrans and the Coastal Commission are requesting the Crescent City’s approval to allow the consolidated CDP to proceed for the portion of the project within the City. Because the project is located on State land, local regulations do not generally apply, and the City’s review should be limited to Coastal Act/LCP issues. It is unlikely that this project would impact City residents or coastal resources any more than standard Caltrans maintenance. There is nothing in the LCP that would conflict with the project or require conditions of approval that will not be covered by the Coastal Commission’s review of the project. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the consolidation request. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve Resolution PC2023-02 Caltrans CDP Consolidation and direct staff to write a letter transmitting the resolution authorizing the CDP consolidation. ATTACHMENTS: A) Formal Email Request B) MMBN Map C) Resolution PC2023-02 Caltrans CDP Consolidation Regular PC Meeting Page 3 of 3 January 12, 2022 1/5/23, 12:22 PM Mail - Ethan Lawton - Outlook Consolidated CDP request for Broadband Middle Mile Network project Cozzolino, Brittney@Coastal <brittney.cozzolino@coastal.ca.gov> Mon 2022-11-21 6:24 PM To: Ethan Lawton <elawton@shn-engr.com> Cc: Wier, Eric@City of Cresent City <ewier@crescentcity.org>;Prahler, Erin@Coastal <Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov>;Grove, Tami@Coastal <Tami.Grove@coastal.ca.gov>;Anderson, Kate@DOT <Kate.Anderson@dot.ca.gov>;Lugo, Jennifer@DOT <jennifer.lugo@dot.ca.gov>;Allen, Peter@Coastal <Peter.Allen@coastal.ca.gov>;Alvarado, Marlene@Coastal <Marlene.Alvarado@coastal.ca.gov>;Melim, Suzanne M@DOT <suzanne.melim@dot.ca.gov>;Karam, Elias@DOT <Elias.Karam@dot.ca.gov>;Mcfarlane, Lorna@DOT <Lorna.Mcfarlane@dot.ca.gov>;Buck, Jen L@DOT <jen.buck@dot.ca.gov> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ethan, My name is Brittney Cozzolino, and I am a planner with the California Coastal Commission’s Statewide Planning Unit. I am reaching out to you in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with a request to process a consolidated coastal development permit (CDP) for a project that involves development both in areas of the Commission’s retained permitting jurisdiction and your jurisdiction’s permitting jurisdiction. Referred to as the Broadband Middle Mile Network (BMMN) project, this effort involves installation of 10,000 miles of broadband infrastructure throughout the entire state to make high-speed internet service broadly available throughout California, particularly in unserved and underserved areas. The project is supported through funding by Senate Bill 156, which provides a $7 billion investment to implement the project over the next few years. Funding parameters require the issuance of permits by the end of 2024 and the completion of construction by the end of 2026. All broadband infrastructure will be placed within the State Highway System right-of- way owned and operated by Caltrans. Approximately 900 miles of the network will occur within the coastal zone, and approximately 1.4 miles will be installed in your city’s jurisdiction. The infrastructure will include fiber optic conduit and cable, https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADVmYTE2NDY5LTZmYTQtNDU2NC1iYTVjLTI2MjRmZDY3OGNhZgAQAJQ%2B%2FMa%2Frkfers… 1/3 1/5/23, 12:22 PM Mail - Ethan Lawton - Outlook network hubs, vaults, and markers. Caltrans is responsible for the planning, permitting, and construction of the project, including each Caltrans District obtaining CDPs for the portions of the project within the coastal zone pursuant to the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Caltrans District 1 intends to organize the CDP applications such that one permit could cover all of the coastal zone geographic area within their District. Section 30601.3 of the Coastal Act allows for a consolidated CDP process in cases where projects cross the Commission’s permitting jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a local government with a certified LCP, such as is the case here since the Commission retains permitting jurisdiction in multiple areas within Caltrans District 1. A consolidated CDP will assist Caltrans in meeting their highly compressed project timeline while reducing the burden on local governments and ensuring a smoother, more consistent approach to reviewing this project for compliance with the Coastal Act. Your jurisdiction’s certified LCP would also serve as guidance during such a consolidated CDP review, and Commission staff is committed to ensuring that this project is consistent with both Coastal Act and certified LCP policies. Below is a link to a web map that shows the coastal zone boundary in blue, the coastal zone portions of the BMMN project alignment in red, and LCP jurisdictions in purple. The web map allows you to zoom in to your jurisdiction to better visualize where this project is proposed, change the basemap by clicking on the “Basemap” button, and add Caltrans District boundaries and County boundaries to the map by clicking the “Content” button under the “Details” tab on the lefthand menu. The map does not show where network hubs are proposed as Caltrans is still finalizing their locations, but in general, hubs will be placed approximately every 50 miles along the BMMN alignment. Our staff will follow up with you if a hub will be proposed in your jurisdiction. BMMN Web Map Link We have been collaborating with Caltrans’ Districts and are reaching out on their behalf with this request for your agreement to proceed with a consolidated CDP within your jurisdiction. It is our intent to combine the consolidated CDPs for all local jurisdictions intersected by the BMMN project within District 1’s coastal zone into one master CDP. To meet the project’s ambitious schedule, we kindly request your response by December 22nd. Please let us know if you anticipate needing additional time. We welcome you, your elected officials, and your constituents to participate throughout this process. To that end, I am available to answer any questions about the project description, permit process, or otherwise. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADVmYTE2NDY5LTZmYTQtNDU2NC1iYTVjLTI2MjRmZDY3OGNhZgAQAJQ%2B%2FMa%2Frkfers… 2/3 1/5/23, 12:22 PM Mail - Ethan Lawton - Outlook Thank you, Brittney Brittney Cozzolino (she/her) Climate Change Specialist | Statewide Planning Unit California Coastal Commission 455 Market Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, California 94105 brittney.cozzolino@coastal.ca.gov | (415) 904-5271 I am currently working remotely. The best way to contact me at this time is through email. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADVmYTE2NDY5LTZmYTQtNDU2NC1iYTVjLTI2MjRmZDY3OGNhZgAQAJQ%2B%2FMa%2Frkfers… 3/3 1/5/23, 12:21 PM My Map My Map MMBN_CZB_clip IncorporatedCities_withUrbanClustersAreas Local Coastal Program Segments 0.4mi Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA | Esri Community Maps Contributors, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, US Census Bureau, USDA | California Coastal Commission GIS/Mapping Unit, January 2010 https://coastalcomm.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html 1/1  RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY AUTHORIZING THE PROCESSING OF A CONSOLIDATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) TO INSTALL BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 101 IN THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Crescent City’s Municipal Code (Section 17.84.036(A), Consolidated coastal development permit applications) and Ord. 2-22-2011(1), Notwithstanding Public Resources Section 30519, the Coastal Commission may process and act upon a consolidated coastal development permit application; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Act was amended by Senate Bill 1843 effective January 1, 2007, which allows for a consolidated permitting process for projects for which the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) authority is shared by a local government and the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Crescent City’s Municipal Code (Section 17.84.036(A)(1), Consolidated coastal development permit applications) and Ord. 2-22-2011(1), the proposed project requires a coastal development permit from both the City of Crescent City (with a certified local coastal program) and the Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, SB 1843 requires that the applicant, the local government, and the California Coastal Commission agree to the consolidation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Crescent City’s Municipal Code (Section 17.84.036(A)(2), Consolidated coastal development permit applications) and Ord. 2-22-2011(1), the applicant, the City of Crescent City, and the Coastal Commission, which may agree through its executive director, consent to consolidate the permit action, provided that public participation is not substantially impaired by that review consolidation; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) seeks to install broadband infrastructure along State Highway 101 within District 1, which is under the coastal development permit authority of both the City of Crescent City and the California Coastal Commission and other jurisdictions, and would otherwise require a coastal development permit from the City of Crescent City and from the California Coastal Commission and other local jurisdictions for the improvements located within each jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Crescent City’s Municipal Code (Section 17.84.036(A)(1), Consolidated coastal development permit applications) and Ord. 2-22-2011(1), the standard of review for a consolidated coastal development permit application shall follow Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Public Resources Code Section 30200), with the appropriate local coastal program used as guidance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30601.3, added by SB 1843, consolidation may only proceed where public participation is not substantially impaired by the consolidation; and Resolution No. PC2023-02 Page | 1 WHEREAS, public participation will not be substantially impaired as the California Coastal Commission will hold a public hearing, which may be attended by all interested parties (by either being present during a properly noticed California Coastal Commission meeting or by timely submitting comments in advance of a meeting), and the consolidation of the permit process will allow for this project which involves installation of broadband infrastructure along State Highway 101 within District 1, to be evaluated in its entirety; and WHEREAS, the proposed project aligns with the City of Crescent City’s Local Coastal Program’s goals (3.G. & 4.H.) and policies (3.G.1. & 4.H.1). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City authorizes the California Coastal Commission to accept and process a consolidated Coastal Development Permit application for Caltrans to install broadband infrastructure along State Highway 101 within District 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City on this 12th day of January 2023, by the following polled vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: John Wendt, Chair of Planning Commission ATTEST: Heather Welton, Office Technician Resolution No. PC2023-02 Page | 2  RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCING (AB 361) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City (“Planning Commission”) is committed to open and transparent government, and full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”); and WHEREAS, the Brown Act generally requires that a public agency take certain actions in order to use teleconferencing to attend a public meeting virtually; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes that a local emergency persists due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the California Legislature has recognized the ongoing state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has responded by creating an additional means for public meetings to be held via teleconference (inclusive of internet-based virtual meetings); and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 361, which amends Government Code, section 54953 and permits a local agency to use teleconferencing to conduct its meetings in any of the following circumstances: (A) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (B) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (C) the legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, in order for the Planning Commission to use teleconferencing as allowed by AB 361, it must first adopt findings in a resolution, allowing the Planning Commission to conduct teleconferenced meetings for a period of thirty (30) days; and WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency for the State of California due to the COVID-19 pandemic in his order entitled “Proclamation of a State of Emergency,” signed March 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, the County of Del Norte continues to recommend certain physical distancing requirements of people within Del Norte County, as described in detail in the Order of the Health Officer of the County of Del Norte dated 11/22/2021, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to conduct its meetings through the use of telephonic and internet-based services so that members of the public may observe and participate in meetings and offer public comment in the safest environment possible. Resolution No. PC2023-03 Page | 1 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City that: 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and fully incorporated into this Resolution by reference. 2. The Planning Commission is conducting meetings during a state of emergency and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. 3. The Planning Commission authorizes City staff to take all actions necessary to conduct Planning Commission meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and all other applicable provisions of the Brown Act, using teleconferencing for a period of thirty (30) days from the adoption of this Resolution, after which the Planning Commission will reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City on this 12th day of January 2023, by the following polled vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: John Wendt, Chair of Planning Commission ATTEST: Heather Welton, Office Technician Resolution No. PC2023-03 Page | 2