PC MINS 19760715 • f
MINUTES411 411
•
City of Rancho Palos Verdes APPROVED AS
Planning Commission PRESENTED
Regular Adjourned Meeting Jul 27 1976
July 15 , 1976 y '
The meeting was called to order at 7 :40 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Shaw.
PRESENT: Blue, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
ABSENT: None •
Also present was Director of Planning Sharon Hightower
PUBLIC HEARING - Mrs . Shaw declared the public
CODE AMENDMENT re hearing open.
ANTENNA HEIGHT
John Alexander (28403 Covecrest) ,
President of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Amateur Radio Association, indicated that group is primarily in
support of the proposed amendment.
Peter Von Hagen (28410 Meadowmist Drive) , also representing the Radio
Association, submitted a presentation recommending certain changes to
the proposed amendment, a copy of which is attached hereto and incor-
porated herein as a part of these minutes .
Speaking, in support of the proposed amendment were the following indi-
viduals : Pat Meyer, 29330 Whitley Collins Drive; Ray Day, 27131
Indian Peak Road; Victor White, 28418 Meadowmist; W. G. Wheldon, 30303
Via Rivera; Paul Weisz , 32365 Phantom Drive; Dr. Robert Frank, 32268
Phantom; Eduardo Bianchi, 28404 Meadowmist; James Maxwell, 14 Limetree
Lane; Jeff Wheldon, 30303 Via Rivera; J. F. Cashen, 5724 Ironwood;
Rulon Bailey, 26112 Birchfield; Carlton Goss , 5746 Wildbriar; Howard
Zehetner, 26740 Shadowood; John Shepherd, 6002 Flambeau; Jim Hill,
3801 Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Estates; Maurice Martin,
26125 Barkstone; Ronald Terry, 5541 Mistridge; Lou Holzman, 27890 Palos
Verdes Drive East; Doug Richards , 2546 Colt Road; Paul Arndt, 29604
Stonecrest.
The following major points were made by those in support of the amend-
ment: (1) The question of possible interference is not relevant to
the matter of this Code Amendment; however, interference is often
caused by sources other than ham radio equipment. If the radio equip-
ment is faulty, steps can be taken to eliminate the interference;
(2) Ham radio operators provide a number of community services , with
no remuneration, and should not be discouraged; (3) It is possible to
protect the environment without restricting the ham radio activities;
(4) The quality of life enjoyed by Peninsula residents also includes
the enjoyment of one' s hobbies; (5) Most individuals speaking in favor
of the ordinance already have antennas , so there would not be a rapid
proliferation of antennas if this amendment is approved; (6) The fee
required for a conditional use permit for an antenna over 75 ' would
be prohibitive for some amateur radio operators.
Speaking in opposition to the proposed amendment were the following
individuals : J. L. Varga, 28921 Indian Valley; Paul Kearney, 28435
Covecrest; Bob Bacharach, 5033 Rock Valley; Maxine Gallup, 28409
Covecrest; Kevin Lanigan, 28416 Quailhill; Sheila Hoff, 28205 Amber-
gate; Vivian Beaugrand, 29013 Indian Valley; Peggy Lanigan, 28416
Quailhill; Donald Klesges , 6221 Moongate. Their major points of con-
cern were as follows : (1) Easing the restrictions on antenna heights
is inconsistent with the goals in the City of undergrounding power
and utility lines; (2) Firm controls should be retained to control
both the height and width of antennas ; (3) Concern was expressed for
the potential visual impact of allowing higher antennas ; (4) Concern
-1-
411
was expressed with interference caused by radio antennas; (5) The ef-
fect of this proposed amendment would probably be more a cumulative
effect, having its greatest impact in 5-10 years; (6) The proposed
amendment would conflict with the goals of the City's General Plan,
specifically the section on views and vistas , wherein it is stated
that it shall be the City' s goal to preserve and enhance the character
of the City; (7) Antennas do not so much obstruct views as impact them;
(8) The present Development Code does not prohibit antennas over 40 ' ;
it merely makes it more difficult to obtain permits for them. The
present regulations should be maintained, or possibly made more re-
strictive.
Following a brief recess from 9 :20 to 9 : 30 p.m. , Paul Weisz of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Association made a brief presentation
of the causes and solutions to the problem of radio frequency inter-
ference.
There being no further testimony either for or against the proposed
amendment, the public hearing was declared closed.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously car-
ried, it was decided that the proposed amendment be further considered
at a work session on Monday, July 19 , 1976 , at 7 :30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT At 10 :10 p.m. , it was moved, secon-
ded and carried to adjourn to
Monday, July 19 , 1976 , at 7 :30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers , to discuss the proposed amendment to the
Development Code re height of antenna structures .
P.C. -2- 7/15/76
V1E, THE UND&RSI GNED ." i OWNERS OF RANCHO PALOS "'JES, SUPPORT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE CURRENT 40 FOOT PdAXI MUM ALL05,e,BI.E HEIGHT ON
ANTENNA STRUCTURES IN OUR CITY.
,(3a6 aitL O: 533VgtabfilLet P-CICILV , Q. R. p V
1-7,‘foa66 ei &AV.„90.7: 50g7 ---" ,,,c,k4itz, 1266 R.Pa
��� , / - 5.64 7 L1J(, led Rov
Ru.s., R. K.,--&--- s-b to f 6(1C 66-i0, to( q 0...) 7 y
may) 'r 0 L-3 la)fG.'o.lia44 Poe qC,+`, ."#
z?
\\,o, f/
.kms-- 51' ..r /acki,�1 .�Pd- fri/
9
yi
1(1' -/cL11) cc, s,I(.0 c -7,0 de i)cdit.) Jed KAI
G.,...i), et.a.„. Ltp 15 i fkor. Vd-e-e-y, erg RW
PiA4A) Gvx/61--, q 9P 4424-l/tae )( 01 /2_ PV
ifa . c);1,...:' qd.1-/Z-4c‘i,,,f ,e' c( R pc)
'i / ou,0 4--13 e . ...,,,, ,e,m/
• ��cwvi -- a 6 si 3 hozie-A-u4---1 f'%�V
it.:
":Ara,
jazi.A...)
076t5t? L4ZeiA,Z 4 R70/4
A.1,4-11 edel.,,,x 1,,, ," ti pa ,
hrjr. -
w1L, ���/ , _ , 6 / crLrtJi7 2616 -
' Oi";/-1, ,/ , ,'; 'e /3 iZir4U- 1/ / /•- i 'P ...
'1
k4L) 19i3 , i At°. �0l/.
ci*---- I.- _ 1%6'5 'c •c. k,ctu‘q R4, iii ,I.k,,
‘ .
, %_ - _coos-a-1(15 PO P 0 P
,Is?/ ...-00,-`i/ � SCJ'fC1 �-, 4/4'‘ �id/.
go-e-e,19( �] . (i44, 2734t Waw.- ;oma Dom, R pv
v
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION
PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
RPV DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO
HEIGHT OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES
DISCUSSION HEREIN IS KEYED TO
DRAFT AMENDMENT OF 28 JUNE 1976
SUMMARY OF AMATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION POSITION
• WE SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN GENERAL ; IT PROVIDES A REASONABLE
AND WORKABLE WAY TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL TO ENJOY PROPERTY RIGHTS
WHILE PROTECTING THE CITY AGAINST ABUSES
• WE RECOMMEND SOME CHANGES IN THE WORDING OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO MAKE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
THE R P V A R A SUPPORTS, WITHOUT RESERVATION, THESE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT:
9111 (p.l) ADDITION OF WORDING, ANTENNA STRUCTURES ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS
9121 (p.5) ADDITION OF WORDING, ANTENNA STRUCTURES ON BUILDINGS
9612 (p.55) ADDITION OF WORDING ON SETBACKS
9614(p.55) ,B.1 . ANTENNA STRUCTURES 45 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
9614(p.55),13.3. ANTENNA STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 75 FEET IN HEIGHT •
9614(p.55),B.4. HEIGHT MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS
9614(p.55),B.5. EXPERIMENTAL AND TEMPORARY ANTENNA STRUCTURES
9614(p.55),B. 7. ANTENNA STRUCTURES TO BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR
9711(p.83), REPLACEMENT WORDING COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS
9741(p.90), ADDITION OF WORDING;
GLOSSARY, ANTENNA STRUCTURE DEFINITION
REASONS FOR SUPPORT OF REFERENCED ELEMENTS
• EXEMPTION OF ANTENNAS 45 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT PERMITS NEWCOMERS
TO THIS WORTHWHILE PURSUIT (AND PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE) TO
START OUT ON A SMALL SCALE WITHOUT HAVING TO APPLY TO THE CITY
FOR A PERMIT. L. A. COUNTY PROVIDES A SIMILAR EXEMPTION.
• THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANTENNAS ABOVE 75 FEET IN HEIGHT
PROVIDES MEANS FOR THE CITY TO CLOSELY REGULATE LARGER STRUCTURES •
THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
• THE WORDING OF THESE PROPOSED ELEMENTS IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
THE RPVARA RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO THESE SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
• 9614, (p.55), 6.2 ANTENNAS HIGHER THAN 45 FEET AND LOWER THAN 75 FEET
APPLICATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTING . .
• 9614, (p.55), 6.6. CHANGES TO APPROVED ANTENNAS .
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION ON 9614 (p.55), B.2.
• SINCE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MAKES EXPLICIT PROVISION FOR ANTENNA
STRUCTURES IN THIS (45 to 75 FEET) HEIGHT RANGE, THE MINOR EXCEPTION
PERMIT IS NOT REALLY 'APPLICABLE EXCEPT AS A VEHICLE FOR FORMAL
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
• THE FEES ( $65 FOR INITIAL APPLICATION, AND $50 FOR APPEAL TO PLANNING
COMMISSION, ARE EXCESSIVE IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY
•
• SUGGEST THAT A NORMAL COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT, WITH A SITE PLAN REVIEW
BY THE CITY, WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED FEES, WOULD BE ADEQUATE
RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR 9614, (p.55), B.2. HEADING
ANTENNA STRUCTURES BETWEEN 45 AND 75 FEET HIGH )
•
RECOMMENDED CHANGE
• DELETE "MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT", AND REPLACE WITH "WITH A BUILDING
PERMIT AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR"
CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR 9614 (p.55) B. 2 .a
• RECOMME NDED TEXT:
6.2.a THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
CRITERIA:
(1) THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT -ADVERSELY- SIGNIFICANTLY
OBSTRUCT THE MAJOR VIEW FROM A NEIGHBORING RESIDENCE
• THIS CHANGE IS RECOMMENDED SO AS TO PERMIT A MORE EXPLICIT AND •
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF VIEW IMPACT BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR 9614 (p.55) B.2.a (CONT'D)
• RECOMMENDED TEXT:
B.2.a THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
CRITERIA: •
(2) THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE
WILL MINIMIZE VIEW OBSTRUCTION
• AS MODIFIED, THIS SECTION PERMITS THE DIRECTOR TO INFLUENCE PLACEMENT
OF THE ANTENNA STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. DEFINITION OF A SPECIFIC
MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN THE 45 TO 75 FOOT RANGE WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
WE RECOMMEND IMPOSITION OF A CRANK-UP OR TILT-OVER STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENT INSTEAD, WHERE APPLICABLE. (SEE NEXT CHART ON 6.2.b)
CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR 9614, (p.55), B.2.b
RECOMMENDED CHANGE:
B.2.b IN APPROVING THE PERMIT, THE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION, OR COUNCIL
•►- - . 4 ` . _ • - - • , • , • - • - • • •
•
IP : • .. �MI, -
•
MAY, WHERE MAJOR VIEWS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY
ANTENNA STRUCTURES, REQUIRE CRANK-UP OR TILT-OVER SUPPORTS,
AND MAY IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT SAID STRUCTURES MUST BE
LOWERED WHEN NOT IN ACTUAL USE. •
• THIS CHANGE PROVIDES SOME POSITIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICANT, AND
DEFINES SOME POSITIVE MEASURES WHICH MAY BE TAKEN BY THE DIRECTOR TO
ALLEVIATE VIEW OBSTRUCTION PROBLEMS.
CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR 9614,(p.55), B.6.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE: •
B.6. CHANGES TO THE APPROVED ANTENNA WHICH WILL RESULT IN A STRUCTURE
WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME HEIGHT DIMENSIONS MAY BE APPROVED -145-
- , : - :' • WITH NO FEE REQUIRED.
• THIS CHANGE TRACKS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR B.2. THAT THE MINOR
EXCEPTION PERMIT NOT BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE. IT ALSO MAKES HEIGHT
THE EXPLICIT CRITERION FOR EVALUATION OF THE CHANGE BY THE DIRECTOR.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
THESE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE COUNCIL'S
PHILOSOPHY OF MINIMIZING RED TAPE AND KEEPING FEES IN LINE WITH ACTUAL COSTS,
WHILE RETAINING APPROPRIATE CONTROLS OVER THE R P V ENVIRONMENT. THE
CHANGES HAVE THE OBJECTIVES OF:
• PROVIDING EXPLICIT CRITERIA, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, FOR THE STAFF TO •
EVALUATE APPLICATIONS AND MAKE DECISIONS
• PROVIDING UNAMBIGUOUS GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICANT, SO THAT HE
OR SHE MAY COMPLY WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS
• PROVIDING ADEQUATE MEANS FOR THE CITY TO CONTROL ANTENNA
STRUCTURES WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTING THEM