Loading...
PC MINS 19870723The meeting Ortolano at Boulevard. 0 M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION July 23, 1987 46 was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne PRESENT: CONNOLLY, VON HAGEN, ORTOLANO ABSENT: McNULTY, WIKE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Associate Planner Greg Fuz, Assistant Planner John Roberts, Assistant City Attorney Michele Bagneris, Federal Communications Commission representative Catherine Valdez, and Frank Accardo President of Dial One Antennas by Frank. COMMUNICATIONS Director Robert Benard related communication from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners and Crestmont Homeowners Association. Assistant Planner John Roberts introduced the topic of the workshop and discussed four major sub -issues that would be addressed during the workshop: Legal, technical, aesthetics and cost, and also discussed the workshop format. Roberts then presented a slide show which illustrated the unique character of the peninsula and provided examples of satellite dish antennas as they are installed throughout the community. During the slide presentation, Roberts emphasized that installation design alternatives should be considered when viewing the slide program. The slides shown by Roberts illustrated a variety of satellite dish antennas and alternative installation locations, such as SDA's on extreme slopes, on roof tops, along major arterials in required setbacks, as well as SDA's made of wire mesh, fiberglass, and colored to blend with the surrounding environment. SDA's with various heights and diameters were also shown. In addition, the slides illustrated the effect of SDA's on ocean, city, island, and mountain views from the peninsula. Roberts also showed an example of how a roof mounted satellite dish antenna in a terraced community can obstruct a primary city/harbor view from an upslope home. Roberts also illustrated the installation of satellite dish antennas in a commercial district and the visual effects of unscreened SDA's and SDA's used for advertisements. Planning Commissi4eMinutes July 23, 1987 At the close of the presentation Jack introduced Assistant City Attorney Michelle Beale Bagneris. CITY ATTORNEY PRESENTATION The Assistant City Attorney reviewed and summarized the 1986 FCC ruling. She explained that differentiation of SDA's is permissible if justified by health, safety and aesthetic considerations and if reception is not unreasonably impaired. Michelle stated that the FCC preemption is limited and that local government retains the authority to validly regulate SDA's. She discussed procedures that could be used to review SDA's such as: Site Plan Review or through the processing of a Minor Exception Permit in special situations such as roof top locations or where regulations may restrict SDA placement for aesthetic reasons. She further stated that a parapet wall for screening, rear placement on the roof, restriction to the ridge height of the roof, and prohibition in the front and side yard setbacks is permissible as long as reception is not precluded. She stated that the typical diameter of a SDA is 8 to 12 feet and that the FCC has stated that 15 feet in height is what is necessary to accommodate a 12 foot diameter dish. She also stated that roof mounting may be restricted if all antennas are similarly restricted or if findings are made to properly differentiate between antenna types. The Attorney also stated that she believes that technology will allow dish size to decrease over time. She further stated that restriction can be stricter on residential SDA's than commercial SDA's. She reviewed a recent New York court decision which struck down a zoning regulation that did not allow SDA's as an incidental use to a single family residence and stated that she is not aware of any other cases that interpret or are based on the FCC ruling. Finally she reviewed a recently denied petition to the 1986 FCC ruling to broaden the scope of its preemption. Commissioner McNulty arrived at 7:55 p.m. Greg Fuz, Associate Planner questioned the Assistant City Attorney regarding the FCC ruling and the requirements for Satellite Dish Antennas that the City may impose that would be consistent with the FCC ruling. The Assistant City Attorney stated that SDA's could be treated differently than other antennas if findings are made to document the different aesthetic impact of SDA's and the unique community characteristics that cause the aesthetic impact of SDA's to differ from the impact of other antennas. Page 2 Planning Commissi Minutes July 23, 1987 In response to Fuz's questioning, the Assistant City Attorney also stated that: 1. Commercial advertising can be prohibited on SDA's to the same extent that other commercial signage is regulated. 2. Notice to adjacent property owners or beyond can be incorporated into the SDA review process provided that the resulting delay in installation of the SDA and the cost to the applicant are minimized. 3. The color and material of the SDA can be regulated provided that reception is not unreasonably impaired. 4. SDA location can be limited to the rear yard of a residence unless reception would be significantly impaired. The rear yard would be anywhere behind the residence in a location that is not visible from the adjacent street or sidewalk. 5. Acceptable review criteria for SDA's include: visibility, appearance, view obstruction, structural integrity and reception. FCC PRESENTATION Catherine Valdez from the FCC introduced herself and outlined her responsibilities with the FCC. She stated that the goal of the FCC ruling is to allow local government to regulate SDA's,' provided that the rules do not discriminate between antenna types in an unreasonable manner, and do not impair the health, safety, and aesthetics of the community. She discussed signal interference and how larger diameter SDA's reduce interference, and that the FCC can help with interference if the operator is registered with the FCC. She stated that the FCC is not a national zoning board and that the FCC expects local communities to regulate the placement and location of SDA's. She also stated that the FCC does not dictate aesthetics, but leaves aesthetic regulations to local governing bodies. She discussed that Section 705 of the Communications Act does not allow for unauthorized reception of signals. Catherine stated that Rosalie Gorman of the Washington D.C. FCC Office is an expert on the FCC preemption ruling and she can evaluate the treatment of SDA on a local level and may recommend appropriate changes to local ordinances to make them consistent with the FCC ruling. She stated that the FCC would coordinate alleged violations or complaints regarding local government ordinances. Director Benard questioned Catherine regarding the standard for excessive cost. She stated that the FCC has no standards for excessive cost and suggested that the cost of equipment needs to be researched with installers and that the cost of screening is Page 3 Planning Commiss Minutes 40 July 23, 1987 not an issue. Associate Planner Fuz questioned Catherine Valdez regarding FCC authority and the reason for the ruling and a variety of other questions regarding the January 14, 1986 ruling. He specifically asked what prompted the FCC to issue its January 1986 ruling. She answered that it was a result of inquiries from the American Radio Relay League, the National Association of Broadcasters, and SPACE about discriminatory regulations. Additionally, Fuz inquired if the FCC Staff would, upon request, make a determination regarding the validity of satellite dish regulations. Catherine said that they would at the request of the aggrieved parties. Fuz asked if Catherine could describe any upcoming or contemplated changes to the existing ruling. She stated that there were none. SATELLITE DISH INSTALLER PRESENTATION Frank Accardo introduced himself, stated his qualifications and outlined the technical aspects of antenna systems. He answered questions from Assistant Planner Roberts regarding a variety of technical issues. Accardo described various radio bands, frequencies and the progression of satellite signals. He explained that the average dish size is currently 10 feet and that the cost effectiveness between 10 to 12 foot diameter SDA"s in terms of increased quality of reception is marginal. Accardo stated that satellites are geo-stationary and located in the southern sky. Accardo also discussed the following topics in answer to staff's questions: trees are a serious reception problem; each satellite must be at least 2 degrees apart; each satellite includes 24 channels; currently there are 19 satellites and there are contracts for 38 more within the next 5 years under the C -Band; KU band SDA's require 3 degree spacing. Accardo noted that he does not expect that the K band to supersede C -band because of the large investment in C -band technology. Accardo stated that the most popular satellites are Galaxy Di and Satcom. He stated that the cost of a roof mounted SDA and a ground mounted SDA is similar, although the roof mounted are more difficult install. Accardo stated that the signal from on SDA would have to be amplified if the distance to hook up is greater than 200 feet. Page 4 Planning Commissiominutes July 23, 1987 GENERAL DISCUSSION Chairperson Ortolano summarized the issues presented and invited Commissioner Von Hagen to lead the questioning. Commissioner Von Hagen invited Mr. Robert Eaton of 26123 Barkstone Drive of Rancho Palos Verdes to speak. Mr. Eaton discussed his credentials, his association with the law firm of Brown and Finn, and stated his concern that all antennas should be regulated in the same way. He also related Fred Finn's opinion that roof top mounting can not be prohibited. He agreed that the rear yard location is often most appropriate provided that reception is protected, and noted that the City allows second story additions with height variations, as well as construction up to 16 feet. Commissioner Von Hagen asked Accardo about the difference, if any, between the reception of a wire mesh versus a solid SDA. The question was answered by Mr. Eaton. He stated that theoretically there is better reception with a solid antenna, but the difference is negligible. Commissioner Von Hagen questioned Accardo regarding the size and composition of satellite dish antennas and reception quality. Accardo discussed these aspects. Chairperson Ortolano asked the Assistant City Attorney whether it would be reasonable to limit SDA's to wire mesh. The City Attorney doubted that this would be consistent with the FCC ruling but stated that mesh could be required on a case by case basis if justified by the location or visibility of the SDA. Commissioner Von Hagen stated that Ms. Valdez acknowledged that she was not an expert on federal preemption. Ms. Valdez stated that the City has the right to regulate provided that the regulation does not impair reasonable performance characteristics and is based on proper findings, and the requirements are not excessively expensive. Commissioner Von Hagen asked the Assistant City Attorney if health, safety and aesthetic criteria could be the only basis for antenna regulation differentiation. The attorney agreed, provided that the distinctions are justified and the criteria consider cost and reception. He also asked if that applies to application and regulation cost. The attorney again agreed. Chairperson Ortolano asked the attorney if cost is an issue regarding safety purposes. The attorney stated it would not be if applied equally to all antenna types. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1987 Chairperson Ortolano questioned if the City could prohibit SDA installation on extreme slopes. The attorney stated that SDA's could be prohibited on extreme slopes if all antennas other antennas were similarly restricted. Chairperson Ortolano questioned the attorney whether an applicant was entitled to optimum reception location even if that location is on an extreme slope. The Assistant Attorney answered that the City is not required to allow SDA placement in the optimum reception location if other considerations preclude that location and a reasonable alternate location is available. Robert Benard clarified the types of development permitted on extreme slopes. Commissioner Connolly questioned Accardo regarding undergrounding of SDA cables in terms of shielding, voltage, record of location and amplification limits. He answered that the cables are shielded, low voltage and that the signal can be amplified but would not recommend a cable greater than 1000 feet. Commissioner Connolly questioned Ms. Valdez regarding complaints of reception interference due to SDA's, and whether radio signal would interfere. Ms. Valdez stated that her office received two complaints out of 5000 concerning SDA interference, and that radio signal frequency is in a different range. Commissioner Connolly stated that the ordinance should address the function of antennas, whether receiving or transmitting. Discussion ensued regarding preemption of transmitting vs. receiving antennas. Director Benard asked the attorney for an interpretation on the "unless such regulations" portion of the FCC ruling and stated that the focus of City regulation should be to achieve consistency with the FCC ruling. Ms. Valdez quoted a recent ruling from the FCC regarding transmitting antennas and local ability to regulate for health and safety purposes. Chairperson Ortolano reviewed her impressions of the panelist's statements. She also questioned the Attorney regarding rear yard placement, regulations for special locations, regulating political signs and privacy issues. She also asked the Assistant Attorney if the Site Plan Review was the most appropriate application. The Attorney said that it seemed so, but was not necessarily so. Chairperson Ortolano asked about SDA's exceeding the ridgeline of the roof and if antenna structures would work installed below the ridgeline. Page 6 Planning Comm is s #minutes July 23, 1987 Accardo responded that ridgeline limit for installation can work but it really depends upon the direction the dish must face and the orientation of the roof. Ms. Ortolano asked the Assistant City Attorney whether rear yard placement could be required if other locations provide better reception. The Attorney answered that regulating location for legitimate reasons such as reducing visibility from adjacent streets, is acceptable provided that reception is not unreasonably limited. Commissioner Ortolano asked if we could regulate political signs on satellite dish antennas. The Attorney answered that only commercial speech can be regulated. Chairperson Ortolano also asked if satellite owners can enforce reception regulations privately and how unauthorized receptions can be handled. That Attorney said that owners can enforce reception regulation privately and that unauthorized reception can be handled through the FBI. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Gilbert Alberio of 2177 Rockinghorse thanked the staff for the invitation, provided an article regarding K -band, and reviewed his understanding of the FCC ruling. Frank and Mr. Gilbert discussed microwave spillover from receive -only dishes to residences. Mr. Alberio asked staff when the enforcement of our satellite dish antenna regulation stopped. Bob Benard stated this occurred after the FCC ruling and the Gabelle court ruling which stated that our ordinance was not consistent with the FCC ruling. He also stated that the City keeps records of unauthorized installations. Carmel Alberio of 2177 Rockinghorse reviewed the circumstance of the satellite dish that blocks their view. She wanted to know when the new regulations will be effective so that she may voice concern over the dish. Discussion ensued regarding the Alberio situation. Gary Accardo related his experience regarding installation of satellite antennas. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes 46 July 23, 1987 Jim Beckett, 29647 Grandpointe, President of the Miraleste Hills Homeowners Association stated that he opposes all satellite dish antennas because of aesthetic reasons. He stated that Palos Verdes is the last rural outpost and he would like to maintain its unique rural atmosphere. Mr. Beckett also felt that the criteria for "reasonable regulations should depend upon community circumstances such as area topography. Commissioner McNulty stated that he is against purely aesthetic regulations and that he can not support selective enforcement of aesthetic regulations. He pointed out that aesthetics of homes are not regulated. Rob Katherman, 18 Rockinghorse recounted dealing with Frank Accardo at Village Palos Verdes and stated that satellite dish antennas can be successfully installed with minimal impact. He suggested that noticing be required with any application. Angus Gillis, 26307 Silver Spur, discussed problems with aesthetic based regulations, noted that FM signals can be received by SDA's and questioned whether Section 705 applies to non -scrambled signals. Mr. Robert Eaton asked Ms. Valdez if the FCC applies to CC&R's. Ms. Valdez answered that it does not. Staff stated that they will review the consideration as discussed in this workshop and would prepare a draft ordinance for Planning Commission review. Chairperson Ortolano summarized the hearing and noted that any SDA installed without City approval will be pursued when the new regulations are effective. She then called for questions from the audience regarding non -agenda items. There were no audience questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned at approximately 11:20 p.m. t