Loading...
PC MINS 19930323MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Donna Jerex and Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of March 8, 1993. Commissioner Clark requested that "or documented the view impairment" be added at the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph on Page 11. Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve the Minutes of March 8, 1993, as corrected. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE NO. 350; Mr. and Mrs. Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive. On a motion by Vice Chairman Byrd, seconded by Chairman Katherman, the Commission agreed to waive the reading of the staff report. Mr. Earl Gantz, (applicant) 3558 Bendigo Drive, stated that he had read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Clark expressed concern that cars would encroach into the sidewalk if the applicant had guests or changed cars, and it was determined with Staff and the applicant that this would not be a problem. Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Vice Chairman Byrd thought the curb might be too close to the drain coming out through the curb and Chairman Katherman suggested that the driveway could be angled slightly to avoid the drain. Commissioner Lorenzen moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve Variance No. 350, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Mowlds stated for the record that although he voted for this variance, he did not think accessing a three car garage through a bathroom was a good design. He requested that the City reserve the right to take corrective action if a doorway from the sleeping quarters to the garage was installed in the future. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3 - REVISION "A"; Southern California Edison, 5741 Crestridge. At the applicant's request, the Commission agreed to reorder the agenda to hear this item last and to hear Continued Business next. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 352, GRADING PERMIT 1673; Kenneth Vukov, 2 Mustang Road. Associate Planner Jerex presented the staff report and advised that Staff had determined that the revised plans meet the conditions set forth by the Commission at the last meeting. Ray Medak, (architect for applicant), 150 West 6th Street, San Pedro, testified that only 16.7% of the lot is buildable area because (1) Mustang Road bisects the lot; (2) the applicant has the full 60 feet of the road as part of his property whereas most of the neighbors have only half of a road; (3) there is a 24 foot easement along the westerly side accessing Mr. Mavar's lot (the normal access easement in the neighborhood is between 16 feet and 18 feet); (4) the 60 foot road and the 24 foot easement together consume 39% of the lot; and (5) because the lot is bisected by the road there is an unusable wedge on the southerly side of the lot which consumes 12% of the site. Mr. Medak stated that the changes that had been made to the project were: (1) the portico is no longer a semi -circle, but is off by one foot from a full circle and is an ellipse, (2) the building was moved back seven feet from the original plans and rotated slightly; (3) the building size was slightly reduced; (4) the rear yard was reduced by 450 square feet and the building now encroaches on the rear yard setback by five feet except for one notch in the building which encroaches six feet, and (5) these changes resulted in bringing the two-story front facade 46 feet away from the paved surface of the road. Mr. Medak said that the Federal style had been retained except for the one foot change to an elliptical shape of the portico in front. He advised that the owner had since requested that it be changed back to a semi -circle to maintain the Federal design which would require a one -foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Mr. Medak advised that (1) the grading was increased because they cut horizontally into the lot and that they did not go deeper but actually went four inches higher; (2) gravel could be put in the unbuildable wedge of the lot to provide parking for guests and service vehicles for the whole area and the reason for using gravel was that the area is a drainage area for Rockinghorse Canyon; and (3) the City Engineer had informed him that moving the street would require a revision to the parcel map which would be costly and timely and that they would also need full cooperation from all the homeowners in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 2 Mr. Medak explained that this was especially difficult since there was no official, organized homeowners association. The City Engineer also questioned whether the transition between the two radii that would be created by the street would be sufficient or if it would create a bad jog in the road. Mr. Medak stated that the proposed project met the 40% maximum lot coverage requirement and was similar in size to the footprint of the conceptual design used for the lot split approved by the Commission in October 1991. He said the original footprint was 2,800 sq. ft. which is 12% of the lot and the total coverage with the driveway was 38.1%, and that the proposed house exceeded that by only 1/2%. In response to the neighbor's concern that the garage would be too close to his bedroom windows, Mr. Medak advised that the garage would be 30 feet away from Mr. Lane's bedroom windows at the closet point and 40 feet away at the furthest point and that his finished floor would be five feet above the elevation of the garage. Mr. Medak thought the existing trees were a sufficient buffer against any sound in that area. Commissioner Mowlds said he did not object to the one foot front yard encroachment but was concerned about the closeness of the access road to the house and asked what prevented that road being moved to the tree line and away from the house. Mr. Medak responded that it is an existing road, that a retaining wall would be required, and that they cannot build on top of the easement. Commissioner Hayes asked if the plan approved October 1991 with the parcel map was submitted with just the footprint or had that Commission considered a very large, two story house with no articulation. Mr. Medak responded that it was a two story, split level Mediterranean style design. Commissioner Hayes commented that a split level design might look better. She said that it was a problem when one Planning Commission approved a lot split and another had to approve the house on the lot and suggested that there should be something to indicate very clearly that when you split a lot you are taking a great risk as to what can be put on that lot in terms of the setback requirement. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Mr. Medak for suggestions to make the gravel area look more attractive d to assure that it will remain attractive. Commissioner IM: suggested moss and stone and Mr. Medak responded that if the area was used by the general vicinity, moss would not hold up. He suggested using PV stone lu Vice Chairman Byrd asked when the one foot encroac ment into the front yard setback was considered as he would have like that reflected in the staff report. Mr. Medak responded it was after talking to Associate Planner Jerex approximately two weeks ago and that Ms. Jerex had not objected to the encroachment. Vice Chairman Byrd noted that the direction from the Commission was to bring back a revised design PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 3 that did not encroach into the front setback. Mr. Medak said it was a matter of beauty and integrity and holding to the original design concept. In response to Commissioner Clark's question, Mr. Medak advised that they had eliminated more than 100 square feet and that the square footage was now approximately 5,200. Commissioner Lorenzen confirmed that the Mavars did not object to the rear yard setback encroachment. Commissioner Alberio opined that converting the easement into a parking area could become a private nuisance as opposed to a public nuisance and the neighbors might object. He stated that he did not object to the one foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Chairman Katherman noted that the portico was an open design and only the stairway would encroach into the setback, the columns would come a little closer to the front setback and the roof of the portico would extend out, but the rest was open space. Commissioner Mowlds asked what the footprint of the conceptual plan for the lot split was and what the square footage of the footprint of the proposed house was and Mr. Medak answered that the conceptual footprint was 2,800 sq. ft. and the proposed drawing shows a footprint of 3,500 sq. ft. Commissioner Mowlds then concluded that it was, in fact, an increase of 28% and not 1/2% as Mr. Medak had indicated. Mr. Medak said the difference was that the original conceptual drawing has a driveway and the garage in the front and it is the site coverage that he is only a half percent over, not the physical footprint but that the footprint was similar. Commissioner Mowlds said it was a beautiful house, but was on the wrong lot. Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commission Mowlds and said the perception he had was that the architect was saying that here is something that was approved two years ago and the difference is only 1/2%, but in reality the footprint is 28% larger. Vice Chairman Byrd said the house is too large for the lot and that he thought Commissioner Mowlds had made his point very well. Mr. Medak said he wanted to make the point that they were maintaining the site coverage and that there were tremendous hardships on the lot. Vice Chairman Byrd commented that the lot existed in its current configuration when the applicant purchased it and they really have a 9,000 sq. ft. buildable area. Commissioner Alberio said he considered it a self-imposed design which was not a hardship. Chairman Katherman asked, on the other hand, how many lots are there in Rancho Palos Verdes with a 60 foot easement through the middle. Commissioners Hayes and Alberio stated that the applicant knew that when he purchased the property and, therefore, the need for the variance was a self-imposed hardship based on the design of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 4 Chairman Katherman asked how many parking spaces there would be and what kind of material would be used. Mr. Medak responded that they are proposing two now but if the Commission would rather have three, they were willing to do that and they are planning to use gravel or PV stone. Chairman Katherman said he did not think the garage location with respect to the next door neighbor was a privacy problem, but there may be a noise problem and he asked for suggestions to deal with the noise issue. Mr. Medak suggested more trees. Bob McNulty, 19 Mustang Road; testified against the project and said he was a member of the Planning Commission that approved the original lot split. He stated that the footprint on the handout the Commission was discussing apparently was the conceptual footprint that was part of the approval of the lot split by the previous Commission. He said the model of the proposed house provided for the Commission by the applicant did not do justice to the project since it did not show the other massive structure adjacent to it which is approximately the same size, design, and color and which will be only a few feet away. Mr. McNulty advised that when they approved the lot split, it was the Planning Commission's hope that they would not have this kind of massive design and building on the two lots. That was why the 2,800 sq. ft. footprint was part of the original approval and was acknowledged as being the basic size that would be appropriate for this particular lot. Now the applicant has increased that footprint by 28% and he said that was exactly what he believed the Commission wanted to prevent, i.e., large buildings on relatively small lots in comparison to the surrounding areas, as well as in comparison to the lots themselves. He thought this was going to be an imposing structure on a very small street. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. McNulty, as a resident of the area, saw any problem with the right-of-way access if the roadway was moved to the left so the house could be moved away from the Mavars' house. Mr. McNulty replied that it would be very difficult to relocate the easement and in his opinion, that would not change how the proposed house would impose itself upon the neighborhood. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if there was any reason or guidance for having the driveway in the front rather than using a side access road when the lot split was approved. Mr. McNulty answered that he did not think that was even looked at because there were two lots and access back and forth was needed. This was the way they came in with the lot split and the easements and they were the right size and were appropriate to the lot size. Commissioner Clark asked if there were other houses in the neighborhood of the approximate size of the house proposed by the applicant. Mr. McNulty replied that he was not aware of any house bigger than his own. Commissioner Clark asked if it would be fair to conclude that any house 3,500 sq. ft. and above, given the neighbor's house was already built, would create an imposing structure on this lot. Mr. McNulty answered that it was not so much the size as it was PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 5 the appearance of this house. But he thought it was unfortunate that the applicant wanted to increase the footprint that the Planning Commission had approved. Commissioner Clark asked that if the present Commission limited the house to the footprint originally approved, would that not still make the argument Mr. McNulty was trying to make that coupled with the Mavars' house, it was an imposing structure. Mr. McNulty said it would depend on the design and layout of the house and that the proposed house was an imposing structure that would be the biggest, most outstanding house on the street. Commissioner Hayes agreed with Mr. McNulty. Chairman Katherman noted that the Mavar's house is a two level house with a similar design and said he did not understand Mr. McNulty's concerns about the appearance of the house when, as a former Planning Commissioner, he understood that the issues before them with a variance were not the design of the house, not the height of the house and not whether the Planning Commission thought that the Federal style house was consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. McNulty responded that he believed the Commission had the power to consider whether the house was compatible with the neighborhood and that the Commission could restrict the variance in any way they wanted. Chairman Katherman stated that he thought the issue was not compatibility, but was rather would this house be injurious and materially detrimental to properties in the area, as it was not a height variation case, but was a variance. Mr. McNulty reiterated that he believed the Commission could put any type of restrictions or modifications they thought necessary on their approval of a variance. Chairman Katherman concurred but stated that there had to be some basis for the modifications or restrictions and he was trying to find out what Mr. McNulty thought was that basis as there is a two story house behind the project and a two story house adjacent to it. Mr. McNulty said he was not against a two story house but was arguing against the appearance of it as it looks like a wall right on the street and that it will be above the street and will be imposing and incompatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Byrd noted there were a number of homes on Palos Verdes Drive South which look very massive and this was something they want to avoid. He said this was not a house that could be hidden and he agreed with Mr. McNulty regarding neighborhood compatibility but, unfortunately, there was nothing in the Development Code that defined the term. He asked Mr. McNulty what the specific reason was for not allowing the application, other than the fact that it is not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. McNulty replied that it was a 28% increase over what was approved by the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Byrd asked him if when they approved a lot split they actually approved the location and footprint of the house. Mr. McNulty replied they certainly did because they wanted to know how the houses were going to sit on the lots and to assure that they were not going to be gigantic houses. Vice Chairman Byrd asked Staff if they were aware that the previous Planning Commission had approved a site PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 6 • 1] plan with this lot split showing exactly what the size of the house could be. Associate Planner Jerex replied that actually there was a plan of the lot split as well and that was a conceptual drawing provided with the application and it did not have any elevation. She said it was to demonstrate, as the State requires, that there is 3,000 minimum square footage of contiguous buildable area. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the 2,806 sq. ft. footprint was meant to be imposed as a condition of the lot split when it was approved. Associate Planner Jerex stated that it was her recollection that it was a conceptual drawing just to show the minimum square footage. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he was not against the philosophy of approving a footprint with the lot split, but if it was done that way it should be continued so that one Commission understands specifically what the Commission prior to them did. Chairman Katherman stated that his recollection was that it was not one of the conditions of approval, but was to make sure they were creating a lot that had enough buildable area because of the uniqueness of this property. Mr. Medak's rebuttal regarding the imposing design was that the tall Eucalyptus trees along the road are a buffer for the height of the building and another buffer is the natural berm that raises six feet off the road to the lot on which will be placed more trees. He said the proposed house would be less imposing off of Mustang than Mr. Mavar's house is off of Palos Verdes Drive East. Also, the two houses, Mr. Mavar's and the applicant's, will be 74 feet apart and Mr. Mavar has more than 16 feet of grassy area in front of his house. Mr. Medak added that Mr. McNulty does not have the largest home in the neighborhood and he cited two houses larger, one 5,200 sq. ft. and one 5,800 sq. ft., both of which were two stories with straight up front facades and were not 46 feet away from the asphalt pavement, as was the proposed house. Mr. McNulty responded saying that Mr. Olsen's house is one of the most beautifully articulated homes and to say it was unarticulated was not correct. Commissioner Alberio asked what.was the size of the lots with the bigger homes and Mr. Mavar advised that the Mavar's lot is 20,003 sq. ft. and Mr. Olsen's lot is 28,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Hayes quoted the following from the staff report: "staff firmly believes that because this lot slopes up steeply from the street, any design which concentrates its bulk towards the front facade is not compatible with the visual relationship of the other homes in the neighborhood ... to meet the Code, the second story of this dwelling should be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the front property line." She noted that both the first and second story are now 20 feet from the property line, the front facade should be articulated, and that maybe this was not the right home for the lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to deny the variance. Commissioner Clark expressed concern that the Commission told the applicant to push the house back on the lot and conceded that there were extenuating circumstances on the lot at the last meeting. He felt the applicant was looking for some equity with what their neighbors have. Chairman Katherman also thought the Commission had given the applicant very specific instructions to redesign the project. He said the issue at the last meeting was the mass of the house from the street and the architect had moved the house back so the variance now occurs in the rear of the property. He stated that the applicant could get a building permit to build this exact same facade without Planning Commission approval by eliminating the part of the house that encroaches into the rear yard setback and reducing the square footage. Staff advised that there would still have to be second story articulation because it is an upsloping lot and the applicant would need Planning Commission approval to build the straight front facade. Chairman Katherman stated that the Planning Commission had on several of the recent Conditional Use Permits relaxed that guideline and Commissioner Mowlds disagreed saying that the Commission had actually made it more restrictive on some projects and that the Commission had never backed off the second story articulation requirement on an upsloping lot development. Chairman Katherman said he felt that given the two one-story wings of the house and the architectural style, the house had merit. The motion to deny the variance carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: ALBERIO, HAYES, MOWLDS, BYRD NOES: LORENZEN, CLARK AND KATHERMAN RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p. m. during which time a birthday cake was presented to Commissioner Mowlds and all present sang happy birthday. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3 - REVISION "All; Southern California Edison, 5741 Crestridge. Associate Planner Jerex presented the staff report and advised Staff had determined that no significant impacts would result from the 60 - foot high antenna proposed by the applicant. Ms. Jerex noted that Condition No. 5 should be corrected to read the southerly property line rather than the northerly properly line. Scott Gobble, Local Area Manager for Southern California Edison (SCE), explained that SCE wanted to install a 60 foot pole with antennas to PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 8 improve their communications system between their switching centers and crews. He said their current system was more than 40 years old and required them to communicate from different stations, plus there was a lot of noise on the system. Mr. Gobble stated that the present system does not have enough capacity to handle the volume of calls they get. He advised that within the next five to ten years, the FCC will take away the different frequencies they have now and reallocate those resources. Mr. Gobble said they need to take charge of their system now so they can provide service to the public. He advised that the tower would not have any lights on it and would be right next to the Los Angeles County tower. Mr. Gobble presented a map and video showing the proposed tower as viewed from five locations. Jack Saul, P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, Research Scientist, Southern California Edison, stated that the public was hearing a lot about electromagnetic fields (which come from the power frequencies on the transmission lines) in the media. He said the communication frequencies they would be using were substantially different and there was no relationship between those two types of energy. He explained that the main distinction was in the wave length and that the wave length of the 60 hz power frequency was approximately 3,100 miles long and as you get up into the frequencies they will be using the wave length gets very, very short. He said he was there to answer questions which distinguish between those two different sets of frequencies. Commission Alberio asked if the proposed antenna would be receiving and transmitting since there will be microwaves if it is transmitting and there will be a lot of fall out of microwaves. Commissioner Alberio said he asked the question because Mr. Saul had distinguished between the frequencies on the power lines which are actually static and the fall out is minimum as opposed to microwaves which, from what he was reading in the papers, was the difference between a receiving antenna and a transmitting antenna. Mr. Saul said that the power frequencies are not static per se, they are 60 hz which is getting close to static but was an alternating field. He advised that the attenuation of the fields was very rapid from any source relative to either the tower itself or from a conductor such as a cord so by the time you move farther away from the tower you are basically in an unmeasurable zone as far as the intensity of these fields, regardless of whether it is receiving or transmitting. He explained that, however, if you were climbing the tower such as a worker in that environment, then it would become more of an issue in terms of the intensity of the field because you would be right next to it. Vice Chairman Byrd asked how wide the beam was. Bill Kelsey, Project Engineer, Southern California Edison, stated that the radio frequency energy that this facility will emanate were short waves which are a lot smaller than the 60 hz phenomena that Mr. Saul discussed and that the actual wave they will be applying is approximately a third of a yard. He said the components are both magnetic and electric so they will beam together because the wave PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 9 0 lengths are smaller, whereas in the 60 hz EMF issue you are talking mainly about a magnetic component so it was a different issue. He explained that an am broadcast radio was down at the low end of the spectrum and as you go up a little higher you run into your fm radio and then higher is your television spectrum. He said television used to go to Channel 83 but the FCC took that away and you can only go to Channel 70 and that the spectrum where Channel 70 started and went to 83 is the area they are talking about so it is a very short wave length. He advised that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) had established a standard of 3.1 millowatts per centimeter for the frequencies or wave lengths they are talking about. The equipment they are proposing could run as much as 600 watts effective radiated power (ERP) which from the closest area in the school yard would be 58 times lower than that standard. They have engineered the system to provide the communications they need using only 135 watts ERP which is approximately 258 times below that standard and does not present any health issue to the community or public in general. It would be pan issue when you get close to the tower which would be a person climbing or working on the tower. Vice Chairman Byrd asked how the signal was polarized and what was the beam width and Mr. Kelsey answered that the signal would be vertical polarized and the beam width was about six degrees. A brief technical discussion followed and Vice Chairman Byrd concluded that it was not a health problem. In response to Commissioner Alberio's question, Mr. Kelsey advised that they will use existing support equipment. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if there was any danger standing by the tower and Mr. Kelsey advised that there was no danger because the energy radiated vertically was highly attenuated compared with the energy transmitted horizontally. Commissioner Clark asked if there was any chance the frequency band of SCE could change and hence instead of a 935 to 940 mhz band, there could be a different band in which case there would be a different level of intensity. Mr. Kelsey responded that because of the crowded spectrum usage especially in the Los Angeles area, it is more likely to move up because that is where there is some spectrum. He said he did not see departing from this because of the crowded spectrum in the Los Angeles area and that this was one of the last pieces of spectrum that was available. Commissioner Clark stated that ANSI was not a governmental agency and asked if there were existing guidelines from the Federal Government. Mr. Kelsey responded that the no one in the Federal Government had set standards. Mr. Kelsey advised that the FCC is a rules and regulations licensing agency which issues licenses to use spectrum and they do not set standards on such issues of, for example, how close can you put several transmitters and they have declined to set health standards in this area. Mr. Kelsey advised that they will not utilize PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 10 a satellite dish at this facility and will instead use existing microwave antennas. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if all they were ever going to generate was 135 watts and did the FCC limit them to that. Mr. Kelsey responded that the FCC limits them to 600 watts and that legally they could increase to that. He said the 135 watts they discussed was what their engineer said was necessary to get the communications they want. Vice Chairman Byrd thought that if SCE made an agreement with the City to limit it to 135 watts, that they would have to come back to the City for approval to increase above that. Commissioner Clark asked that if the Planning Commission predicated approval of the revision to the CUP upon an equipment installation that only generates 135 watts of power, wouldn't it be a material change if they decided to swap that equipment out for equipment that would generate up to a maximum of 600 watts. Associate Planner Jerex explained that with the change out of this equipment they would actually be lowering the wattage that presently exists on the site. Vice Chairman Byrd asked how much experience they had at these frequencies with atmospheric disturbances such as fog fading, for example. Mr. Kelsey explained that they don't have most of those phenomena since they usually occur at higher frequencies. Chairman Katherman asked if there were any other state or federal government agencies regulating this issue other than the FCC. Mr. Kelsey responded that the Federal government is the one who has purview in this area because it was not something that was respective of jurisdictional boundaries. Annette Taylor. 39 Aspen Way, testified against the project and said that she lives directly opposite the site. She said that the county has been putting in more dishes and she now hears a low hum from the county dishes and she did not want the SCE tower because it was one more effect on her environment. Ms. Taylor stated that she was very concerned about the effect of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and asked if the City had done any testing and she suggested that studies be done to determine how it would affect the children in the Terrace Townhomes and how it would affect other communities. Ms. Taylor said that the County site had no landscaping and was very ugly with big propane tanks, big cement buildings and a chain link fence and she asked if the City could do something about that. Commissioner Alberio determined that Ms.Taylor was within 300 feet of the site and said he knew she was concerned about the microwave fall out from the transmitting antenna. Ms. Taylor asked if there was a cumulative effect with what the County was transmitting. Commissioner Alberio stated that he had the same questions as to what would be the impact on the environment with the additional microwaves. He said that it should be measured by an expert and that there was much literature on the subject which indicate that there may be a health risk. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 11 Samuel N. Rubino, 85 Aspen Way; said he lived at the Terraces Townhomes also and was within 300 feet of the site and he was concerned about the microwave fall out. He stated that he had not heard anything about how much fall out there would be from the experts who had testified on behalf of SCE. He believed the fall out should be measured to determine if it is within the acceptable limits. Mr. Rubino said he had a small child and that he was concerned about all the children in that area. He advised that there is a play area with slides and swings within 100 feet of where Ms. Taylor lives. He asked if the proposed SCE antenna would add to the fall out from the equipment already on or near the site thereby increasing the hazard. He advised that he was against the project being approved until that information was available and testing was done and there was some indication whether it was safe to the people who live there. Kathryn Garnett, 53 Aspen; said she looks at the site from her living room and master bedroom and that there are unpainted buildings, repair sheds, and butane tanks with no landscaping to shield the site. She stated that about a block away the Edison Company has a beautiful facility on Highridge with landscaping and benches to sit on and although SCE shares this site with the County and possibly the Highway Patrol, she thought perhaps SCE could use their influence to enhance what the adjacent residents see. Commissioner Alberio asked if Ms. Garnett would be satisfied if SCE would landscape and shield the site and Ms. Garnett said that would be helpful. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive; asked what height limit had been established for antennas in the City. Associate Planner Jerex advised that it was 40 feet for residential areas, but they have to nest it at 30 feet, but there was no limit with a Conditional Use Permit for commercial antennas. Ms. Kelly agreed that a study should be conducted concerning the health risks of all of the structures on the site before any decision was made and she thought that information could be made readily available by the County and SCE. She cited a study done in Sweden that involved children who had leukemia. Scott Gobble advised that the chain link fence was around the County's facility that borders up to the Terraces. He advised that the SCE parcel was directly behind the Synagogue and that the butane tanks were on the SCE facility but they could not be seen from the Terraces as they were screened by a green hedge with a slump stone building behind the hedge. He stated that the tower and the other buildings the residents were referring to were owned by the County and the Highway Patrol. He explained that the vegetation screening SCE was proposing was directly between the Synagogue and SCE and there was no chain link fence there. In response to Mr. Rubino's concern about the health effects on children, Mr. Gobble said he had talked to the members of the Synagogue and the letter in the Commissioner's packet from the Synagogue was a result of those meetings. He said the Synagogue has a nursery school with a young children's program and it PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 12 was very much of a concern for them. After meeting with SCE, they concurred that this was the best under the situation and that there would be less radio waves emanating from the new facility than from what was currently there. He stated that the cumulative effects coming from the fields that are emanating are going to be less with the new facilities than with what is there ,today. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if SCE was proposing a new tower with an old antenna taken off the old tower and put on the new tower. Mr. Kelsey responded that was incorrect as they planned to remove some of the antennas that are presently on the back structure and install new antennas on the pole. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if they were going to take the rack down. Mr. Kelsey responded that the rack is basically the back of what holds the microwave antenna and it would mechanically weaken it if it was taken down, therefore, the microwave antennas would remain as they are as part of the infrastructure to support the site. Vice Chairman Byrd expressed his concern that antenna sites tend to become junkyards since it is costly to remove equipment as it becomes obsolete. He asked if SCE had anything on the site that they were not using and Mr. Kelsey advised there was nothing there now that was not in service. Commissioner Alberio asked if the antennas were being used 24 hours a day and Mr. Kelsey advised that the service they provide requires 24 hour operation, but that the majority of traffic happens around 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Alberio asked if there was any to telescope the antenna and Mr. Kelsey said it would be a mechanical problem to come up with something that was economical and affordable, but he would not say it was impossible. Commissioner Alberio asked how SCE would detect a microwave fall out leak in the transmitting antenna so they could correct it right away. Mr. Kelsey explained that the system performance would degrade when communicating with their field vehicles and that SCE had monitoring equipment which would provide alarms to let them know when this happened and it would be attended to because they would lose communications and efficiency of the system. Mr. Kelsey informed the Commission that SCE had done calculations on what they considered the worst case scenario at the maximum allowable energy with the closest point at the school yard which is a straight line distance of 40 feet and based on a person about 4 feet tall. He explained that these were the distances they used to arrive at the .05 centimeters of energy which is 58% lower than present ANSI standards and considerably below what is recognized at these frequencies as being'a health issue. He stated that the 135 watts they plan to use was 58% times lower than what was considered safe and they felt confident there was not a health issue at the closest point and that those who spoke tonight were much further away and the energy is far less. He said the Los Angeles County facility, the California Highway Patrol facility, and the Sheriff Department's facility are all utilities and public safety facilities which were providing essential PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 13 A communications to the community. He did not think anyone intended for it to be unsightly but because of limited budgets it was difficult to mitigate. Commissioner Clark asked why the pole was 60 feet high and Mr. Kelsey said the higher the better and if they could go to 1,000 feet they would. He stated that they decided that the 40 feet they are limited to was inadequate and 80 or 90 or 100 would be better. He advised that their analysis showed that 60 feet would be adequate and they did not want to build something that was unsightly and also, 60 feet could be done with a pole which is a less intense structure. Mr. Saul pointed out that the Swedish studies referred to earlier were concerned with 60 hz power frequency fields which are completely different than the power frequencies here and that there weren't any studies at this time focusing on these frequencies. He stated that studies which have been done on the work environment and other situations have resulted in the standards they talked about and the exposures here even at the close proximity are far lower than those standards at this point. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Clark said he was convinced there was no health issue, but there was the issue of the unsightly view for some residents. He understood the location selected on the site was to minimize sight impact and to cluster it in the view of the other existing antennas and asked what could be done to further mitigate the problem. He noted that the staff report did indicate that there would be some visual problem associated with the antenna and he asked what could be done to absolutely minimize that. Commissioner Alberio expressed his concern about the health aspect and the proximity of the children to this facility at a time when they were adding more antennas. He said he would be less concerned if this were just a receiving antenna and did not have microwaves and that he did not know enough to argue with the experts, but could there be the possibility of a power surge which would exceed the extent of what was considered normal and would endanger the health of the children, especially in the school playground. He requested that the health issue be studied in more depth before approving the antenna. Commissioner Lorenzen also expressed his concern about the health issue and requested it be studied before going any further with the project. He also said the aesthetic had to be considered. Vice Chairman Byrd said he did not think the health issue was material and that the SCE had addressed it quite well. He assumed from the staff report that SCE would be limited to 135 watts, but he thought it was Edison's understanding that could go to 600 watts if necessary. He was concerned that when an electrical system starts to deteriorate PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 14 in performance, the power would be increased to compensate. Ms. Jerex advised that the FCC sets the limits and the City cannot set a more restrictive limit. Commissioner Clark noted that the applicant had said that the equipment they were installing would not generate more than 135 watts of power and asked if an amendment to the CUP will be required if they change that equipment to exceed 135 watts of power. Ms. Jerex advised that the Commission could put a condition to that effect on the amendment to the CUP being considered. Vice Chairman Byrd thought that Staff had asked Edison to do all they could do to disguise the pole or antennas at the top, and Edison had disguised the rest of their facilities. He thought the problem was the Los Angeles County facility. Associate Planner Jerex advised that the City does not have jurisdiction over the County property. Commissioner Alberio opined that since it was in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, they could regulate it and enforce code violations. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that Staff determine if the County could be required to clean up their property. Commissioner Hayes stated that her main concern was the health issue but there were good engineers on the Planning Commission who thought there was no health hazard and she would go along with that. Commissioner Alberio said he had done research on this subject and had researched microwaves in text books in the library and he understood from that research that there was a possibility of health hazards with microwaves, especially when dealing with antennas. Chairman Katherman asked Edison what their current facility was generating and Mr. Kelsey advised that currently one transmitter runs roughly 100 watts ERP, the other transmitter also runs about 100 watts ERP and the third transmitter runs roughly 120 watts ERP. In response to Chairman Katherman's query, Mr. Kelsey advised that the proposed equipment would replace all of those transmitters and there would actually be less electromagnetic and magnetic frequency effect than before. Mr. Saul said it was true that there will be less field, but there was no evidence of an effect at these frequencies so you couldn't specify the effect. Commissioner Mowlds said that Vice Chairman Byrd was the only real expert on the Commission in this area and he said there was no health risk, so he would go with Vice Chairmdn Byrd. On the screening of the site, he felt that SCE had maintained the site in good condition and they have agreed to screen the fence in the back. He advised that the Development Code allows a 100 foot tower as long as it is set back 25 feet back from the property line and SCE was requesting a pole under 100 feet and no closer to their property line than 32.6 feet. U Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3 - Revision "A" subject to the Conditions of Approval, with Condition No. 4 to be changed to require that PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 15 Southern California Edison is limited to 135 watts and they have to get approval from Staff for anything above that. Commissioner Clark asked if Commissioner Mowlds had considered any other mitigation measures to enhance the aesthetics of the site and Commissioner Mowlds stated that the staff felt in their professional opinion it could not be mitigated any more. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if there was anything else that would enhance the aesthetics of the site and mitigation the addition of this pole antenna. Associate Planner Jerex answered that the site was extremely well buffered and that SCE had offered to provide additional landscaping to screen the area of the chain link fence that is exposed and the conditions are written that the Director of Environmental Services has final approval on the landscaping. She said she did not see what else could be done to screen the pole and that she had done an extensive site visitation process and visited many of the homes in the area and the concerns were not with the SCE pole, but were with the County facility. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if Item 4. of the Conditions of Approval requesting that any modifications to the equipment on site be submitted for review to the Director of Environmental Services was effectively requiring that if SCE wanted to go above 135 watts, they had get approval from the Staff. Ms. Jerex advised that Staff could include that language in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Alberio asked if Commissioner Mowlds would accept an amendment to his motion to require that the City do a study as to what impact the antenna will have on the environment and the neighborhood, especially the children's playground. Commissioner Mowlds refused the amendment saying he thought it had been studied and Commissioner Mowlds requested it be on record that he thought a study of the health issue should be done. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's request, Commissioner Mowlds agreed to modify his motion to require that Condition No. 4 be changed to indicate that SCE is limited to 135 watts of power unless they come back to Staff. Mr. Kelsey said they would adjust the equipment to run at 135 watts, that it could generate more than that but it could not generate 600 watts. Vice Chaijqman Byrd asked how high it could go and Mr. Kelsey responded that the equipment could generate approximately 200 watts. The motion to approve the revised CUP subject to modified conditions of approval carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: LORENZEN, CLARK, HAYES,, MOWLDS, BYRDo KATHERMAN NOES: ALBERIO PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 16 0 REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS STAFF Director Onderdonk informed the Planning Commission he was leaving the City of Rancho Palos to pursue consulting opportunities and this was his last Planning Commission meeting. He was concerned about the City's funding for planning issues and he wanted to leave with the Commission,an agenda for the future including the following items: (1) the Development Code needs work, some of which can be done by Staff and some of which will require legal help; (2) both the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan need to be updated; (3) there is a need to explore opportunities for joint planning and cooperation with the City's neighbors; and (4) the City should find funding to maintain adequate records. Chairman Katherman and vice Chairman Byrd said the suggestions were excellent and requested that Director Onderdonk put them in writing. COMMISSION CommissionerAlberio expressed his appreciation for Director Onderdonk's contribution to the city and his regret that Director Onderdonk was leaving. Chairman Katherman said all the members of the Commission would second that, that they had enjoyed working with Director Onderdonk, they wished him the best of luck and they would sorely miss him. Director Onderdonk advised that Carolynn Petru will be Acting Director until a new Director is hired. Chairman Katherman advised that he will be meeting with the City Manager to discuss staffing and budgets. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that most of the serious discussions at the League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's Institute in Monterey centered on budget problems. He advised that at a breakfast given for cities with populations of 40,000 to 60,000 people, it was clear that the City's budget was less than half of that of the others. He said thAt where city councils had passed a utility tax or parcel tax without a vote of the people or, as in one case, got rid of their police department and contracted with the county for the police, in three instances there are recall elections. Commissioner Alberio distributed a report on the conference and also handouts from some of the meetings he had attended. He said he had learned that the residents of the cities that have larger budgets than Rancho Palos Verdes also pay more taxes. He considered the conference very enlightening. Commissioner Hayes suggested that one or more professional planners attend these conferences as they are a good opportunity for them to network. Chairman Katherman asked the Commission to consider Mr. Heifetz's request that the City change its code to allow six foot front yard PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 17 fences. The Commission agreed that Mr. Heifetz should be notified that his remedy was to apply for a variance. Commissioner Hayes advised that it be clear that did not mean the variance would be granted. Vice Chairman Byrd requested it also be pointed out that this Commission had never approved a six foot wall in a front yard. Chairman Katherman advised that he had spoken to the Peninsula High School business management class which was a class that could not have been offered were there still two or more high schools. He observed that there was a tremendous amount of energy there and the Peninsula High Scho6l was alive and well. Chairman Katherman requested that Planning Administrator Petru report back on the budget for the Contract Cities meeting in Palm Springs. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive; said she was shocked and upset to learn that Director Onderdonk had resigned and noted that he was the only one in the Planning Department with a degree in geology. She stated that the people of Rancho Palos Verdes were sovereign and they would decide what gets done in the community, not individual Council members. She then discussed the Finance Committee report and appreciated what Vice Chairman Byrd said about recall elections, but she believed that enough people in the community would be glad to contribute via a parcel or utility tax if they knew the City's financial situation. Vice Chairman Byrd said when the parcel tax was on the ballot, the majority of the people did not trust the City Council. He believed that had since changed. Ms. Kelly then commented on the Kajima project for which a Supplemental EIR was being prepared because they had to lower their pad elevations which meant that they have to truck off dirt. She asked where those trucks would go, since if they go down Hawthorne Boulevard they will have to go through Palos Verdes Estates or use Palos Verdes Drive South. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Alberio, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to Tuesday, April 13, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1993 PAGE 18