Loading...
PC MINS 19931109APPROVED 11/23/93 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Alliance followed, led by Vice Chairman (City Councilman - Elect) Lee Byrd PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Vice -Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: None. Vice chairman Byrd left at 7:40 PM because of his election to the City Council and Commissioner Hayes excused herself from the dais and sat in the audience at 8:02 PM until adjournment since she lives within 300 feet of the property on Item VIIB. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, and Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planner Jerex and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS Director Bernard mentioned that two letters were received at City Hall after the agenda packet went out on Friday, November 5 regarding item VIIB (CUP No. 119, Revision "All) from Dr. Eugene Kalbos and Ms. Loretta Westlund, President of the La Cresta Homeowners Association. Copies have been furnished to the Commissioners. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of October 12 - Commissioner Hayes and Mowlds abstained because of excused absence from this meeting. Katherman abstained from the last item because left early. Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Alberio and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. The vote was 5-0-2. Without objection, it was so ordered. B. Minutes of October 26 1993 - Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Alberio and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. The vote was 7-0. Without objectioh, it was so ordered. C. P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 93-40. Approving Capital Improvements ProgramlGeneral Plan consistency (CIP/GP) ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (TS) Commissioner Clark asked Staff if, under the State law, wasn't the requirement to make sure the Capital Improvement Plan for the upcoming fiscal year is consistent with the General Plan that the decision was to construct the Capital Improvements Plans in terms of the priority of projects, the logic and rationale of those projects and their consistency with the General Plan prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Director Bernard answered that this should have taken place before this current fiscal year's budget was analyzed and approved by the City Council. This is actually a step that helps formulate that budget and the capital improvements within that budget. This next year, steps will be taken to make sure that this is reviewed before the budget for fiscal 1994-1995 is compiled and approved by the City Council. Commissioner Clark indicated that he was satisfied with this answer and that it explains why the matter was put before the Commission tonight. I There was a motion by Commissioner Hayes and seconded by Commissioner Alberio to approve this Resolution. The vote was 6-0-1 with Vice Chairman Byrd abstaining. Without objection, it was so ordered. D. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1589 - REVISION "All; Mr. and Mrs. Lebenthal, 9 Via Subida. Request to Approve after -the -fact grading for a new 4811 high retaining wall and a 79 square foot parking area in the front yard setback, and relocation of an air conditioning unit on the side yard. (KK) Commissioner Hayes said that she had no objection but that she believes the appearance could have been more attractive. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Alberio and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. The vote was 6-0-1 with Vice Chairman Byrd abstaining (due to his election to City Council). Without objection, it was so ordered. CONTINUED BUSINESS There was no Continued Business. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he had been advised by the City Attorney not to hear any of those items in the public hearing that may appear before the City Council. Therefore, he was excusing himself from further discussions at this meeting. Council -elect Byrd stated that it has'been a pleasure to serve on the Planning Commission. He feels that the Commission has worked well together and accomplished many things in the last two years. He feels that the Commission has earned the respect of the public, even though they don't always agree on every issue. He stated that he is glad that Director Bernard had been hired. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 2 Commissioner Alberio expressed his congratulations to Vice Chairman Byrd and spoke for his fellow Commissioners in wishing him well as a new Councilman. He stated that it had been a pleasure working with Vice Chairman Byrd. Chairman Katherman added that, on behalf of the Commission, he wished Vice Chairman Byrd the best of luck on the City Council mentioned that he had enjoyed working with him. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he appreciated everyone's comments and left the meeting at 7:40 PM. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 93-41. Approving COASTAL PERMIT NO. 120, VARIANCE NO. 364• Dennis and Karen Jaconi, 133 Sea Urchin Lane, to allow a 10 foot encroachment into the required 15 foot rear setback for a 173 square foot deck, and a 465 square foot addition to an existing single family residence located completely seaward of the Coastal Setback Line. (KK) The Staff Report was read by Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. This addition includes a kitchen and master bedroom expansion which would be cantilevered over the rear yard slope (10 to 15% in steepness) and would encroach 61 into the required 151 rear yard setback. The addition would be supported by beams and the storage area underneath would be exposed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following options for the exposed beams and the storage area under the proposed cantilevered addition: 1) The exposed grade beams could be covered with a material that would match the addition. 2) The exposed area under the addition could be completely enclosed. 3) The exposed area could be screened with vegetation. Staff conducted a visual analysis from the 132 Sea Urchin and 131 Yacht Harbor, and feels that the proposed project would not create an adverse visual impact since the exposed beams and lower storage area could be completely enclosed or screened with vegetation. As a condition of approval, staff will require the septic tank to be replaced with a holding tank, subject to Building & Safety requirements. Commissioner Clark remarked that the Staff Report is very comprehensive. He added that, in the past, the City Council limited additions in this area to a maximum of 468 square feet and this is 465 square feet, so it is within the guidelines. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if there was a logic associated with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 3 that particular number. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explain that, in the past, for additions to properties in the Portuguese Bend Club, Staff has included a chart indicating the square footage of past approvals. However, Staff did not add that chart at this time. Commissioner Clark explained that his question was more centered on whether or not someone has consciously said that 500 square feet should be the maximum addition? Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that the Code allows 600 square foot additions within the Moratorium Act outside the coastal setback area. The coastal setback area is limited to 250 feet, so anything larger would need a variance. To her knowledge, this is the highest that has ever been approved. Commissioner Mowlds commented that the Commission had approved a project in the Portuguese Bend Club in which a basement added over 600 square feet because a portion of it was habitable. He added that the Commission has allowed up to 650 square feet in the Portuguese Bend Club. Commissioner Mowlds mentioned that this particular property has had some complaints in the past about gray water. He asked if Staff had investigated this. Presently there is a washer and a dryer underneath the deck which apparently will be moved inside the house. He wondered if Staff had determined if the washer and dryer will be using the septic system. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that the property owner could answer these questions during the public hearing or Staff could investigate further. Commissioner Mowlds asked for clarification of the highest point of grade. Commissioner Mowlds feels strongly that there should be a certain elevation established to avoid problems in the future. In response to a question from Commissioner Mowlds, Chairman Katherman explained that the Coastal Permit is specific with respect to floor area. If they tear down the house they will lose the non -conforming rights for the existing house and the Coastal Permit. Planning Administrator Petru agreed that the Coastal Permit limits the square footage and if they tear down the house, they lose all other non -conforming that may exist on the property and they would need a Variance and Coastal Permit to rebuild. The Commission discussed the fact that the Portuguese Bend PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 4 Club is unique compared to other RS -2 neighborhoods in the City due to its development history and should be used as a test case in developing specific neighborhood capability standards. Commissioner Clark asked what constitutes a new water fixture. He said that the report states that there are no new fixtures, but they are adding a kitchen. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that they are expanding the kitchen, but they haven't proposed any new plumbing. Chairman Katherman opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Martin Jaconi, 16421 Martin Lane, Huntington Harbour. Mr. Jaconi stated that he is at the hearing representing the landowners, his brother and sister-in-law and that he is also an architect licensed in the State of California. Mr. Jaconi explained that the existing kitchen will be demolished and the fixtures will be replaced with like items. The washing machine was hooked up to the septic tank. The septic tank is in need of repair and will be replaced and relocated. As far as tearing the whole house down, this is a rather unique structure, one of the original lower Bend Club houses built of reinforced masonry and it is really not a teardown. He questioned the description of the particular setback in question because it seems that the ocean is the front. He stated that he was available for questions. Chairman Katherman agreed that he questioned Staff regarding the description of the setback as well. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Jaconi if, as an architect on the project, if he had any preference of the Staff recommendations on the screening or coverage of the deck underpinnings. Mr Jaconi replied that he would suggest changing the grade beam to a "regular" foundation and put a shear wall on that wall line. The shear wall would become a screen wall, with a stucco treatment to match the existing stucco of the house and make the addition look more like it was always there. Chairman Katherman asked Staff if there would be any objection. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein confirmed that this method of screening would be agreeable with Staff. Commissioners Alberio and Mowlds expressed concern that this method of screening would increase the expense more then the original plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 91 1993 PAGE 5 EA • Mr. Jaconi stated that his preference, from a structural standpoint, would be to make a stud and stucco wall and take up the seismic with a shear panel and screen it with a conventional foundation. Commissioner Alberio stated that the consensus of the Commission seems to be that there is no objection to that. Since there were no more speakers on the item, Chairman Katherman asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Mowlds and seconded by Commissioner Clark. It was so ordered without objection. Commissioner Clark mentioned the need to talk about the City geologist's recommendation for a soils report. He questioned whether or not the homeowner needs to have this in order to obtain a building permit? Commissioner Hayes stated that that is one of the conditions. Commissioner Mowlds clarified that the Commission is merely granting the variance; the project passes or fails geologically later in the process. Commissioner Mowlds asked if Exhibit "All Condition 2, should have a maximum ridge height tied to a particular grade elevation. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that would be needed to certify the ridge line. Commissioner Mowlds wanted to make sure that a condition will be added regarding the septic tank to be replaced with a holding tank. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that, even though the issue was addressed under the conditions from the original Moratorium Exception, it would be a good idea to add the following language: "The septic system shall be replaced with a holding tank in a location on the property, as deemed appropriate by the Building and Safety Division." Commissioner Clark felt that Exhibit "All co -mingles conditions of approval for the Variance with the Coastal Permit. When that was confirmed by Staff, he asked if it was appropriate to have a geology report and soil samples for an addition to a residence. Planning Administrator Petru answered that this has been one of the main concerns of the Commission in the past to make sure that preliminary geology is obtained for projects in the Moratorium area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 6 E • Chairman Katherman as),pilf the City Geologist's recommendation was to do a soils report? Planning Administrator Petru said that was correct. However, the City Geologist did not feel that there was any reason that it could not go through the normal review process. Commissioner Hayes moved and it was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen to approve this proposal with modifications, as discussed by the Commission. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein recommended that another condition be added regarding the screening of the east elevation. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the final method of screening would be reviewed and approved by the Director. Chairman Katherman asked if the proposed clarifications were satisfactory to the maker and the seconder of the motion? He was given positive answers. Therefore, it is so ordered, without objection. Chairman Katherman stated that he will be signing the resolution this evening with modifications to the conditions. Any interested party may appeal this decision to the City Council within 15 days of this action. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 119 - REVISION "A", ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 656; for PacTel Cellular site at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. to allow additions to the existing cellular antenna monopole on the City Hall site, which would include eleven new antennas of various sizes and configurations. (DJ) Commissioner Alberio suggested that because the Staff Report and attachments on this item are comprehensive and lengthy, and very difficult to assimilate because of the technical language, the Commission should take public testimony and then continue the hearing to another meeting. Commissioner Hayes stated that before her involvement in any discussion of this item, she learned from the Planning Department yesterday that she is within 3001 of this particular site and will withdraw from this proceeding. Commissioner Hayes left the dais at 8:02 PM. Commissioner Clark asked Commissioner Alberio what he envisions the continuation to achieve. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio answered that he has a lot of concerns, doubts and questions, including the health risks of this installation. He would like elaboration on these issues and for that reason, he feels this decision should not be decided tonight. Chairman Katherman added that there are some issues that he is concerned about as well. He suggested that the Staff Report be read first. Associate Planner Jerex read the report. This request is for modifications to existing antennas on PacTel I s monopole located at city hall. The applicant is requesting to remove five existing whip antennas located on the top support structure of the 801 monopole and to add 13 new antennas of various sizes and configurations. Due to the potential health and aesthetic impacts which could be created by the project, Staff determined that an environmental assessment was necessary. Based on this, Staff completed an Initial Study and determined that the changes requested did not have a significant effect on human health. With regard to view impacts, Staff believes that, although the bulk of themonopole would be intensified by the addition of these antennas, the degree of the additional aesthetic was not considered to be significant. Staff has received phone calls and letters from La Cresta area neighborhood residents who oppose the project for aesthetic reasons and from a resident at Villa Capri who expressed concerns about potential health risks. Two letters which were received the day of the meeting were provided to the Commission. The Commission should also be made aware that Staff has had several discussions with the applicant regarding Section 5 of the proposed resolution for the CUP revision. This condition requires that the lease agreement be renegotiated prior to the implementation of the project. This is based on the premise that the additional antennas requested were not part of the original CUP which allowed for only three antennas. Staff's position is that the lease should be modified prior to allowing the addition of any new antennas. The applicant was only recently made aware of this condition and is considering a request that the Planning Commission continue this matter until the issue of the lease renegotiation has been resolved. This could factor in with what Mr. Alberio has requested and the applicant is here tonight to speak to that and. Lastly, based on the City Attorney's advice, Staff recommends that a condition be added to the CUP revision which requires that PacTel execute a covenant stating that the antennas will only be used for transmission and receipt of consumer cellular telephone transmissions and for no other purposes. The applicant has been made aware of this potential change and has no objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 8 • • Chairman Katherman asked if there were questions of Staff Commissioner Alberio stated that he knew why the Negative Declarations are generally prepared instead of an EIR, but asked why in this case. Associate Planner Jerex replied that the applicant is here to speak and he is much more versed on the subject, but PacTel is planning to use a different type of technology than they are using now. They are moving from analog to digital technology and the actual level of emissions will be reduced even though the number of antennas will be increased. The levels of emissions are far, far lower than the FCC maximums. The City has had this reviewed by an independent agency who is very familiar with these types of projects and it didn't even come close to the limitations of the FCC and the American National Standards Institution. Based on that review by this independent agency, and by the materials provided, Staff did not require further independent evaluation. Commissioner Alberio expressed concern that the consultant was PacTel's own consultant, hired by them and paid by them. He asked Staff who the independent consultant was for the city. Associate Planner Jerex answered that it was Southern California Edison. Commissioner Alberio stated that Southern California Edison was before this Commission a while back on the same issue and they located some additional dish antennas in the area where there are playgrounds for children. He remembered that they were their own consultants and he has always had problems with this arrangement because many public agencies are self-serving and trying to advance their own technology. In his opinion, they would be biased because they have the same equipment and they want to install it. He expressed a desire for the City to hire an independent consultant. Commissioner Alberio asked if PacTel was planning to use this new technology to sell television programs to homes on the peninsula. Associate Planner Jerex replied that PacTel would be required to sign a covenant saying they would use this antenna for cellular telephone transmission only. In the review that was conducted, the main concern was for any activities happening directly under the monopole and directly adjacent to it. Due to the height of the pole, and the fact that the radiation tends to move upward and outward, even if someone was working directly under the monopole, Southern California Edison did not feel that there would be health risks because the levels are so low. Although Staff did not feel it necessary to PacTel to hire an independent reviewer, it is still an option for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Mowlds asked the Staff if the monopole belongs to PacTel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 9 Associate Planner Jerex replied that the monopole is owned by PacTel. PacTel has five antennas on the top triangular grid support. There is another support grid 201 lower and it has three antennas which are L.A. Cellular's. The City has also approved an additional three antennas for NexTel. Commissioner Mowlds asked if the Commission approved 5 to 20 antennas for PacTel, is the Commission then obligated to approve the same number for their competitors? Associate Planner Jerex answered that this was not necessarily true and that the City would use the standards set by the FCC and the American National Standards Institution. The report that PacTel prepared took into consideration the cumulative effects of all of the proposed and existing antennas on the monopole. Commissioner Mowlds asked about aesthetics. Associate Planner Jerex replied that the Commission has the ability to limit the number of antennas on the pole due to aesthetic and view impairment concerns. Commissioner Alberio said that it seemed to him that Commissioner Mowlds makes a good point; if L.A. Cellular comes to the City and they want also the same treatment, it cannot be denied to them because this would be discrimination. However, maybe the City could allow them to put antennas some place else. Associate Planner Jerex replied that Staff is looking for direction on this issue from the Commission. Chairman Katherman commented that it appears to be a difficult argument to allow one company who is in competition with one or more other companies to have a certain facility, setting a potential for a precedent. Also, the issue that Staff raised regarding the cumulative impact of this particular action brings up a question. If the City were to allow all three cellular companies to use this monopole, what is the impact, visual, as well as the radio frequency and EMP frequency radiation cumulatively. He felt that Staff has answered the cumulative RF and EMF question, but the Commission has not received an answer as to what the visual impact is going to be. Associate Planner Jerex then handed out a graphic simulation to the Commissioners prepared by PacTel which demonstrates what the additions would look like. Commissioner Mowlds said that the report describes the project and PacTel Cellular's drawing No. 1 dated 5/11/93 is included as well. Does this drawing or the description indicate what they are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 10 E actually going to do. Associate Planner Jerex replied that the PacTel would be taking down five antennas thirteen new antennas, one of which is a E y should be consistent. and replacing them with parabolic dish. Chairman Katherman opened that the Public Hearing. Mr. Dean Brown, representing PacTel Cellular. Mr. Brown is the Land Use Agent for PacTel Cellular, responsible for submitting and processing this application. He agreed that the packet submitted to the Planning Commission is substantial. Staff has been very conscientious in evaluating the aesthetic and health issues relating to the monopole. He stated that PacTel Cellular has worked very closely with Staff and tried to provide them with all of the information they have requested. He went on to discuss the graphic that is being handed out to the Commission. PacTel went to the special effort of having a visual simulation prepared that shows the before and after situation. The whip antennas are approximately 151 tall, making the overall height, over the 801 tower, about 951. PacTel is proposing to remove the three whip antennas that are pointed up. They are replacing the two whips pointed down with new technology whips, but in the same general location. The graphic shows the existing antennas vs. the proposed antennas. There are a total of 13 antennas proposed. There are two antennas pointed down, one parabolic antenna, which is a grid antenna that you can see through (it is not solid) and then there are eight directional antennas attached to the triangular top platform. PacTel calculated the additional mass that will be creating by taking down the whip antennas and putting up the directional and panels. There is an addition of approximately 11 square feet of surface area to the monopole over what currently exists there now. PacTel has also tried to show the Commission what the monopole looks like from the closest residential view which would be on Via La Cresta across Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Brown passed around the original photographs rather than the photocopies which were provided in the Commissioner's packet. PacTel understands that the monopole is visible from a large area. It is 801 tall and it does have visual impact. PacTel has tried to be as sensitive as possible by using the smallest antennas which can be installed and still be effective. The purpose for the antenna modification is to keep up with the competition. L.A. Cellular is ready to initiate digital cellular service in the next few months. This new technology allows a crisper, cleaner signal and better signal strength and more capacity within the actual frequencies. Mr. Brown stated that if PacTel is not allowed to convert to the new technology digital antennas, there will have significant impairment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 11 �J in keeping up with the competition, especially in this area. Mr. Brown reiterated that this is PacTel Cellular's monopole. They built it; however, they have no control over the other users that have been allowed on the monopole and PacTel Cellular does not receive revenue from leasing space on the monopole. Only the City of Rancho Palos Verdes receives the revenue. L.A. Cellular and NexTel Corporation were allowed to co -locate on the monopole with only administrative approval. PacTel Cellular was required to have a Conditional Use Permit, both the original and now the revision. In addition, PacTel Cellular has been made responsible for addressing the overall aesthetic and visual impacts of the entire facility, without any control over what other equipment is located on the monopole. PacTel Cellular currently pays the City approximately $22,500 a year to have this facility on City property and to operate the facility. It is believed that the City is receiving similar amounts of income from the other two users, which probably generates about $50,000 to $60,000 of revenue. PacTel has no idea what the other users are paying to be on this pole. PacTel has submitted very detailed information relating to health issues to show the cumulative effects that are hazardous. This is not an electro -magnetic field (EMF). The power used by this facility is in the range of 1000-1800 watts of power. Microwaves that are in homes operate at 900 watts of power so this is a very low power facility. Radio stations and TV stations can broadcast anywhere from 100,000 to 5 million watts. PacTel has recently had a similar situation on a 60' monopole in Yorba Linda. The City of Yorba Linda had similar concerns relating to health issues. An independent radio frequency engineer was hired and he did a "worst case" situation and turned on every channel at maximum power and pointed all the antennas directly at the ground. The measurements that were taken indicated that even under these worst conditions, there was only 1/3000th's of the American National Standard Institute's recommendation for safety. PacTel Cellular's use is very low power; it will not create health or safety impacts. Mr. Brown indicated that PacTel also wants to work with the City in the renegotiation of the lease. He agreed that a continuance may be in order, at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Alberio inquired of Mr. Brown regarding the consultant hired to study the Yorba Linda situation. He asked who paid for the consultant. Mr. Brown answered that the City of Yorba Linda required the study and that PacTel Cellular paid for it. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Brown if this study was performed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 12 independently, without PacTel's supervision and that they merely received the bill. Mr. Brown replied that this was true. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Brown if the City of Yorba Linda or PacTel selected the consultant? Mr. Brown replied that the City asked for a number of qualified technical radio frequency engineers and the City picked one of the three consultants PacTel had suggested. After questioning Mr. Brown further, Commissioner Alberio stated that the consultants suggested by PacTel probably had some kind of association with PacTel in the past and that's why they were recommended. Commissioner Alberio asked for clarification regarding the fact that he understood Mr. Brown to say that the microwave ovens in our homes are probably more powerful and more harmful than PacTel's equipment. Mr. Brown answered that PacTel would be operating at similar power levels as a microwave oven. Mr. Brown pointed out that ham operators have the ability to broadcast up to 1,000 watts of power, often times they go higher than that and have, at times, caused interference with television, radio, etc. Mr. Brown repeated that this is radio frequency technology; not an electro -magnetic field which could cause some concern. PacTel would be using electric power which is similar to the 60 -cycle power that is used in your home. Commissioner Alberio expressed his concern for the City Hall employees who work near the monopole. He added that there is other electronic equipment at City Hall, televisions, microwaves, radios, telephones, etc. Commissioner Alberio indicated that the cumulative force of all this equipment has to have some impact. He indicated that in the reports he has read regarding other cases which have gone to court, there appears to be some kind of impact on the health of the individual who is subjected to these forces continuously. Mr. Brown answered that Staff had the same concerns and that is why they required PacTel to do a cumulative analysis, analyzing not only PacTel's antennas but also L.A. Cellular's and future antennas proposed by NexTel Corporation. Staff helped in getting the technical information from the two other companies. PacTel combined all the information to determine the radio power of all three users on the monopole. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 13 Commissioner Mowlds indicated that he had the figures. He stated if the current situation is maintained, the power level is about 2,000 watts. If the antennas are modified as proposed, the figure is reduced to 1,827 watts. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the monopole lowers the radiated power, not increases it. Mr. Brown agreed that that was true. The new technology antennas do not require the same power levels. The FCC allows PacTel to broadcast at up to 500 watts per channel and this much power is only needed in very rural areas. Typically in urban areas, PacTel is broadcasting at about 100 watts of power. However, given that, there are other cell sites and PacTel has about 300 cell sites throughout the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area. PacTel has found that there is an overpowered situation in some sites. Right now, PacTel typically ranges anywhere from five watts,to 40 watts per channel and it is probable that the wattage could change in this area to about 20 watts of power. So, this is a very low power situation and, even combined with all the antennas of the different users on the monopole, the levels are well below the safety level. Commissioner Alberio commented that, according to the Wall Street Journal and financial reports, PacTel is in the process of entering the market to compete with all the cable networks selling closed circuit TV to homes. He asked Mr. Brown if this was a correct statement. Mr. Brown said that this is not true. At this time, PacTel Cellular is spinning off from Pacific Telesis; however, the company has not been acquired by any major cable company or major telephone company to proceed with the new technology in interactive communications. Commissioner Alberio questioned Mr. Brown further and asked if the present and proposed equipment would enable PacTel to sell closed circuit TV to the public. Mr. Brown answered that it would not. Chairman Katherman asked Staff if the covenant the City Attorney recommended dealt with that issue? Associate Planner Jerex replied that PacTel is willing to sign a covenant which states that they will only use it for cellular phone transmission. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Brown if PacTel would be willing to relocate the mast. Mr. Brown replied that he thought the City has the ability to require PacTel Cellular to do this when and if a new City Hall is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 14 • constructed. Commissioner Alberio explained that that was not his question. He wants to know if PacTel would be willing to relocate the equipment right now? Mr. Brown stated that he cannot speak for the technical engineers at PacTel but, if the monopole were moved to a new location which involved a long cable run from the equipment room, it is possible that there would be a signal strength loss that would be unacceptable to maintain good sound quality. Commissioner Clark commented that PacTel built the monopole and the only revenue that is gained from it is gained by the City. He asked Mr. Brown to expand on this. Mr. Brown stated that when the lease was signed in 1988, PacTel agreed to pay the City an annual amount of $18,000. Through cost of living index increases, PacTel is currently paying approximately $22,487 annually or about $1,570 a month right now. The City, over the last five years, has received revenue that totals over $100,000 for just PacTel's use of the facility. PacTel was required to allow other users on the monopole and since that time, the City has approved two other users that also generate revenue. PacTel does not know the exact amount of that revenue. Commissioner Mowlds asked for a clarification. Does the operating range that PacTel will be using fall within the standards that were established by the study conducted by the Navy in San Diego. Mr. Brown replied that PacTel is well within these limits., Commissioner Lorenzen asked how many antennas were at the Yorba Linda site. Mr. Brown stated that actually Yorba Linda had more antennas; there were nine digital, 12 analog, and three whip antennas, for a total of 22. There is significantly less than at the Rancho Palos Verdes site. PacTel will provide Staff with a copy of this recent report for distribution to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Brown if the power in Yorba Linda was greater than the combined power for the Rancho Palos Verdes monopole with all three users. Mr. Brown indicated that the power was turned up on all the channels to the highest power; it was 100 watts per channel. Then all the antennas were pointed directly down at the ground. The antennas are normally pointed out at the horizon which is the most effective position. In that position, the signal strength falls way down within three to four feet of the antenna. The operating PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 15 levels of power, because these channels operate intermittently, is based upon the calls that are coming in. The power is approximately 1/20,000th to 1/30,000th of the American National Standards Institute limit for safety. Commissioner Alberio questioned if the Yorba Linda location is located next to a building where you have so many employees working or near a residential area? Mr. Brown replied that he was not really certain what surrounds the monopole in Yorba Linda. He added that it is a 601 monopole rather than an 801 one so the antennas are actually closer to the ground. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Brown if the proposed artist rendering of the modification to the antenna has been shown to the La Cresta Homeowners Association? Mr. Brown indicated that it had been, briefly, right before the meeting and added that, if the hearing is continued, he is willing to meet with them directly. Chairman Katherman questioned Mr. Brown regarding the length of time he would propose to continue the subject. Mr. Brown replied that he would leave that up to the Planning Commission's discretion. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Brown if a month's continuance would be satisfactory. Mr. Brown replied that that would be acceptable, at the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Alberio reminded Chairman Katherman that there is only one more meeting left for this Commission and added that he would like to see better consultation with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Jerex mentioned that she had spoken with several people from the neighborhood associations and reminded them that information was available at City Hall, but no one came by. Commissioner Alberio commented that the applicant has a duty to inform the neighborhood. Chairman Katherman stated that, if there are no other speakers in support of the project, speakers opposed or here to simply ask questions will be called to the podium. Ms. Marie Rhorbacker, 30950 Via La Cresta. Ms. Rhorbacker provided some photographs showing the view of the monopole from her home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 16 She indicated that she had lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 15 years and moved to Via La Cresta five years ago for a better view. She mentioned that she found out about the cellular phone monopole before moving in to her current home. All the homes in her area were in escrow at that time, so the home buyers didn't really get a chance to give their viewpoint before the monopole was erected in 1988. She indicated that she thinks the antenna is an eyesore to her neighborhood, along with the City yard. She and her husband are not in favor of the existing antenna at all or the proposed additions. They would like to have the whole thing removed to another location. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Rhorbacker if she was not concerned about the health risk the monopole might pose to human beings? Ms. Rhorbacker replied that she hadn't even considered the health issue until tonight. Commissioner Clark wished to confirm that, from Ms. Rhorbacker's testimony, she opposed the monopole and the antennas that are there now, irrespective of the proposed Conditional Use Permit revision that would change the number and configuration of the antennas. Ms. Rhorbacker answered yes. Commissioner Clark questioned Mrs. Rhorbacker further about the possibility of relocating the monopole, whether the pole was in place when she purchased her home and the impact it had on the value of her property. Chairman Katherman thanked Ms. Rhorbacker and she left the podium. Commissioner Clark said that his general understanding of the Conditional Use Permit revisions is that it throws open the whole CUP for consideration by the Commission when a revision comes up. Director Bernard said that Mr. Clark's understanding was correct. Once you open up a revision, you can look at the entire package. However, Director Bernard stated that he had never had an experience in which a signed lease was also involved. An opinion from the City Attorney should be obtained if the Commission wished to proceed in that direction. Mr. Jeff Cameron residing at 30163 Via La Cresta. He stated that he is representing the Sunset Ridge Homeowners Association. He corrected one inaccuracy which was mentioned earlier. Mr. Brown did not realize that he was talking to the President of the Sunset PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 17 Ridge Homeowners Association when he presented the graphics just before the meeting. To his knowledge, 'the La Cresta Homeowners Association has not seen the graphic and he had been in touch with the President of that Association as late,as two days before the meeting. Mr. Cameron stated that he did express his concerns regarding the monopole before the City Council when it was first proposed in 1988. He is very disturbed that the City has made over $100,000 over the last five years on the least to PacTel. Mr. Cameron further stated that PacTel was attempting to increase their profits at the expense of residents nearby. The Homeowners Association strongly opposes the existing monopole and any proposed' additions to it. Mr. Cameron also felt that there were inconsistences in the Staff Report. On one hand, the Staff says that there is no significant impact in view impairment. On the other hand, the Staff says it is adding bulk to the mast. He invited the Commission to his living room and let them make their own judgment as to whether or not it is a view impairment. He asked them to do that before they make that judgment. He commented that there are at least ten citizens of this community who are directly impacted by this monopole simply in terms of view impairment. He added that he had not thought about the fallout as far as the emissions are concerned. His recommendation, as a citizen of this community, would be two things: (1) Require the preparation of an EIR; and (2) The Planning commission should visit the homes that are most impacted by the monopole, prior to making a decision on this item. Chairman Katherman thanked Mr. Cameron for his comments and explained that he did not agree that the Staff was inconsistent in their Report. He explained that, in his understanding, their conclusion was that the change was not significant, not that the bulk was diminished. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road. Ms. Larue explained that she came to the meeting knowing nothing about this item and fully intending not to speak but that some of the statements that have been made tonight were simply frightening to her. She commented that Commissioner Alberiols searching questions were right on target. Ms. Larue stated her concern for the unknown health risks associated with the monopole and cellular phone technology in general. She felt that more study was required. She cautioned the Commission to act conservatively on this matter. Chairman Katherman stated that since there were no more speakers, was there anything that Staff would like to say in conclusion. Hearing none, he announced that it was appropriate to continue this matter. Planning Administrator Petru noted that there is a very busy calendar for the November 23 Planning commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 18 Chairman Katherman suggested that this item be continued to December 14, the last meeting of the year and perhaps the last meeting of the current Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Alberio and seconded by Commissioner Clark to continue this matter to December 14, 1993. Planning Administrator Petru requested direction to Staff from Chairman Katherman. After extensive discussion among the Commission, Chairman Katherman listed the following: 1. Staff is to obtain from the applicant a copy of PacTel's report on cellular telephone usage prepared for the City of Yorba Linda. 2. The applicant shall meet with the Sunset Ridge and La Cresta Homeowners Associations to review the proposal. 3. The applicant shall prepare a visual analysis of the proposal from the Via La Cresta area, including each cellular phone company approved for the monopole, at a build -out level similar to PacTel's proposal. 4. The Commissioners shall make independent site visits to view the antenna from home(s) along Via La Cresta. 5. Staff shall review the legal ramifications of requiring the monopole to be moved to another location. 6. Staff shall contact L.A. Cellular and NexTel to determine their future development plans for the monopole. 7. Staff shall contact the Amateur Radio Club and attempt to solicit a volunteer to review PacTel's technical data. 8. Staff shall provide the Commission with copies of the City Council minutes from March 1, 1988 (the date of the original CUP approval). 9. The applicant and City shall re -negotiate the terms of the lease agreement with City Staff. Associate Planner Jerex replied that directions were clear to Staf f . Chairman Katherman noted that the vote was 5-0 with no objection to continue this item to December 14, 1993. He asked that Mr. Cameron and the other members of the Homeowners Associations provide their phone numbers to Staff, so that the Commissioners may come out individually to take a look at the view from their homes. Mr. Cameron stated that this information was in his letter to the Commission and Chairman Katherman confirmed that this was the case. NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 19 There was no New Business. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Bernard mentioned that a pre -agenda for November 23 had been provided to the commissioners. Chairman Katherman requested that a new Planning Commission Vice Chair is needed and this item should be put on the next agenda. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Regarding Non -Agenda Items) Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Lane, Abalone Cove, related an anecdote regarding Vice Chairman, Council -Elect Byrd. ADJOURNMENT At 9:22 PM, the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, November 23, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1993 PAGE 20