Loading...
PC MINS 19961008CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Approved 11/12/96 The meeting was called to order at 7 00 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 39201 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG LUTE Vice Chairman Vannorsdall led the Pledge of Allegiance DOLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark. Absent: None Also Present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant City Attorney Steele, Assistant Planner de Freitas, Assistant Planner Fox and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Vannorsdall suggested that Agenda Item No. 4 (Minor Exception Permit No 500 - Appal - Peter Von Hagen) be considered after Agenda Item No. 7 Director/Secretary Petro advised the Commission of the applicant's request to continue Agenda Item No 6 (Conditional Use Permit No 192- Pacific Bell Mobile Services c/o Jerome Buckmelter Associates) The Commission agreed to discuss this request at the beginning of the agenda. MOTION Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to approve the agenda as revised The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Planning Commission October 8, 1996 COMMUNICATIONS Staff The Commission thanked Assistant Planner deFreitas for his diligence in preparing material for the Planning Commission regarding Item No 4 Director/Secretary Petru noted the following Mems of late correspondence: o A letter from Mr. Peter Von Hagen regarding Agenda Item No. 4, o A letter from Ms. Beverly Brewster regarding Agenda Item No 4; o A letter from Mr. Russell Harrison regarding Agenda Item No 4; o A letter regarding Agenda Item No 5; o A letter from Mr. Steve Fowler regarding Agenda Item No. 6; and o A memorandum from Commissioner Franklin regarding Agenda Item No 8 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes of August 19. 1996 2. Minutes of August 17, 1996 3 Minutes of September 10, 1996 There were no comments regarding the Minutes of August 19 and 27, 1996 Regarding the Minutes of September 10, 1996 Commissioner Ng requested that paragraph 4, page 2, be deleted With regard to paragraph 6, page 4, and paragraph 5, page 13, Commissioner Franklin related his concern that a significant portion of the minutes was paraphrased He asked the recording secretary to prepare a verbatim transcript of these two portions of the discussion regarding Minor Exception Permit No 500 - Appeal, so that he could review and edit them down to the most imortant pants (Peter Von Hagen) •i • • October ••. 2 Chairman Clark voiced his opinion that the Planning Commission minutes are to be a summary of discussion during the meetings, and not a verbatim transcript Should Commissioner Franklin feel that a portion of the minutes was not sufficiently articulated, he suggested that Commissioner Franklin summarize it in one paragraph or less He pointed out that, with regard to the amount of interaction and detail, one portion of the minutes should not be disproportionate to the remainder of the minutes Vice Chairman Vannorsdall said that he had no objection to granting Commissioner Franklin's request. He felt that the minutes do not accurately reflect his position on Minor Exception Permit No 500. Commissioner Cartwright indicated that he had no objection to granting Commissioner Franklin's request and that he believes in general it is important to summarize the essence of what occurs at the Planning Commission meetings and not prepare verbatim minutes. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Planning Commission minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcript, but a summary of the discussion. She related Staffs concern as to selecting which portion was to be verbatim and which portion was to be a summary in the future. She suggested that the minutes remain as written with the understanding that the audio tape of the discussion will be retained for nine months Commissioner Franklin noted that the recording secretary sometimes does not understand the discussion and that the Commissioners spend a great deal of time serving in their positions as volunteers He contended that he has the right to request a verbatim transcript There are two portions of concern, so that he could edit them down to the most important points. Commissioner Ng related her agreement with a summary rather than a verbatim transcript Commissioner Alberio suggested that the recording secretary contact one of the Commissioners when there is a question about the discussion Commissioner Franklin explained that he is looking ahead to the possibility of a future court hearing relevant to Minor Exception Permit No. 500 and that he would like the portion of the minutes in question to reflect what actually happened. He agreed that the minutes could remain as written with the understanding that the audio tape will be retained for nine months However, he again stated his preference for more detailed information in the minutes. October'•. 3 0 0 Commissioner Whiteneck said that he had no problem with the summary -type minutes which were being provided to the Commission, but some technical matters could be more explicit There was a consensus of the Commission that the portion of the minutes referred to by Commissioner Franklin shall remain as written with the understanding that the audio tape of the meeting of September 10, 1996 will be retained for nine months. Commissioner Cartwright amended paragraph 4, page 8, to read " ..considered his best and most important viewing area " MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes of August 19, 1996 and August 27, 1996 as written and the minutes of September 10, 1996 as amended, with the understanding that the audio tape for that meeting will be retained for nine months. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed by unanimous roll call vote (7-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda Item No 6 was considered at this time. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 192 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES C/O JEROME BUCKMELTER ASSOCIATES, 5837 CREST ROAD (CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE FACILITY) Director/Secretary Petru related Staffs suggestion that the applicant address the Commission on the idea of a continuance MOTION: Commissioner Whiteneck moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. On behalf of Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Mr. Jerome Buckmelter, 5837 Crest Road, asked that this item be continued to November 12, 1996 due to the owner's request for some adjustments to the project. Commissioner Alberio thanked Mr. Buckmelter for a newspaper article regarding a case in Santa Barbara regarding PCS antennas. Director/Secretary Petru verified that a continuance to November 12, 1996 would allow enough time to renotice this item. Planning Commission October 8, 1996 4 MOTION. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to continue Agenda Item No 6 to November 12, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Discussion returned to revised agenda order 5. VARIANCE NO. 413 - MR. JAY TUCHSCHER, 27503 LITTLEWOOD DR. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. She noted Staffs receipt of approximately 32 letters in support of the request and that the neighbors indicated their agreement to a block wall without stucco Commissioner Ng requested clarification regarding information provided by the traffic consultant Assistant Planner Klopfenstein clarified the traffic consultant's opinion that, any time there is a wall within the 60 foot intersection visibility triangle, visibility would be somewhat reduced and drivers should drive slower; but, the subject request would result in no impact because the wall would be set back sufficiently from the front property line. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked how many feet into the visibility triangle the wall would protrude. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein responded that the wall would protrude approximately 34 feet into the visibility triangle. Commissioner Cartwright related his understanding that the location of the wall would still allow a pretty good view of vehicles approaching down Littlewood Drive. He, therefore, would be inclined to support the request Referring to the memorandum from the traffic consultant, Commissioner Franklin pointed out that Cal Trans is the State body which established guidelines for things such as intersection visibility and that, although the 60 foot visibility triangle is in the City's Zoning Code, the proposed wall would conform to the range allowed by Cal Trans Commissioner Alberio related his impression that a portion of the block wall would be on City property. He said that, if this were the case, he was uncomfortable with the Staff recommendation in favor of the request. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein advised that the wall would be located on the property line and would not encroach into the public right-of-way. October••. 5 MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Mr. Jay Tuchscher, 27503 i_ittlewood Drive, applicant, thanked Staff for viewing his property, for the detailed, insightful Staff Report and for recommending approval of his Variance request. He related his concern over recommended Condition of Approval Nos. 2 (stuccoing or painting the wall to match the residence) and 3 (screening the wall with vegetation and a landscape plan). He noted approximately 32 letters of support from neighboring residents, who felt that the wall with a natural facade would be aesthetically appealing and that screening the wall with vegetation would not be necessary Mr Tuchscher presented examples of the materials he would like to use on the wall; explained that he began this project to replace an old wood fence, stated his concern over possible land movement as a result of moisture should he be required to screen the wall with vegetation; and expressed his preference to choose the type of plants to be used, should he be required to screen the wall. He suggested that the Staff Report be modified to clarify that the Variance was intended to cover both the front and rear returns and he mentioned that, according to the Building Division, a building permit would not be required Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if Mr Tuchscher considered alternatives to the Variance, such as trees, a smaller wall or stepping the wall down. Mr Tuchscher responded that trees would be difficult to maintain, that he would prefer the wall as proposed and that the shape of the lot is very peculiar, which results in privacy, security and safety issues Vice Chairman Vannorsdall related his understanding that the privacy issue would primarily be from the rear yard Commissioner Ng questioned if Mr. Tuchscher has considered the idea of painting the wall. Mr. Tuchscher said that the needed color might not be made any more, that painting the wall would cheapen its appearance and that a bare facade would be much more attractive than paint Commissioner Ng asked where Mr. Tuchscher would locate free standing plants Planning Commission October 8, 1996 n Mr Tuchscher said that he would put free standing plants in the 6 inch strip which belongs to the City between the proposed wall and the side walk and that a portion of the rear wall would be on a neighboring resident's property, which would make planting difficult. He indicated that he would be willing to place plants in such a manner to avoid problems resulting from moisture and contended that the aesthetics of the wall would be such that it would not be necessary to hide it Commissioner Alberio observed that there were safety problems associated with the previously existing wood fence in that it would be easy to enter the applicant's rear yard and he said that he would welcome the proposed block wall. He questioned if the blocks to be used on the wall would be compatible with the house Mr. Tuchscher explained that he already constructed 83 feet of a rear wall for which he obtained a permit and that he would prefer not to mix the type of blocks used Commissioner Alberio noted that the rear portion of the wall could be screened with landscaping Mr. Barnie Prior, 27511 Littlewood Drive, residing next door to the applicant, related his support of the block wall as requested, without stucco, paint or landscape screening He said that visibility would not be a problem and stated his opposition to a 42 inch high fence due to safety concerns over the possibility of children climbing on it MOTION. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Chairman Clark requested input from Staff on the recommended Conditions of Approval requiring the applicant to stucco or paint and screen the block wall Director/Secretary Petru advised that Staff was obligated to require the applicant to soften the appearance of the wall with stucco or paint and screening in that one of the Findings of Fact for an approval states that the wall would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. She further advised the Commission to consider the large body of evidence from many neighbors who would not object to the wall. Vice Chairman Vannorsdali observed that the applicant could use a decorative type block which would not necessitate plantings on the 6 inch strip which, as noted by the applicant, could cause drainage and land movement problems. He maintained that it would be acceptable if the front and rear walls were constructed out of different types of blocks. s "111AWMIJ October'•. 7 Commissioner Alberio pointed out that the wall would be in a highly visible area and that aesthetics, therefore, should be of concern He voiced his agreement with some type of treatment to screen the wall, such as landscaping which would cost less than stucco Commissioner Ng stated her agreement with the Staff recommendation to screen the wall with vegetation and she noted that drainage should not be a concern if the wall was properly engineered. She felt that plantings would not be necessary if a slump stone, decorative -type block was used. Commissioner Franklin expressed his desire to avoid a canyon of walls on either side of a street. However, he pointed out that the requested wall would be only on one property and that the block wall would be an improvement over the wood fence Commissioner Franklin voiced his preference to require landscaping to screen the wall, but he objected to imposing such a cost on the applicant Vice Chairman Vannorsdall called attention to the possibility of a cumulative effect when other residents in the area decide to replace their wood fences with block walls Commissioner Cartwright stated his agreement with the applicant that the block wall would be more attractive than the previous wood fence. He related his preference for a stucco block wall; however, there appeared to be strong support in the neighborhood for the natural block wall with a brick cap as proposed by the applicant Should the stucco not be required, Commissioner Cartwright related his feeling that gray blocks as proposed by the applicant would be visually neutral and that it would not be necessary to require a color. Commissioner Cartwright said that, while it was his opinion that plantings would be a benefit, he could appreciate the applicant's concern relative to such a requirement. He stated his support for the wall as requested. Commissioner Whiteneck voiced his general agreement with Commissioner Cartwright's viewpoint He pointed out that painting a concrete surface would be very difficult and that it would not last a long time He supported a gray block wall with red brick caps and indicated that the problems caused by planting in the six inch area would outweigh the benefits. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, in addition to the alternative of slump stone, split -fact blocks, which would have the same continuity on the inside and be more aesthetically pleasing from the outside, could be used. Commissioner Franklin mentioned that he discussed the idea of using split -fact blocks with the applicant but they would be much more expensive. Planning Commission October 8, 1996 Commissioner Ng said that a creeping vine could be planted to screen the wall to eliminate the need for stucco She suggested that recommended Condition of Approval No 2 be modified to state that "Should landscaping not be planted, the wall shall be constructed of slump stone or split -face blocks." She then offered the following motion MOTION Commissioner Ng moved to approve Variance No 413 as conditioned and including Findings of Fact recommended by Staff, but modifying Condition No. 2 as follows. o Should landscaping not be planted, the wall shall be constructed of slump stone or split -face blocks. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin Discussion continued prior to roll call vote with Commissioner Franklin requesting clarification regarding the motion Commissioner Ng clarified her intent that the wall shall either be screened with landscaping or that a decorative type block shall be used. Commissioner Franklin pointed out that the landscape screening need not be a creeping type vine as long as it covers the wall Commissioner Alberio related his impression that split -face blocks would be too costly and that the applicant, therefore, would opt for screening the wall with landscaping Director/Secretary Petru advised that split -face block would be more costly, but that it would not require the maintenance associated with stucco or plantings. Commissioner Ng offered the following substitute motion MOTION Commissioner Ng moved to approve Variance No 413 including the recommended Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact, with the following modification o That Condition Nos. 2 and 3 shall be combined into one Condition as follows. The block wall shall either be constructed of split -face blocks or similar material, such as slump stone, or it shall be screened with landscaping such that it covers the wall Planning Commission October 8, 1996 0 Prior to a second, discussion included Director/Secretary Petru suggesting adding another Condition of Approval as follows "Since no building permit is required for the wall, the landscape materials shall be approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and shall be installed 30 days after the completion of the wall H Commissioner Ng agreed to amend the substitute motion to include adding the new Condition of Approval as suggested above by Director/Secretary Petru. The amended substitute motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and passed by a majority roll call vote (6-1). Ayes Alberio, Vannorsdall, Cartwright, Ng, Franklin and Chairman Clark. Noes: Whiteneck Abstain- None. Absent, None Chairman Clark noted that this decision was appealable to the City Council within 15 days from the date of the meeting. Mr. Tuchscher came forward to request clarification regarding planting/ landscaping requirements. Should planting be required, he asked that there be broken areas of planting combined with the exposed facade of the wall Chairman Clark requested that Mr Tuchscher work out such details with Staff. He noted that this decision was appealable to the City Council within 15 days of the date of the meeting Agenda Item No. 6 was continued to November 12, 1996 (see page 4). Planning Commission October 8, 1996 iift] NEW BUSINESS 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 130 - REVISION "C" - CCL CONSTRUCTION, TRACT NO. 45667 (TRAMOTO BY THE SEA) Commissioner Whiteneck abstained from consideration of this item since he lives within close proximity of the subject property and he subsequently exited the dais. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Ng requested clarification as to why the height increase would be necessary Assistant Planner Fox advised that the applicant's plan for 16 upslope lots included 19 foot high dwellings, as measured from the highest point on the lot to be covered by the structure Vice Chairman Vannorsdall related his impression that the homes would be split level Director/Secretary Petru confirmed that all of the lots in this tract were split-level and advised that the applicant was attempting to maintain a certain roof pitch and a certain amount of articulation in the front facade. Commissioner Franklin mentioned that his effort to visit the subject property was unsuccessful because of a fence placed across the road way He related his impression that the homes would not be visible from Palos Verdes Drive South and that the increase in height would not be noticeable. Assistant Planner Fox affirmed that the homes would not be visible from Palos Verdes Drive South Mr. Joe Richter, 2019 Main Street, Irvine, 92714, CCL Development/CCL Construction, Inc., offered to answer questions from the Commission. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall requested input on the square footage of the homes. Mr Richter advised that the homes would be approximately 2,350 to 2,950 square feet; that the exact size was still fluctuating, and that there would be three down hill and two up hill model home plans. Commissioner Cartwright questioned the need for the requested height increase Planning Commission October 8, 1996 11 0- 0 Mr. Richter advised that there were several reasons for the requested increase in height He explained that the prior homes were much larger and built in a series of three to five different levels stepping with the hill; that the Conditions of Approval for the original tract map limited the maximum upslope height of the homes to 16 feet, which would create square boxes in the back of the homes, that the applicant was attempting to make a simpler floor plan and, in that process, an effort was made to create a more interesting facade, particularly in the front; that an effort was made to achieve a certain roof pitch throughout and the span of the roof would dictate a certain amount of rise, and that an effort was made to create flat, usable rear yards He indicated that this request could be circumvented by building the rear retaining wall on the lower level higher and stepping up the rear yard. Commissioner Albeno voiced his viewpoint that this would be quite an improvement over the flat roofs previously constructed in this tract At the request of Commissioner Ng, Mr Richter presented a rendering of the plan in question He pointed out that an effort was made to create a flat rear yard; that the turret feature on the front of the house dictated the height problem; that the finished elevation would be two feet lower than the ridge height of the previously proposed structure on the same lot because the previous structure would not be stepped back up the hill like the prior structure, and that the height would exceed the 16 foot requirement because the structure would not step back up the hill as far as the previous structure. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, reminded the Commission that the Code calls for trees to be limited to the ridge height of the residence and, should this request be approved, the trees could be three feet taller than they could have been under the current conditions of approval Ms. Larue requested that the City ask the applicant to remove a post office box which had been leaning against a tree along the Palos Verdes Drive South frontage of the subject property for over one year Chairman Clark clarified that the Code called for tree heights to be limited to the ridge line or 16 feet, whichever is less, to the extent that the tree impaired a view. MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Staff recommendation The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and passed by unanimous roll call vote (6-0-1), with Commissioner Whiteneck abstaining Ayes Albeno, Vannorsdall, Cartwright, Ng, Franklin and Chairman Clark Noes None Abstain Whiteneck Absent, None Planning Commission October 8, 1996 12 Chairman Clark noted that this decision was appealable to the City Council within 15 days from the date of the meeting. At 8:40 P.M. there was a recess until 8.55 P.M. when the meeting reconvened in revised agenda order with all members present. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4 MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 500 - APPEAL - PETER VON HAGEN 30763 TARAPACA ROAD (APPLICANT). ROSALYN STEWART ET AL (APPELLANT) Chairman Clark advised that this public hearing was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1996 Assistant Planner deFreitas presented the Staff Report He noted the Assistant City Attorney's letter on Federal Communication Commission determinations regarding antenna towers, as well as information on previous requests for an antenna tower over 30 feet in height that had come before the Planning Commission several years ago which were attached to the Staff Report Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that, based on direction from the Commission at the last meeting, Staff had arranged a meeting with the parties involved, the applicant and the appellant felt strongly about their respective positions and no compromise was reached. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the possibility of relocating the antenna tower on the slope behind the residence was discussed at the meeting between both parties Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that the idea of relocating the antenna tower was briefly discussed at the meeting; but, as noted at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the applicant felt that relocating the antenna tower on the slope would not be a viable alternative. Commissioner Ng questioned if Staff had any information on the slope in addition to that provided in the Staff Report Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that Staff did not have any new information. Commissioner Whiteneck related his impression that the possibility of placing the antenna tower down the slope had not been fully investigated by the applicant Planning Commission October 8, 1996 13 i Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that the applicant had not submitted the correct application to consider locating the tower on the slope (since it would require a Conditional Use Permit due to the Open Space Hazard zoning in this are of the lot), nor had there been any geology or other technical investigation on the feasibility of putting it on the slope Director/Secretary Petru advised that it would be up to the applicant to exchange the Minor Exception Permit for a Conditional Use Permit and, if he was agreeable to doing so, the supplemental investigation described in the Staff Report would take place. Chairman Clark noted the alternative of possibly relocating the antenna tower on the slope could be possible pursuant to Code Section 17 056 020, Condition L. Commissioner Franklin asked if Staff obtained a map showing the extent of the property and the gradients on the slope area. Assistant Planner deFreitas advised that no information regarding the topography of the slope area had been received from the applicant. Commissioner Franklin noted that, according to the Staff Report, the slope was an extreme slope greater than 35%, however, the City's weed abatement equipment was able to navigate the area, which would lead him to believe that the slope was not 35% or greater He questioned if it would be possible to obtain a topographical contour of the slope area. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City has composite maps based on aerials which would give some idea of the topography in the area and that anything more detailed than that would require the applicant to have the area surveyed. Assistant City Attorney Steele addressed the memorandum submitted the previous week by the appellant, Ms. Rosalyn Stewart. He advised that the concern in this matter was not whether the Ordinance would be pre-empted; that the City was on very strong legal ground relative to this issue, that the Planning Commission must apply the Ordinance which was not pre-empted, that it was Staffs opinion that it would not be enough to attempt a compromise between the competing interests, that an attempt to compromise would be only one indication of the City's balancing of the competing interests; that the City was required to take action in a way which demonstrated the City's applying the minimal practical regulation necessary to accomplish the City's purposes, and that, given the results of the meeting between both parties and what was said at the previous Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the issue of an attempt to compromise made it more difficult to assess the relevancy of that attempt to compromise because both parties have indicated there was no compromise Planning Commission October 8, 1996 14 Assistant City Attorney Steele provided input regarding two cases cited in Ms Stewart's memorandum He advised that the Howard v Burlingame case was not a case of whether the ordinance was pre-empted, but whether Mr. Howard was able to recover attorney fees for the City's perceived violation of his civil rights With regard to the case of Pentel v. the City of Mendota Heights,, Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that an application for a 68 foot high antenna was denied and the City of Mendota's ordinance permitted a 58 foot high antenna, that the court said there was no effort to compromise and no record that 58 feet was the minimum practical regulation necessary, so the court overturned the City's decision and allowed the applicant to have the 68 foot high antenna. Following a comment from Commissioner Alberio, Assistant City Attorney Steele confirmed that the Federal Communications Commission declined to put a specific number on the antenna tower height and that it was a limited pre-emption policy, so, the court has turned it back to cities to decide in individual cases the minimal practical regulation. He called attention to the Evans case where the entire antenna was denied based on view issues and explained that, in that situation, there was a clear record that the denial substantially advanced the City's goals. He advised that antenna heights can be regulated as long as the record shows that the regulation was the minimum necessary to advance a City's goals, that, should the City decide to deny the Minor Exception Permit and grant the appeal, there must be a clear record showing that a reduction in height would be demonstrably better than what the applicant had requested. Assistant City Attorney Steele noted the Federal Government's interest in allowing antennas, as well as the need to balance the rights of neighbors with the rights of an applicant Commissioner Cartwright questioned if the City has some jurisdiction over placement, design and measures to mitigate potential impacts on others caused by view impairment or adverse impact on property values. Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that the "receipt of signal issue" relates to satellite dish antennas and that there are three separate pre-emption issues, the one about ham radio antennas being the only one relevant to this matter. Commissioner Franklin related his understanding that, should Mr Von Hagen want to have an antenna between 30 feet and 107 feet high and, if there was a way to do that or to have some lesser capability greater than 30 feet high and still meet the goals of the City, the Planning Commission must look for the approach that would require the least amount of regulation. Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that the determination was whether there was a difference in terms of the City's goals that would be served by reducing the antenna tower height from 107 feet down to 30 feet that the question was whether the City's goals would be advanced by reducing the height of the antenna from 107 feet to some lesser height; that, should there be a benefit of reducing the antenna tower height to advance the City's goals, the Planning Planning Commission October 8, 1996 ip Commission must choose the height that the record would indicate would best advance those goals and have the least amount of impact on the applicant, and that the goals in this case were set out in the ordinance Commissioner Alberio stated his understanding that the Federal regulation would apply to the public at large and not to one individual Assistant City Attorney Steele clarified that the Federal regulation was for the protection of the Federal interest in amateur radio communications; that the Federal Government in part advances that interest by licensing individuals to practice amateur radio communications; that this case involves an operator licensed by the Federal Government, so protecting the Federal Government's interests as the City was required to do would require the City to protect the individual's interests because the individual was an extension of the Federal Government by virtue of the license; that the regulation was not intended to protect Rancho Palos Verdes residents and their aesthetic interests, but to protect Federal interests in radio communications, and that the City's ordinance was intended to protect Rancho Palos Verdes residents' aesthetic interests and property values Director/Secretary Petru advised that, through a Site Plan Review, the Code would allow for antennas up to 30 feet in height or those which are 40 feet high that nested down to 30 feet and that, in looking at that kind of application, the Director/Secretary must consider interference with the primary view, whether building and Development Code requirements were met and whether adequate conditions could be imposed to protect safety Chairman Clark invited input from the public. Mr. Peter Von Hagen, applicant, residing at 32426 Conqueror and owning property at 30763 Tarapaca Road, related his willingness to answer questions from the Commission. He stated his opinion that all relevant issues were discussed at the previous public hearing on this matter Mr Von Hagen explained the following that he was granted the necessary permit by the City and he accepted the recommended Conditions of Approval according to the existing City ordinance, which provided for protection against significant view impairment and that Staff indicated that there was none, that he was not present this evening to argue the merits of the case on the basis of Federal pre-emption; that the appellant challenged the Director/Secretary's approval on the basis of view impairment and property values and that there was never any discussion that amateur radio antennas lower property values, so this issue should be a moot point, and that he had demonstrated that the Director/Secretary was correct in granting the permit, which was the issue which should be addressed by the Planning Commission Planning Commission October 8, 1996 i[:1 • Mr Von Hagen noted a letter he submitted to Staff on his compromise position, relating his continued willingness to place the antenna tower wherever the City would like it to be on the building pad He contended that all of the slopes on his property were in excess of 35% and that the flat area down the slope belonged to the City; that South Bay Engineering surveyed his property when he purchased it, so they could provide input about the slopes, that he would be willing to leave the tower up, crank it down and place it anywhere on the building pad, and that the antenna as requested would be in full compliance with the conditions of the ordinance, which was designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding community Mr Von Hagen stressed that, according to the Director/Secretary, there would be no significant view impairment, nor would there be a significant reduction in property values He voiced his agreement with the interpretations provided earlier in this discussion by Assistant City Attorney Steele and asked the Commission to dismiss this appeal Commissioner Ng asked if Mr Von Hagen would like to explore the possibility of placing the antenna tower on the slope Mr Von Hagen responded that he would not; that it would be against the Code and would not make sense to do so, and that the antenna tower would be in full compliance with the ordinance if it was placed on the pad Chairman Clark requested clarification about 20 and 40 meter bands Mr Von Hagen explained that the light spectrum ranges from frequencies below the standard broadcast band, moves from very low frequencies through the high frequency range (which is normally the short wave range), goes through that portion of the high frequency range and goes through the VHF range. Chairman Clark reiterated his request for clarification about 20 and 40 meter bands. Mr Von Hagen advised that the differences were mainly the frequencies, that 20 meters was 14 MHz at the bottom and that 40 meters was 7 MHz; that these were the two bands recognized throughout the world for world-wide communications and they were used by approximately 80% of the amateur radio operators; that 15 meters was normally in that category, but currently 15 meters of propagation was poor; and that 80 meters was a good band, but the large size of the antennas required for this type of operation would not be practical on residential lots. Chairman Clark asked Mr Von Hagen for input about the quality of bands Planning Commission October 8, 1996 17 Mr Von Hagen advised that the higher frequencies were more commercial quality and that 60% to 70% of the operation on 20 and 40 meters was either "side band" or "cw " Chairman Clark asked if a higher quality antenna system with a lower antenna height could be used Mr Von Hagen advised that the "cubicle quad" was a good antenna and that it would operate efficiently at a lower height; but, in his opinion, it would have an undesired aesthetic quality Chairman Clark asked at what height the "cubicle quad" antenna would operate Mr Von Hagen explained that, instead of operating at 70 feet for 20 meters, the "cubicle quad" antenna would operate at approximately 50 to 55 feet. Chairman Clark questioned if the "cubicle quad" antenna would have a different kind of horizontal array Mr Von Hagen advised that the "Cubicle quad" antenna horizontal array would be like a box kite, that it would have a boom and cross members supporting the wire elements, that there were some in the City which the Commission could look at; and that it would be far more obtrusive visually than the proposed antenna. Director/Secretary Petru presented a photograph of a "cubicle quad" antenna. Chairman Clark asked on what band the majority of emergency services operate Mr Von Hagen advised that the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club set up an emergency communication plan which required entirely different types of antenna systems; that he primarily- works in the hea+thr and welfare areas during emergencies, such as the previous earthquake in Southern California, that the majority of communications after the earthquake were on 20 or 40 meters because they were consistently open, and that the Radio Club participated in relief operations in foreign countries Chairman Clark asked Mr Von Hagen to characterize the days and hours of his ham radio operations. Mr Von Hagen said that he could not characterize the days and hours of his ham radio operations, that 40 meters becomes active in the twilight and during the night and 20 meters does the opposite Chairman Clark requested that Mr Von Hagen characterize his ham radio operation Planning .Commission October 8, 1996 IiK 0 0 Mr. Von Hagen said that he was a "dx'er" and a contester; that he was interested in contesting and working as many countries as he can during a contest in the shortest period of time in as many zones as he can, and that he, usually operates one or two nights during the week and one day on the weekend, Chairman Clark asked what communication opportunities Mr Von Hagen would see as available to him if his antenna were to be limited to 30 feet. Mr. Von Hagen said that it would be useless at 30 feet. Commissioner Franklin questioned if, with a 30 foot antenna, signals could bounce directly over head and communicate out to about 1,000 miles, or so. Mr. Von Hagen responded that he did not know the answer to such a question because no one would do that and that the angle of radiation there would, be no "skip" at all. Chairman Clark asked if the antenna Mr Von Hagen desired could be turned in the nesting position so that it would be perpendicular to Mr. Von Hagen's neighbors Mr Von Hagen affirmed that the profile of the antenna could be minimized by turning it 90 degrees while in a nesting position Chairman Clark recalled a statement Mr Von Hagen made at the previous meeting about this matter that the proposed antenna height of 107 feet would be a compromise since Mr Von Hagen could not afford the optimum height of 140 feet and that 107 feet represented three-quarters of one wave length at 40 meters. He asked what the impact would be on Mr Von HageWs ability to communicate on a 40 meter band in dropping it to one-fourth of a wave length Mr. Von Hagen explained that it would be greatly diminished, that, as it was, brought down, the angle of radiation would diminish and the desired distance could not be obtained. Chairman Clark asked what the impact would be if Mr. Von Hagen was to be limited to one-half of a wave length Mr. Von Hagen replied that the, impact would be major; that it would be a substantial reduction in the incoming and transmitting signals. Commissioner Cartwright noted that the Planning Commission's job was to try to look for ways to balance Mr. Von Hagen's interests along with the concerns of the community and that it was not very clear to him at the moment what the right answer would be Planning Commission October 8, 1996 ic Mr Von Hagen emphasized that the ordinance already took these issues into consideration and that he would be in full compliance with the City's ordinance Commissioner Cartwright discussed that Staff did a very good job in making the initial determination on the permit, but the Planning Commission does not always agree with Staff s interpretations, that the Commission was charged with trying to bring some compromise to the general rules which must be followed, that Mr Von Hagen had been very forward in considering locations on the pad, but seemed to dismiss putting the antenna tower on the slope, and that he was curious to know why- Mr Von Hagen would dismiss that idea. Mr Von Hagen explained that the Code and the City Engineer would not allow for the antenna- tower to be placed on the slope, that it would not be feasible to place it on the slope, that no portion of the slope would be practical for an antenna tower of this magnitude, that the slope should not be a serious consideration because he could not obtain a permit to place the antenna tower on it and that it would not make sense to place it on the slope when the slope is greater than 35% and there would be no view impairment as determined by the Director/Secretary Commissioner Cartwright cautioned that it was not clear that there would be no view impairment, but whether or not it was significant. Mr Von Hagen related that a requirement could be, placed on an approval of the request to crank the tower down when it is not in use, that, under the Minor Exception Permit (MEP), he had the right to place the antenna tower where there would be no significant view impact; that he did not see why there was a problem because there would beno significant view impact but, should there be, he said he would place it anywhere on the pad that he could obtain a permit to do so, and that mitigating measures were built into the ordinance to solve the issues with which the Planning Commission was apparently concerned and he had already agreed to abide by them Commissioner Whiteneck observed that the slope would not be 35% if the antenna tower was placed far enough down it. Mr Von Hagen observed that that would be on City property Commissioner Whiteneck pointed out that it would not be impossible to place the antenna tower down the slope and carry the communication lines up the hill Mr Von Hagen explained that the loss in the feed lines would dissipate the signals, that vandalism would be a concern, and that it would not be possible to run the coax cable harnesses and other necessary items should the antenna be placed down the slope Planning Commission October 8, 1996 20 Commissioner Whiteneck called attention to the fact that the Southern California Edison Co solved such problems every day with its own facilities Mr Von Hagen said that he had no interest in running 150 feet of coax cable down the slope and up a 100 foot high tower Commissioner Franklin commented that he had built antenna ranges where the seeking and transmitting ends were 1,600 feet away from each other and that such a situation is handled every day Mr Von Hagen said that that would include "cross mods" and much additional expense He noted that ham radio operation was his hobby, not his profession Commissioner Whiteneck stated that the Planning Commission was making an effort to find some area of compromise between the applicant and the appellant so that the applicant could have the antenna tower, the residents could maintain their uninterrupted views and the results would be consistent with the General Plan Commissioner Whiteneck asked Mr Von Hagen to indicate whether or not he was willing to compromise. Mr Von Hagen contended that he had repeatedly said that he would be happy to realistically compromise, that there would be no significant view impairment caused by the antenna, that he believed that this application was lawful and valid, and that he would be willing to place the antenna tower anywhere on the building pad desired by the City Commissioner Franklin asked Mr Von Hagen if he would be willing to put the antenna tower on the pad at such a height that the top of the antenna would be no higher than roof level Mr Von Hagen said that he would not. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if it would be necessary to add height to the tower should it be placed down the slope Mr Von Hagen said that a higher tower would probably be required, but he could live with it at 107 feet if there was a place on the slope which was rational Mr. Paul Bruguera, 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 970, Torrance, attorney for the applicant, commented that it would be physically possible to place the antenna tower on the pad at such a height that the top of the antenna would be at roof level as discussed by Commissioner Franklin, butthat such a method had not been proven He agree that acceptable and agreeable alternative locations should be investigated, which he hesitated to say because Mr Von Hagen had waited a long time to remodel his property and get the antenna issue out of the way He agreed with the Assistant City Attorney's comments about the Planning Commission October 8, 1996 21 appellant's brief filed October 3, 1996, voiced his understanding that the courts abandoned that brief and said that it was undisputed and that there would be no impact on property, values, which was definitely disputed at the last hearing on this matter Mr Bruguera react aloud FCC Regulation No 89-180, Section 97-15, Subsection E, which addressed station antenna structures. He highlighted an item distributed by the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) in Seal Beach regarding what can be done with this antenna in terms of emergency communications, as well as Public Law. No 103-408, which was passed by Congress in 1994 and commended radio amateurs for their contributions to technical progress in electronics. Mr. Bannister Bray, NWS Seal Beach, 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, explained that he spoke to the Commission as an individual at a previous meeting on this matter because he had not had an opportunity to speak to NWS command staff; that, in the meantime, he spoke to NWS command staff who had some direction on how to approach this matter; that he would not be willing to discuss anything to do with view, aesthetics, height, property values, etc., but he would discuss the need the Navy had for the type of service which would be provided by Mr Von Hagen, and that a letter from Emergency Management Coordinator Beverly Brewster, who was tasked with the responsibility of providing emergency services for all Federal agencies in Southern California, was distributed to the Commission this evening Addressing questions from the Commission at a previous meeting, Mr Bray advised that there is a 225 foot high antenna in Long Beach in a prohibited no fly zone, but it is being lost because the Naval Shipyard and the NWS were reverting to the County and the services were being moved to Seal Beach, that there was a 130 foot high antenna in Rancho Palos Verdes on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) site, and that there was another antenna on the north side of Rancho Palos Verdes at 55 feet in height. Mr Bray discussed that the emergency management at the NWS primarily dealt with military personnel and assets, provided emergency assistance to all cities within the region and provided emergency aid to all civilians in that area, that one of the emergency assistance tasks was communications, that the NWS was strapped for funds and was relying on volunteers to provide both local and long- haul communications in the event of a disaster; that, should a 5 7 to 6 0 earthquake occur, the NWS emergency services would be out of business for approximately one month and it would be a great commodity for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to be able to communicate with the outside world, that Mr Von Hagen had assured him that he would assist the City in communicating should such an emergency occur; and that, when Mr Von Hagen finished his MARS training, he will be assigned specific duties in the MARS system and could possibly abandoned his amateur radio operation Planning Commission October 8, 1996 re+• On behalf of the NWS Seal Beach, Mr Bray urged the Commission to approve this application Addressing comments made at a previous meeting, Mr Bray explained that it would be remotely possible, under very, optimal circumstances to communicate with Europe on a six foot antenna, but the NWS would like to be able to communicate via the radio any time of day or night. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the antennas referred to earlier in this discussion by Mr Bray would allow the NWS to carry out emergency services. Mr Bray advised that the 225 foot high antenna in the Naval Shipyard was not available for emergency services, it was a command function Commissioner Alberio asked if there were any other MARS volunteers on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mr Bray said that, to his knowledge, he and Mr Von Hagen are the only two MARS volunteers on the Peninsula. Commissioner Alberio asked if the NWS had a back-up plan in case the antennas were lost in an emergency Mr Bray said that back-up plans with the. County would be relied upon Commissioner Alberio questioned if the ham radio was the only equipment relied upon during emergencies. Mr Bray advised that cell phones have immediately gone down during previous earthquakes and that military type radios, not amateur radios, would be relied upon during emergencies Commissioner Ng asked if the applicant would be a commercial radio operator if he was to leave the amateur radio field once he completed his MARS training Should that be the case, she questioned how the MEP would be affected Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that the interpretation of a commercial radio operation would be for business or profit-making purposes and not for governmental purposes. Chairman Clark questioned if it was customary for the NWS to approach municipalities to grant an approval for an amateur radio antenna. Mr Bray responded that, in this realignment of assets, the NWS must do so because they were so strapped for funds. However, he noted that this was the first time he had approached a city on this type of project. Planning Commission October 8, 1996 23 Commissioner Ng reiterated her question as to how Mr. Von Hagen's, participation in the MARS program instead of amateur radio would affect the MEP Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that the FCC licensing might not be any different and he questioned whether that was an issue which should enter into this determination, that the MEP would be for an amateur radio facility and the MARS operation would still be an amateur operation, that the differentiation in the Code was between commercial and non-commercial operations, so it basically would come down to whether it was for profit-making purposes, which the speaker had indicated was not an issue Mr. Von Hagen clarified that he had been an amateur radio operator since 1957 and that he would not change over to a commercial business, that he would augment his ham radio operation with the MARS training. Commissioner Franklin related his familiarity with the MARS program. He said that he was having difficulty trying to discriminate the applications and the use and that it seemed that the only important part of the MARS system in this, area would be for short -haul communications He asked why long-haul communications would be needed. Mr Bray explained that the Army's MARS program relied on short -haul communications and the Navy relied on long-haul communications; that the need would be to provide emergency operations to military services in the time of need as a command function, and that the NWS did not have satellite capability. Commissioner Franklin questioned why the City and the residents should pay the costs if the Long Beach facility is being tom down Mr. Bray indicated that this was the option the NWS felt would be most easily expedited. In response to a question from Chairman Clark earlier in this discussion, Director/Secretary Petru advised that primary view was not defined in the Development Code., however, it was the City Attorney's opinion that, even when the Code was written in 1989, whether views were impacted was taken into consideration; and that it was Staffs opinion that Staff acted appropriately in determining whether or not the proposed antenna would significantly impact views with -in a 500 foot radius of, the site. Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that he worked in Seal Beach and the NWS was quite active in providing input to the City on things which would affect their property, that the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) was also quite active in providing political input as well; and that it was not uncommon, for the NWS or the AFRC to appear before bodies such as the Planning Commission Planning Commission October 8, 1996 24 Chairman Clark asked if the fact that the Navy organization testified in support of this application would result in the need to give any special weight or consideration to the fact that another Federal body officially supported it. Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that they would not be entitled to any additional weight or consideration that the Commission would not give to other speakers or agencies which might appear before the Commission. Mr. Joe Locasio, 29703 Whitley Collins, related the following that MARS bands had been invaluable in supporting people throughout the world, that the bigger the antennas and the higher they were from the ground, the better they would work, that Mr Von Hagen's request was within the ordinance; that two of the six applications to the City for ham radios were his, that an approval of the request would not result in a proliferation of antennas in the City; that it would be necessary to rely on ham radio services during emergencies; and that Mr. Von Hagen's application was valid and legal Chairman Clark questioned if Mr. Locasio currently had an 84 foot high tower plus a 15 foot high nested radio antenna on his property. Mr Locasio said that he did Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Locasio was the original applicant in 1984. Mr Locasio said that he was. Chairman Clark asked how Mr. Locasio's neighbors had reacted his antenna Mr. Locasio advised that, out of the 78 or 80 residents notified within the 500 foot radius of his property, there were 16 letters of protest and two letters of support and that he was issued the permit without appeal. Chairman Clark asked for input on Mr. Locasio's neighbor's reactions in the ensuing years since he had installed the antenna. Mr Locasio said that he was generally friendly with his neighbors and that, with the addition of cable television, the potential complaints which might have occurred had gone away Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Locasio's antenna was 25 feet in height when nested Mr. Locasio said that the tower was at 25 feet and the antenna was another 15 feet high when nested, that it was almost never nested unless he was working on it because the lower the antenna the bigger it would appear to those around it, Planning Commission October 8, 1996 25 and that it would not be in the best interest of the public to make Mr Von Hagen's antenna smaller and lower. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr Von Hagen's antenna would be more visible than Mr Locasio's. Mr Locasio indicated that a- "quad cubicle" antenna would be more visible and that it would not serve the interest desired by the applicant. Commissioner Franklin stated that he previously looked at Mr Locasio's home to buy it and, at that time, one of the neighbors had an antenna and that the area had many trees, so Mr Locasio's antenna did not bother him He asked if Mr Locasio would purchase a home sitting at the end of Tarapaca Road if his primary goal was for radio communications. Mr Locasio replied that an amateur radio station on Tarapaca Road would serve the City very well because it was very high and this part of the Peninsula was difficult for radio access. He explained that hills make it somewhat difficult at times, but height helps, that it would be hard for him to answer the question because he has not looked at this from that perspective, and that it probably would not be his first choice. Chairman Clark related his understanding that Mr Locasio originally proposed a 99 foot high antenna, but he was granted an 84 foot high antenna. Mr Locasio clarified that his tower and antenna total 99 feet in height and that he was granted what he requested He said that it appeared to him that it would be inappropriate to impose a height limitation without some degree of reason for it; that, since there would be no view restriction, he could see no reason from a technical viewpoint to suppress the number from 407 feet high to 50 or 60 feet high, that a 100 foot high antenna would be the right range for Mr Von Hagen to communicate on a world-wide basis, and that suppressing it to 75 or 50 feet high would vastly decrease the capability to do that and would severely limit the times of communication Chairman Clark asked for input on Mr Locasio's viewpoint regarding locating the antenna tower down the slope Mr Locasio explained that it would be highly undesirable from a safety stand point, a practical stand point and from every reasonable stand point when coming from an amateur radio operator's point of view Planning Commission October 8, 1996 26 At 1045 P M there was a recess until 11 00 P M when discussion of Agenda Item No 4 continued Chairman Clark entertained the options of either continuing this matter to an adjourned meeting at which time input from the appellant could be heard or taking testimony from the appellant up to a certain time this evening and then continuing the matter Commissioner Alberio related his preference to continue the matter prior to hearing any testimony from the appellant. Commissioner Franklin suggested that this matter be continued to October 22, 1996 The Commission agreed with the idea of continuing the matter at this time Ms. Rosalyn Stewart, appellant, observed that the time was late and she asked if the appellant's testimony would be heard at the beginning of the adjourned meeting Chairman Clark advised that an adjourned meeting would be scheduled to consider only this matter Ms. Stewart cautioned that she had a scheduling problem from November 4, 1996 through November 25, 1996 and she asked that the adjourned meeting take place during the month of October 1996 On behalf of the applicant, Mr Bruguera related his agreement with a continuance to an adjourned meeting. Following a brief discussion concerning possible meeting dates, the Commission, the applicant and the appellant agreed to an adjourned meeting date of Thursday, October 24, 21996, 7 00 P M with the location to be announced, although it would most likely be held at Hesse Park. Assistant City Attorney Steele advised that, since there will be a regular Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 1996, which would be prior to the adjourned meeting date, this matter should be continued to the regular meeting date of October 22, 1996, at which time it should be continued to October 24, 1996 Planning Commission October 8, 1996 FxA MOTION- Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, October 22, 1996 The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Director/Secretary Petru advised that this matter would not be renoticed in hat it was continued to a ate certain Due to the lateness of the hour, the following motion was offered MOTION- Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the remainder of the agenda to October 22, 1996 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. F3 Director/Secretary Petru advised that Staff was in the process of drafting the new Height Modification Guidelines and she asked for any pertinent input from the Commission prior to the next meeting ADJOURNMENT At 11 15 P All , the meeting was duly adjourned to Tuesday, October, 22, 1996, 700PM Planning Commission October 8, 1996 28