Loading...
PC MINS 19961024Approved CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7 10 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard The pledge of allegiance followed, led by Assistant Planner De Freitas ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark. Commissioner Whiteneck arrived at 720PM Absent None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, Assistant City Attorney Craig Steele, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ng moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. Approved without objection, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS STAFF Director/Secretary Petru noted that a letter from the appellant (Ms Stewart) had been delivered with the agenda packet and that three additional items of late correspondence, including a letter from the applicant (Mr. Von Hagen) and two letters from residents regarding Item No. 1 had been distributed to the Commission that evening CONTINUED BUSINESS Minor Exception Permit No 500 - Appeal; Peter Von Hagen, 30763 Tarapaca Road (applicant); Rosalyn Stewart, et_,al (appellant - Since this was a continued public hearing from the regular meeting of October 22, 1996, Chairman Clark called for the speakers regarding this item Roslyn Stewart, 22500 Hawthorne Blvd #2120, Torrance, representing the appellants, began by discussing the federal laws that were applicable to this case the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the Federal Regulation Act of 1985 (known as PRB 1) She explained that PRB 1 was requested to determine whether the FCC preempted cities and local agencies from controlling antennas PRB 1 deferred to cities the right to regulate safety, screening and the height of antennas based on health, safety and aesthetic considerations It prevented cities from banning antennas outright, and specifically antennas over 30 feet in height It did, however, allow a city the freedom to deny an antenna permit as long as it has considered the application, made factual findings, and attempted to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant Ms. Stewart commented that there were numerous Federal and State cases that upheld the right of the Planning Commission to deny a Minor Exception Permit for an antenna. Ms. Stewart then presented to the Commission a petition that was signed by over 200 residents objecting to the 107 foot high antenna tower. Finally, Ms. Stewart summarized the neighbor's the objections to the tower regarding view impairment, safety issues, and loss in property values Commissioner Alberio asked Ms Stewart if the neighbors were willing to compromise and agree that Mr Von Hagen had a right to some type of antenna on his property Ms. Stewart responded that the neighbors were willing to compromise to the extent that the antenna would be under the thirty foot height limit allowed by the City Commissioner Ng asked Ms. Stewart if it would be acceptable if the applicant had an antenna that was taller then 30 feet, but that he could only use it at night and was required to keep it retracted to a thirty foot level during the daylight hours Ms Stewart felt that as long as the antenna was nested at the thirty foot level during the day, that they could not really object to that. Janet Lovering, a real estate agent in the Palos Verdes area since 1978, informed the Commission that based on her experience, any home located near a radio tower or structure would be very difficult to sell. She then discussed an informal survey she had circulated to several real estate offices on the Peninsula asking specific questions about showing properties to perspective buyers that had a 107 foot radio antenna next door The results of her survey indicated that the real estate agents felt that there would be a price reduction to the home compared to similar properties because of the presence of the antenna Dr. John Jordan, 30759 Tarapaca Road, emphasized to the Commission that there would be a significant view impact on his property because of the proposed antenna, as Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 2 well as a loss in property value He reminded the Commission that even if it denied the applicant's request for the 107 foot high antenna, Mr Von Hagen would still be allowed to install a thirty foot high antenna on his property He commented he had bought his property for the view, and would not have purchased it if there were already an antenna in place on the neighboring property Chairman Clark asked Dr Jordan to clarify was he considered to be his primary viewing area Dr Jordan responded it was on the pad on the south side of the pool patio, which corresponds roughly to the center of the applicant's building pad, looking towards the ocean and Catalina Island Chairman Clark referred to a photograph, presented by the Staff which he had Dr Jordan point out his primary viewing area Chairman Clark asked what impact a 30 foot high antenna would have on Dr Jordan's primary viewing area Mr Jordan responded that a 30 foot antenna high would be less detrimental to the views throughout the neighborhood, but that the impact to his view would be the same as a 107 foot high antenna, since he would be looking at the base of the antenna, while the neighborhood would be looking at the upper portion of the structure Commissioner Alberio asked Dr Jordan if the antenna were placed in a different location on the property that did not impact his view, would he still object to the antenna Dr Jordan responded that he would not object to the antenna if it no longer impacted his view Director/Secretary Petru clarified the primary view and the location of viewing area on Dr Jordan's property She indicated that Staff based its determination of viewing area on the adopted Guidelines used to interpret Section 17 02 040 of the Development Code (View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance) She noted that Staffs interpretation of the primary viewing area may differ from what the landowner feels is his primary viewing area Ruth Racisz, 30751 Tarapaca Road, distributed pictures of her view to the Commission She objected to the proposed antenna since she felt that it constituted an obstruction of her panoramic view Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 3 Jim Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, represented Mr Herbert of 2753 Vista Mesa Drive He read a letter from Mr. Herbert, who was in Germany at the time of the meeting. In the letter, Mr. Herbert, a ham radio operator, described the type of low height antenna he had chosen to use on his property, which still allowed him to communicate with Europe, but did not obstruct his neighbor's views Jane Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, voiced her objection to the antenna based on concerns regarding view obstruction and negative aesthetic impacts Keith Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, urged the Commission to deny the antenna and stressed the importance of considering the petition against the project that was circulated in the neighborhood Phil Dunlap, 2845 San Ramon Drive, representing the homeowners on San Ramon Drive, reminded the Commission that views on his street would also be negatively affected by the proposed antenna Russell Harrison, 5915 Finecrest Drive, discussed his objections to the antenna, since it set a precedent throughout the City He also informed the Commission that he was the appellant several years ago for a proposed 90 foot high tower on Grayslake Road Jim Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, voiced his objections to the proposed antenna, which specifically included the fact that nobody knew exactly what the proposed antenna would look like, since the temporary tower that was erected on the site did not include the antenna array and yagies at the top RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9 10 P M there was a brief recess until 9 25 P.M when the meeting reconvened Laura McSherry, 2714 San Ramon Drive, expressed her concerns about the antenna regarding loss of view, as well as health issues Sara Doctor, 2700 San Ramon Drive, had objections about the tower in regards to her view and the negative aesthetic impact of having flashing red light on top of the structure Commissioner Alberio asked Staff about the requirement to install a flashing red light on the tower. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 4 Director/Secretary Petru responded it was Staffs understanding that the FAA only required a flashing light on towers that were greater than 200 feet in height. therefore, the subject tower, at a proposed 107 feet in height, would be exempt from the FCC requirement However, when the concern was originally raised by the neighbors about Fire Department use of helicopters in the canyon, Staff felt that it would be prudent to require the applicant to get a written determination from the Fire Department as to whether this agency wanted a flashing light on the tower. That determination had not yet been made, but was originally conditioned by Staff to be provided before the final building permit was signed off for the tower Marcia Carlson, 2715 San Ramon Drive, explained she has been a real estate agent on the Peninsula since 1976 She voiced her objection to the antenna, primarily due to it's potential to negatively affect property values in the neighborhood Lois LaRue, 3136 Barkentine Road, voiced her support for the neighbor's opposition to the proposed antenna tower Jonathan Stewart, 2903 Vista Del Mar, urged the Commission to deny the antenna for all the reasons stated by the previous speakers. Anita Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, read a letter from John Hewett of 30760 Tarapaca Road, who was unable to attend the meeting Mr. Hewett wrote that he had spent his own money to underground utilities on his property and the property the applicant now owns. He very strongly objected to building a tower on the property which would block views in the neighborhood. Commissioner Cartwright asked Staff a view analysis had been conducted from Mr Hewett's property. Assistant Planner de Freitas responded that Staff had conducted a view analysis from this particular property and had determined that, while the tower would be visible from some portions of the property, it would not cause significant view impairment Director/Secretary Petru added to Mr de Freitas' comments by stating that, in the area of the property where Staff had determined the best and most important view to be taken, the tower would not be visible Jack Carter, 28911 Golden Meadow Drive, a licensed amateur radio operator, spoke in support of Mr Von Hagen's application. He stated that he had lost 100% of his ocean view when homes where constructed behind his property in the City of Palos Verdes Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 5 Estates Compared to the type of view loss he had experienced, Mr. Carter felt that the small loss of view from an antenna tower was insignificant. Paul Brugala, 21533 Hawthorne Blvd, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Assistant City Attorney had summarized PRB 1 very thoroughly and he felt that this information was sufficient for the Planning Commission to place reasonable conditions on the protect, as the Staff had done He urged the Commission to deny the appeal and approve the antenna tower. Chairman Clark asked Mr. Brugala, in light of the permit process that had taken place and the continuing conflict with residents, if his client, Mr Von Hagen, would consider a compromise. Mr Brugala responded that he had discussed several alternative locations with his client He went on to state that Mr. Von Hagen was willing to place the antenna tower anywhere on the building pad of his property that would satisfy the Planning Commission Robert Puffer, 5148 Silver Arrow Drive, a licensed amateur radio operator, spoke in favor of the project by stating that Mr Von Hagen had a right to install the antenna tower on his property He also felt that the permit process was too complicated and onerous for ham radio enthusiasts, and felt that the permit process should be more streamlined and less difficult Peter Von Haaen, 30763 Tarapaca Road, began his remarks by stating that Staff had checked with the Chicago Appraisal Institute which, in 35 years of record keeping, did not have one documented case where an amateur radio antenna support structure had been the cause of property devaluation on the adjacent property. He pointed out the structure he was proposing was a lattice tower, which would not cause significant view impairment because you could look through it. Mr. Von Hagen felt his permit application was in complete compliance with the City's ordinance and, therefore, he saw no justification for sustaining the appeal Commissioner Albeno asked Mr. Von Hagen about the wind load factors that may affect his proposed tower structure. Mr Von Hagen responded that one of the conditions placed on the permit by Staff required that he could not exceed the wind load capacity of the tower He also noted that he would not exceed the capacity, even if there was no specific condition Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 6 Chairman Clark questioned if, given the strong wind gusts in that area of the City, the antenna would be able to withstand those forces Mr Von Hagen responded that he had no doubt that the antenna would be able to withstand the wind gusts and stated that he would not overload the antenna Assistant City Attorney Steele pointed out that the requirements of the Building and Safety Division were not issues before the Planning Commission All the engineering issues would be dealt with as part of the Building Permit process Chairman Clark asked Mr Von Hagen about the potential solution of moving the antenna to the slope at the rear of the property and substituting his current Minor Exception Permit for Conditional Use Permit to allow the antenna to be placed in an Open Space Hazard Zone that existed on the slope in question Mr Von Hagen responded by stating that a Conditional Use Permit was not the proper application in this case A CUP was intended for a use that was not explicitly allowed by the zoning designation of the property He noted that amateur radio use was a permitted use on residential property With regards to moving the antenna to a different location, he felt that there was no practical place to put the structure on the slope since this area of the lot was greater than thirty five percent in steepness Rosalyn Stewart (rebuttal) summarized the appellants' case regarding adverse view impairment, negative aesthetic impacts, loss in property values and public safety issues regarding the proposed antenna structure In conclusion, she urged the Planning Commission to uphold the appeal and deny the Minor Exception Permit. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, it was so ordered, (7-0). Chairman Clark offered some clarifications by stating that the Code stipulated that view interference related to the primary viewing area for properties located within 500 feet of the subject property Therefore, claims of view impairment beyond the 500 feet radius surrounding the subject property would not be applicable He asked Staff to verify if he were correct in stating the Code finding addressed loss of property value or view interference Director/Secretary Petru affirmed that the Code findings did include "or" Therefore, in order to deny the permit, the Commission would not be required to find that the antenna tower caused both loss of property value and view interference The Commission would only need to make one of these findings to deny the permit. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 7 Chairman Clark then asked Staff, in regards to the devaluation of property values, if there were any qualifying conditions set forth in the Code. Director/Secretary Petru responded that there were no qualifying conditions contained in the Code to determine the potential for devaluation of the property values as a result of an antenna tower Chairman Clark asked Assistant City Attorney Steele to provide, for the benefit of the Commission, any remarks he may have had with respect to the appeal Assistant City Attorney Steele began by clarifying that the Commission was not compelled to make the three Code findings in this case. Mr. Steele also mentioned that there were three other factors that should not be part of the Commission's consideration and were in no way relevant to the decision the application. The first was City liability. The Government Code provided absolute immunity from any liability on the part of the City or Staff or Officials from claims of injury that may arise from granting or denying a permit. Secondly, the issue of precedent should not be considered. The Commission cannot deny an application simply to ensure that there are no other similar applications made to the City in the future The third issue concerned the building and safety issues raised earlier in the meeting. He reminded the Commission if the permit was approved, there would still be a separate Building Permit process which would check for the structural integrity of the tower Finally, regarding the issue of whether a real estate agent's comments regarding devaluation of property can be used in place of a bona fide real estate appraiser, Mr. Steel reminded the Commission this was not a court and therefore the same rules of evidence did not apply The Commission was free to consider the credibility of each person providing information, weigh the information that has been placed on he record and make a decision based on those factors There really were no rules that the Commission had to follow in terms of which speaker deserved more credibility. Commissioner Franklin felt the Commission was being asked to balance one person's hobby against another person's objections to an eyesore and concern about property values. Mr Franklin summarized a matrix he put together outlining a number of possible options regarding the operational height, nested height, hours of operation, and location on property for the antenna To summarize, Mr Franklin felt that the only options that were both consistent with the Code and minimized the impact on neighbor's property values were the ones that required the antenna be nested no higher than the ridge height of the structure on the property and operated at full height only after dark when it could not been seen by the neighbors Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 8 0 Commissioner Ng felt that, after looking at the pictures and hearing the public testimony, there was significant view impairment caused by the antenna structure. She also commented that it was common sense to her that property values would decline as a result of a 107 foot high antenna structure being placed on a neighboring property Commissioner Ng agreed with Commissioner Franklin's idea of only allowing the antenna to be used at night. Commissioner Whiteneck agreed with Commissioners Franklin and Ng, and wished the two parties would have been able to agree on some type of compromise. Commissioner Cartwright felt the problem facing the Commission was to balance the rights of the applicant with the rights of the community Mr Cartwright did not feel that free speech was really an issue, since the Commission was not considering any options that would interfere with the federal interest in promoting amateur radio communications Mr Cartwright felt that impacts to property values and view impairment were the biggest issues to be considered He felt that an antenna of the proposed size would impact the value of surrounding properties He further stated he could not support the Staffs recommendation to approve the project as proposed, with only a few conditions of approval, and felt that other options needed to be considered. Commissioner Alberio stated that he could not support an antenna tower at such a height as proposed by the applicant since it would be detrimental to so many other people He asked that other alternative locations on the property be more thoroughly explored Vice Chairman Vannorsdall agreed that there was a substantial loss of view to many homes in the area He had traveled around the Peninsula looking at the other existing antennas and could not find one as uniquely situated as the subject property He also wondered why locating the antenna on the slope behind the house could not be more thoroughly explored Chairman Clark summarized the Commissioner's views that had been expressed and wondered if the Commission might consider exploring a solution that involved using a different type of antenna that was smaller (i a the approximate height of the ridgeline) but was more powerful, similar to the one Mr Herbert uses in the EI Prado neighborhood to communicate with Europe Assistant City Attorney Steele reminded the Commission that Mr Von Hagen had a right to an antenna thirty feet in height through a Site Plan Review process. It would be difficult for the City to regulate what type of antenna Mr Von Hagen would choose to install in that situation Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 9 Chairman Clark agreed that there was some view impairment that would be caused by the proposed antenna, along with losses in property value He stated that he would also like to see the idea of placing the antenna on the slope explored further Commissioner Franklin commented that the minimum possible regulations should be sought in order to reach the City's goal. He felt that the solution in this case was to regulate the height and operating hours of the antenna, rather than its location on the property Chairman Clark suggested the option of placing the antenna on the pad on the south side of the house In that location, the base of the antenna would be screened by the residence, thereby minimizing the visual impact on the neighbors Assistant City Attorney Steele noted that using Commissioner Franklin's suggestion, the applicant had three options 1) Erect the antenna under the conditions Imposed by the Commission under the Minor Exception Permit, 2) Erect the antenna under the Site Plan Review process, thereby limiting the height of the antenna to 30 feet; or, 3) Substitute the Minor Exception Permit with a Conditional Use Permit to construct the antenna on the hillside (Open Space Hazard Zone). Chairman Clark made a motion to deny the appeal, thereby approving the project with the following conditions; the antenna shall be placed on the south side (rear) of the residence and nest at a maximum height that is no higher than the existing ridgeline so that it could be elevated and operated during evening hours of 8:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. daily, pursue a Conditional Use Permit on a downslope location, and pursue the 30 foot antenna under the code. In addition, the applicant also has the option of one or three. Chairman Clark requested that Staff prepare the appropriate P.C. Resolution for adoption at the next regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and passed unanimously by roll call vote (7-0). U I, • At 12:07 A.M., Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn the meeting to an Adjourned Meeting on Saturday, November 2, 1996 at 3:00 P.M. at the Whitley Collins Drive entrance to the Island View Tract. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and was passed unanimously, (7-0). N \GROUP\PLANNING\PCIVIMMIN10 24 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1996 Page 10