Loading...
PC MINS 19980310CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Approved 3/2 /98 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P M by Acting Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lyon. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Slayden, Vannorsdall and Acting Chairman Cartwright Commissioner Paris arrived at 7-03 P M Absent Chairman Clark (excused). Also present were Acting Director/Secretary Rojas, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planners Pfost and Fox, Assistant Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Staff distributed three items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 2 (Site Plan Review No. 8017 - Appeal); an item of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Permit No. 155 Revision B'and Grading Permit 1987); copies of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the upcoming Marriott project; and, orientation material from City Attorney Lynch related to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Commission Vice Chairman Cartwright reported on the attendance of the Commission at the "Planner's Institute" held March 5, 6, and 7, 1998 in Long Beach. On behalf of the Commission, he thanked the City for making it possible for them to attend a very informative and educational conference. CONSENT CALENDAR None. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 200. Coastal Permit No. 143, and Grading Permit No. 1993; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Point Interpretive Center, 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West. Vice Chairman Cartwright read aloud the description of the project and Staffs recommendation for this Item He asked Staff if they had any additional comments for this item and Associate Planner Pfost replied that he had none Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission if they had any questions for Staff, and there none. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff s Recommendation to remove Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Coastal Permit No. 143, and Grading Permit No. 1993 from the Planning Commission Agenda until analysis of the project was completed. Upon receipt of this information, the item will be re -noticed for a Public Hearing item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed unanimously,(6-0). Commissioner Alberio requested that Agenda Item No. 3 be considered before Agenda Item No 2 since the applicant was present, but ill at that time Commissioner Paris suggested that the Public Hearings be re -ordered since Agenda Item No 2 would take the most discussion time Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -order the Public Hearings as follows: 1st: Agenda Item No. 3 (Site Plan Review No. 8216) Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 2 2nd: Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Permit No. 155 - Revision 'B', and Grading Permit No. 1987) 3rd: Agenda Item No. 2 (Site Plan Review No. 8017 - Appeal) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed unanimously, (6-0). Vice Chairman Cartwright briefly discussed the function of the Planning Commission and informed the public of the protocol for the meeting. The Commission proceeded with consideration of Agenda Item No 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Site Plan Review no. 8216; Ludwig and Pat Zelt, 4100 Seahorse Lane. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Mr. Chip Zelt} (applicant) 4100 Seahorse Lane, stated that he was present to answer any questions for the Commission Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission if they had any questions for the applicant and if they wished to discuss this item The Commission had no questions or comments Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by Vice Chairman Cartwright. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-11, thereby approving Site plan Review No. 8216, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a roll -call vote, (6-0). Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 3 4. Conditional Use permit No. 155 - Revision `B' and Grading Permit No. 1987; Mir. ,john Resich, Green Hills Memorial Park. 27501 South Western Avenue. Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report stating that the applicant submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No 155 - Revision 'B' and Grading Permit No 1987 requesting the removal of three existing below grade fuel tanks, installation of two new above grade fuel tanks, and a total of 139 cubic yards of grading activity necessary to fill in the area of the removed underground tanks The application was deemed and was deemed complete in February 1998. Mr Pfost stated that Staff believed that the proposed project complied with the requirements of the code and that there were no significant adverse impacts on the property and therefore, recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit Revision, subject to conditions Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission if they had any questions or comments for Staff regarding this item. Commissioner Alberio discussed ramifications of removal of any contaminated soils to appropriate disposal facilities Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that the conditions for this item include the applicant submit the state required contamination report to the City. Acting Director/Secretary Rous stated that the proposed conditions of approval require that the applicant obtain these permits from the State Vice Chairman Cartwright recollected that the Commission had previously considered and approved a similar project (California Water) and asked Staff if there had been any negative feedback since the implementation of that project. Acting Director/Secretary Rous replied that the project was completed with no negative feedback Commissioner Paris moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed. Mr Ken Hekimian (applicant's engineer) 15661 Producer Lane #3, Huntington Beach, CA, who designed the facility stated that Staff's Report was very thorough and Planning commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 4 comprehensive Mr Hekimian informed the Commission that the contaminated soil was no longer exported to Class `1' sites, but that it was now transported to incinerators located at Lynwood and Azusa Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the engineer if mitigation measures for the above- ground fuel tanks were considered if a disaster or an earthquake occurred Mr Hekimian replied that he obtained standards from the Fire Department as well as the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) which included earthquake restraints Mr Hekimian stated that the above -ground fuel tanks were set on pedestals that were locked into the concrete Commissioner Paris asked why the above -ground fuel tanks were being located in an area other than the existing location Associate Planner Pfost replied that the re -location was for safety reasons so as not to interfere with the vehicular activity (tractors, etc.) at the access of the maintenance yard. Mr. Don Shults. 2129 Velez Drive, representing the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association stated that in 1996 the association requested that Green Hills remove a dirt pile which was located closely to the back of neighbor's home since the dust from the dirt pile affected the abutting property owners and also caused noise impacts from the machinery and equipment operations Mr Shults stated that Green Hills agreed to remove the dirt pile at a later time, but that it has not been removed at this time After additional contact with Green Hills, he was not successful in obtaining a positive response Mr Shults stated the homeowners association opposed the proposed project and requested that the Commission deny the applicant's proposed project until their needs had been met. Associate Planner stated that the dirt pile was approved as a part of Green Hills Master Plan (conditioned) in 1990 and that the dirt was stored in that particular location and utilized for internments Mr. John Resich. (applicant's attorney) 840 W 9th Street, San Pedro, CA stated that his client would fill the holes after the underground fuel tanks were removed and that in the future a grading permit would be submitted to the City for removal of the pile located approximately fifty feet from the abutting property to the south Mr. Rudolph Joon, 1984 Rolling Vista Drive #7, requested permission to submit a petition list from the Rolling Hills Townclub, as he was unaware that the deadline to submit related correspondence for this item was at 12.00 noon before the date of the Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 5 hearing The Commission permitted submittal of the petition He stated that the residents on the list opposed the proposed project since it was clearly visible from their upstairs rooms and that it was an eyesoar Mr Joon stated that the residents suggested that the applicant locate the above -ground fuel tanks approximately thirty feet to the north of the planned location (closer to the property line), near the east -west retaining wall so that they will not be visible from the resident's homes. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objection, the Public Hearing was declared closed by Vice Chairman Cartwright. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion of this item Commissioners Paris, Lyon, Slayden, and Vannorsdall had no objections to the proposed project. Commissioner Alberio was concerned with the removal of the dirt pile since it was an issue with the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association He suggested that Staff research further into the Green Hills Master Plan to explore other areas for relocation of the dirt pile Mr Alberio also suggested that the applicant work with the homeowners association to alleviate their concerns regarding the dirt pile Staff stated that the dirt pile was permitted through the Green Hills Master Plan Mr. Resich stated that Green Hills intended to submit application in the near future for modifications to the overall site The Commission requested that an update on the submittal of the pending application be provided in six months Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-12, thereby approving Conditional use Permit No. 155 - Revision `B' and Grading Permit No. 1987. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the maker of the motion to amend and include the conditions as discussed (six month review of the piling and relocation of the above- ground fuel tanks), Commissioner Vannorsdall amended the motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Lyon as follows Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-12 ; thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 155 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 6 Revision 'B' and Grading Permit No. 1987 subject to conditions, with direction to staff to work with the applicant to relocate the tanks as close to the minimum setback line as feasible. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (6-0). Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 06 P.M. there was a brief recess until 8 15 P M when the meeting reconvened. At this time, Agenda Item No 2 was considered 2. Site Plan Review No. 8017 - Appeal; Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive (applicant]; Karyl Newton, 46 Oceanaire Drive [appellant]. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant submitted an application for a Site Plan Review in April 1997 proposing a second ham radio antenna support structure and array with an overall height of sixty feet in the rear - yard of his residence. The application was deemed complete in December 1997. Staff completed all the necessary analysis and issued a notice of decision on January 14, 1998 which conditionally approved the proposed project On January 19, 1998 the Director issued an amended notice for Site Plan Review No. 8017 to include the modification to Condition Nos 3 and 7 The 15 -day appeal period was extended to expire on February 3, 1998 However, on January 30, 1998, within the appeal period, an appeal of the Staff level determination to the Planning Commission was filed by Mrs. Karyl Newton Associate Planner Fox stated that Staff believed that the proposed ham radio antenna support structure and array were consistent with the provisions of the old Code under which the application must be processed Therefore, Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of Site Plan Review No. 8017, subject to conditions. The appellants main reasons for opposition to the project were identified as: 1) View Issues, 2) Economic Impact to adjacent properties, 3) Alleged commercial use of the Ham Radio Antennae already existing on the site; and, 4) Inadequacy of Public Notice Associate Planner Fox briefly summarized the Staff Report discussion of each of these issues including that Staff has no direct proof of commercial use of the existing antennae, and that the old Code did not require notice to adjacent property owners of proposed or approved Ham Radio Antennae permits Although not specifically required Staff did provide notice of both the original and amended Director's Decisions to Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 7 Interested parties identified in the course of processing the application. Staff employed the current noticing criteria for the appeal, Including publication of a hearing notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, and distribution of notices to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission if they had any questions or comments for Staff regarding this item Commissioner Alberio stated that he had visited the subject site and that the applicant voluntarily informed him that other persons had relocated their equipment from Torrance and San Pedro to the project site Mr Alberio asked if Staff was aware of other persons utilizing the applicant's second ham radio antennae at the subject site Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that Staff was not aware of this situation Commissioner Slayden asked why two Ham Antennae were permitted on a single lot, and Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that input from radio operators was considered in adopting the regulations, and likely influenced the final decision to allow two Commissioner Lyon asked why the requirement of a signed declaration was eliminated when the conditions of approval were revised on January 19, 1998 Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that after several discussions with the applicant, the Building Official, City Attorney and himself, Staff agreed to modify the language of Condition No 3 regarding a signed prohibition of commercial use of the second ham radio antennae. Mr. Rojas stated that the modified language was structured to protect the City from unforeseen litigation matters Commissioner Paris felt the modified language in Condition Nos 3 and 7 could be interpreted to facilitate the unpermitted commercial use of the proposed ham radio antennae Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the condition modifications were drafted in a manner that makes clear to the applicant that the antennae could not be utilized for commercial purposes. However, Staff indicated that the conditions could be amended as the Commission deemed appropriate. Commissioner Paris asked Staff if consideration was given to the possibility of terminating the applicant's permit (if granted) in the event that the antennae was utilized for commercial purposes Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 8 Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that if the antennae were used for commercial purposes, the old Development Code provides authority to revoke any such permit Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that any decision on this project should be based on evidence presented, and not on speculation, and also asked Staff about the total of number of ham radio antennae in the City Associate Planner Fox replied that from 1978 to present there were approximately fifty applications approved by the City, but that records show about half of those do not currently exist, and that information on heights had not been compiled Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr Mitchell Albert (appellant's attorney) stated that there were two main issues he would discuss as the basis for opposing the recommendation of the Staff Report He stated that the first issue was an incorrect assumption that the existing antenna complied with the City's code and, the second issue was that there is evidence that the existing ham radio antenna is utilized for commercial purposes Mr Albert stated that there was no building permit for the existing antenna which was measured at fifty-four and half feet high as indicated in a Surveyor's Report prepared on behalf of the appellant. He also stated that this height did not comply with the City's Code Mr Albert stated that the applicant should not be entitled to another antenna since his existing antenna did not comply with the Code Mr Albert stated that there was plenty of evidence presented to prove that the ham radio antennae was being utilized for commercial purposes. Mr Albert stated that the conditions of approval for the existing antenna indicate that the antenna must be nested at thirty feet when not in use The appellant has observed that it was always at the full height of fifty-four and half feet, and concluded that this was evident that the applicant's existing antennae was being operated around the clock for commercial purposes. Mr. Albert was informed by his client that Mrs Abram's told a neighbor that the antenna was being used for'Lo-Jak', a stolen auto tracking system which could not be verified at that time, but that the statement made by the applicant was additional evidence that the ham radio antennae was being utilized for commercial purposes Mr. Albert stated that Mrs. Abrams (applicant's wife) told Mrs Newton (appellant) that was the sole purpose for the ham radio antenna, which was further evidence of commercial use Mr Albert stated that Mrs Newton's husband is an engineer, and that he measured the strongest frequency of radio waves or signal he received through his home to be 45 02 mega hertz which is known as `commercial frequency'. Mr Albert stated that the appellants television reception is often interrupted, and believes the case is Mr. Abrams antennae. Mr. Albert also mentioned that the applicant was in the mobile telecommunications business Given the factors as mentioned, Mr Albert stated his opinion that there was Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 9 0 9 enough evidence presented to prove that the ham radio antenna was being used commercially and that the existing antenna exceeded the height limitation as indicated in the City's Code. Mr. Albert concluded his testimony by requesting the Commission to consider the non-compliance of the existing antenna and not entitle the applicant to the present application in which he seeks approval of a second ham radio antennae Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if the existing antenna complied with the City's Code Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the existing antenna was not in compliance based on the information provided by the appellant and that this issue could be pursued by Code Enforcement Ms. Karyl Newton, (appellant) 46 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she and her family lived in the City since 1974, but moved to Del Cerro in 1984 in part because all the utilities in that area were underground She stated that in 1990 Mr Abrams constructed an array of antennae which measured to a height of fifty-four and half feet as stated in a surveyor's report Mrs Newton stated that since 1990 she had never seen the antenna nested at thirty feet. She asserted that final approval was not given for that project and that there was no building permit Mrs Newton informed the Commission that Mrs Abrams told her that the second antennae (ham radio) would be used for Mr Abrams business. Mrs Newton also mentioned that Mr Abrams was in the telecommunications business and that his business was located in Paramount She questioned the need for a second ham radio when one already existed She distributed to the Commission a copy of the application for the ham radio antenna and then displayed photographs of the ham antenna as well as a commercial antenna. Mrs. Newton stated that she had discussions with several radio-frequency engineers as well as ham operators who basically stated that the existing antennae was not a ham antenna, but instead was a short distance relay antenna and that the multiple monopoles were used to gather multiple signals then relayed to another location. Mrs. Newton stated that she had also spoken to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and discovered that Mr. Abrams obtained a business licensed with Mobile Communications which is only used for mobile equipment and also discovered that Mr Abrams had an advanced ham operator license which all went under a business address located in Paramount It was Mrs. Newton's understanding that the license was site specific, and not for Mr Abrams' use at his residence. Mr. Ian MacDonald 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he has lived at his residence for thirty-three years and as soon as Mr Abrams moved into the neighborhood and erected his array of antennae the neighbors began to experience problems with their Planning commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 10 television sets, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays on Channel 2 Mr MacDonald stated that Mr Abrams suggested he connect to cable television to avoid television Interference from his antennae Commissioner Alberto questioned whether the FCC had been consulted, and Mr MacDonald said he had checked with them in the past, and must do so again Mr. Michael Cicoria, 62 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he purchased his home back in 1959 and that part of the reason was the same as mentioned by Mrs. Newton the underground utilities. Mr Cicoria felt that the City should not have approved the applicant's previous request for the existing antenna because of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that were originally established for the Del Cerro Development Mr Cicoria wanted to maintain a decent neighborhood and strongly opposed the existing antenna as well as the proposed antennae Mr Clcoria stated his concern with past negative contacts with Staff Upon question from Commissioner Vannorsdall, Mr. Cicoria indicated that the CC&R's had expired Vice Chairman Cartwright stated for the benefit of the audience that the item under consideration was primarily the proposed antenna and not the existing antenna. Mr. Barry Donegan, 42 Oceanaire Drive, also in opposition, stated that Mr. Abrams told him two years ago that he was in the process of obtaining a contract with an anti - vehicle theft device company through Pactel Mr. Donegan stated that this was additional evidence to prove that Mr Abrams was operating a business and that his antennae was being utilized for commercial purposes. Mr. Donegan also stated concerns that the proposed antennae would adversely impact property values if it were to be approved Mr. Mark Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he wanted to clarify two issues which most of the opposing side had presented to the Commission that evening The first issue related to the building permit for his existing antennae structure and, the second issue was in regard to the use of his proposed antennae structure Mr Abrams stated that he could not understand why the City's records were not complete, and submitted for the Commission consideration a copy of the stamped plans for the existing antennae structure He asserted that the plans indicated that the antennae structure had changed very little, from the plan to the construction and stated that the height of the antennae was fifty-two and a half feet from the ground. Mr. Abrams stated Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 11 that when the Inspector visited his property the height of the existing antennae was 52 feet. Mr Abrams could not recollect the last name of this Inspector, but displayed the signed Final Inspection Card. He stated that Ms Newton alleged that his antenna was never nested at thirty feet, and admitted this was true since the antennae was in use twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. He stated that the antenna position has not changed since the inspector signed off the Final Inspection Card Mr Abrams stated that the reason for his antennae being operated at all hours was that other persons (ham radio operators) were utilizing the antenna as well. He told the Commission that he had a piece of equipment in his home from Teletrack (formerly known as Pactel Teletrack) stolen vehicle location system. Mr. Abrams stated his opinion that the City Code specifically addressed the transmission of antennae and that when he obtained his permit he asked City Staff about'receive only antennae' and whether or not he could receive on any frequency he so desired He stated that a former City employee replied that receiving antennae were not covered by the Code and that an antennae that receives only is not considered as commercial under any circumstances Mr Abrams stated that the equipment (Teletrack) in is home was 'receiving only' equipment which only receives signals transmitted by the automobiles and that the signal is tied to by a Global Position System Response information travels through telephone lines to Teletrack's office. Teletrack has 100 or more receive sites In addition to the one that he had at his residence. Mr Abrams stated that by receiving the signals at the different times, Teletrack was able to locate the vehicle and that at no time was there a signal transmitted by that equipment Mr. Abrams therefore asserted that it was not covered as a commercial radio since it receives only Mr Abrams discussed his ham radio and TV antenna and stated that Planning Department Staff clarified that the City does not consider the master TV antennae to be one of the two Ham Radio antennae structures allowed by the Code. He stated that since the Municipal Code entitled him to two (2) ham radio antennae he chose to take advantage of that to alleviate interference problems between some of the ham equipment located at his home Mr Abrams stated that he had a repeater at his home which is an automated relay station that receives signals on one frequency and retransmits out on another frequency. The reason for doing so was that radio signals in the VHFspectrum travel primarily in line of sight as opposed to the HF frequency which operated between frequencies of three and thirty mega hertz Ham operators generally use VHF for talking around the world therefore equipment location is based on line of sight. Mr Abrams stated that the type of communications equipment that he dealt with were VHF and UHF. He stated that he was in the radio commercial business, held FCC licenses, and that the mailing address used for his ham radio license was his business address in Paramount, and explained that he wanted his privacy and did not Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 12 want his home address on a public FCC data base. Mr. Abrams stated that ham radio licenses allowed the holder to operate anywhere in the United States and many foreign countries Mr Abrams stated that the radio transmissions do not constitute a health hazard when one is at a certain distance from the antennae He stated the frequency, power, and technical parameters had conducted a survey of his site to make sure that he was in compliance with the Federal standards. In regards to the television interferences, Mr. Abrams stated that most consumer equipment (television sets, stereos, etc.) were made inexpensively and do not contain shielding or Radio Frequency (RF) interference suppression devices since that would increase the cost of equipment. Mr. Abrams stated that the equipment in his residence costs over $100,000 00 dollars and contained many devices for suppressing internal RF interference as well as containing devices to suppress the creation of interference to other pieces of commercial grade equipment He further explained that the frequency of the transmitter determined whether or not it was commercial Mr Abrams stated that the allegations made by the appellant's side regarding his use of antennae and equipment for commercial purposes were untrue Throughout his many experience years with ham radio operations, Mr Abrams stated he had never known of anyone utilizing an oscilloscope to measure signal frequency, as Mr Newton had done in getting a reading of 45 02 mega hertz. Mr Abrams insisted that the frequency signal which Mr Newton measured could have been radiated from a television set or a cordless telephone and not from his antennae. Mr. Abrams stated that three of his neighbors complained to him about television interferences, including Mr MacDonald who stated that the cause of this interference was Mr Abrams existing antennae. Mr. Abrams stated that in order to accommodate Mr. MacDonald he suggested that Mr Ian contact him when the interference recurred to determine if in fact it were coming from his antennae. Mr. Abrams stated that when informed of an occurrence of the interference he flipped the main breaker switch off to shut -down all of his equipment and then asked if Mr. MacDonald still had television indifference in which Mr. MacDonald replied, 'yes' Mr Abrams also mentioned that Ms Newton complained about the same situation and that he offered to come over to her home to find out where the television indifference was coming from. Mr. Abrams stated that to this date Ms Newton had never contacted him to research the issue He did not understand why Ms Newton complained before the Commission that evening about the television interference that she experienced but had not taken him up on his offer to help determine the resource Mr Abrams stated that he was involved in a different problem, and discovered that the problem was cause by a mercury vapor street light. Mr. Abrams stated that all kinds of devices radiate interference and that the interference in the neighborhood could come from various radar sources including domes He then admitted that some of the indifference probably comes from the equipment at his house, but believed that inexpensive home entertainment equipment is particularly to blame because manufacturers had not included shielding to prevent Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1999 Page 13 0 0 Interferences Mr Abrams stated that Inexpensive television sets without shielding costing $300, and not $500 or $800 will likely remain television Interferences Mr Abrams stated that the square footage on his lot ( 46 acres) was inconsistent on his two applications and apologized to the Commission for the Inaccuracy. Mr Abrams stated that the Commission, Staff and public could visit his home to see for themselves if there was such equipment there, and then stated that there was no type of equipment at his home utilized for commercial purposes Mr Abrams, in response to Ms Newton's issue of aesthetics, stated that he had seen some pretty ugly antennae structures In his time and some beautiful ones As a radio enthusiast, Mr. Abrams stressed that beauty was in the eye of the beholder, and that he could look at an antennae structure and admire the beauty of the design and the performance that it gives. Commissioner Paris asked Mr Abrams if he or his family members derive, directly or indirectly, any revenue from Teletrack, ham groups, or any other organizations as a result of the operations at his residence Mr Abrams replied the he does derive some revenue from Teletrack which is the only piece of non -amateur equipment that is there Mr Abrams stated that he charged all the gentlemen seated behind him (ham radio operators) for having their equipment at his home and that these charges were for utility costs. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Abrams how much was his electricity bill was monthly, to which Mr. Abrams responded that he preferred not answering that question In public, but that he would be more than glad to tell him personally what his electric bill amounted to on a monthly basis. Mr. Abrams also discussed the need for air conditioning to cool the equipment room Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Abrams how many hours or days of the week that he transmits and receives on his equipment and Mr Abrams replied that he utilized his equipment twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Abrams again if he utilized his equipment for both transmitting and receiving and Mr Abrams replied that the equipment will transmit whenever someone attempts to use It and stated that his equipment receives all the time from a stand-by mode Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Abrams if was going to comply with all of the proposed conditions of approval such as Condition No 7, restricting use of the antenna to the occupant of the property or any other person on the site. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1988 Page 14 Mr Abrams stated that he objected to that condition and replied that he was allowed to utilize his equipment from wherever he happened to be and that he did not have to be physically at home neither does his house guest because it is an automated relay station that operates by remote control and could be operated from any location in southern California as long as he was within the range of Rancho Palos Verdes or some other site that relays to Palos Verdes Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if Condition No 7 was intended for the applicant's request to be on the site when utilizing the equipment and Acting Director/Secretary Rous replied that this was the intent. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Abrams if he objected to any of the other conditions and Mr Abrams stated that he did not refuse to sign a declaration indicating that he only use the antennae for non-commercial purposes, but that he told the City Staff that he would be glad to sign the statement if the Municipal Code gives the City the authority to require this information Mr. Sandy Samuels, Box 950489, Mission Hills, CA stated that although other equipment is typically uses radio frequency could be measured with an oscilloscope at twenty or thirty mega cycles, but certainly not 45 mega cycles Mr Samuels asked the Commission to consider what ham radio could do for the City and not what the City could do for ham radio Mr Samuels indicated that he had equipment at Mr. Abrams property and that he helped pay for electricity Mrs. Judith Abrams, 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that she was constantly operating their ham radio and mentioned that she had various medical problems, and felt comfortable knowing she had access to Ham Radio communications capability She stated that she was unaware of any commercial uses of their antennae, and that their antenna was able to assist in on an emergency that occurred (fire) Mrs Abrams stated Ms. Newton statement to the Commission was untrue, and that she had not stated that they use their antennae for Lo-Jak. Mr Gary Franks, 6902 Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA stated that he was a communications supervisor for the Los Angeles Unified School District Mr Franks stated that he had an amateur repeater at Mr Abrams home and stated that the school was one-third of the emergency communications system for the whole school district He stated that the addition of Mr Abrams second tower would improve their communication systems Mr. Douglas R. Marston, 14518 Daphne Avenue, Gardena, CA stated that he taught electronics at EI Camino Jr College and was a ham operator since 1963 He stressed to the Commission the valuable service ham radio performs in emergency situations, Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 16 such as the fire emergency mentioned by Mrs Abrams Mr. Marston stated that if an earthquake were to occur that evening the piece of equipment (radio) in his hand could be the only communications means to retrieve assistance Mr Tom Vegors, P 0 Box 2181, Rancho Palos Verdes stated that he also had equipment at Mr Abrams residence and stated that the mayor benefit of having this type of equipment was that it provided emergency communications He stated that the location of Mr. Abrams antennae was unique. Mr. Carlton Goss, 5746 Wildbriar Drive, represented the Southwest Coast Amateur Radio Association also stressed how valuable the services of ham radio (strand repeater) was especially for the medical attention needed for the participants in the Special Olympics Mr Goss stated that he was also able to assist a motorist whose vehicle was on fire while travelling in front of him At this time, Senior Planner Snow informed the Commission that there was one additional request to speak, but that the speaker left early (8 00 P M ) and asked that his statement be read aloud and for the record. Mr. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, stated that he was the City radio officer responsible to see that radio service was available in an emergency and stated that the City was divided, so far as radio propagation was concerned by the ridge along Crest Road A repeater at the applicant's site would help solve propagation problems so that the whole City could be served in case of a disaster Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the appellant's attorney, Mr. Albert if he wished to rebut. Mr Albert clarified for the record that he called the piece of equipment to measure radio frequency at Mr. Abrams resident an oscilloscope which was incorrect, but that it was a spectrum analyzer He stated that the speakers who favored the antenna only mentioned the merits of ham radio which he felt was a false issue since the applicant already has an antennae and that cellular phones and other technology is now available to deal with emergency problems when they arise Mr. Albert stated that Mr. Abrams had admitted to everything he had asserted earlier, such as the exceeding height (non-compliance) of the existing antennae Mr Albert stated that Mr. Abrams had a Site Plan application or the old code equivalent which was for forty feet and that if he wanted the antennae higher he would have to file other clearances and approvals which he does not have at this time. He stated that Mr Abrams also admitted that his antennae was being utilized for commercial purposes when mentioned that he derived revenue from Teletrack Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 16 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if they wished to comment on Mr Albert's statements. Acting Director/Secretary Rotas stated that Staff will pursue and investigate the existing antennae through Code Enforcement as to the issue of commercial nature Staff would look into whether use by the owner, based on the old code, for Teletrack which appears to be beyond the approved ham radio antennae use Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the Commission close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission should wait until Staff returns with the information as mentioned by the Acting Director/Secretary Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that the Public Hearing of this item be continued because of several open questions including information from the FCC as to what they consider commercial usage. Mr Vannorsdall suggested that the Commission seek direction from City Council for policy direction concerning neighborhood compatibility, and questioned whether the clubs or Teletrack uses would require business licenses. Mr. Vannorsdall also questioned the appropriateness of serial clubs using a single residential property Commissioner Alberio believed that the applicant's antenna was a burden to the community and felt that Staff should analyze the situation further and that contributing factors for a determination should be based on the new code He also concurred with continuing the Public Hearing Vice Chairman Cartwright also favored a continuance of this Public Hearing until answers were available to questions regarding remote versus on-site use, clarification and definition of commercial use, and if this application complied with the Development Code, given the new information introduced through the appellant and applicant testimonies. Commissioner Slayden agreed on a continuance and requested that Staff return to the Commission with a recommendation based on the new information Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue the Public Hearing until April 14, 1998 and direct Staff to analyze new information, coordinate with the City Attorney, and return with a specific recommendation to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed by a roll -call vote, is -off. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1988 Page 17 0' 0 NEW BUSINESS None. Commissioner Alberio excused himself from the chambers and returned before the next item of discussion ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 6. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that Staff was currently updating Staff Resumes and requested the same from the Commission for distribution at the next meeting. Commission Vice Chairman Cartwright inquired about reimbursements from the 'Planner's Institute Conference` attended by the Commission on March 5, 6, and 7, 1998 and Recording Secretary Atuatasi replied to submit the necessary attachments to her for reimbursements. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None. ADJOURNMENT At 11:25 P.M. Vice Chairman Cartwright moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lyon. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by the Vice Chairman. NAGROUP\PLANNING\PWINWIN03-10 98 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1998 Page 18