PC MINS 19980811CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Approved
09/08/98
The meeting was called to order at 7.03 P.M. by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park
Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard
FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Assistant City Attorney Steel
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners Alberto, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall,
Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark
Absent None
Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Principal Planner Snow, Assistant Planner
Louie, and Recording Secretary Zents.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Alberio moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following
order: 1, 3, 2, and 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall
and passed, (7-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff
Staff distributed late correspondence, four signed petition letters; and, a revised
version of the proposed draft antenna ordinance regarding Agenda Item No. 2
(Code Amendment No. 42). Staff also distributed a draft Resolution pertaining to
Agenda Item No. 3 (Height Variation No. 860, Variance No. 433, and Site Plan
Review No.. 8245).
Commission
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of July 28, 1998
Commissioner Paris requested that on page 6, paragraph 4, line 2 be modified to read
as, ...Ms. Parsi replied...'
Commissioner Lyon requested that on page 14, paragraph 3, line 9 be modified to read
as, :.., but rather than arguing the point he believed that it is the appearance that
matters, not the number of levels. He also believed that the needs of the
applicant are a personal matter and should not be questioned in making a
decision.'
Commissioner Slayden requested that on page 5, paragraph 6, line 4, the name
'Blackburn' be inserted after the word 'Mr.'.
Commissioner Alberio requested that on page 6, paragraph 5, line 2 the word 'effect' be
modified to read as, 'affect; page 7, paragraph 4, line 2 be modified to read as, ...the
applicant and neighbors..., page 9, paragraph 5, line 2 be modified to read as,
'—Commissioner Alberio...'; and, page 14, paragraph 2, line 6 be modified to read as,
...left side of the home next to the swimming pool and utilize the garage as living
quarters.'
Vice Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 15, paragraph 1, lines 1 and 5 be
modified to read as, 'Vice Chairman Cartwright—'.
Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of July 28, 1998. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed, (6-0-1), with
Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining since he was not present at that meeting.
Agenda Item No 3 was considered at this time
3. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 860, VARIANCE NO. 433, and SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 8245: Mr. & Mrs. Carl Mosher, 2 Stallion Road
Assistant Planner Louie presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant
submitted applications to the City for a Variance, Height Variation, and Site Plan
Review in March 1998. The applicant requested approval of additions totalling 3,144
square feet, consisting of 1,320 square foot addition to the first story and a 1,824
square foot second story addition Ms Louie stated that the applicant also requested a
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 2
Variance to exceed the maximum structure size by 21 %, reduce the rear yard setback
from 15 feet to 7 feet, and reduce the total lot coverage of open space from 58.1 % to
53% which was below the minimum open space lot coverage of 60% required for the
RS -2 Zone.
Assistant Planner Louie stated that the four findings for granting a Variance could be
made to allow the reduction of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet, and the
open space lot coverage from 58.1% to 53% However, the findings could not be made
for the request to exceed the maximum structure size. Ms. Louie also stated that not all
of the findings for granting a Height Variation could be made to allow construction of
1,824 square foot second story addition at the maximum height of 26 feet and the Site
Plan Review application for the 1,320 square foot addition Assistant Planner Louie
stated that Staff believed that the proposed project did not comply with the City's code
requirement, was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and imposed a
significant view impairment upon a protected singular view for the adjacent property
owner. Therefore, Staff recommended denial of the proposed project.
Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had questions for Staff and there were none
Mr. Carl Mosher. (applicant) 2 Stallion Road, stated that the purpose for his proposed
project was to serve his growing family's needs He stated that the benefits from
expanding his home would be to improve the appearance, increase the value of his
home, and provide a garage for his boat Mr Mosher had addressed the concern of
privacy issues and stated that the second story addition would consist of bedroom and
bathrooms He believed that there would only be insignificant view impact upon the
property owners home at 2 Surrey Lane (Mr & Mrs Juett) In regards to the proposed
structure size of the first -story addition, Mr Mosher stated that the intentions were to
decrease space from his driveway and provide more enclosure. He stated that he
would have 3,500 square feet of living space if the 1,200 square feet from the garage
area were deducted. Mr. Mosher ended his testimony by saying that he believe he had
the right to develop his property to an extent so that he could sustain comparable value
of his home in relation to the neghborhood.
Mr Gary Tasich. (architect) 21014 Wood Avenue 'D', Torrance, CA, stated that the
proposed project was designed prior to the adoption of the City's new Development
Code regarding maximum structure size He stated his belief that the proposed project
would not impose significant view impairment for the adjacent resident at 2 Surrey Lane
and explained that he could lower the ridgeline by 2 feet 9 inches from the original
proposed height of 26 feet Mr. Tasich stated that his client's home was smaller in size
than those in the neighboring area and stated that since they were already under the
60% open space requirement, his solution would be to construct the proposed project
vertically. Mr Tasich explained the expansion and stated that he had slightly
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 3
0 0
expanded the living/dining room and kitchen areas, the family room, which was the
existing garage, was expanded. He informed the Commission that the existing storage
and laundry room of approximately 400 square feet in area were not permitted nor were
included in the square footage for his client's maximum structure size. Mr. Tasich
stated the driveway and private street areas that bordered two sides of the applicant's
property took away from the open space requirement and stated that he proposed to
build a garage onto the asphalted area which would provide enclosure for his client's
boat.
Commissioner Alberio asked the architect if he considered Staffs suggestions in
redesigning the proposed project and Mr Tasich replied that he would like the
opportunity to hear concerns from the neighbors and respond with reasonable
comments.
Vice Chairman Cartwright asked when the unpermitted addition was built and Mr
Tasich replied that he could not recall a specific date. Vice Chairman Cartwright also
asked if he received any comments from the neighbors regarding the reduction of the
proposed ridgeline of 2 feet 9 inches from the neighbors and Mr. Tasich replied that he
had briefly discussed the proposal to the residents at 2 Surrey Lane
Commissioner Slayden asked if it were possible to lower the ridgeline even more if he
were to use dormer type windows on the roof line and Mr Tasich replied that this was
a possibility
Commissioner Paris asked in regards to the unpermitted addition if the property was
legitimized at the time of purchase and Mr. Tasich replied that it was not legitimate
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Staff if they conducted a count of two-story level
homes in the immediate neighborhood and Assistant Planner Louie replied that there
were none as indicated in the Staff Report on page 16
Mr Dennis Juett 2 Surrey Lane, commended Staff for a thorough Report given that
evening and stated that his main concern was preserving his view He felt that the size
of the lot was much too small to construct the proposed home, that the home was too
tall, and that he preferred construction of a one-story level as opposed to a two-story
level home Mr Juett stated that in addition to the height of the proposed structure, the
pine trees at the applicant's home would significantly impair his view.
Commissioner Paris asked Mr Juett if he felt that the applicant let his foliage go in
order to support his proposed project and Mr Juett replied that he and Mr. Mosher had
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 4
9 9
an agreement that the foliage in front of his home would be trimmed at the required
height, but at this particular time Mr. Mosher did not want him to trim the foliage down
this year
Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Juett if the applicant's proposed ridgeline would
eliminate his view and Mr. Juett replied that there would be significant view impact if the
applicant's request for the proposed project were accepted
Mr Robert Adams, 5 Surrey Lane, opposed the applicant's proposed project due to the
fact that the size and height did not blend in with the immediate neighborhood and
would stand out like a 'sore thumb' Mr Adams felt that there were other alternatives
for the applicant to explore in redesigning his proposed protect
Mr Paul Barth, 4 Stallion Road, was not in favor of the proposed project and stated
that the facade of the proposed two-story structure which would be closer than the
existing home would face his back yard. Mr Barth felt that his privacy in his back yard
would be invaded if the proposed project were approved He too, believed that other
alternatives could be explored by the applicant in redesigning the proposed project
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed.
Chairman Clark asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item and there
were none
Chairman Clark moved to table consideration of this item, and directed the
applicant to work with Staff to redesign the project to address various issues,
(i.e., mass, view impairment, height, setback, and removal of pine trees) and
return for presentation to the Commission at a future date. The motion was
seconded by Commisisoner Alberio.
Before a roll call vote was taken by the Commission, Chairman Clark asked Mr. Mosher
to approach the podium so that he could clarify the action that the Commission has
taken for this item
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -open the Public Hearing. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed.
Chairman Clark asked Mr. Mosher if he desired to work with Staff and the neighbor to
pursue other alternatives for his proposed project and he replied that he did.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 5
0 •
Principal Planner Snow requested that the applicant waive the'Permit Streamlining Act'
in order to allow additional time to work with Staff to pursue other alternatives in
redesigning the proposed project Mr Snow stated that a 90 -day extension in writing
would be appropriate.
Chairman Clark asked the applicant if he could provide Staff with this information
subsequent to that evening's meeting and Mr. Mosher replied that he would do so
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed.
Chairman Clark asked for a roll -call vote
The motion passed by a unanimous roll -call vote, (7-0).
Chairman Clark informed the public that this item would be re -noticed when scheduled
for a new public hearing.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Clark called for a brief recess at 8 28 P M The meeting reconvened at
8 45 P.M. and that time the Commission considered Agenda Item No 2
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 42: City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Citywide.
Chairman Clark introduced the public hearing of this item and stated that the City
Council adopted Ordinance No 336U establishing a moratorium for accepting and
processing applications and granting permits to construct or install more than one
commercial antenna or ham radio antenna support structure on any lot within the City
The City Council directed the Commission and Staff to pursue further studies and
submit recommendations regarding this issue.
Chairman Clark stated that the Commission unanimously approved and formed an Ad
Hoc Committee comprised of three Commissioners, Alberio, Lyon, and Vannorsdall to
study these issues and to report back to the Commission with draft amendments to the
Development Code The Ad Hoc Committee has been working on draft amendments to
the City's existing ordinance since April 20, 1998 and was now submitting their draft
amendment language recommendations to the Commission for review and
consideration Chairman Clark expressed much appreciation to the Ad Hoc Committee
for all their efforts and diligence regarding this issue
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 6
9 0
Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission that the Staff Report included a
copy of the proposed antenna ordinance both clean and strike -out versions He stated
that the strike -out version did not denote the modifications from the proposed to the
existing ordinance, but displayed modifications from the proposed to the first draft
ordinance
Director/Secretary Rojas explained to the Commission and the public the modifications
reflected on the revised clean version of the proposed antenna code that was
distributed earlier that evening Mr Rojas stated that,
on Page 2, Item No 20 'Service to Radio Amateur (HAM) Operators' that the
words, 'or consideration' were added to the end of the paragraph;
on Page 5, Item No 11 that parts of sub -section 'A' and Section 'B' were
inadvertently omitted, but were now added and continued in a, b, c order,
on Page 6, sub -section 'H', line 2, the words 'or the Planning Commission'
were added after'Director' and,
on Page 15, sub -section 'D', the word 'ten' was modified to read as, 'twelve' and
the numeral '10' was modified to read as, '12'.
Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the sub committee's draft amended language for
the proposed antenna code was now before the Commission that evening for review
and discussion. He also stated that the moratorium on second antennae structures
would expire in December and that the City had sufficient time to act on the issue
however, the Council requested that Staff return back to the City Council Meeting of
August 18, 1998 with a report from the Commission pertaining to the outcome of this
issue.
Chairman Clark asked the Ad Hoc Committee Chair, Mr Alberio if he desired to provide
additional input on the modifications for the proposed antenna code as stated by
Director/Secretary Rojas
Commissioner Alberio added to the comments of Director/Secretary Rojas and stated
that slight modifications were made in certain sections of the proposed antenna code
such as, Commercial, Satellite Dish, and Commercial (Ham) Antennae in order to
maintain consistency. Mr. Alberio thanked the Council, Staff, Amateur Radio Club, City
Attorney, and the Ad Hoc Committee for their input and work put into the preparation of
the amended language
Commissioner Alberio stated that the sub committee had met several times to provide
input, consultation, legal opinions, and research in preparing the amended draft
language for the proposed antenna code Mr Alberio stated that information regarding;
1) results of the 'Discovery' process related to antenna codes; 2) considerations related
to amateur radio, and, 3) extracts from the Federal Code of Regulations was included
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, `1998
Page 7
0 •
in the Commission packets to assist them in obtaining a clearer understanding of what
the sub committee had compiled for the preparation and finalization of the amended
language to the proposed antenna code Commissioner Alberio stated that in its
'Discovery' phase the sub committee identified concerns such as, the lack of definition,
requirements, compatibility, consistency, appearance of antenna assembly, and found
that the comments were very vague.
Commissioner Alberio stated that the sub committee made recommendations as
follows, the code be divided into commission and non -commission sections, definitions
added, the approval process for cases with significant issues are scheduled for public
hearing, inform the applicant that construction of a mock-up may be required, inform
the applicant of number of antennae allowed on the property, and attach a summary of
the Federal Regulation code to the back of the application. Furthermore,
Commissioner Alberio that it should be noted that all residents are treated equally and
may submit their request so long as they comply with code procedures
Preliminary questions were asked by the Commission at this time
Chairman Clark asked what subsequent change had the sub committee drafted in the
revised proposed antenna code Commissioner Alberio replied updating definitions
based on new technology of antenna and the proposed approval process for permitting
radio antennae.
Commissioner Lyon added that the sub committee quantified the criteria so that the
public had a clear understanding of the guidelines
Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that Ham radio operators usually communicate long
distances by utilizing high frequency signals by an array of antennae set in a horizontal
direction and exceeding a height of a 100 feet Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that
due to new technology it was of utter importance to update this section of the code He
stated that 'relay stations' were never mentioned in the Code and should be
considered. Mr. Vannorsdall added that if commercial and ham operators utilized relay
stations it would change the incoming frequency signal and transmit to another receiver
using a different form of antenna.
Chairman Clark asked Assistant City Attorney Steel if he wished to comment on the
proposed antenna code Mr. Steel suggested to include an exemption, for'Satellite
Earth Stations' (antennas less that two meters in size that transfer data) into the draft
amended language
Chairman Clark asked Staff if the current proposed draft met the concerns requested
by the City Council Director/Secretary Rojas replied that Staffs primary role was to
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11,1998
Page 8
9 0
ensure that amendments proposed by the sub committee were consistent with the
City's zoning code and the general plan. Mr. Rous stated that although the proposed
antenna code varies from the present code approach it is consistent with the remaining
zoning code and general plan. Director/Secretary Rojas added that although the
Council imposed moratorium focused on second antenna structures in looking at this
issue the sub committee discovered that were other issues that needed to be
addressed in the code.
Assistant City Attorney Steel suggested that the Commission consider looking at the
ordinance to simplify and make it understandable and user friendly to the community.
Commissioner Slayden noted in the proposed code that the approval process would
switch from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission and asked the sub
committee if that would slow the process down. Commissioner Alberio replied that the
approval process would allow the Commission more latitude in complex cases
Vice Chairman Cartwright asked why the sub committee replaced the Director in the
approval process procedure for commercial and satellite dish antenna requests
Commissioner Alberio replied that the proposed code required Commission review for
antenna structures of 12 feet in height and beyond. Vice Chairman Cartwright pointed
out that the current Code did not require Commission approval for antenna structures
less than 12 feet in height and felt that the proposed draft ordinance should not either
Vice Chairman Cartwright asked why the sub committee chose the definition
'compensation or consideration' for commercial use versus service to radio amateur
operators Assistant City Attorney Steel replied that the federal definition of
'commercial antenna' was two pronged, applying to both an antenna used by/for a
business or an antenna for which the owner/operator receives compensation Mr Steel
stated the reason a no dollar threshold was used since the City has a no dollar amount
threshold for general commercial uses throughout the City.
Vice Chairman Cartwright believed there should be a distinction between commercial
and amateur radio antenna usage and that commercial antenna use should be defined
broadly Assistant City Attorney stated that the federal law makes a distinction between
amateur radio and commercial use He suggested that if the intent in updating the
ordinance was to be as restrictive as allowed by federal law then the Commission may
consider broadening the definition of commercial antenna use since they are regulated
at a greater level and could be applied in a local zoning context
In Item Nos. 4 and 5 Commissioner Paris noted that it read, `An antenna intended to
receive 'and asked if it would be appropriate to modify it read as, `An antenna which
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 9
only receives...'since the word 'intent' could offer several meanings. Commissioner
Lyon believed that the wording was properly stated and Assistant City Attorney Steel
agreed by saying that he had no legal objection to the language as recommended by
the sub committee.
Commissioner Paris stated that the definition for 'owner/operator' in Item No. 15 was
vague and could be easily circumvented and therefore believed that it could be more
restrictive. In regards to compensation, Mr. Paris stated that the definition should be
more specific as to where it is paid
Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed.
Mr. Dale Hanks, 5225 Middlecrest Road, commented on the Staff Report for this item
and stated that it presented an untrue picture of the involvement of the Amateur Radio
Club He requested that a statement be added in the last paragraph of the Staff report
to read as, `...that only a small fraction of the comments and recommendations
received from the Amateur Radio Club were implemented in the proposed draft
amendment.' Also, Mr Hanks indicated in the 'Antenna Sub Committee Chronology' in
the section dated August 6, 1998 a statement should also be added to read as, `... that
only a small fraction of the comments and recommendations received by the
Amateur Radio Club were implemented in the proposed draft amendment.'. Mr.
Hanks stated the reason for the requested additions was because the text of both
documents gave the impression that the Amateur Radio Club representatives approved
the proposed draft amendment dated August 11, 1998.
Chairman Clark asked what were his objections to the proposed draft code and Mr.
Hanks replied that other members of the Amateur Radio Club would respond to that
inquiry
Chairman Clark asked Mr Hanks if the Amateur Radio Club had adequate interchange
with the sub committee and Staff to provide input in preparation of the proposed draft
code Mr Hanks replied that he and his colleagues reviewed the City's existing
antenna code and provided their recommendations to the sub committee, but only a
few of them have been followed
Mr John Freeman 6850 Faircove Drive, indicated in the City Ordinance that the
Council directed Staff, and Commission to commence studies to determine the
appropriate number and location of support structures for commercial and ham radio
antennas. At the August 4, 1998 Council Meeting he stated that Councilmember
McTaggart reaffirmed their direction of the above and quoted, 'I had a discussion with
one of the members of the sub committee of the Planning Commission. I explained to
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 10
0 0
them that what was requested in the first place was not a new ordinance, but to touch
up the old one with the input of the Amateur Radio Club and was told that the sub
committee did not receive that instruction and so may be that explain why the sub
committee went as far a field as they did, but I think we're back on track now' Mr.
Freeman stated that on August 4, 1998 he and Mr Hanks had a meeting with the sub
committee and stated that they made suggestions and submitted detailed comments
along with a simplified alternative for the proposed ordinance and requested the sub
committee to address the City Council's actual direction regarding ham radio antenna.
Mr Freeman stated that he was told by Director/Secretary Rous that the sub
committee had prepared a simplified version as well Mr. Freeman believed that the
current proposed ordinance was not a touch up and requested that the Commission
adopt a more simplified, understandable, easy to enforce ordinance which addresses a
second or multiple antenna.
Chairman Clark asked Staff if this was a clarification by the Council as a whole as to
what direction was given to the sub committee since he did not see any documentation.
Director/Secretary Rojas replied that Councilmember McTaggart had made that
comment and similar comments at previous Council meetings in response to public
comments made during the audience comments portion of the Council's agenda Since
other Councilmembers did not comment and since the comments were not made as
part of an agendized item, Director/Secretary Rous could not answer whether the
comments reflected the other Councilmembers position. Mr Rous also stated that
Councilman McTaggart's position was very clear on this issue and the Council's
position was made clear when they extended the moratorium in May
Ms. Dodie Clarkson 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated that she was in possession of an
amateur radio license (lower level) and that her husband also had one at a higher level
therefore, requiring him to utilize a high frequency antenna. Ms. Clarkson stated that
she could not utilize that antenna since it does not cover the frequency that she uses.
She stated that the proposed draft ordinance was overly complex and not clear to
understand
Mr. Herb Clarkson. 6424 Seabryn Drive, stated that the proposed draft ordinance
should be understandable to the community Mr. Clarkson stated that he too provided
input to the sub committee in regards to federal law and safety He felt that the
proposed draft amendment was complicated and contradicting.
Mr. Ian MacDonald 47 Oceanaire Drive, believed that the present code was a very
good code and much effort work was put into proposed code by the sub committee and
other parties involved. He stated that it was deliberately misread by certain people
Mr. MacDonald expressed a couple of concerns and suggested the Commission may
consider the following modifications for the proposed draft ordinance such as
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 11
specifically stating that the'Director' is from the Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement Department
Chairman Clark stated that the Development Code defines 'Director' as 'The Director of
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement' and subsequently in the proposed draft
document the reference will state 'Director'
Mr MacDonald suggested a modification in the proposed draft where it read, ' the
Director can approve and determine certain things ' to read as, ...the Planning
Commission—'. He stated the reason was that in the future if the Director was an
amateur radio operator he could approve many an items which would be detrimental to
the residents of the City (conflict of interest) In regards to commercial antenna, Mr
MacDonald suggested that the proposed draft state that these antennas could only be
installed in commercial zoning districts and not in residential areas On the subject of
amateur radio antenna, he suggested that the word, 'residence' be added in front of
any instance when amateur radio operators utilize the code He believed that the
amateur radio operator should be a resident from the City Mr, MacDonald suggested
adding a statement to page 11, subsection 'e' after antenna assembly to read as,
-which meet these approved codes... so that any existing antenna should meet the
existing codes He stated on page 13, subsection T he suggested that the distance of
'125' should be modified to read as, ...45 feet...', page 14, paragraph 9, he suggested
adding a statement after the word 'nonconforming' to read as, ...and shall be brought
into compliance within four years...'
Mr Mitchell Albert 2601 Airport, Suite 345, thanked the sub committee Mr Albert
briefly expressed seven points in a letter addressed to the City dated August 10, 1998,
1) Category 'D' antenna should not be subject for only site plans, but should have the
two step process similar to the A, B, and C antennas, 2) roof top antennas seem to be
accepted from the general 16 foot height limit, but believed that it should be measured
from the ground and not from the roof; 3) add a substantial burden for those applying
for a second antenna structure, 4) eliminate current section F(1)d, 5) add a requirement
for nesting times, 6) suggested that the grandfather clause be explicit for only those
which comply under current law and have valid permits, and, 7) suggested that there
should be more enforcement for the review process
Ms Ka[yI Newton 46 Oceanaire Drive, was pleased with the sub committee's work on
the proposed draft ordinance and stated that the Commission had an obligation to
make the code as restrictive as possible and to require permits for all ham antenna
She concurred with some of the recommendations for the proposed drafted ordinance,
but had some concerns as stated by her lawyer She felt that permits should be
checked for compliance periodically and that penalties be served upon those residents
who do not follow the rule
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11,199$
Page 12
Mr. Tom Vegors, P.O. Box 2181, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he had been a ham
operator since 1967 and the reason for him moving into the City was that the hill he
resides on had good radio coverage. Mr. Vegors felt that additional time be given for
ham operators to review the proposed draft ordinance as he was not aware that this
section of the code for antennas was being amended He expressed his concern
regarding the nesting of antennas 30 feet in height and stated that it would result in a
financial constraint for him because of installation costs. Mr. Vegors also expressed
his concerns regarding the mock-up and landscaping requirements and stated that this
would be costly for him as well
Mr. Mark Abrams 44 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he had two antenna structures on
top of the roof of his home last year and was ordered by the City's Staff to remove them
otherwise he would not be issued building permits for the construction commencing at
his residence Mr Abrams felt that this was unfair and stated that he was displeased
with the treatment Mr Abrams felt that the proposed draft ordinance was more
restrictive than the federal guidelines permit and stated that approval would allow the
state or federal authorities to intervene and direct the City to take certain action.
Mr Michael Cicoria 62 Oceanaire Drive, concurred with the comments made by Mr
Albert and Ms. Newton. The only objection he had was the mass and size of the
antenna structures
Commissioner Lyon moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed.
Chairman Clark asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item.
Commissioner Alberto stated after listening to comments from the public he felt that
most of them favored the existing code, but with some modifications. Mr Alberio
favored keeping the existing draft code and making modifications as recommended by
the public.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he wished the sub committee had more time to further
pursue this issue. He felt that the proposed draft code was reasonably close and that
there were some areas in the code that needed amending Mr Lyon suggested that
the Commission submit the proposed draft ordinance to the Council with the
understanding that the subcommittee would continue to work with the public and
members of the radio club
Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested submitting the proposed draft ordinance to the
Council as it exists to date with a statement that the Commission would like to continue
to conduct further studies
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 13
Commissioner Paris agreed with the comments of Commissioner Vannorsdall
Chairman Clark suggested forwarding a recommendation to Council requesting
additional time to further refine the proposed draft ordinance.
Vice Chairman Cartwright commended the sub committee for conducting research and
compiling the information for the proposed draft ordinance He believed that the
proposed draft ordinance should be made more user friendly, and that the Commission
finalize the modifications to the language before submitting to the Council and then
suggested that Staff update the Council on this issue.
Commissioner Slayden concurred with Vice Chairman Cartwright's comment that
modifications be made to the proposed draft ordinance and forwarded to the Council.
Commissioner Alberio moved to forward the entire proposed draft ordinance with
a request for the sub committee to pursue additional time to study and further
refine the code with a list of concerns gathered that evening from the radio club
and public. The motion was seconded Commissioner Lyon and failed by a roll -
call vote, (3-4) with Commissioners Paris, Slayden, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and
Chairman Clark dissenting.
The maker amended his motion to direct Staff to prepare a brief report to the
Council stating that the proposed draft ordinance was prepared by the sub
committee with input from the Amateur Radio Club, public, and Commission and
requested additional time to allow the Commission to work on a final ordinance
with further public input for submission to the Council. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (6-1) with
Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 14
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
Staff
4. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of August 25 1998.
Commission
None.
COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items)
None.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:10 A.M. the meeting was duly adjourned. The motion was made by
Commissioner Slayden, seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed (7-0). With
no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark.
N \GROUP\PLANNING\PCMIN\MIN08-11 98
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 1998
Page 15