Loading...
PC MINS 20000425it 6 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2000 Approved May 9, 2000 Chairman Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Assistant City Attorney Craig Steele led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon Absent None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Louie, Assistant City Attorney Craig Steele, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection it was so ordered by the Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council took action on Conditional Use Permit No. 182 (Mobil Station) and denied the applicant's request, thereby upholding the appeal. The City Council also approved the amended city council policy regarding encroachments into the public right-of-way that the Planning Commission had forwarded to the City Council. Vice Chairman Clark gave staff copies of the Architectural Review Guidelines for Pacific Grove and the Design Checklist he had obtained at the Planner's Institute Conference which he felt would be helpful in future discussions of neighborhood compatibility CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 11, 2000 Commissioners Cartwright, Vannorsdall, Long, Paulson, and Vice Chairman Clark had minor changes on page 2 of the minutes regarding their backgrounds. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection, the minutes were approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Mueller abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance No. 466 and Grading Permit No. 2173 Mr. Daniel Houk (applicant) 27508 Elmbridge Road. Commissioner Long noted that he lived on Browndeer Lane at a residence that is more than 300 feet from the project, but less than 2500 feet away. His house is visible from the applicant's property and the applicant's property is visible from his house He had no reason to believe that his home's value would be affected one way or the other by the project on Elmbridge Road, but felt he should disclose this circumstance and see if there were any objections to his sitting in consideration of the project. Assistant City Attorney Steele commented that if his residence was less than 300 feet from the project there could be a conflict of interest and if the project was within 1,000 feet there was criteria to consider to determine if there was a $10,000 impact on the property value Since Commissioner Long's property was more than 1,000 feet from the project he did not think that recusal was required as long as he felt he could give the applicant a fair hearing. Commissioner Long stated that in that context he felt he could objectively consider the project. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She explained that the Planning Commission had previously approved this exact project in 1991, however the previous property owner had chosen not to construct the deck Since there were no changes to the design of the deck other than that it was now to be supported by caissons, staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the staff report Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there had been a geologic study done for the deck Associate Planner Louie responded that it would be done in the Building and Safety plan check process. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 2 Chairman Lyon pointed out in the Resolution Exhibit A, page 2, Item 9 stated that the proposed deck shall be screened with foliage from the top of the footings to the bottom of the handrail. He asked if staff really meant to say the floor of the deck rather than the bottom of the handrail. Associate Planner Louie answered that the Item would be changed to read the floor of the deck Chairman Lyon also noted that Item 11 of Exhibit A stated the depth of cut for each caisson shall not exceed 3 feet He asked if that was correct. Associate Planner Louie responded that it should read 23 feet rather than 3 feet. Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned about safety issues of the deck and asked what was proposed for the railings of the deck He was under the impression that they would be using some type of plexi -glass. Associate Planner Louie answered that she did not know the exact spacing of the proposed railings, but the applicant had requested to speak and he may be able to answer that question. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection the public was opened. Daniel Houk (applicant) 27508 Elmbridge Drive stated that he had nothing to add to staff's report and was available for questions from the Planning Commission. He added that to answer Commissioner Vannorsdall's question, the plans currently call for tempered glass around the deck. John Schuricht 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard Rolling Hills Estates stated that he was the structural engineer for this project. He stated that tempered glass was used around the deck for maximum visibility as well as safety He pointed out that the foundation design had changed to caissons, which were more efficient to use in building the deck. After further study through a geologic report the depth of the caissons has been reduced to a total depth of 16 feet. Art Fein 27520 Elmbridge Drive stated that he felt Mr Houk's current deck was unsafe and that a deck was necessary at this house He stated that he has a deck that is larger than the proposed deck with quarter inch thick tempered glass He felt that the tempered glass was very safe and long lasting. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the deck, as it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 3 0 11 Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had a lot of confidence in Mr. Schuricht's engineering and felt the deck would be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Long stated that the proposed depth of the footings should be changed throughout the Resolution to reflect the revised depth of 16 feet Vice Chairman Clark moved to approve Variance No. 466 and Grading No. 2173, thereby approving P.C. Resolution No. 2000-11 with the amendments to change the depth of the caissons to 16 feet and change the wording in Exhibit A page 2 to reflect the foliage screening should be from the top of the footings to the floor of the deck. Approved, (7-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720: Mr. Mark Abrams (applicant), 44 Oceanaire Drive Commissioner Long disclosed that the law firm he is a partner in represents Cox Cable in obtaining antenna sites for wireless communication services; however he currently has no personal involvement in that work. He did not think this would influence his ability to consider the application objectively. Further, he noted that the applicant's attorney had represented another party in a lawsuit against his law firm He did not think this would influence his ability to give the applicant a fair hearing. Assistant City Attorney Steele stated that if there was no economic interest or impact involved and if Commissioner Long felt he could give the applicant a fair hearing, he need not recuse himself The Commission discussed the large quantities of written material involved with this application. Commissioner Long pointed out that a large amount of materials were not delivered to the Commissioners until Monday night for review for the meeting He was concerned that this was not a reasonable amount of time to allow the Commissioners to review the material Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report. He gave a brief background of the antennas currently located on the applicant's property. He explained that this Conditional Use Permit was a request to change the use of the existing antennas from amateur use only to both amateur and commercial use. The applicant proposed no physical modifications to the tower. Mr Fox stated that there were six required findings that needed to be made for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and there are two additional findings for commercial antennas stipulated in the Development Code, one of which must be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve the application. Staff did not believe that all of the necessary findings could be made for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. He reviewed the findings as presented in the staff report, and explained that the conversion of the antenna from amateur use only to amateur and commercial use would constitute an intensification of the use of the antenna Staff felt that although there would be no new adverse visual impact created by the proposal, an approval would perpetuate the existing adverse visual impact on the residential Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 4 properties at the benefit of the applicant and to the detriment of the immediate residential neighborhood. Staff was also concerned by the precedent that may set by allowing the approval of a commercial antenna on the site given the topographic and geographic prominence of this neighborhood. He felt it would not be unlikely that other providers of wireless communication services might be interested in the neighborhood as a site for future antenna applications, which would most certainly have a negative visual, aesthetic, and property value affect on the neighborhood. He reviewed the two findings that are specific to commercial antennas, which addressed locating alternative sites for the tower or antenna. Mr. Fox stated that the applicant indicated he had looked into alternative sites to locate the commercial antennas and had moved his commercial equipment from his property and was utilizing the FAA site at the top of San Pedro Hill. This suggested to staff that there is an alternative site available in the City that is acceptable and appropriate for the use of the antennas that are proposed. He explained the environmental analysis that was performed and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared, as detailed in the staff report. Mr. Fox summarized the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as detailed in the staff report and discussed how denial of the application would be consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He stated that all written comments received regarding the project have been included in the staff report. In conclusion, Mr. Fox stated that staff had determined that the subject site was not adequate for the size and scale of the proposed use, the commercial use will result in the perpetuation of adverse environmental affects on surrounding properties, and that it was inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the City's Wireless Communications Antenna Guidelines. For these reasons, staff recommended denial of the project with prejudice Assistant City Attorney Steele explained to the Commission the difference between denying a project with prejudice and denying a project without prejudice Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if, from an environmental impact standpoint, the criteria were different for an amateur antenna as opposed to a commercial antenna if both antennas were identical in appearance Senior Planner Fox responded that there were different review processes in the Development Code for commercial and amateur antennas. There are also several categories of non-commercial antennas that are permitted by right that require little or no city review. In commercial applications the city has more discretion in the Conditional Use Permit process to look at the impacts to the area. Commissioner Cartwright asked, from a legal standpoint, if the staff had any responsibility to identify alternative sites. Assistant City Attorney Steele answered that on an application -by -application basis, the city does not have a responsibility to seek and identify alternative sites. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 5 01 • Commissioner Cartwright asked if staff knew of any other combined commercial/amateur uses of antennas in residential neighborhoods in the City. Senior Planner Fox answered that he did not know of any, however there was one residential site that was approved for commercial use only. Commissioner Long asked staff if they still believed the Federal radar site at the top of the hill was still an available alternative site and if it were necessary for the alternate site to be a single site rather than multiple sites that would serve the same purpose. Senior Planner Fox answered that staff did not know if the FAA site was available or not. Assistant City Attorney Steele stated that the lack of availability of alternate sites would not necessarily result in the prohibition of service. Multiple locations would be a relevant factor to consider, even though they may not be as optimal as the proposed site Commissioner Paulson asked staff if all of the issues relative to an amateur structure on the site were in compliance with the code. Senior Planner Fox responded that they were all in compliance Vice Chairman Clark questioned the material received from the applicant that was marked confidential He stated that this was a public hearing and questioned the legal status of the material marked confidential. Commissioner Long agreed and questioned specifically what government code exemption from the Public Records Act these materials qualify for that the act of stamping them confidential would In his view materials submitted to the Planning Commission are public records unless and until the City Attorney advises that there is an exception to the public records act that applies Therefore, he said that he intended to treat the information as public records. Assistant City Attorney Steele responded that he had not seen the information and would like to take a few minutes to review what was enclosed. He stated he would welcome any comments regarding this from the applicant or his attorney during the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller stated that in reading the staff report it was apparent that the number of antennas needed would be determined by how many commercial or amateur users were using the site He asked if what was submitted to the City was a master plan for the site and if the plan submitted could change at any time Senior Planner Fox did not know if the plan submitted was or was not a master plan. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Paulson pointed out that in the staff report the applicant had stated that a generator was not required at this time He wondered if that meant that one might be required for future use. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 40 p m the Commission took a short recess until 8:55 p.m. at which time they reconvened. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS) Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the planting done by Mr York on the Filiorum property as well as the trespassing of his workers on her property Teng Lee 55 Oceanaire Drive discussed a Height Variation that was approved for one of her neighbors and how she did not believe it should have been approved and how it was not being built per the approved plans. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) Vice Chairman Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Wilkie Cheong 10100 Santa Monica Blvd #2460 Santa Monica stated that he was an attorney representing the applicant. He began by discussing the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Planning Commission. He stated that he had spoken to City Attorney Carol Lynch and they had reached an agreement that if the material contained architectural drawings, engineering calculations, or other items of this type of nature those materials could remain confidential. Copies of these materials could not be made and distributed, however they were to be made available for inspection over the counter to anyone asking to see them. He realized that this was a highly emotionally charged issue, but felt there was a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding regarding what the applicant was seeking to do There is an existing antenna structure at the property and the applicant was seeking to move some commercial transmitters into his home, hook them up to the existing antennas, and broadcast commercially. He stated that outwardly there would be absolutely no changes to what currently exists, other than the fact that the transmitter will transmit more frequently He stated that in the staff analysis there were three areas where the findings did not support the use. All of the findings related to the aesthetic value, which he did not agree with since there was no alteration or change to the existing antennas. Further, in many of the letters opposing the project there was much concern regarding the noise from air conditioners and generators. After a discussion with the applicant, Mr. Cheong determined that there was no need for generators now or in the future. Finally, he thought the argument that allowing this property to have commercial use would open the floodgates for many future applications was not a legitimate consideration for the Commission. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes Apn125,2000 Page 7 • C7 there was court decision made which said that what may or may not happen in the future as a result of one particular application could not be made a part of its consideration. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Cheong what he felt were the limitations on reasonableness applied to the Planning Commission in considering this protect. He asked what he felt the factors were that the Planning Commission should be weighing and where was the line drawn. Mr Cheong answered that he was not sure since the applicant was not seeking anything other than the right to use what was existing on the property in a different manner. Christopher Imlay 5101 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 307, Washington D.C. stated that he was a telecommunications lawyer. He stated that the existing antenna was not the subject of this hearing, but rather the commercial use of an existing amateur radio antenna. He stated that the amateur radio antenna located at the applicant's property is minimal in comparison to typical amateur radio antennas which are in the 50 to 70 foot range around the country. He felt the issue was what the Planning Commission's responsibility was under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relevant to providing adequate personal wireless facilities. He briefly described sections of the Telecommunications Act which prohibit any state or local statutes or state and local legal requirements that may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from inter or intra state telecommunication services He addressed the issue of multiple alternative sites and felt that could be used, however in this situation this was not the type of service the applicant was licensed to provide. He noted that multiple repeaters at various sites also require multiple microwave antennae, multiple towers, and a tremendous increase in expense, which would make the project cost prohibitive. He stated that prohibiting by cost would be the same as prohibiting by regulation, which was contrary to the Telecommunications Act. He stated that the antenna located at the applicant's property was perfectly typical and normal of any amateur radio installation and was in fact minimal by comparison to most, as it does not include any horizontal elements Mr Imlay stressed that the antenna would not change if approved for commercial use. He further felt that the use of the term "intensification of use " to describe what would happen with the addition of the commercial transmitters within the house was simply nonsense from a technical standpoint The intensification of the use is nothing more than the number of times the transmitter is automatically activated as a repeater This intensifies the amount of radio frequency energy that is emitted from the antenna, which is invisible. He concluded by stating he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have for him. Chairman Lyon asked if the increased commercial use of these antennas would increase the interference experienced by the residents in the neighborhood Mr. Imlay responded that there was no reason to believe that the use of any commercial transmitter will increase, change, or create any radio frequency interference. He Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 8 explained that amateur radio facilities are licensed to operate at up to 1,500 watts. A typical commercial transmitter operates at approximately 100 watts maximum. Commissioner Long asked if the Planning Commission could limit the scope of the antenna on the property and if they could, what factors could be considered in the context of whether they grant a permit for a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Imlay replied that the Commission could consider the availability of alternative sites. He believed that Mr. Abrams had demonstrated that there were no alternative sites available that provide coverage over the area he desires to provide service to Commissioner Long asked if the Commission were allowed to consider, in the context of co -location, commercial activities located in non -residentially zoned areas and thereby reserving residential zoned areas for residential activities. Mr Imlay answered that he believed that could be considered as a factor. He reminded the Commission that co -location was the preferable policy in the City's Antenna Guidelines. He pointed out that co -location was at the beginning of the guidelines and in the preamble of the guidelines is a statement that says the city wants to provide adequate telecommunications facilities for the residents of the city and surrounding areas while protecting the environment. He commented that the type of communications facility found on Mr. Abrams property was a single repeater type communication facility that was typically used for dispatch. He felt the location in this case was unique from an engineering site coverage perspective as well as being unique from the point of view of being able to co -locate. He stated that amateur radio repeaters are typically co -located with commercial facilities. Commissioner Paulson asked if the license was to an individual or was it to the actual site. If it were to an individual would the license move from site to site with the licensee. Mr Imlay explained that the FCC licenses communications facilities to transmit from specific locations. Mr. Abrams' business is located off of the hill in another city and if the city granted permission to use his antennas for commercial purposes the business would continue to run from his office, not his home. Commissioner Mueller asked if it was standard for an amateur antenna to operate 24 hours a day, as Mr. Abrams does. Mr. Imlay answered that that was standard Commissioner Mueller stated that, in relation to intensification of use, there would have to be an ability to provide power during a power outage. He asked what size generator would be required to maintain service 24 hours a day for this antenna. April 25, 2000 Page 9 Ol 0 Mr Imlay answered that any generator that could be bought at Home Depot would be adequate, probably in the 2 to 5 kilowatt ranges. He stated that usually when the power down the transmitters go down. Commissioner Cartwright asked if licenses are geographically exclusive and if they are time sensitive. Mr Imlay answered that licenses are granted exclusively by the FCC and are geographically specific and a licensee is required to provide service under that license within a fixed period of time after initially acquiring it. Licenses have to be renewed approximately every 10 years Commissioner Paulson asked the City Attorney for his interpretation of the confidential materials. Assistant City Attorney Steele stated that he agreed with the representations made earlier by Mr Cheong. There are two types of documents in the packets marked confidential, one being a set of plans prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer, the other being a document regarding the configuration of the antennas that are there. City Attorney Carol Lynch did inform the attorney for the applicant that there were no exemptions to the Public Records Act that protected those two documents from examination by the public With regards to the plans specifically, there is an exemption in the Business and Professions Code that forbids the copying of plans for commercial structures that are prepared by Registered Engineers Therefore, the plans can be examined but not copied The agreement made with the applicant's attorney was that the document regarding the antenna array is a public record and subject to public viewing and the plans are public records and subject to public review but are not subject to copying without the permission of the applicant or the preparer of the plans Mark Abrams (applicant) 44 Oceanaire Drive explained that he is a PMRS, CMRS, and RCC type provider and one of the types of systems that he offers is a trunk radio system, which is generally not compatible with multi -site technology. Subsequently, anything other than one single site is unacceptable to his operations. He stated that most licenses are site specific and all of his licenses are specifically licensed at 44 Oceanaire Drive Mr. Abrams explained that many of the customers he services with his facilities are government agencies which are specifically excluded from the commercial antenna regulations. He explained that many licenses, including some of his, are geographically "frozen" and cannot be moved under any circumstances. He felt that if he cannot use the site where his licenses are then it becomes a defacto denial of his ability to provide service. Regarding the availability of sites, Mr. Abrams explained that the location he is temporarily using at the FAA base is jointly owned by the U S Air Force and the FAA. There are many buildings at the site and all are owned by a government agency except one The policy of the government agencies is that they will only allow government equipment in their buildings. This is also true with the County towers located above Peninsula Center The one and only building that allows commercial transmitters is full A temporary accommodation was made for him to help Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 10 0 him out of a bad position, but that accommodation will soon be coming to an end In a short period of time he will no longer have access to that site and will be unable to provide service without using the location at 44 Oceanaire Dive He explained that he spent over 10 years trying to locate to another facility on the Peninsula and said there are none. He stressed again that he couldn't operate on multiple sites. He needs a site that serves both sides of the hill and is high enough above the rest of the hill. He discussed a radio propagation study he ran with two other ham radio operators He did a very detailed study as to what would be the affect of lowering antennas. He did this because the environmental assessment recommended lowering the antennas 12 feet. He explained the spreadsheets included in the Commissioner's packets. He said that the measurements conclusively prove that lowering the antenna 12 feet results in a very significant signal degradation, he will loose 60 percent of his signal in 90 percent of the locations He concluded that this type of loss does not allow for reliable services Chairman Lyon asked if, when he bought the property at 44 Oceanaire Drive, it was done with the intention to operate an antenna facility. Mr Abrams answered that he absolutely bought the property because it was the ideal location for radio. His primary intent was amateur, and he hoped to use it for commercial use some time in the future Commissioner Cartwright asked how many repeaters were on the tower and if they were all for his amateur use Mr Abrams answered that there were approximately 12 repeaters that were currently operating on the tower. He stated that all repeaters, though some were property of others, were for amateur use. Mr. Abrams explained that the difference between an amateur and commercial repeater in terms of the equipment. The actual piece of equipment could be the same for amateur or commercial purposes. There is a switch that is thrown which allows the repeater to become a commercial radio, or the switch can be switched back to become an amateur radio He stated that his point was that whether on commercial or amateur frequencies, it looks the same, it talks the same, it acts the same, and commercial radio has no more affect on the neighborhood than the amateur radio does It is all the same except for the actual frequency that they transmit on. Vice Chairman Clark felt that, depending upon what level one spoke to in the FAA relative to issues regarding co -location, may make a difference with respect to accessibility. He asked Mr Abrams what levels he had approached within the FAA to ask permission to use the site. Mr. Abrams responded that in inquiring about a land lease to put up his own facility he had placed some three dozen telephone calls to the FAA, had gone to the regional headquarters of the FAA on several occasions, and had met with everyone in the office that was willing to talk with him. Everyone he spoke with said they did not want any more equipment at the site because the dome at the site contains the equipment that Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 11 controls the radar for LAX, and they were concerned about anything that could possibly interfere with that radar, no matter how remote the chances may be He did not bring with him the names of the people or their title of the people with whom he spoke Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Abrams had searched for alternative sites in the other cities on the peninsula. Mr Abrams answered that Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates do not have any land at the top of the hill. Rolling Hills has a site at a fire station on Crest Road. He spoke with the County regarding that site, the county towers above Peninsula Center, and the County building on the FAA site. He received the same answer regarding all three sites and was told he could not use the facilities, as they are dedicated to government agencies. Commissioner Paulson reviewed materials in the staff report and asked Mr. Abrams about his proposed future use and preliminary decisions on how he could expand the use of his facility. Mr. Abrams replied that any tower owner would like to make it available to as many services as possible He does not currently have Nextel, Airtouch, or any other PCS companies asking for space However if the Conditional Use Permit is granted he may be asking them if they would like to locate a facility on his property. Commissioner Paulson asked if one of those companies were to co -locate on his tower, would he have to change any type of antenna area to service them. Mr. Abrams answered that he may or may not have to. If the companies could not work with the existing antennas as existing he would have to come back to the Planning Commission for permission to hang additional antennas. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Abrams if he was conducting business or planned to conduct business at his Oceanaire address Mr. Abrams answered that he does not have customers walking in and out of his house as his office is in the city of Paramount. He said that if running a commercial radio is a commercial operation, then he will be running a commercial operation from his home. However, both he and his attorney do not think it will be a commercial operation. To be on the safe side, he has purchased a City Business License which allows him to do all of the things a business would do from his home. Commissioner Paulson referred to a letter written by Mr. Schmidling where he referred to the elevation of the antenna and how any elevation below 60 feet will significantly negatively impact the service to a point where it will be considered unacceptable He asked Mr. Abrams to clarify that since he was not at 60 feet presently. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2000 Page 12 Mr. Abrams stated that Mr. Schmidling was referring to antennas at the Wallace Ranch area which is approximately 120 lower in land elevation than the property on Oceanaire Drive. However Mr. Abrams felt that because his property was higher it did not mean there were still not significant obstructions from the trees and residences, pictures of which he has submitted to staff. Commissioner Long asked what the range of service he would be providing was and if he had looked into all of the alternative sites within this range. Mr. Abrams replied that the only sites suitable are at the top of the ridge. He stated that he had exhausted all of his possibilities. He stated that he currently has sites off of the peninsula, approximately 30 miles away, that would not provide the coverage needed in this area The problem was the topography of steep terrain and canyon and nothing could provide the coverage needed except for being at the top of the ridge Commissioner Mueller stated that there were currently 14 antennas and there were two other frequencies as potential customers. He asked how many cables it took to service the antennas. He asked if the number of cables grew one for each antenna, as the number of antennas increased. Mr. Abrams stated that might not necessarily be the case. Normally there was one cable for one antenna, but there could be multiple cables going into one antenna and the power can be fed into multiple sections of an antenna depending upon how the phase is changed when the pattern is changed. Commissioner Mueller asked how many cables were currently at the site and how did Mr Abrams see that growing. Mr. Abrams answered that this application would not change anything, therefore what is out there is what will remain there Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Abrams to clarify what type of commercial use was proposed at the site Mr. Abrams explained that the business he deals with is primarily called a dispatch radio service typically used by tow trucks, taxi cabs, plumbers, electricians, police departments, fire trucks, and other commercial entities. It is designed to route internal business communications where companies communicate with themselves and typically wish to talk to everybody at the same time. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Abrams if he felt this proposal was an expansion to his already established commercial business. Mr Abrams answered that he is currently operating a business and providing a service to existing customers. His company currently covers the Palos Verdes area from his Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 13 other sites but there are significant coverage gaps that render the service very undesirable RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10 45 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 10:50 p rn at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) At this time Chairman Lyon requested that speakers against the project be given a chance to speak. After they finished the Commission would go back to speakers in support of the project. He reminded the speakers to keep their comments to the proposed project and not the existing amateur radio antenna Jim Robinson 40 Oceanaire Drive stated that he was the president of the Del Cerro HOA, which is one of the strongest HOAs on the peninsula for its size. The HOA has over 95 percent voluntary membership, rejuvenated several years ago because of the threats to the Del Cerro way of life. He felt this project was a clear case of creeping incrementalism. He noted that objection to the project was, in effect, a barrier to entry. As it turns out the wall of economic and business theory were correlated very closely in this case. This was indeed not reducing the barrier to entry. He stated that Mr. Abrams himself had said that not a single competitor can provide this service, there is no one else that has an advantage. Mr. Abrams would have the only advantage. This void would create an economic rent, a business monopoly. He also felt it would be of great value for the homes from 40 up to 48 Oceanaire because they could do the same type of thing on their property Mr Robinson stated that one could not turn an amateur radio into a commercial. However, he stated that this did not start as an amateur radio, but has always been a commercial array antenna He stated that Mr Abrams came to Oceanaire Drive with the purpose of putting in antennas. He felt that Mr. Abrams was knowledgeable on exactly what it is about the neighborhood that is important to him, it's altitude and its line of sight He asked the Commission if this was approved would they then allow the rest of the neighborhood to have 24 hour a day air conditioners and big antennas on their properties? Finally, he explained that less than 15 years ago the many of the owners came up with between $10,000 and $15,000 per piece of property to have their utility poles put underground. Why would they now encourage someone to put above -ground utilities up again? He concluded by saying that the Commission was aware of how strongly the residents of Del Cerro opposed the project and asked the Commission for their support. Karel Newton 46 Oceanaire Drive appreciated the work of the planning staff in their recommendation to deny the Conditional Use Permit. She felt it was an admirable step in the right direction. The residents in the neighborhood do not want highly visible, commercial wireless communications in their residential neighborhood. She stated that the dedication and hard work of the neighbors and the overwhelming involvement and response of the entire neighborhood send a clear of opposition to the proposed CUP Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2000 Page 14 and a clear message of disgust for the existing, illegal tower. She said that last summer three men from the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology from Washington D.C. came to her house The senior scientist looked at the antennas and said the same thing the Cox Cable engineers had said, that the tower was a commercial tower, a line of sight control point station. Therefore she did not feel Mr. Abrams had been straightforward with the Commission in his testimony. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Meredith Eick 2866 W. 226th Street Torrance stated that he owns the vacant lot on Coveview Drive, northeast of 44 Oceanaire. He listed his credentials as an engineer and stated that he has an FCC commercial general radio telephone operator license and a ham radio license. He stated that he had written letters and submitted a petition to the Planning Commission designed to address issues surrounding the Conditional Use Permit. He explained that if the City approves the Conditional Use Permit, it must include frequent inspections and prompt enforcement by the City He noted that the applicant will have a commercial facility on a residential property and the rights of the residents are a lot different than the rights of a business. In addition, he believed the applicant was asking the city to aid in violating the FCC rules prohibiting earned money or perks by the direct entrepreneurial license linkage. The FCC states that amateur operators are not allowed earn money, as it is a hobby. One of their tests is, if you remove the amateur license does the money disappear. He felt in this case that would happen. A ham license is needed to put up the antenna and if you put up the antenna and operate commercially you make money, where if you remove the license there is no antenna and there is no money. He did not think the Conditional Use Permit should be granted, as there were too many questions without clear answers. He did not agree with most of the technical conclusions that the applicant and his experts carne up with. He stated that he intended to develop his lot in the near future and could guarantee that he will block Mr. Abrams' pattern. In addition, he stated that a generator is required on any kind of contract of this type for back-up power. Reliability is very important in the contracts and he felt that sooner or later a generator would have to be installed Regarding interference, he felt that the more transmitters you have the more interference there will be. Michael Cicona 62 Oceanaire Drive discussed the beautiful neighborhood they lived in and touched on how the residents paid to have their utilities put underground. He asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the wishes of the people of the Del Cerro neighborhood. Judy McFarland 5 Coveview Drive stated that she was looking at this project from an environmental aspect which has not been addressed. She said she has been to numerous lectures given by the American Cancer Society, among others, discussing what happens when people are exposed to radiation She felt that Mr Abrams' problem of not being able to find another place to locate his antennas is now becoming her problem. Someone has to make a stand and make people realize that when talking of environmental issues it's more than looking at looking at ugly towers. It is what is Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 15 0 coming off of that power She felt the waves coming off of the antenna area were dangerous to health and urged the Commission to consider this in their deliberations Teng Lee 55 Oceanaire Drive stated that a commercial facility was being proposed in a residential area and the Planning Commission must respect the property owners' rights It was not right for one property owner to impact many property owners She said people should respect one another and their neighborhood, and not fight with their neighbors Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road objected to Commissioner Long's participation in this item since the law firm he works with has represented Cox Cable Ian MacDonald 47 Oceanaire Drive submitted to the Planning Commission a letter and Exhibits A, B, and C Exhibit A was a photograph taken last year showing the antenna tower The tower plus antenna have a height of 54 4 feet. According to Exhibits B and C, the maximum height should be 30 feet. He objected based on the fact that the antenna and tower are in violation of the city code He suggested the Planning Commission direct staff to proceed with having Mr Abrams dismantle the antenna tower He stated that Mr Abrams had been walking the neighborhood and making notes on what he thinks are code violations at each home He said that Mr Abrams then tried to blackmail the residents by stating they must support his Conditional Use Permit or he would send the list to code enforcement. He asked the city to disregard the list, as the city should not be a party to any blackmail scheme Gary Frank 6902 N Figueroa Los Angeles stated that he works for the Los Angeles Unified School District in charge of all radio communications He stated that he has a radio repeater located on Mr Abrams property used for emergency communications He noted that he is also licensed by the FCC as a technician and an amateur radio operator He objected to comments made regarding amateurs for hire He stated that it was done strictly voluntarily and for the public safety He stated that the antenna height was very important in communications, especially VHF or UHF amateur operations The equipment used is often either equal to or exceeds commercial equipment. He disputed the comment that all radio sites have emergency generators Many have batteries for back up and many have no emergency power Commissioner Paulson asked if Mr Frank was appearing as an individual or as a spokesman for the school district. Mr Frank responded that he was appearing as a trustee for the amateur radio association for the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Association is an all - volunteer operation Commissioner Cartwright asked how the repeater located on Mr Abrams property serves the LA Unified School District. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 16 0 Mr. Frank explained that the school district covers a very broad area and the repeater is used in bus communications. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr Frank if the service provided by Mr. Abrams was provided without cost. Mr. Frank verified that it was provided without cost, and has been for many years. Vice Chairman Clark stated that he was not clear why Mr Frank was supporting the commercial use of this antenna. Mr. Frank replied that that amateur operations and repeaters often have to co -share with commercial equipment, they work together. Vice Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Abrams received the authorization for commercial use, would he then begin to compensate Mr. Abrams for his services. Mr. Frank stated that he would not, as the agreement when he located the equipment at the antennas was that the space and power were to be donated by Mr. Abrams as a service to the school district Skip Hansen 3250 Martingale Drive stated that he had never seen such a fuss over a relatively small tower. He agreed that the antennas at Mr. Abrams looked more like commercial antennas because they were commercial antennas These antennas are better for amateur radio use. Mr. Hansen felt the issues had gone beyond the antennas and had become more of an emotional ordeal between Mr. Abrams and the City and Mr Abrams and the neighbors He pointed out that Mr. Abrams had made numerous improvements to his property. He felt that this issue had gone beyond the issue of the antenna and has generated into a neighborhood war He hoped that the Commission could see beyond that and look at what was reasonable. He reiterated that what was proposed was no physical change in the antenna structure and nothing will look different. Bert Bona 1341 College View Drive, Monterey Park displayed the radio that he uses to communicate and explained that he uses the repeater on the tower for these purposes. Without the ability to communicate he would have no way to contact persons in case of an emergency If the antenna is lowered 12 feet the reliability of his radio will decrease. Rick Eastwood, Lomita explained that Rancho Palos Verdes has the highest locations on the peninsula making it a necessary location for communication towers. He stated that he is one of the directors of the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club and has a repeater at 44 Oceanaire Drive, which has been there for several years free of charge. He stated that Mr Abrams donates the power and facility for the betterment of the community. He asked the Planning Commission overlook the fights between the residents and look at the overall picture of the southern California community. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 17 Mark Lidikay 520 E. Carson Street Carson stated that lowering the antenna would affect coverage He stated that he has knowledge of the repeater on Oceanaire Drive if the Commission had any questions Chairman Lyon noted that it was now close to midnight and did not feel the Planning Commission could deliberate this complex issue in a timely manner. He did not like to delay this project but felt that to be fair to all involved, it would be best to continue the item to the next meeting so that the Commission could fully consider the matter. The Commission agreed to leave the public hearing open and continue the matter to the meeting of May 9, 2000. Commissioner Long added that it would help the process to pose questions now to the staff and city attorney that they would like answered at the next meeting. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Long's suggestion Commissioner Long began by asking staff if, in their view, the Telecommunications Act requires the City to accommodate every wireless technology that there might be He asked if the City was required to accommodate the particular needs of this particular technology which appears to be different from other technologies. Secondly, can the Commission consider issues of interference and if not what, if any, other issues can the Commission consider in terms of the increased use of this site for commercial use as opposed to an amateur. Thirdly, what input does the staff have on alternate sites. Vice Chairman Clark asked staff to explore the FAA and County tower sites to see if there was any evidence of attempted approval of their sites by Mr. Abrams and what process would be required to get an approval to use their sites. Commissioner Paulson asked if a Conditional Use Permit is authorized for the commercial applications as proposed, would the City run the potential of a future conflict of losing control under the FCC rules for any other commercial application before the City because it is a commercial application. Commissioner Cartwright asked if there are no alternative sites available and this application was denied, would it be considered a prohibition of wireless services. Secondly, he asked about materials available on the health hazards of this type of service Lastly, he asked for verification that the existing antennas were constructed legally by permit Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for clarification on the rights of the neighbors who are affected by interference from the antenna, and does the antenna operator have any responsibility to help mitigate these problems Commissioner Mueller asked that staff address the question of a master plan. This is an application for a commercial operation and he was still not clear what the usage of the tower was going to be He felt the master plan should include all future useages, wattages, and back-up information. Planning Commission Minutes Apn125,2000 Page 18 00 0 Chairman Lyon stated that Mr. MacDonald had provided staff with a copy from a development code dated July 1988 He asked if that was the specific code that was in effect in 1990 when the original application was approved. He wanted to see the language in the code in effect when the antenna was applied for and constructed. Vice Chairman Clark stated that the applicant and his representatives had said that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a pre-emptive mandate to allow commercial use at the site. He would like an answer as to whether it was or not. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the governing issue was commercial versus non- commercial or is it the fact that the city feels there will be some kind of intensification of use because of the additional equipment that will be required. Commissioner Long stated that if there was anyone else who had comments on this item to please convey their concerns to staff and he would take it into consideration. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 9, 2000, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection, the item was continued (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Long asked that at a future meeting there be a discussion concerning the deadline for late correspondence to the Planning Commission Vice Chairman Clark requested a discussion at a future meeting on neighborhood compatibility guidelines. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cartwright moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. The meeting was adjourned at 12:16 a.m. to May 9, 2000. W 1PC\Minutes12000120000425 doc Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Page 19