Loading...
PC MINS 200005090 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 9, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Approved May 2f, 2000 a Chairman Lyon called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. I FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Clark 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. UUM��a M Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested changing the order of the Agenda to Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, however Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the applicants for Item No. 5 had not yet arrived. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to change the order of the Agenda to Items 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council adopted the Ordinance baring applications for properties with outstanding Code Enforcement issues and adopted the Resolution denying the car wash at the Mobil station. The City Council remanded to the Planning Commission a request from the owner of the Mobil station to remove the condition that requires him to chain off his rear parking lot during non- business hours. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed an item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 5. Chairman Lyon distributed a color photograph that he received from a resident. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 25, 2000 Chairman Lyon noted a typographic error on page 3 of the minutes and Commissioner Mueller noted a typographical error on page 13 of the minutes Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection the minutes were approved, (7-0). 2. Grading Permit No. 1928 — Revision W: Mr. Terence Kwok (applicant) and Mr. Arik Abdallan (landowner), 30025 Cachan Place Commissioner Paulson noted a discrepancy in that the plans indicated the balcony was to be widened 7 feet however the application requested widening the balcony 6 feet. He asked staff which was the correct figure. Senior Planner Fox stated that the applicant was present and that she should be consulted. Mrs. Abdalian (landowner) stated that she would prefer to have the balcony widened 7 feet. Senior Planner Fox stated that in widening the deck 7 feet it would still be 28 feet from The rear property line. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve Grading Permit No. 1928 — Revision 'A' as amended allowing for 7 -foot wide balconies, seconded by Commissioner Clark. Approved via minute order, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation No. 892 and Grading Permit No. 2130: Mr. John Koscy (applicant) 3151 Deluna Drive. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue the item to the meeting of May 23, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720: Mr. Mark Abrams (applicant) 44 Oceanalre Drive. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 2 Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that staff had grouped the questions posed by the Commission at the last meeting into 5 general issue areas. The first area was questions regarding the Telecommunications Act of 1996 He explained that the City was not obligated to accommodate every wireless technology but could not discriminate between functionally equivalent services. He stated that the City zoning authority is not preempted nor is the City mandated to approve wireless communication facilities that do not meet City zoning and land use requirements. He noted, however, there were specific limitations placed on the city authority by the Telecommunications Act that are discussed in the staff report The second issue pertained to whether the Commission could consider environmental effects of interference and radio frequency emissions. He explained that most consumer electronics must accept any interference that it receives to the extent that the device generating the interfering signals is operating in compliance with FCC regulations. He explained that there is a specific preemption in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prevents the City from considering health impacts from radio frequency emissions in their deliberations. He noted that all complaints regarding violations of these items must be made to the FCC. Regarding the issue of the availability of alternate sites, Mr. Fox explained that the City has no obligation to identify alternate sites for the applicant He noted that the staff report included verification provided by the applicant from both the FAA and the County of Los Angeles, declining the applicant's request to establish commercial operations at San Pedro Hill and the County antenna farm near Crestridge Road. However, he stated that staff believes that there may be other locations that can accommodate the applicant's proposed commercial transmissions. Although these sites may be less technically optimal, they may be available and provide some level of services and have fewer or no adverse impacts upon surrounding properties Mr Fox explained that if this project were approved it would be approved as a precise plan for a specific use and configuration and future proposals that would result in modifications to the tower would require review by the City. With regards to a master plan, the applicant has informed staff that the summary use of antennas and transmitters provided in the previous staff report constitutes the current plan for the use of the site. Staff provided in the staff report a summary of existing FCC licenses assigned to the subject property, as well as a summary of other existing transmitter sites utilized by the applicant's company. Mr. Fox concluded by reviewing the history of City approvals for the existing antenna tower. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on the height of the existing antenna and its ability to retract. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if the existing antenna was a legal, permitted antenna. Senior Planner Fox responded that the antenna was legal to the height of 40 feet Above that height, the legality was unclear Commissioner Long asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a legally permitted 52 5 foot antenna where the change will be from amateur use to commercial, and its height will be unchanged, or were they being asked to consider and approve a Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 3 commercial antenna that is 12.5 feet higher than the legally permitted non-commercial antenna Assistant City Attorney Steele responded that the issue of the legality of the additional 12 5 feet of the antenna as well as the issue of whether or not the antenna is retractable in the context of the existing amateur permit are open code enforcement issues that are not before the Planning Commission He stated that the application before the Planning Commission is for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial antenna in a residential zone He stated that It may or may not be the case that if a Conditional Use Permit for this antenna is granted that the commercial use will be able to be exercised, based on the outcome of the code enforcement activity. The legality of the existing antenna was not, in his view, an issue that was within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and was not an issue that should bear on their decision on the Conditional Use Permit application. Chairman Lyon asked the Commission to assume that the existing tower was legal at its present height. He felt there was sufficient information to make a rational decision on approval or denial of the request based on factors other than the height and encouraged the Commission to address these other factors after the public hearing Vice Chairman Clark stated that in correspondence received from Mr. Imlay, a telecommunications attorney, it was suggested that the Commission had no alternative but to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Clark asked the City Attorney for his interpretation. Assistant City Attorney Steele responded that Congress included a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which specifically provides that the Act is not preemptive of local jurisdictions traditional land use powers to the extent that the local jurisdiction complies with the five or six limitations listed in the Act. He did not feel the City had to permit this application without first considering all the factors articulated in the staff report. There being no further questions to the staff, Chairman Lyon asked to hear from the public speakers, but asked that those who spoke at the last hearing not repeat their testimony at this hearing. Wilkie Cheong 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2460, Los Angeles stated he was the applicant's attorney. He reviewed the history of the existing antenna on the applicant's property and stated that two years ago it had been lowered to a height of 52 Y2 feet, as measured by a surveyor, and was accepted at that height by the City Attorney and the City. Vice Chairman Clark asked the Assistant City Attorney to comment on Mr. Cheong's statement. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 4 Assistant City Attorney Steele stated that he had no knowledge of what happened two years ago and again reminded the Commission that this issue was not before the Commission and the issue would be resolved in some other forum. John Kemper 5512 Sara Drive, Torrance stated that he was a telecommunications consultant asked by Mr. Abrams to review his report and look at alternate sites. He felt that Mr. Abrams report was factual. He agreed that there are other sites available but in order to utilize these sites the antenna support structure would have to be 150 to 200 feet in height. He felt the applicant's property, by virtue of its topography, was the highest in the area that will cover both sides of the hill. Mr. Kemper agreed that the FCC was very specific in that they do not preempt local and state government from their zoning ordinances He explained that the FCC will issue a license as long at it meets the technical specifications to guarantee the provisions of licensed services regardless of whether it meets zoning requirements or not, as they do not take that issue into consideration. Commissioner Long asked Mr Kemper if he only considered the possibility of single antenna sites even though it's possible that a combination of multiple antenna sites would work. Mr. Kemper responded that he did not consider that possibility as multiple antennas would complicate the transmission operation considerably, beside the fact that multiple antennas would double the cost and double the antenna structures Further, the cost of such a study would be very high. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the service Mr. Abrams was proposing was currently being provided by someone else or is the proposal before the Commission to provide a service not currently available. Mr Kemper answered that the service is not available in the area. Jeff Hilmer 26015 Narbonne Avenue #16, Lomita stated that the Commission should stay focused on the request, which applied to the use of the existing antenna. Sanford Samuels 9851 Southland Avenue, Northridge stated that the proposed service would allow a tow truck with a radio to stay in touch with his customers at all times. He noted that this was not possible with a cell phone or other types of communications. He stated that Mr Abrams was requesting permission to run a business from a residence, just as many others on the Peninsula already do. Meredith Eick 2866 W. 226th Street, Torrance noted that Mr. Abrams has applied for or had already received a tremendous number of licenses from the FCC. He stated that less than one tenth of one percent of all amateurs in the world have 12 repeaters or more at their home. Therefore, he did not feel this was a normal amateur operation. He felt that 44 Oceanaire Drive was intended to be a major communications hub. He thought that the applicant had licenses for more channels than could fit on the existing Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 5 antennas. He further felt that the use of the repeaters would increase from occasional use to 24-hour use once used commercially Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Eick about his background in the radio field Mr. Eick responded that he was a registered professional electrical engineer with 50 years of experience. Commissioner Long asked if, hypothetically, the Commission were to approve the commercial use of the antenna with the antenna lowered to 40 feet and made to be retractable, would he object to that. Mr. Eick answered that he did not think the height of the antenna had much effect on the coverage, but felt that 40 feet high would be acceptable. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Eick if he felt this were the only site available for the commercial use of the antenna Mr. Eick responded that he did not believe it was Mitchell Albert 2601 Airport Drive #345, Torrance stated that he was the attorney for Karyl Newton who resides at 46 Oceanaire Drive. He felt it was important to note that the existing tower is not legal, has never been legal, and was obtained by deception He felt that when the Commission makes a decision on this application they are able to use discretion in making their decision. He did not think they should exercise their discretion in favor of someone who has been deceptive for 10 years. He submitted to the Commission a copy of the Site Plan Review application from 1989 showing the application was for a tower 40 feet high, nesting at 30 feet. He submitted drawings that Mr Abrams submitted to the city in 1989 again showing a 40 -foot high antenna, as well as the Planning Department Clearance Form. He stated that the existing antenna does not have the ability to nest. He read to the Commission the wording of the Building and Safety approval stamp on Mr. Abrams plan which says that the stamping of the plans shall not constitute an approval if there is a violation of any City ordinance or state law. He stated that a city employee cannot take action beyond his or her authority and the only part of the city which has the authority to approve the existing antenna was the Planning Commission. He did not think Mr. Abrams had been truthful in his dealing with the City and gave examples to support his statement. Mr. Albert noted in the memo from the City Attorney that they did not think the type of services Mr. Abrams is providing is covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 He stated that denying this application would not violate the Telecommunications Act since prohibiting one person from their request does not violate the law if it is not prohibiting the service entirely Michael Cicoria 62 Oceanaire Drive voiced his concern about the height of the existing tower Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 6 Skip Hansen 3250 Martingale Drive stated that there are many different aspects of amateur radio VHF and UHF are unique and coverage is very important in regards to the nooks and crannies around Palos Verdes. It stated it was common to run an amateur antenna 24 hours a day, and he contended that since the antenna is almost always in use it would not be practical to retract it for the short period it is not in use RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:40 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 8*50 p m at which time they reconvened. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed her concerns regarding the Abalone Cove landslide and the development of Abalone Cove Park. CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT.) Dr. Henry Richter stated he was a telecommunications engineer and formerly a communications engineer for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. He stated that he was present to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cartwright asked Dr. Richter if he agreed with Mr. Abrams' study that there were no alternative sites for the commercial antenna on the peninsula. Dr. Richter answered that there were available sites but that it seemed those sites were not available to Mr. Abrams. He stated that there are sites that would allow multiple antenna use, but again the problem would be allowing an antenna structure in a residential area. There are sites by Peninsula Center but they would only cover the north side of the hill. The south side of the hill is residential. Commissioner Cartwright asked what percentage of the peninsula was covered by the current service and how it would change if Mr. Abrams were able to have commercial use of his Oceanaire site. Dr. Richter stated that was a difficult question to answer and he did not have the knowledge to answer the question. Vice Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Abrams' study of alternative sites indicated, in his opinion, that there were alternative sites that would fall into an acceptable signal range. Dr. Richter answered that Mr. Abrams' study identified potential locations and concluded that there was no availability at those sites. He stated that an adequate signal could be achieved anywhere along the ridge of the peninsula, however finding the optimum location could prove difficult. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 7 Vice Chairman Clark asked what level of drop in signal from that available at Oceanaire Drive was acceptable for the type of commercial business Mr Abrams was proposing. Dr. Richter answered that the questions to consider were what was an adequate signal, what was the cutoff between adequate and inadequate, and what was inadequate no matter what you do. In reviewing Mr. Abrams' report he found that 12 percent of the signals went from adequate to inadequate and 17 percent were unusable in all three circumstances In the rest, reduction was not significant in terms of providing adequate communications. Commissioner Long asked if Dr Richter had an idea of how the entire peninsula could be covered if one were to use more than one antenna. Dr. Richter answered that it would probably take antennas at three sites to get adequate coverage. Commissioner Mueller asked Dr. Richter if he had read the antenna summary provided by Mr. Abrams and if he agreed that by granting him the commercial service the antenna configuration would not change. Dr. Richter replied that he had reviewed the document and agreed that the configuration would not change. Assistant City Attorney Steele asked for clarification with regards to the availability of alternative sites. He asked if, other than the FAA sites, his statements regarding availability of sites for Mr. Abrams were based on his representations in the report that was submitted. Dr. Richter replied that that was correct and he had not done an independent review of the availability of sites. Mark Abrams (applicant) 44 Oceanaire Drive began by addressing the issue of the legality of the existing tower. He stated that two years ago the City Attorney had reached an agreement with his attorney to lower the existing antennas to a height of 521/2 feet the matter would be considered closed. The antennas were lowered and surveyed at 52'2 feet. He objected very strongly to the City now backing out of that agreement. He next addressed the issue of single versus multiple sites. He explained the type of system he is operating and that there is no simulcast or roaming technology available for this type of system. This type of service can only be offered from a single site location at the top of the hill If it is not at the top of the hill it has significant signal blockage, rendering the service unacceptable to the people subscribing to the service. He explained that his is not a cellular service and is not a direct competitor of cellular service. He felt it was competitive in that some people like to subscribe to cellular and others elect to subscribe to his type of service while others can use either one. The service they choose will primarily be for service coverage and cost. He felt that if he could not offer coverage and cost competitiveness then he could not provide service Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 8 and stay in business, which he felt was a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He addressed the issue of the retractibility of his antenna tower. He stated that his antennas are absolutely retractable down to 30 feet and that could be demonstrated at any time. He explained that it was a matter of climbing the tower and physically loosening four bolts and the antenna would come down, but one had better stay out of the way as it came down. He explained that he has done an exhaustive search for alternate sites over the past 15 years and stated that there is no foreseeable possibility of finding another site, and there is no other site he can go to, unless the Commission would be willing to allow him to build a tower 150 to 200 feet high. He stated that staff had concerns that there were alternate sites available and asked staff to tell him where those site were so he could investigate them He felt that since staff could not stand up and say where these sites were was absolute proof that there is no other location available. Mr. Abrams stated that the height of his antennas were presently at the absolute bare minimum acceptable level they could be at Nothing less than what he presently has would be acceptable, and lowering his antennas would be the same as denying him service He emphasized that there is nobody else providing the type of service he provides in this area. Denial of his permit will be a denial of this type of service, which is protected under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Abrams if he is operating at his bare minimum height at 52 Y2 feet, why did he apply for an antenna 40 feet high in 1990 Mr. Abrams responded that at that time the permit he applied for was the simplest, least expensive permit he could apply for which fit his needs at the time He stated that he had applied for an antenna structure that was 40 feet tall, nested at 30 feet, and had antennas on it that exceeded 40 feet in height. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Abrams if he had written documentation from the City Attorney regarding the agreement reached to allow the antenna to remain at 52 Y2 feet Mr Abrams attorney, Mr. Cheong, answered that there was not a written, formal agreement. Commissioner Cartwright noted that the original planning approval for the tower stated that commercial use was not permitted He asked the applicant what had changed in the intervening 10 years to make him think that commercial use was permitted. Mr. Abrams answered that a former city planner told him that receive -only antennas were not commercial. He also stated that a former planning commissioner had told him that use of a movable antenna tower was legal. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr Abrams if getting a permit from the City for commercial use of the antennas was a condition of sale when he bought his home. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 9 • 0 Mr Abrams answered that it was not a condition of purchase to get an approval to install a commercial antenna. He stated that he purchased the house ten years ago and was just now coming before the Commission asking for commercial permits. Commissioner Paulson asked if it was a condition of purchase to be able to install amateur antennas. Mr Abrams replied that it was a condition Vice Chairman Clark asked what the term "available" meant in the context of consideration of sites. Were sites unavailable based on a flat refusal from the property owner? Mr. Abrams responded that the general rule was a flat refusal or technical unfeasibility. Many sites would cost so much money to offer the service from that location that the service could not exist. He explained that any site that was not within 100 feet of the top of the hill would be cost prohibitive. If it was within 100 feet of the top of the hill service could be provided, but the tower would have to be tall enough to clear the top of the hill, possible 150 to 200 feet tall Commissioner Long asked Mr Abrams what the elevation of his property was on Oceanaire Drive. Mr. Abrams answered that his property was at an elevation of 1,315 feet and the top of San Pedro Hill was approximately 1,450 feet Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr Abrams if the conclusion of his study was that 44 Oceanaire Drive was the only site that was feasible for his proposal. Mr. Abrams responded that that was absolutely correct. His property was the only property that was feasible and available. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Abrams about Mr Eick's statement that he will soon be building on his vacant property and that residence will block his signal. Mr. Abrams answered that if and when Mr. Eick does that he will have to return to the Planning Commission to apply for a higher tower. However until he begins building it is strictly speculation. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the applicant had investigated the California Water Service site on Crest Road Mr. Abrams responded that this site is 120 feet lower than the top of the hill and is not suitable for his needs Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 10 9 Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Lyon began by stating he felt it was regrettable that this subject had become so emotional and contentious. He stated that the Commission could argue, but could not resolve the issue of the height of the antenna and whether it was legal or illegal. He felt that over the years the amateur antenna had been used for commercial purposes, which he found troublesome. He stated that the Planning Commission had an obligation to uphold the City's General Plan and Development Code In cases where exceptions were requested, the Commission has the obligation to reasonably consider and balance both the rights and interests of an applicant, the neighbors, and the public in general. He felt that if this request had been made in 1990 for a commercial use it would not have been approved and he was having considerably difficulty in seeing a way to approve it at this point in time. He stated that the principal reason was that the General Plan limits commercial development in the City to convenience or neighborhood service facilities. He could not see an antenna as being such a facility. On that basis, he felt the staff was correct in its interpretation of the Development Code, and unless he heard something to the contrary, he felt the application should be denied Commissioner Long stated that he did not think the findings in Sections 1 and 7 of the Draft Resolution regarding aesthetics were sustainable unless the Commission were to conclude that the existing antenna was illegal and not permitted. He did not think that the existing antenna was legally permitted, therefore what was being considered was a 12'2 foot increase in height which then makes the findings in Sections 1 and 7 sustainable He felt it was the applicant's burden to show that alternate sites were not available and felt that he had only shown that no alternate single site was available. He did not know if the inconvenience of going to two or three sites was that distressing and he was not convinced that it would increase the cost 1,000 fold, as the applicant claimed He felt the applicant's testimony established that none of the sites, including his own, would be adequate. This would be especially true when the vacant lot near his home was built on, as one would expect it naturally would be. He felt that approving this Conditional Use Permit would be an exercise in futility, as the applicant would not be able to offer adequate service from his property Commissioner Cartwright felt this was a very complicated issue and there was not a lot of legal precedent to help with the decision He stated that staff and the City Attorney had told the Commission that denial of the application was not prohibiting service He felt the City had the right to regulate the amount of commercial activity in a residential area. He felt the approval of this project would be at a cost too high to the public. He also felt the approval of the project would be inconsistent with the General Plan and would be sending the wrong signals to others wanting to provide service. Finally, he stated that it was very troubling to him to not know if the existing antenna was at a legal height. Commissioner Mueller stated that he had concern in that the Commission did not know the end of Mr Abrams plan. He felt that alternate sites could be found, though they Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 11 may not be optimal or cheap. He felt that the Commission was being asked to convert a residential property to commercial use without any type of master plan. He felt this would set a precedent for future antennas. He too was bothered by the fact that it could not be determined whether or not the existing structure height was legal. He was reluctant to give an approval on the project given that it will only get bigger in the future. Commissioner Paulson felt that the issue whether or not the existing antenna structure was legal was not really the issue at hand He stated that the issue at hand was whether or not a commercial facility could be put in a residential area using a facility that is proposed to be 52 Y2 feet high. He did not believe that was an appropriate use for that property and did not feel the application should be approved. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he agreed with everything the other Commissioners had said Vice Chairman Clark was troubled by the statements of the applicant and others that the Conditional Use Permit must be approved or the City would be in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as they had conclusive proven that there is no other site or sites for this commercial use He did not agree with the statement and believed it was faulty in terms of fact and logic He thought there were many flaws in the proposal, the main one being that he did not think land use in a residential area for commercial wireless communications was appropriate. He stated that this application was inconsistent with the General Plan, the intent of the creators of the City, and the general zoning of the City. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-12 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The motion was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS S. Height Variation NO. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822: Mrs. Irene Hung 28756 Longhill Drive There was a brief discussion among the Commissioners as to whether this item should be heard since it was after 11:00 p.m. and there was a written procedure stating that no new items would be heard after 11:00. Further, one of the people requesting to speak had left, however she had submitted a written objection that was included in the staff report. The Commission decided to hear the item. Commissioner Long disclosed that the applicant's property was within 2,500 feet from his home. The property is more than 1,000 feet from his home, is not visible from his home, and his home is not visible from the applicant's property. Unless there was an objection he did not feel he needed to recuse himself from hearing the item. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 12 Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant had revised the project after hearing objections from neighbors and consulting with staff. The four revisions were listed on page 4 of the staff report. She stated that staff was able to make all findings for a Height Variation application, no significant views would be impaired, and there was no infringement of privacy. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the project. Commissioner Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Charles Chen 1517 8th Street, Alhambra stated he was the architect for the applicants. He stated the applicants wanted to add space to the house to accommodate the needs of the family. He added that he had made changes to the original proposal after hearing the objections of the neighbors. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Chen if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Mr. Chen replied that he had not read the conditions, but would read them now and let the Commission know if there were any objections. Margaret Works 27850 Longhill Drive stated that she lived next door to the applicant and her biggest problem with the proposal was the over powering size of the house. She distributed photographs that showed the shadows that the proposed structure would cast over her home She felt that the structure would cut out most of the light into her house. She did appreciate the balconies being taken off of the proposal. Vice Chairman Clark asked Mrs Works what she would like to see happen to the residence. Mrs. Works responded that she did not understand why the applicants needed such a large addition, as it would be the largest in the neighborhood. She objected to this addition cutting off her light as well as a portion of her view. Chairman Lyon asked staff to address the issue of view impairment. Associate Planner Louie explained that the Works enjoy a view from the rear of the residence. Staff did not believe there would be any view impairment from the applicant's property due to the way the lot is situated and since there is existing foliage along the side property line that is in the same location as the proposed addition which prevents the Works from enjoying the view. Robert Works 27850 Longhill Drive stated that his main objection was the loss of light in the living room and kitchen of his residence Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 13 Commissioner Paulson asked staff if they had been on the Work's property to view the impacts Associate Planner Louie answered that she had done a view analysis from the Work's property but had not looked at the light impact since the Code does not require that type of analysis be done. Commissioner Cartwright moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mueller stated that the main issue for him was the view impairment. He looked at the photographs carefully and did not feel there would be a view impairment. He was satisfied with the size of the addition. Commissioner Long felt the addition seemed to be proportional and could see no significant view impairment He felt that staff findings were appropriate and consistent with what he had observed at the site Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioners Mueller and Long's comments and felt the home, though larger than others in the neighborhood, was not incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Cartwright felt the applicants had made a conscientious effort to respond to the issues of the neighbors He too felt the addition was compatible with the neighborhood Commissioner Paulson sympathized with the Work's concerns but felt there was no significant view impact to their property. Vice Chairman Clark and Chairman Lyon both agreed with the previous comments and felt the addition was consistent with the Codes and would improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2000-13 thereby approving Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Cartwright suggested a discussion on a future agenda regarding the procedures on hearing new items after 1100 p.m. Commissioner Long suggested a discussion on allowing speakers to transfer their speaking time to other speakers. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 14 • 't ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 a.m. to May 23, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 15