Loading...
PC RES 1996-039 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 500 THEREBY PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, THE ERECTION OF A 107-FOOT TALL AMATEUR HAM RADIO ANTENNA AT 30763 TARAPACA ROAD WHEREAS, Peter Von Hagen ("the Applicant")filed in the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement an application for Minor Exception Permit ("MEP") No. 500 ("the application"). The application sought approval of a "crank-up" amateur radio tower and support structure in excess of forty feet (40') tall to be erected at 30763 Tarapaca Road ("the Property"). The Applicant proposed to erect a galvanized steel, triangular, lattice-framework support structure that would extend to a height of eighty-nine feet (89'), topped by an additional eighteen (18') foot-tall mast structure which would support a horizontal array not to exceed thirty-six feet (36') in length ("the Antenna"). WHEREAS, on June 21, 1996, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement approved MEP No. 500 pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.40.050(B)(8), and issued a written notice of decision. The Director's decision imposed 13 conditions of approval on the application, including a requirement the Antenna be relocated on the Property to a location that would have significantly reduced the impact of the Antenna on neighbor's views. The Director's Notice of Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference. WHEREAS, on July 8,1996, Roslyn Stewart filed a written appeal of the Director's decision, on behalf of Charles Jordan and the members of the El Prado Estates Homeowners' Association ("the Appellants"), within the fifteen (15) day appeal period. WHEREAS, pursuant to the appeal, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings regarding the application on September 10, 1996, October 8, 1996, and October 24, 1996. At the hearings, the applicant and the appellants each presented lengthy oral and written testimony, and were each represented by counsel. Members of the public spoke in favor of and against the application. WHEREAS, prior to the September 10, 1996 hearing, members of the Planning Commission, staff, the appellants, and members of the public visited the Property, and the properties owned by various appellants, to view a similar antenna which had been temporarily erected on the Property. The model antenna was somewhat shorter than the Antenna at issue, and was portable rather than stationary. Individual members of the Planning Commission disclosed on the record of the hearing that they had visited and viewed the various locations. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the September 10, 1996 hearing, the Planning Commission urged the Applicant and the Appellants to meet with City staff in an attempt to negotiate a suitable compromise. That meeting took place on September 23, 1996, at City Hall. No compromise was reached. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The record of the hearing including, without limitation, staff reports, oral and written testimony, documents, diagrams and photographs, indicates the following relevant facts: a. The panoramic ocean, harbor and island views enjoyed by residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in general, and by residents of the neighborhood in which the Property is located specifically, are a prime reason that many people choose to live in Rancho Palos Verdes. b. The particular Property on which the Antenna is proposed to be erected is extremely unique, in that it is located on the bluff-edge of a canyon, somewhat lower than the other residences on the same street and significantly lower than a large number of residences which are located upslope. As a result of its location, the Property enjoys a prominent status in the viewshed of many residences as their occupants look out to sea and toward Catalina Island. The property is also uniquely located in that it is situated so as to be clearly visible to persons entering the City on Palos Verdes Drive East. c. The aesthetic qualities of Rancho Palos Verdes, including the views, a rural atmosphere, and well-maintained residential neighborhoods relatively free of visual clutter, greatly enhance property values generally in the City. d. There is a conflict of opinion among experts as to the effect on property values of the erection of an antenna in a residential neighborhood. e. As proposed, the Antenna would be erected to its full height during all hours, except during high winds, and during times the Applicant is away from home for any significant period. f. The Applicant testified that he desires to use the Antenna to communicate worldwide on both the 20 meter and 40 meter band, and that the optimum antenna heights for those bands are 70 feet and 140 feet, respectively. The Applicant further testified that he cannot financially afford the support P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 2 of 7 structure necessary to erect a 140-foot tall antenna, and that the proposed height of the Antenna is a "compromise." The Applicant further testified that he typically practices his amateur radio hobby on a limited number of week nights, and at least one weekend day. g. Due to the unique location of the Property, the Antenna would impact views from neighboring properties if it were erected at its full height in its proposed location or as conditioned by the Director during daylight hours. During nighttime hours, the Antenna would not be visible from outside the boundaries of the Property and thus would not interfere with views. h. The horizontal array on the Antenna, with some booms up to thirty-six feet (36') across, would be visually unattractive and would impair views if fully erected during daylight hours. i. The Antenna would be substantially screened from view from neighboring properties if it were located in the rear or southerly yard of the Property, and retracted during daylight hours to a height that does not exceed the ridgeline of the Applicant's home. Thus, additional visual clutter and impairment of the rural character of the neighborhood would be avoided. j. Several compromise measures were proposed by the Planning Commission, the City Staff and the Appellants, but were rejected by the Applicant. Such compromise measures included relocating the Antenna down-slope in the canyon area of the Property and out of view from neighboring properties, or the erection of an antenna or antennae less than thirty feet (30') tall as permitted by the Municipal Code. k. The Applicant would not be denied the ability to communicate if the Antenna is nested during daylight hours. Section 2. Based upon the foregoing facts, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: a. The City's legitimate purposes in regulating amateur radio communication facilities in the City are to protect the public health, safety and welfare; to protect the aesthetic environment of the City; and to protect and promote property values. b. The Planning Commission recognizes and acknowledges its responsibilities pursuant to regulations of the Federal Communications Commission ("PRB- 1") to accommodate reasonably amateur radio communications and to P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 3 of 7 impose only the minimum practicable regulations necessary to accomplish the City's legitimate purposes. c. The Planning Commission has carefully considered the subject application and balanced the federal interest in amateur radio communication with local interests identified in Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.40.050(B)(8). d. The City has attempted to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the Applicant, including an alternative location for the proposed Antenna. Such compromise suggestions have been rejected by the Applicant. e. The decision reached and conditions imposed herein represent the minimum practicable regulations necessary to accomplish the City's legitimate purposes, in that: 1. Due to the proposed length of the antenna array and the height of the antenna the erection of the Antenna at any height above the Applicant's ridgeline during daylight hours will unacceptably impair the panoramic ocean and island views enjoyed by residents of the area. 2. There is no height above the ridgeline level at which such views would be protected during daylight hours. 3. The ability to raise the antenna to its full height during nighttime hours will enable the Applicant to communicate with full technical capability during a substantial portion of the time during which he testified he typically practices his hobby. The conditions imposed herein will not prohibit the Applicant from communicating at other times. 4. The conditions imposed herein permit the Applicant to erect the type and size of Antenna he has requested at its full array during the nighttime hours. 5. The decision reached and conditions imposed herein present three legal options from which the Applicant may choose to seek the plan most conducive to his communications needs. First, the Applicant may exercise the rights granted under this Minor Exception Permit, subject to the conditions imposed herein, for the erection of the exact type and size of antenna requested, albeit subject to minimum practicable restrictions in the hours during which the Antenna may be P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 4 of 7 erected to its full height. Second, the Applicant may exercise his right to erect an antenna of forty-feet (40') or less in height, subject to a site plan review by the Director. Third, the Applicant may make the necessary applications for permission to erect the Antenna down the slope in the canyon area of his property, an area that may be more suitable aesthetically to accommodate full time use of the proposed Antenna. 6. An absolute denial of the Applicant's right to erect the Antenna on his property, which would prohibit use of the Antenna during acceptable nighttime hours, would exceed the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the City's goals, because the Antenna may be screened by the Applicant's home during daylight hours and erected fully at night without significantly impacting views or property values in the area. Any regulation beyond that adopted herein would not represent a reasonable accommodation of amateur radio communications in the City. Section 3. Based upon the foregoing evidence and findings of fact, the Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal of Minor Exception Permit No. 500, and hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The maximum height of the Antenna shall not exceed 89 feet, plus a mast height of 18 feet. The total combined height of the tower and mast shall not exceed 107 feet. b. The Antenna structure shall be a crank-up-down (nesting) triangular steel lattice framework. The structure may be equipped with an electric motor drive to raise and lower the tower. c. The Antenna shall be located in the level rear yard area of the subject property, on the southerly side of the residence, in a location approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. d. The Antenna shall nest at a level at or below the ridgeline of the Applicant's home. In the event that compliance with this nesting requirement entails a subterranean installation, the Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Geologist and the City Building Official. e. The Antenna may be erected out of its fully-nested position only between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. However, the Antenna shall be fully nested at all times during winds which exceed manufacturer's specifications. P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 5 of 7 f. The antenna tower shall be maintained in the original galvanized steel silver/grey color. g. The horizontal length of the antenna array shall be limited to a 36 foot maximum element length, multiple element beam array. The antenna shall not include a dish configuration and none of the elements shall intrude into the required setbacks areas. h. The dimensions of the antenna array shall be limited to the manufacturer's windload specifications for the particular tower installed on the property. i. Any changes to the proposed tower or mast (excluding the antenna array) shall first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. j. No guy wires shall be used to support the tower. k. A Building Permit shall be obtained from the City's Building and Safety Division prior to the erection of the antenna tower. I. Prior to the issuance of a Final Building Permit for the antenna tower, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, a written determination from the Los Angeles County Fire Department as to whether this agency will require a light to be placed atop the antenna's mast, for safety reasons during a fire emergency in the adjacent canyon. If the light is required, it shall only be illuminated at night when the tower is extended above the ridgeline of the residence. m. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building and Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. n. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. o. Any violation of any of these conditions may result in the revocation of this permit. P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 6 of 7 Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Section 5. Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.62.060, any interested person may appeal this decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of this decision. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of November 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice-Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: cp_e Lawrence E. Clark Chairman Carolynn tru, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission N:\GROUP\PLANNINGIRESOSIPC\1201603 P.C. Resolution No. 96-39 Page 7 of 7