CC SR 20181218 L - Claim Against the City Indian Peak Properties LLC01203.0035/524496.2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/18/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a claim against the City by Indian Peak
Properties, LLC.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Reject the claim and direct Staff to notify the claimant.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Emily Colborn, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Indian Peak Properties, LLC claim (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The claimant alleges that the City acted improperly in the processing and revocation of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 230. After a duly-noticed public hearing, the City
Council passed Resolution No. 2018-61 to revoke CUP No. 230 for noncompliance with
the terms of the permit on August 21, 2018. Indian Peak Properties, LLC filed a claim on
October 1, 2018, and then an Amended Claim for Damages on October 31, 2018
(Attachment A).
The City’s Claims Administrator, Carl Warren and Company, has reviewed the claim
and advised the City such a claim is not within the City’s coverage. The City Attorney’s
Office has reviewed the claim and advised the City to reject it due to the determination
that Indian Peak Properties, LLC is operating in violation of the terms of CUP No. 230,
which is a violation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
1
~ll~~L~~K'SOFF I CE A MENJ~"t;'.D CLAIM FOR DAMAGES .
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Ran cho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
TO PERSO N OR PROPERTY
INST RUCTIONS
1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be fi l ed not
later than six months after t he occurr ence. {Gov. Code Sec. 911.2.)
2. Cl aims for damages to real property must be filed not l ater than 1 year after
the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2.)
3. Read entire c l aim form before fi li ng.
4. See Page 2 for diagram upon which to locate pl ace of accident.
5. THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SIGNED ON PAGE 2 AT BOTTOM.
6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full detail s . SIGN EACH SHEET.
TO : CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Name of Claimant
Indian Peak Propert ies, LLC
Home Address of Cl aimant City and State
RESERVE FOR FI LING STAMP
CLAIM NO.------
~ u::Lt:1Vt.JJ
.;TY OF RANCH O PALO S VERD E.
OCT 31 20 18
Date of Bi rth of Claimant
n/a
Occupation of Claimant
. Business Entity/Communications
Home Telephone Number
n/a
Business Telephone Number
n/a
Cla i mant's Social Security No.
n/a
When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Names of any city employees involved in IN JURY or DAMAGE
Date August 2 1.201s Time-------
If claim is for Equitabl e Indemnity, give date
claimant served with the complaint:
Date
Ara Mihrania n; Hans Van Ligten; Doug Willmore; Susan M. Brooks;
Jerry V . Duhovic; Eric Alegria ; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda.
Where did DAMAGE or I NJURY occur? Describe f ully, and locate on diagram on Page 2 . Where appropriate, give
street nam es and address and measurements from landmarks:
26708 Indian Peak Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 .
Describ e i n detail how the DAMAGE or INJURY occurr ed.
Please see Attachment 1.
Why do you claim the city is responsible?
Please see Att achment 1 .
Describe i n detail each I NJURY or DAMAGE.
Please see Attachment 1.
T h is Claim Mu st Be Signed o n Page 2 A-1
The amount claimed, as of the dat e
Damages inc urred to date (exact):
,resentation of this c l aim , is computed as 1 Ns :
Estimated prospective damages as far as known:
Damage to property .................... $ ___ _ Future expenses for medical and hospital care . $ ___ _
Expenses for medical and hospital care ... $ ___ _ Future loss of earnings ..................... $ ___ _
Loss of earnings ...................... $ ___ _ Other prospective special damages .......... $ ___ _
Special damages for ................... $ ___ _ Prospective general damages ............... $ ___ _
Total estimate prospective damages ....... $ ___ _
General damages ...................... $ ___ _
Total d am ages incurred to date ........ $ ___ _
Total amount claimed as of date of presentation of this claim : $ In exces s of $1,800,000.00
Was damage and/or injury investigated by police? No. If so, what c ity? ________________ _
Were paramedics or ambulance called? No. If so, name city or ambul ance ----------------
If injured, state date, time, name and address of doctor of your first visit -------------------
WITNESSES t o DAMAGE or I NJURY: List all persons and addresses of persons known to have information :
Name Pleasesee A ttachment 2. Address Phone ________ _
Name Address Phone ________ _
Name Address Phone ________ _
DOCTORS and HOSPITALS:
Hos pital _•Y_• ___________ Address ______________ Date Hospitalized _______ _
Doctor n1a Address Date of Treatment -------
Doctor n1a Address Date of Treatment -------
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident cl a i ms place on following diagram names
of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate
place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers
o r distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was
involved, designate by letter "A " l ocation of City Vehicle
w hen you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or
your veh icle when you first saw City vehicle; location of
City vehicle at time of accident by "A-1" and l ocation of
yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by
"B-1" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagram s
below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper
diagram signed by the cl aimant.
CUR B J
Signature of Cl aim ant o r person filing on
his behalf giving relationship to Cl aimant:
SIDEWALK
PARKWAY
SIDEW ALK
Typed Name:
C la y W ilkinso n
Bra d ley & G meli ch , LLP
Attorney fo r Cla iman t
Indian Pe a k Properties, LLC
Date:
October 30, 2018
NOTE: C LAIMS MUST BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (Gov. Code Sec . 915a). Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Pen. Code Sec. 72.)
A-2
ATTACHMENT 1
Pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act, Indian Peak Properties, LLC ("IPP") hereby
submits the instant written notice of claim relating to Rancho Palos Verdes Conditional Use
Permit No. 230 ("CUP"), as follows:
Factual Allegations
The CUP relates to a residence located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, Rancho Palos Verdes,
California ("Subject Property"). The Subject Property site is one of a very few commercial and
non-commercial antenna sites in Rancho Palos Verdes. The site is uniquely located so that it is
possible to receive and transmit radio, microwave and communications signals on and over the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. IPP owns an antenna array at this site for the transmission of radio,
microwave and communications signals, partly but not wholly for commercial purposes. That
antenna array is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").
IPP is fully licensed and authorized by the FCC to operate such antennas.
By operating as a co-location site of wireless communications (as encouraged in the
Rancho Palos Verdes Wireless Communications Development Guidelines, Adopted: June 24,
1997 and Revised: October 26, 2004), IPP provides valuable communications services to all
residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and also surrounding communities. This is true regardless of
whether or not those communities are currently taking advantage of, or are even aware of, those
services being available or of the need for them. The communication services available from, and
provided by, IPP's antenna array contribute to the protection of the health, safety and welfare of
the community. These communication services are a significant assistance to the community
during an emergency.
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 from 2001 to 2005
Resolutions No. 2004-109 and 2005-75
In June 2001, IPP submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 (CUP 230)
for approval of roof-mounted antennae and related support structures at the Subject Property.
The City's Planning Commission held three public hearings, and after considering the evidence
introduced adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 on November 15, 2001, but with required
modifications to the roof-mounted antenna array.
On May 15, 2002, IPP filed suit against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in order to overturn the City's decision because it violated the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
On July 14, 2004, the U.S. District Court ordered the "City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James A. Kay, Jr. to use his five (5) mast
antenna structures for commercial purposes, subject to certain conditions."
On December 21, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-109 revising eight
conditions of approval for CUP 230 pursuant to the July 14, 2004, court order. See attached
Exhibit "A" -Resolution No. 2004-109.
Attachment I
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page I of 10 A-3
IPP subsequently petitioned the U.S. District Court to vacate the conditions of approval
imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109. On April 4, 2005, the U.S. District Court issued an order
finding that the provisions of Condition No. 19 of CUP 230 requiring that "Mr. Kay maintain the
property as his primary residence [were] not reasonable."
In or about July 2005, the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 230 via Resolution 2005-75, approving the use of installation
of commercial antennas and related support structures at the Subject Property. See attached
Exhibit "B" -Resolution No. 2005-75.
November 2014 Notice of Violation
In November 2014, the City issued a Notice of Violation, ordering IPP to remove all but
five (5) roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts from the roof, and requiring that the
antennae and support pole masts comply with the conditions of CUP 230. The City alleged that
there were thirteen (13) roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts. The City also informed
IPP that a Revision of the CUP would be required for the City to consider allowing the
unpermitted antennae to remain.
The antenna arrays at 26708 Indian Peak Road were previously the subject of many years
of litigation with the City, costing the City and IPP millions of dollars in legal fees. The City's
previous attempts to regulate these and similar antenna arrays led to the legal decisions, adverse
to the City, in the Abrams and Kay cases. The City has the authority to regulate some
communication equipment through its zoning powers, thus IPP was issued CUP No. 230 for the
commercial use of certain antenna arrays.
The antenna array on the site had been in its current configuration for over five years
prior to 2014, and nothing had been done to this antenna array, the site was not creating any
nuisance to the community. The antennas do not produce any audible noise or interference, and
do not disturb the peace or lawful enjoyment of any of the neighboring properties.
Changes or additions do not require a modification of the current CUP because all of the
antennas are compliant with CUP No. 230 and with all applicable federal laws and municipal
code sections.
The large drum structure is for microwave provision for receiving internet service (i.e.,
Wireless Internet Provider). The internet then carries telephone, entertainment, including
television and movies, and the usual surfing of the internet and e-mail. This drum structure is
exempt from the City's regulation pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Additionally, IPP is authorized to have such equipment on site as a commercial two way radio
and Specialized Mobile Radio licensee.
The other vertical antennas, other than the five permitted commercial broadcasting
antennas, are exempt from the City's zoning laws because these antenna are not broadcasting any
commercial (or for that matter non-commercial) signals. These antennas only receive signals.
Receiving antennas are exempt from regulation pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Code of
Ordinances, 17. 96.100 which states, "Noncommercial amateur radio antenna" means an antenna
Attachment I
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 2of10 A-4
or antenna supports structure used for noncommercial amateur radio operations, as defined by
the FCC, and where there is no transmission or propagation on a commercial frequency and
where there is no transmission for hire or for material compensation.
No modification of CUP No. 230 was required because the five broadcast antennas are
currently permitted and the other antennas identified by the City are exempt from City regulation
or interference as they are receiving, not broadcasting equipment. The additions to the roof-top
structures were merely modifications to the existing structures and as such, did not require
additional engineering or any other revisions to the CUP.
On April 25, 2016, the City Attorney's office stated that the City would not approve any
after-the-fact additions to the roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts beyond those
authorized by the City in the original CUP.
On July 26, 2016, the City directed IPP to remove all but five roof-mounted antennae and
support pole masts, to remove the large drum structures from the roof, and to submit the standard
application for a Revision to an Existing Conditional Use Permit, as well as the information
required by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") §17.76.020 (A)(12)(b), with the
exception of the frequency compatibility study (which the City determined was not necessary).
Conditional Use Permit Revision Application_Planning Case No. Zon2016-00517
On October 28, 2016, a Conditional Use Permit Revision Application (Planning Case No.
ZON2016-00517) (the "Application") was submitted to the City requesting a revision to the
roof-mounted antennas. See attached Exhibit "C."
On October 28, 2016, a copy of the "Structural Calculations For: Existing Antenna
Support Analysis" for the analysis of an existing antenna support mounted on an existing wood
framed roof was also provided with the "Application." The installation consisted of a trussed
tower, placed on its side, and attached to the roof with welded steel tubes and lag bolts into the
roof framing. The calculations analyzed the tower, as installed, the attachments and the existing
roof framing.
The City requested --and IPP paid -the fee and filed the "Application" for Revision to an
Existing Conditional Use Permit, as well as filing the information required by RPVMC
§17.76.020(A)(l2)(b), which was: (1) an approved engineering study addressing structural and
power compatibility with the existing tower and antennas, and (2) a list of all proposed support
equipment and anticipated maintenance needs.
Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner for the City claimed the Application was incomplete on
November 23, 2016, and IPP was given until December 21, 2016, to submit the improperly-
requested additional information, which was not required by the applicable code section, to
continue processing the Application.
Ms. Mikhail indicated that what was needed for the review process to proceed to modify
CUP No. 230 was the following:
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 3of10 A-5
(a) Elevations per RPVMC §17.76.020(A)(l l(a)(i) that, at minimum, detail the
height of each roof-mounted antennae, support pole mast, and any additional roof-top
structure;
(b) Evidence of compliance with RPVMC §17.76.020 (A)(lO)(a), (b), i.e.,
statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) that there has been compliance with those
agencies' regulations, copies of permits and licenses issued by those agencies
(including the Specialized Mobile Radio license), and proof that all permits and
licenses are current and valid; or a statement from the FAA and FCC that no such
compliance is necessary;
(c) A statement of Anticipated Maintenance Needs in compliance with
RPVMC §17.76.020(A)(6), by which the City will be apprised of the frequency of
anticipated truck traffic on Indian Peak Road that serves the roof-mounted antennae
and support pole masts on the Subject Property;
( d) Clear photos of the roof and all structures thereon from eastern, western,
northern and southern perspectives, i.e. a 360-degree view of the entire assembly; and
( e) Evidence that the setbacks are adequate to contain any debris in the event of
antenna support mast failure. The review of the property side yard setbacks appear
to be approximately five (5) feet and are inadequate to contain debris in the event of a
failure. RPVMC § 17.76.020(A)(2) requires a minimum of a twenty-five (25) foot setback
to each property line, as measured from the base of the equipment.
Ms. Mikhail indicated that if IPP provided the necessary information described above,
City staff would process the application to revise the Conditions of Approval of CUP No. 230.
It was not appropriate for the City to demand additional information in order to complete
the October 28, 2016 CUP modification process. The City applied two separate and distinct
Municipal Code sections arbitrarily and capriciously, completely disregarding the actual
language of the Municipal Code itself. The RPVMC provides for two distinct review processes
for commercial antennas:
( 1) for "new towers, related structures and tower sites" for new installation or
operation [Section 17.76.020(A)(l 1) and (12)(a)]; and
(2) for "new antennas mounted on existing towers or structures" [Section
7.76.020(A)(12)(b )].
IPP was merely seeking to add new antennas to an existing tower, and was therefore
subject only to RPVMC § 17.76.020(A)(12)(b ). Previously the City recognized that IPP's
"Application" is for a modification of existing commercial antenna, and that RPVMC
§17.76.020(A)(12)(b) was the applicable section. It is not an application for a new installation or
operation of commercial antennas.
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 4of10 A-6
In March 21, 2017, IPP's counsel argued that the Application to revise CUP 230 with an
after-the-fact amendment should be granted pursuant to RPVMC §17.76.020 (A) (12) (b) and
were modifications not requiring City Council approval.
The letter from counsel for the City, Glen Tucker Esq. ("City Attorney") on April 14,
2017, indicated that the City Attorney's office believed this matter was capable ofresolution by
City staff and the property owner and thus an imminent threat of litigation did not exist. The City
Attorney indicated the City was willing to suspend all code enforcement actions if IPP processed
its Application for the CUP revision in good faith with the above-identified conections. The
City agreed to meet with IPP and IPP's counsel "to mitigate any misunderstanding in
communication." The City was "happy to meet and outline a process to identify issues and
ensure appropriate information can timely be generated for the City Council to make a decision."
The letter restated the Application's deficiencies and offered additional time to cure them.
The April 14, 2017 City Council demand letter was is in direct conflict with the City's
July 26, 2016 instructions for IPP to submit "information required by RPVMC section
17.76.020(A)(12)(b), with the exception of the frequency compatibility study."
An "Element" is not an "Antenna." Conditional Use Permit No. 230 actually approved
five (5) vertical antenna masts. Each vertical mast is part of an antenna. The City approved that
each of five masts may have up to four (4) radiating elements affixed on each antenna mast. The
elements are also necessary parts of a functioning antenna. Five antennas, each having four
elements, are approved by the existing CUP.
IPP has not added any new towers at the Subject Property. The Subject Property does not
have the traditional "guy wired" or freestanding tower. The only "tower" at this site is the Indian
Peak residence itself. The residence/"tower" has not moved or changed in any way since CUP
No. 230 was granted. The "tower" was and remains in conformity with all previous setbacks and
other code requirements. There are no new or additional "towers," nor other support structures.
There are only additional antennas.
The "horizontal metal structure" on the Subject Property is not a "tower." The residence
itself at Indian Peak is the "tower." The "horizontal metal structure" on the roof is a cross-arm
support truss upon which antennas are mounted. The horizontal cross-arm truss is pre-existing
and was approved by CUP No. 230.
The Subject Property does not have a traditional vertical "tower" for its antennas support
structures. The tower and horizontal cross-arm structure were existing and originally approved
under CUP No. 230. Neither the "tower" nor the horizontal support truss has been changed.
There are no new "towers" on the property. In 2007, the City approved five (5) roof-mounted
antennas on the cross-arm.
Since the granting of CUP No. 230, the only changes at the property have been the
number and type of "antennas" mounted on the horizontal support cross-arm mounted on an
existing tower. It is incorrect to assert that vertical antenna masts, or elements on those masts are
"additional towers.'' There is only one tower, and one horizontal cross-arm support structure to
which the vertical antenna masts, are attached.
Attachment I
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 5of10 A-7
Since there have been no changes or modifications to the "tower" or the existing cross-
arm since 2007, and there is no new "tower," there is no reason for these additional "antennas" to
be categorized as a new commercial antenna installation under RPVMC § 17.76.020(A)(l1).
Only vertical antenna masts have been added to the previously existing horizontal cross-arm
truss structure. These new antennas, added to the existing "tower" and horizontal support truss,
can be Director-approved under RPVMC §17.76.020(12)(b).
IPP was previously approved under RPVMC § 17.76.020(A)(l l) and CUP No. 230
[Resolution 2002-27 at page 4of171 acknowledged that "the proposed project complies with the
development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVMC § 17.76.020(A) (2)
through (1 O)"].
The City's November 23, 2016 and April 14, 2017 demands for "additional" information
pursuant to RPVMC §17.76.020(A)(l l) regarding antennas added to an existing tower are not
justified under the RPVMC.
The City cannot merely state that IPP's "Application" is incomplete or non-compliant.
The City must cite legal authority for requiring "additional" information under an application for
modification of existing structure. If the City does not, it is acting arbitrarily and capriciously.
There is no legal authority under the RPVMC that requires a modification of additional antennas
to an existing tower to comply with a brand-new CUP process under RPVMC
§ l 7.76.020(A)(l l).
On June 28, 2017, City Staff, the City Prosecutor, IPP and IPP's counsel met to discuss
this matter. The City indicated that the antennae and support structures may be "outdated" and
"obsolete" and that they could be replaced with an alternative structure that would both address
the telecommunications capacity needs, as well as the City's safety and aesthetic concerns with
the current structures.
A June 2017 letter from IPP's counsel explained that IPP complied with the July 26, 2016
instructions, and satisfied all the requirements of the appropriate RPVMC sections for IPP's
"Application."
From June 2017 to October 2017, IPP's former legal counsel and the City Prosecutor
communicated regarding the status of the antennae and the "Application," and IPP's former legal
counsel asked for extensions to engage a new permit expediter company.
On October 23, 2017, the City Prosecutor sent a letter to IPP's former legal counsel to
reiterate the requirements that IPP must satisfy for the "Application," to discuss potential re-
design or replacement of the current configuration of antennae and "obsolete," structures, or
potential for reinstating the Code Enforcement case, (Case No. ZON2016-00S17).
On December 13, 2017, City Staff, City Prosecutor, IPP and IPP's former legal counsel
met, and discussed alternative designs to replace the existing antennae, such as a faux monopole
tree or new roof antennae on the rear yard-facing roof pitch, that would address the City's
concerns and meet the needs of the commercial antennas. IPP's former legal counsel agreed that
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 6of10 A-8
IPP would submit, a concept drawing regarding a proposed alternative design for the City's
initial review.
August 2018 Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of Conditional Use
Permit No. 230 (Case No. Plmh2018-0001)
From December 2017 until August 2, 2018 there had been no communication from the
City to IPP or from IPP's former counsel.
The City had not made any final determination as to the Application, deeming it to be
incomplete.
Prior to August 2, 2018, and since 2001, there had never been any notice of any potential
"Revocation" ofIPP's Conditional Use Permit No. 230.
Without any warning or any prior notice, on August 2, 2018, the City's Community
Development Department issued a Notice of Public Hearing that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes would conduct on Tuesday, August 21, 2018, at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park
Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the
"REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 (CASE NO. PLMH2018-0001)."
Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") §17.86.060, the City Council
would consider revoking the CUP because of "the Installation of unpermitted antennas exceeding
the maximum of 5 Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts." See
attached Exhibit "D."
The City alleged that RPVMC § 17.60.080 stated if any of the conditions to the use or
development are not maintained, then the CUP shall be null and void and the continued operation
of a use requiring a CUP in noncompliance with any condition of approval shall constitute a
violation of RPVMC. The City alleged that the "installation of the unpermitted antennae
constitute[s] a violation of the Council-approved Conditions of Approval adopted under
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 230 via Resolutions No. 2004-109 and 2005-75." (Exhibit
"D.")
Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development, Hans Van Ligten,
Consulting Attorney and Doug Willmore, City Manager recommended that the City Council
Adopt a resolution" ... REVOKING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230." (Exhibit "D.")
The City alleged that "a primary issue addressed by the Conditions of Approval was the
demonstrated visual impact of approximately twelve (12) antennae/masts" allegedly installed
without building or other permits. (Exhibit "D.)
August 21, 2018 Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of Conditional Use Permit
No. 230
On August 21, 2018, the City held a Public Hearing to consider revocation of the CUP.
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 7of10 A-9
Very-recently retained counsel (counsel herein) for IPP attended the hearing and
requested a continuance on the grounds that counsel had only recently been retained by IPP to
address these issues sixteen (16) days prior to the August 21, 2018 public hearing.
As required by the Notice of the Public Hearing, newly-retained counsel for IPP
submitted written correspondence to the City Council setting forth IPP's position. See attached
Exhibit "E."
In addition to requesting a continuance of the public hearing, counsel for IPP also
presented some preliminary renderings of potential solutions to the concerns posed by the City as
to the aesthetics of the subject antennas and apparatuses. New counsel explained that any
previous delays were not the result ofIPP's conduct but that of his former attorneys. New
counsel further advised the City Council that since being retained to address the issues herein, a
civil engineer had been retained to prepare renderings. New counsel further explained that
attorneys herein would not engage in delays similar to those ofIPP's former counsel. The City
Counsel ignored both the information and the renderings.
Counsel requested an extension of time within which documents, plans, and
specifications for updating and replacing the structures with less conspicuous antennae and
structures or some type of covering could be presented to the City Council. The City Council
denied the request.
The City Council denied IPP's request for a continuance and ultimately voted to revoke
the CUP. The City Council's denial of a continuance was a blatant denial ofIPP's due process
rights to a fair and reasonable public hearing, and an arbitrary and capricious act. See attached
Exhibit "F."
On August 29, 2018, Attorneys for the City sent correspondence to IPP demanding that
"all antennae-related operations must cease and desist, and that all roof-mounted antennas must
be removed from the premises immediately .... [n]on-compliance with the City Council's
revocation and this demand will result in appropriate enforcement action(s) by the City." See
attached Exhibit "G."
Since the hearing where the CUP was revoked, agents and representatives of the City
have been harassing IPP's employees at the Subject Property and interfering with their legitimate
business activities. IPP holds a valid business license with the City.
Revocation Of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 Is Not Supported By Substantial
Evidence As Required By The Telecommunications Act Of 1996
The City's decision to revoke CUP 230 is not in any way supported by substantial
evidence as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. §
332( c )(7)(B)(iii), and California law.
The TCA at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) functions to preserve local land use authorities'
legislative and adjudicative authority subject to certain substantive and procedural limitations.
The TCA at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) has the following preemptive scope: (1) it preempts local land
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 8of10 A-10
use authorities' regulations if they violate the requirements of§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i) and (iv); and (2)
it preempts local land use authorities' adjudicative decisions if the procedures for making such
decisions do not meet the minimum requirements of§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and (iii).
The revocation of CUP 230 violated the limitations placed on the City's zoning authority
by§ 332(c)(7). In particular, the City's action discriminated against the mobile relay services IPP
seeks to provide, § 332( c )(7)(B)(i)(I), effectively prohibited the provision of mobile relay
services,§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), and was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Notwithstanding§ 332(c)(7)(B)(v)'s directive to "hear and decide" actions "on an
expedited basis," The City could not rest its denial on aesthetic concerns, since the antennas in
question were already in existence and would remain in place whatever the disposition of the
permit application. The City cannot reasonably base its decision on the fear of setting precedent
for the location of commercial antennas in residential areas, since adverse impacts from new
structures would always be a basis for permit denial. In light of the paucity of support for the
City's action revoking CUP 230, the revocation of the permit was "an act of spite by the
community."
Respondent's decision to revoke the CUP is invalid and improper under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.5, following reasons:
Respondent committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by failing to proceed in the
manner required by law by refusing to grant IPP's reasonable request for a continuance given
that IPP had very recently brought on new counsel to address issues relating to the CUP.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in Resolution No. 2018-61 (Exhibit
"F") are not supported by the substantial evidence or by the weight of the evidence because,
among other things, IPP was denied its right to present effective counter-arguments and evidence
to the City's stance on revocation of the CUP.
IPP has exhausted the available administrative remedies required to be pursued by IPP, as
pled above.
IPP has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw in that IPP
has no means other than this proceeding by which IPP can compel the City to reverse its decision
and/or to permit IPP adequate time in order to present effective and meaningful rebuttal to the
City's arguments as it relates to the City's revocation of the CUP.
IPP will suffer irreparable injury to IPP/IPP in that IPP's legal and legitimate business
relations and contracts will be interfered with if IPP is not able to continue operations at the
subject premises. Such interference will result in financial loss and other damages in an amount
likely to exceed $1,800,000.00 based on the net monthly income that the operations on the
Subject Property generate.
IPP has valid contracts with third-party entities in connection with the roof-mounted
antennas which are located on the Subject Premises. Revocation of the CUP would induce
breaches of those contracts. The City is not a party to the subject contracts but it does have
Attachment 1
Amended Claim --Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 9of10 A-11
knowledge of the contracts between IPP and third-parties. See Resolution No. 2002-27 (Exhibit
"A") (prepared by the City), approving Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and "approving the
commercial use of certain antennae and related support structures ..... " [Emphasis added.]
The City's acts described above were designed to induce a breach or disruption ofIPP's
operations and IPP's contracts with third-parties. It is substantially certain that the City's acts
will interfere with the third-party contracts. There has been a disruption of the contractual
relationships between IPP and the parties with which it contracts in connection with the antenna
structures on the subject premises.
The City's conduct, as described above, including but not limited to its: (1) revocation of
the CUP; and (2) refusal to provide a fair hearing to IPP, shows that the City acted intentionally,
arbitrarily, and capriciously in an attempt to disrupt IPP's operations and IPP's economic
relationships with third-parties. The City's conduct has thus caused harm to IPP. Ifleft standing,
the CUP's revocation will irreparably harm IPP's operations because it will regulate IPP's
operations out of existence. IPP estimates its net losses to exceed $1,800,000.00 based on the
monthly $30,000.00 of net income IPP's operations generate, and a five year period to replace
the operations (if they are replaceable; IPP believes they are not). However, IPP asserts that its
net losses would be much higher -perhaps incalculable -given the near impossibility of
obtaining a permit for a comparable radio site in the City should operations at the Subject
Property be shut down based on revocation of the CUP.
Attachment 1
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page 10of10 A-12
ATTACHMENT 2
Witnesses to Damage or Injury:
1. Ara Mihranian.
2. Hans Van Ligten.
3. Doug Willmore.
4. Susan M. Brooks.
5. Jerry V. Duhovic.
6. Eric Alegria.
7. John Cruikshank.
8. Ken Dyda.
9. Liza Mikhail.
10. Glen Tucker.
11. Various other City of Rancho Palos Verdes staff and employees.
Attachment 2
Amended Claim -Indian Peak Properties, LLC
Page I of I A-13
.. -I
Exhibit A
A-14
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230, THEREBY
APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF CERTAIN ANTENNAE AND RELATED
SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT ON THE SITE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD, IN THE GRANDVIEW
COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the applicanUappellant, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr., submitted
applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 for after-
the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted, roof-mounted antennae and related
support structures and equipment on the site for commercial use; and,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230
and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence
that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 would have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to
be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301 ); and,
WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001, and while the
Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the applicant installed
at least twelve (12) additional vertical antenna masts with attached antennae onto the previously
existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array, including additional cables and conduits
for the additional antennae; and on November 8, 2001, the applicant submitted revised plans to the
City depicting a total of twenty (20) vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-
mounted antenna support structure and array; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 23,
2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given
an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated November 28,
2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location, number and placement of
antennas on the project site .... "; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2002, March
19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
A-15
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 16, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-27, thereby
denying the appeal, modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally approving the project;
and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay filed suit against the City in Federal District Court in
order to overturn the City's decision on the grounds, among other things, that it violated the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the "City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James A. Kay, Jr. to use his five mast
antenna structure for commercial purposes, subject to reasonable conditions"; and,
WHEREAS, the City revised the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to
allow the commercial use of Mr. Kay's 5-masted, roof-mounted antenna array, which array existed at
the time and was depicted on plans provided to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with the original
submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 on June 21, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was agendized for the City Council's review and consideration on
October 5, 2004, and November 16, 2004, but on both occasions the matter was continued to a
subsequent City Council meeting at Mr. Kay's request in order to allow his legal counsel to discuss
additional proposed revisions to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with
the City Attorney; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 5, 2004,
November 16, 2004, and December 21, 2004, to reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 230, at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to legalize the use of existing roof-mounted and
interior antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial purposes:
A. For the purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout this
Resolution, the terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna
array" refer only to the antenna(e) and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the
City by the applicant on June 21, 2001, and in photographs accompanying the application for
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744. The terms and
phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" do not include any
parts, elements, components or other features of the antenna(e) and antenna array that are
not depicted on the plan submitted on June 21, 2001, or in the above-mentioned
photographs, regardless whether these parts, elements, components or other features were,
or are, physically present on the subject property as of the effective date of this Resolution.
B. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the
yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development
Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within
the neighborhood because, as conditioned, the proposed project complies with the
Resolution No. 2004-109
Page 2 of 7
A-16
development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVDC Sections
17.76.020(A)(2) through (A)(10). The site provides for at least two (2) off-street parking
spaces for maintenance and seNice vehicles and the existing roof-mounted antenna support
structure and array does not require special markings or lighting to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Although there is existing foliage on adjacent
properties and rights-of -way, this foliage does not adequately screen any antenna support
structures or antennae on the roof of the structure from view from many surrounding
residences in the neighborhood and from nearby public rights-of-way, especially those
residences located directly across the street and the residences located downslope from the
rear yard on Fond du Lac Road. As such, the approval of this application is conditioned to
require the removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight-and-one-half-foot long masts and
two of the television antennae from the roof of the residence. With the removal of all but the
five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project
plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will
be no different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for
amateur use only. This condition is necessary to maintain the appearance of the structure
as a single-family residence, and to integrate the commercial use into the residential
neighborhood. In this case, the imposition of stricter limitations upon both commercial and
non-commercial antennae than are otherwise required by the City's Development Code is
necessary to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood while still allowing reasonable use
of the site to transmit on both amateur and commercial frequencies, because the applicant's
representatives have testified that the antennae at the site can be "diplexed" so that each
antenna can be used to transmit on two different frequencies at the same time. By
comparison, allowing the applicant to use all of the antennae that were placed on the
property in 2001 while this application was pending before the Planning Commission will
dramatically alter the residential character of the home and create the appearance of a
commercial antenna farm, which will adversely affect the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
C. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and
quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the subject property is seNed by
Indian Peak Road, which is a public residential street. Aside from normal residential traffic
associated with the existing house, the only additional traffic expected to result from the
proposed project is an occasional seNice vehicle, and would rarely involve large trucks or
other equipment that could adversely affect local traffic for any extended period of time. Any
adverse effects of any additional traffic are mitigated by the conditions of approval imposed
by this approval.
D. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse
effects on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the conditions that are
being imposed as part of this approval. Although service personnel would visit the site
periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance and operation of the existing antennae
would be very minor and have no significant adverse effects on surrounding properties. The
existing antennae are visible from homes across Indian Peak Road and from Fond du Lac
Road below. With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on
June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001,
the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no different or more significant with its
conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. However, the approval
of this proposal will be conditioned to require maintenance of the roof-mounted antennae
and support structures that are permitted by this conditional use permit in a neutral color so
as to blend better into the background sky and the gray color of the existing antenna support
Resolution No. 2004-109
Page 3 of 7
A-17
structure. In addition, no future changes to the location or configuration or which increase
the number or the height of any approved antennae or element of the remaining roof-
mounted antenna array will be permitted without an amendment to this conditional use
permit that is approved by the City Council, in order to prevent further visual intrusion upon
the surrounding neighborhood.
E. Any issues related to interference impacts upon electronic and other types of equipment,
and actual or perceived effects upon human health, are strictly within the purview of the
FCC, since Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City from "[regulating] the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis
of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions."
F. The proposed five-mast antenna structure is contrary to the General Plan, but is being
approved by the City Council, due to the order of the United States District Court that was
issued on July 14, 2004. The subject property and the Grandview neighborhood are
designated Residential, 4-6 DU/acre, which is a land use designation intended to
accommodate medium-density neighborhoods of detached, single-family homes and related
accessory uses and structures. No evidence has been provided that the owner has ever
resided at the existing home, and this property has not been occupied for at least the past
six years. The evidence demonstrated that, in the past, the property had not been
maintained in a manner consistent with the quality of the surrounding neighborhood prior'to
the initial hearings before the Planning Commission in 2001, and the residential character of
the neighborhood was eroded by the increasing deterioration and commercialization of this
site. To prevent the proposed commercial use of the property from exacerbating the
substandard condition of the residence, the approval of the proposed project includes
conditions to address these past deficiencies. The conditions include: 1) requiring
landscape and maintenance services in the event that the home not properly maintained in
conformance with the conditions; 2) requiring the removal of all but five (5) of the existing
vertical antenna masts, which are the most visible exterior evidence of the commercial use
of the property; and 3) requiring the house to be occupied and maintained in an appropriate
manner. These conditions will allow for the provision of wireless telecommunications
services at this location, while minimizing the visuai and aesthetic impacts of this commercial
wireless operation on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
G. The required finding that, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control
districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts), the proposed use
complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter, is not applicable because the
subject property is not located within any of the overlay control districts established by
RPVDC Chapter 17.40.
H. Conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health,
safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include (but are not limited to) removal
of all but five (5) of the existing eight and one-half feet-long roof-mounted antenna masts
and two of the television antenna(e), and prohibiting any further modifications to them
without first obtaining approval of modification to this conditional use permit; limiting regular
maintenance hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; requiring the property to
be landscaped and painted and that weekly landscape and general maintenance services
shall be provided by contract with a qualified provider of such services if the residence Is not
properly maintained in accordance with the conditions; requiring the house to be occupied;
requiring the applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the
Resolution No. 2004-109
Page 4 of 7
A-18
project for compliance with all conditions of approval within one hundred twenty (120) days
of the date of the City's final action on the application. These conditions are imposed through
the City's authority over placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.
I. The required findings that no existing or planned tower can accommodate the applicant's
proposed antenna or proposed service area, or that the proposed tower cannot be located
on the site of an existing or planned tower, are not applicable because the proposed project
does not involve the construction or placement of a new antenna tower, and there is no
antenna tower currently located on the subject property.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposed project-as conditioned-qualifies
for a Class 1 categorical exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 15301. The exemption applies to alterations to existing minor structures and
uses "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
agency's determination." As conditioned, the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and
array would be modified so that most of the antennae are removed or relocated to the inside of the
house, and the negative aesthetic impacts of the existing antennae are minimized. In addition, the
property will be required to be occupied and maintained in an appropriate manner that is consistent
with City standards. Without the imposition of these conditions, and if the antennae and other
elements that have been added to the property since the submittal of the application to the City were
to remain in place, the City Council would not be able to find this proposed project exempt from the
requirements of CEQA, due to aesthetic impacts which could be potentially significant and thus
would require further analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230-
as conditioned-is consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Antenna Development
Guidelines. This application was heard by the Planning Commission within the time lines
established by the State's Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA (Guideline No. 1 ). Although the
Guidelines express a preference for existing, non-single-family structures as antenna sites
(Guideline No. 2), installations on single-family residences are not prohibited and have been
approved previously elsewhere in the City. In addition, the conditions of approval for this project will
help to enhance the residential character of the neighborhood by requiring the applicant to upgrade
the appearance and maintenance of the property. As a condition of approval, most of the exterior
antennae will be removed, so the project will have no significant impact upon any view corridors
(Guideline No. 4 ). The removal of these antennae will also serve to balance the aesthetic impacts
of the antennae upon the neighborhood with the applicant's financial benefit from the operation of
the commercial antennae on the site (Guideline No. 5). Finally, with most of the antennae removed
from the roof of the house, they will be more effectively screened from view from adjacent properties
or rights-of-way (Guideline No. 9).
Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230-
as conditioned-is consistent with the order of the United States District Court for the following
reasons:
A. The conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "[does] not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services ... and [does] not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)). In reviewing all of the applications to provide
personal wireless services on other residentially-zoned property within the City, the City has
applied consistently its regulations to these facilities so as to approve facilities that are
Resolution No. 2004-109
Page 5 of 7
A-19
compatible with surrounding uses and to modify or deny applications that do or will have
adverse visual, aesthetic or other impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant
application is being approved with conditions requiring the removal of most of the exterior
antennae because it will otherwise result in adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon
adjacent properties. The City's conditional approval of this specific proposal does not
prohibit the applicant from providing wireless communications services because the
applicant still has the ability to provide these services from the remaining exterior antennae .
The applicant's representative has stated at a public hearing that the applicant has the
capability to "diplex" the antennae in order to utilize more frequencies. The applicant has
also admitted that he has transmitted commercially from the site since 1998, allegedly from
antennae located inside the residence. The City has previously approved applications for
commercial antennae for a variety of commercial wireless services and service providers,
including applications for properties that were zoned or used for single-family residential
purposes. Accordingly, the conditional approval of this particular application also does not
result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of these
types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
B. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was deemed complete by City Staff on
September 19, 2001. The City has acted on the applicant's request for Conditional Use
Permit No. 230 "within a reasonable period of time afterthe request [was] duly filed with [the
City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7),
subsection (B)(ii)). This application has been processed by the City in a timely fashion and
in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and
CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act. The only delays in the processing of this
application are attributable to the applicant's request for a waiver of the penalty fee (which
was denied by the City Council on September 18, 2001 ); the applicant's request for a
continuance of this application from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001
to the meeting of November 13, 2001; the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's
conditional approval and request for continuance of the appeal from the City Council
meeting of February 19, 2002 to the meeting of March 19, 2002; and the applicant's request
for continuance of the reconsideration of the appeal from the City Council meeting of
October 5, 2004, to the meetings of November 16, 2004 and then again to December 21,
2004.
C. In conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, the City has
not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations
concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iv)). Although interference
and radio frequency emissions were raised as issues of concern to surrounding residents at
the public hearing and in correspondence to the City, none of the required modifications to
the existing antennae on the site are in response to these concerns. Instead, these
modifications are imposed only to address the aesthetic impacts of the antennae upon the
surrounding neighborhood. City Staff advised the Planning Commission and. the City
Council that neither body could consider any environmental effects of emissions that comply
with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon health or alleged interference with
television reception. The Planning Commission and City Council relied upon that advice and
the provisions of the Act and, therefore, has not based its decision to conditionally approve
the proposed project in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects
attributable to radio frequency emissions. Rather, the conditional approval regulates the
Resolution No. 2004-109
Page 6 of 7
A-20
aesthetic impacts and land use compatibility issues traditionally addressed through the
exercise of local governmental police powers.
Section 5: The City Council is approving the commercial use of the pre-existing five-
masted roof-mounted antennae array to comply with the order of the United States District Court
issued on July 14, 2004, in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes. If that order is reversed, the
City Council hereby reserves the right to vacate this decision and resolution and reinstate its prior
decision or, in the alternative, to re-open the public hearing.
Section 6: Modifications to the conditions of approval entitle the applicant/appellant to a
refund of one-half of the appeal fee, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
Section 17.80.120.
Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely affected by the City's final action in this
matter may, within thirty (30) days after such action, commence an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included
in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings before the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with
the City, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use
Permit No. 230, thereby approving the commercial use of certain antennae and related support
structures and equipment on the site of a single-family residence, located at 26708 Indian Peak
Road, in the Grandview community, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached
hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, which are necessary to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21 61 day of December 2004.
~CQJ~ Mayor
Attest:
State of California )
County 9f Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above
Resolution No. 2004~109 was duly and regularly passed and adoptad by the said City Council at a
regular meeting thereof held on December 21, 2004.
~~
Resolution No. 2004~109
Page 7 of 7
A-21
RESOLUTION NO. 2004·109 • EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230
(26708 Indian Peak Road)
The following conditions of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27 are hereby revised to
read as follows:
2. This approval is for the use of antennae and related support structures and
equipment on the site of a single-family residence in the Grandview community
for commercial purposes. The commercial use of the property is conditioned
upon the following modifications:
a. The roof-mounted equipment shall consist of the existing roof-mounted
antenna support structured and a maximum of five (5) vertical masts, each of
which shall not exceed eight and one-half (8Y2) feet in height, as measured
from the point where the mast meets the roof surface.
b. Each of the five masts may have up to four (4) radiating elements affixed
thereon, similar to those that currently are present at the site, provided that
they do not extend any higher than the mast itself and that each antenna or
radiating element does not project more than two feet horizontally from the
center of the mast.
c. In addition, two (2) television antennae also may remain on the roof of the
residence, so long as they do not exceed eight and one-half (8Y2) feet in
height, as measured from the point where they are attached to the roof
surface; that the horizontal boom of each antenna does not exceed six feet in
length; that no radiating element or antenna attached to the boom exceeds
two feet in length, and that all of the antennae and support structures on the
property are maintained in compliance with the Municipal Code.
d. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall review the
exterior masts and antennae to ensure compliance with this condition. Any
additional exterior antennae, masts or other antenna support structure(s) shall
require further approval or modification of this conditional use permit.
e. The exterior masts and antennae described in this condition may be used for
either commercial or non-commercial purposes.
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make
only minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval, and only if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the enlargement, expansion or
Resolution No. 2004-109
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
A-22
addition to, the exterior masts and antennae that this approval allows outside of
the existing residential structure shall require approval of a revision to Conditional
Use Permit No. 230 by the City Council and shall require a new and separate
environmental review.
7. The applicant shall submit a plan depicting the five (5) roof-mounted masts that
are to be retained pursuant to this approval, within (90) ninety days of the date of
the City's final action on this application. The applicant shall obtain a building
permit and any other approval required by the Building Code to modify or
construct the masts and attached antennae on the property.
9. At all times, the applicant shall maintain the color of the entirety of the roof-
mounted antenna support structure and all of the antennae and radiating
elements located thereon, in a neutral color, such as gray, gray-green or gray-
blue, that will blend with the background foliage and the sky, to the satisfaction of
the Director. At the Director's discretion, all or any portion of the antenna array
may be left unpainted if, in its unpainted state, it conforms to the intent of this
condition and substantially matches the existing gray color of the antenna
support structure. However, the Director reserves the right to require the
applicant to paint all or portions of the antenna support structure and array at any
time that the Director finds that additional painting of some elements of the
antenna support structure and array is necessary to further reduce the aesthetic
impacts of the roof-mounted antenna support structure and the radiating
elements and antennae located thereon. If the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement requires the applicant to paint any portion of the antenna
support structure or antennae located thereon to comply with this condition, the
applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
with a selection of possible colors tor approval prior to the painting of any portion
of the antenna support structure and array.
10. The five roof-mounted masts and the two television antennae approved by this
resolution shall not be increased or expanded without the advance approval of
the City Council, including, but not limited to, any additional antennae, masts,
antennae support structures, antenna assemblies or radiating elements of any
kind. Existing masts and antennae that are permitted by this approval may be
removed and replaced for maintenance and/or repair as long as the replacement
masts or antennae are the same or less in height, length and mass and in the
same location as the approved masts and antennae, and provided that the total
number of masts and antennae is not increased.
16. No lights may be placed upon the roof-mounted antenna support structure, nor
may it be otherwise illuminated in any manner. In the event that the applicant is
required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to illuminate any portion of
the roof-mounted antenna support structure in order to comply with the
provisions of 14 CFR Part 77 or any other applicable state or federal regulations
regarding obstruction marking and lighting, the applicant may seek a modification
Resolution No. 2004-109
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
A-23
of this provision from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
This condition shall not restrict the use of hand-held lighting, nor the use of
temporary lighting during the performance of emergency repairs.
19. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action on this application, the
property shall be occupied by the owner, or some other person chosen by the
owner, as that person's primary residence. The necessary improvements to
make the house habitable shall be completed within the initial 90-day period-
including a functional kitchen, toilet and bathing facilities and utility connections
for gas, electricity, water and sewer-and shall be maintained continuously. The
applicant shall arrange for the provision of weekly landscape and maintenance
service at the property to ensure that the structure and grounds are maintained
free from litter, debris, and overgrown vegetation so as not to become an
eyesore, if the resident is not maintaining the property as required by these
conditions of approval and by the City's Municipal Code.
22. At approximately one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the date of the
City's final action on this application, the City Council shall review the project for
conformance with the conditions of approval, and determine if any conditions of
approval need to be added, deleted or modified, or if the permit should be
revoked. Within the initial 120-day permit period, the applicant shall be
responsible for completing all of the site and use modifications described in this
Resolution. Failure to fulfill these conditions may lead to the revocation of this
permit during the 120-day review process by the City Council.
25. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this approval, and annually thereafter, the
applicant shall provide to the City a listing of all radio facilities or frequencies that
are licensed by the FCC to this site. In addition, within thirty (30) days of this
approval, and annually thereafter, the applicant also shall provide to the City
documentation demonstrating that the site is being operated in accordance with
FCC emission requirements and limits, considering all facilities that are licensed
by the FCC to operate at the site or that use the site pursuant to an amateur
radio operator's license. The listing of all radio facilities or frequencies licensed
by the FCC to the site will not become part of the public record, to the extent
allowed by state law. If the City receives a demand to view this information, the
City will timely notify the applicant so as to provide an opportunity for the
applicant to object to the demand.
Except as expressly modified herein, all of the prior recitals, findings of fact, conclusions
of law and conditions of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27, as originally adopted by
the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on April 16, 2002, remain unchanged.
Resolution No. 2004-109
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
A-24
Exhibit B
A-25
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPROVING REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. 19 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 230, THEREBY APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF CERTAIN ANTENNAE
AND RELATED SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT ON THE SITE OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD, IN THE
GRANDVIEW COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the applicant/appellant, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr.,
submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental Assessment
No. 744 for after-the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted, roof-mounted
antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for commercial use;
and,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and
Environmental Assessment No. 744 would have a significant effect on the environment
and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to be categorically exempt
(Class 1, Section 15301); and,
WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001, and while
the Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the
applicant installed at least twelve ( 12) additional vertical antenna masts with attached
antennae onto the previously existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array,
including additional cables and conduits for the additional antennae; and on November 8,
2001, the applicant submitted revised plans to the City depicting a total of twenty (20)
vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-mounted antenna support
structure and array; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated November
28, 2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location, number and
placement of antennas on the project site .... "; and,
A-26
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February
19, 2002, March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002, at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 16, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-27,
thereby denying the appeal, modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally
approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay filed suit against the City in Federal District
Court in order to overturn the City's decision on the grounds, among other things, that it
violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District
of California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the "City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James A.
Kay, Jr. to use his five mast antenna structure for commercial purposes, subject to
reasonable conditions"; and,
WHEREAS, the City revised the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 to allow the commercial use of Mr. Kay's 5-masted, roof-mounted antenna array,
which array existed at the time and was depicted on plans provided to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes with the original submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 on June 21, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was agendized for the City Council's review and
consideration on October 5, 2004, and November 16, 2004, but on both occasions the
matter was continued to a subsequent City Council meeting at Mr. Kay's request in order to
allow his legal counsel to discuss additional proposed revisions to the conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with the City Attorney; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 21, 2004, adopted Resolution
No. 2004-109, thereby revising eight (8) conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 pursuant to the July 14, 2004, order of the United States District Court; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay subsequently petitioned the United States District Court to
vacate the conditions of approval imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the United States District Court issued an order in
response to Mr. Kay's petition, finding that the provisions of Condition No. 19 of Conditional
Use Permit No. 230 requiring "that Mr. Kay maintain the property as his primary residence
[were] not reasonable," but also finding that all other conditions of approval imposed by
Resolution No. 2004-109 were reasonable; and,
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 2of9
A-27
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on July 5,
2005 to consider revised language for Condition No. 19 of Conditional Use Permit No. 230,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 to legalize the use of existing
roof-mounted and interior antennae and related support structures and equipment on the
site for commercial purposes:
A. For the purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout
this Resolution, the terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)" and "existing roof-
mounted antenna array" refer only to the antenna(e) and antenna array depicted in
the plans submitted to the City by the applicant on June 21, 2001, and in
photographs accompanying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and
Environmental Assessment No. 744. The terms and phrases "existing antenna(e)"
and "existing roof-mounted antenna array" do not include any parts, elements,
components or other features of the antenna(e) and antenna array that are not
depicted on the plan submitted on June 21, 2001, or in the above-mentioned
photographs, regardless whether these parts, elements, components or other
features were, or are, physically present on the subject property as of the effective
date of this Resolution.
B. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for
all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by
the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on
adjacent land and within the neighborhood because, as conditioned, the proposed
project complies with the development standards for commercial antennae, as
specified in RPVDC Sections 17. 76.020(A)(2) through (A)(10). The site provides for
at least two (2) off-street parking spaces for maintenance and service vehicles and
the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array does not require
special markings or lighting to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requirements. Although there is existing foliage on adjacent properties and rights-
of-way, this foliage does not adequately screen any antenna support structures or
antennae on the roof of the structure from view from many surrounding residences
in the neighborhood and from nearby public rights-of-way, especially those
residences located directly across the street and the residences located downslope
from the rear yard on Fond du Lac Road. As such, the approval of this application
is conditioned to require the removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight-and-one-
half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof of the
residence. With the removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that
existed on June 1, 2001 and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 3of9
A-28
City on June 21, 2001, the aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no
different or more significant with its conversion to commercial use than they were for
amateur use only. This condition is necessary to maintain the appearance of the
structure as a single-family residence, and to integrate the commercial use into the
residential neighborhood. In this case, the imposition of stricter limitations upon
both commercial and non-commercial antennae than are otherwise required by the
City's Development Code is necessary to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood
while still allowing reasonable use of the site to transmit on both amateur and
commercial frequencies, because the applicant's representatives have testified that
the antennae at the site can be "diplexed" so that each antenna can be used to
transmit on two different frequencies at the same time. By comparison, allowing the
applicant to use all of the antennae that were placed on the property in 2001 while
this application was pending before the Planning Commission will dramatically alter
the residential character of the home and create the appearance of a commercial
antenna farm, which will adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhood.
C. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the
type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the subject
property is served by Indian Peak Road, which is a public residential street. Aside
from normal residential traffic associated with the existing house, the only additional
traffic expected to result from the proposed project is an occasional service vehicle,
and would rarely involve large trucks or other equipment that could adversely affect
local traffic for any extended period of time. Any adverse effects of any additional
traffic are mitigated by the conditions of approval imposed by this approval.
D. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant
adverse effects on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the
conditions that are being imposed as part of this approval. Although service
personnel would visit the site periodically, any impacts related to the maintenance
and operation of the existing antennae would be very minor and have no significant
adverse effects on surrounding properties. The existing antennae are visible from
homes across Indian Peak Road and from Fond du Lac Road below. With the
removal of all but the five (5) vertical antenna masts that existed on June 1, 2001
and were depicted on the project plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001, the
aesthetic impacts of the antenna array will be no different or more significant with its
conversion to commercial use than they were for amateur use only. However, the
approval of this proposal will be conditioned to require maintenance of the roof-
mounted antennae and support structures that are permitted by this conditional use
permit in a neutral color so as to blend better into the background sky and the gray
color of the existing antenna support structure. In addition, no future changes to the
location or configuration or which increase the number or the height of any
approved antennae or element of the remaining roof-mounted antenna array will be
permitted without an amendment to this conditional use permit that is approved by
the City Council, in order to prevent further visual intrusion upon the surrounding
neighborhood.
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 4 of 9
A-29
E. Any issues related to interference impacts upon electronic and other types of
equipment, and actual or perceived effects upon human health, are strictly within
the purview of the FCC, since Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the City
from "[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC's] regulations
concerning such emissions."
F. The proposed five-mast antenna structure is contrary to the General Plan, but is
being approved by the City Council, due to the orders of the United States District
Court that were issued on July 14, 2004 and April 4, 2005. The subject property
and the Grandview neighborhood are designated Residential, 4-6 DU/acre, which is
a land use designation intended to accommodate medium-density neighborhoods of
detached, single-family homes and related accessory uses and structures. No
evidence has been provided that the owner has ever resided at the existing home,
and this property has not been occupied for at least the past six years. The
evidence demonstrated that, in the past, the property had not been maintained in a
manner consistent with the quality of the surrounding neighborhood prior to the
initial hearings before the Planning Commission in 2001, and the residential
character of the neighborhood was eroded by the increasing deterioration and
commercialization of this site. To prevent the proposed commercial use of the
property from exacerbating the substandard condition of the residence, the approval
of the proposed project includes conditions to address these past deficiencies. The
conditions include: 1) requiring landscape and maintenance services in the event
that the home not properly maintained in conformance with the conditions; 2)
requiring the removal of all but five (5) of the existing vertical antenna masts, which
are the most visible exterior evidence of the commercial use of the property; and 3)
requiring the house to be maintained in a manner suitable for occupancy as a
single-family residence. These conditions will allow for the provision of wireless
telecommunications services at this location, while minimizing the visual and
aesthetic impacts of this commercial wireless operation on the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
G. The required finding that, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay
control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts),
the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter, is not
applicable because the subject property is not located within any of the overlay
control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40.
H. Conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include (but are not
limited to) removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight and one-half feet-long roof-
mounted antenna masts and two of the television antenna(e), and prohibiting any
further modifications to them without first obtaining approval of modification to this
conditional use permit; limiting regular maintenance hours to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM,
Monday through Friday; requiring the property to be landscaped and painted and
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 5 of 9
A-30
that weekly landscape and general maintenance services shall be provided by
contract with a qualified provider of such services if the residence is not properly
maintained in accordance with the conditions; requiring the house to be maintained
in a manner suitable for occupancy as a single-family residence; requiring the
applicant to obtain and maintain a valid business license; and reviewing the project
for compliance with all conditions of approval within one hundred twenty (120) days
of the date of the City's final action on the application. These conditions are
imposed through the City's authority over placement, construction and modification
of personal wireless service facilities, as expressly reserved to local government
under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I. The required findings that no existing or planned tower can accommodate the
applicant's proposed antenna or proposed service area, or that the proposed tower
cannot be located on the site of an existing or planned tower, are not applicable
because the proposed project does not involve the construction or placement of a
new antenna tower, and there is no antenna tower currently located on the subject
property.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposed project-as conditioned-
qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301. The exemption applies to
alterations to existing minor structures and uses "involving negligible or no expansion of
use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." As conditioned,
the existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array would be modified so that
most of the antennae are removed or relocated to the inside of the house, and the negative
aesthetic impacts of the existing antennae are minimized. In addition, the property will be
required to be maintained in an appropriate manner that is consistent with City standards.
Without the imposition of these conditions, and if the antennae and other elements that
have been added to the property since the submittal of the application to the City were to
remain in place, the City Council would not be able to find this proposed project exempt
from the requirements of CEQA, due to aesthetic impacts which could be potentially
significant and thus would require further analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 230-as conditioned-is consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Antenna
Development Guidelines. This application was heard by the Planning Commission within
the time lines established by the State's Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA (Guideline
No. 1 ). Although the Guidelines express a preference for existing, non-single-family
structures as antenna sites (Guideline No. 2), installations on single-family residences are
not prohibited and have been approved previously elsewhere in the City. In addition, the
conditions of approval for this project will help to enhance the residential character of the
neighborhood by requiring the applicant to upgrade the appearance and maintenance of
the property. As a condition of approval, most of the exterior antennae will be removed, so
the project will have no significant impact upon any view corridors (Guideline No. 4). The
removal of these antennae will also serve to balance the aesthetic impacts of the antennae
upon the neighborhood with the applicant's financial benefit from the operation of the
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 6 of 9
A-31
commercial antennae on the site (Guideline No. 5). Finally, with most of the antennae
removed from the roof of the house, they will be more effectively screened from view from
adjacent properties or rights-of-way (Guideline No. 9).
Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 230-as conditioned-is consistent with the orders of the United States District Court
for the following reasons:
A. The conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "[does] not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services ... and
[does] not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)). In reviewing all of the
applications to provide personal wireless services on other residentially-zoned
property within the City, the City has applied consistently its regulations to these
facilities so as to approve facilities that are compatible with surrounding uses and to
modify or deny applications that do or will have adverse visual, aesthetic or other
impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant application is being approved
with conditions requiring the removal of most of the exterior antennae because it will
otherwise result in adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties.
The City's conditional approval of this specific proposal does not prohibit the
applicant from providing wireless communications services because the applicant
still has the ability to provide these services from the remaining exterior antennae .
The applicant's representative has stated at a public hearing that the applicant has
the capability to "diplex" the antennae in order to utilize more frequencies. The
applicant has also admitted that he has transmitted commercially from the site since
1998, allegedly from antennae located inside the residence. The City has
previously approved applications for commercial antennae for a variety of
commercial wireless services and service providers, including applications for
properties that were zoned or used for single-family residential purposes.
Accordingly, the conditional approval of this particular application also does not
result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of
these types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
B. The application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 was deemed complete by City
Staff on September 19, 2001. The City has acted on the applicant's request for
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 "within a reasonable period of time after the request
[was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such
request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). This application has been
processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines
established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the
Telecommunications Act. The only delays in the processing of this application are
attributable to the applicant's request for a waiver of the penalty fee (which was
denied by the City Council on September 18, 2001); the applicant's request for a
continuance of this application from the Planning Commission meeting of October
23, 2001 to the meeting of November 13, 2001; the applicant's appeal of the
Planning Commission's conditional approval and request for continuance of the
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 7 of 9
A-32
appeal from the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002 to the meeting of March
19, 2002; and the applicant's request for continuance of the reconsideration of the
appeal from the City Council meeting of October 5, 2004, to the meetings of
November 16, 2004 and then again to December 21, 2004.
C. In conditionally approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230, the
City has not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal
Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7}, subsection (B)(iv)). Although interference and radio frequency emissions
were raised as issues of concern to surrounding residents at the public hearing and
in correspondence to the City, none of the required modifications to the existing
antennae on the site are in response to these concerns. Instead, these
modifications are imposed only to address the aesthetic impacts of the antennae
upon the surrounding neighborhood. City Staff advised the Planning Commission
and the City Council that neither body could consider any environmental effects of
emissions that comply with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon
health or alleged interference with television reception. The Planning Commission
and City Council relied upon that advice and the provisions of the Act and,
therefore, has not based its decision to conditionally approve the proposed project
in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to
radio frequency emissions. Rather, the conditional approval regulates the aesthetic
impacts and land use compatibility issues traditionally addressed through the
exercise of local governmental police powers.
D. The previous provisions of Condition No. 19 of Conditional Use Permit No. 230
requiring that Mr. Kay to occupy the property at 26708 Indian Peak Road as his
primary residence have been eliminated. However, language requiring the property
to be maintained in a condition suitable for such occupancy has been retained in the
revised condition. The City Council finds that the revised language of Condition
No. 19 will ensure that, notwithstanding the roof-mounted antenna array, the
property will be maintained so that it can be used as, and have the appearance of,
an occupied, single-family residence, which was the City Council's original intent in
adopting Condition No. 19.
Section 5: The City Council is approving the commercial use of the pre-existing
five-masted roof-mounted antennae array to comply with the orders of the United States
District Court issued on July 14, 2004, and April 4, 2005, in the case of Kay v. Rancho
Palos Verdes. If either or both of these orders are reversed, the City Council hereby
reserves the right to vacate this decision and resolution and reinstate its prior decision or,
in the alternative, to re-open the public hearing.
Section 6: Modifications to the conditions of approval entitle the applicant/appel-
lant to a refund of one-half of the appeal fee, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code Section 17.80.120.
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 8 of 9
A-33
Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely
affected by the City's final action in this matter may, within thirty (30) days after such
action, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings
before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and the other records of
this proceeding on file with the City, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 230, thereby approving revisions to Condition
No. 19 of Conditional Use Permit No. 230, thereby approving the commercial use of certain
antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site of a single-family
residence, located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, in the Grandview community, subject to the
conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July 2005.
Attest:
Sta.te of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2005-75 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 5, 2005.
Resolution No. 2005-75
Page 9 of 9
A-34
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-75 • EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230
(26708 Indian Peak Road)
The following condition of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27 and Resolution
No. 2004-109 is hereby revised to read as follows:
19. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action on this
application, the applicant shall complete the necessary improvements to
make the house habitable, including a functional kitchen, toilet and bathing
facilities, heating, and utility connections for gas, electricity, water and
sewer, which shall be maintained continuously, regardless of whether or
not the house is actually occupied. The applicant shall arrange for the
provision of weekly landscape and maintenance service at the property to
ensure that the structure and grounds are maintained free from litter,
debris, and overgrown vegetation in compliance with the City's Municipal
Code so as not to become an eyesore.
Except as expressly modified herein, all of the prior recitals, findings of fact,
conclusions of law and conditions of approval from Resolution No. 2002-27, as
originally adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on April 16, 2002,
and Resolution No. 2004-109, as originally adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council on December 21, 2004, remain unchanged.
Resolution No. 2005-75
Exhibit A
Page 1of1
A-35
Exhibit C
A-36
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Community Development Department
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR
REVISION TO EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) procedure provides for uses that are:
• Necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but
cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason
of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or
surrounding uses; or
• Appropriate as accessories to the development of neighborhoods or the
community; or
• Appropriate uses in the districts In which they are listed as permitted subject
to a conditional use permit, but requiring specific consideration of the
proposed use or development.
Furthermore, any proposed change which substantially intensifies occupancy or land coverage
on a site may require a revision to an existing conditional use permit.
In completing the CUP application, you should take particular care in answering the "Burden of
Proof' statements (attached). The "Burden of Proof' statements refer to the four findings which
the Planning Commission has to make in order to grant a CUP. It is very important that these
questions be answered thoroughly and accurately. By so doing, you will enable the Staff and
Planning Commission to better assess the merits of your proposal. If you have any questions
about the "Burden of Proof' statements, please contact one of our staff planners.
Also, please make certain to complete and submit the attached Environmental Information and
Checklist Form. The Checklist will be used by staff to determine whether the proposed project
warrants an exemption form the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If not exempt, a
formal Environmental Assessment application ($5,594 for an Initial Study/Negative Declaration
.QI.$5,642 +Trust Deposit for an EIR) will be required.
" , ..... · .. ~·.· : .)t{ .. ·. jJ~.p~~r~~~:.*\;1}{~:~:·.:·-}'.;·.~1:/:~ ~;\~-':.·. ;:_·:.,.. .. _.· ..
• ··When•;Y,ou·are. r,eady, to{flle · ygpr·tarif:l.llcat1bn;.;.fnjK~.tertaln 1tfiEJ~fentir~: ~P'f)lfcation is-·
.•.• •compl~~d · anp;;.thah\¥01.t •. ~n~~~ · t~IJ:~'.~';ih'e .:. refiµrr~qt · ·c•.· "·' • ·1~:':' omt1.eRWl$E;~';;J(HE ·
•' APPLICATIONCANmG>T:BE•A'COEl?JlEl:n170R'.FIUN .: ' i ,• '.'.:\ :;· ~·2·e.~. '
. ~1~~Jaj~~~it~f J~~i~~t~111~~~~ti&l~\\~ti~1~~l''~~; .
. proper:~w·al)d· .. tl:l~Cl,W;;;~.~-~s::riJ\)t'e~[9r~.~>:~r:J\'~~e.:cq,~1R'.~"';.•:Ji~e·'.CJty,.?.r~eorytg:i~11ds, that·,
·.··propeijy··own~rs.revift3w .. thelt~ltletre.R,qrCtc>~~'fif·.a~.,,c;;9~R~~'i·goy9r{f,'theirp.rP1?eriY.:a11c:j,.if
sd, . c~hsulf :sijoll·. b$~~1s '.'pi'iqr •kE:~UbmittijJ.~of:tMir'··~p ... ·•'';qq .. ~~t:i\.adit@i~Jly,, Pf Prie#V ·
owners· ~h(?Uld reyieW. the,ir'"fiil~': (~pbj'.t·fs>tiany;:ottier.· PXli/a El 'P{9perty>/E1$~ridi~rj~ '(DEl~d ·,
H~strictior,ffPrivate£asementretc;.r.tnatrnav·.f.JpV:'3rn·tnelh·proi:>erf.v. · ·· · · · · , >1 · ·
A-37
Reqyjred Submittal Materials:
\,/
___ Residential Planning Application, completed and signed by the property owner
~/ ___ Burden of Proof Statements
y'
Environmental Information and Checklist Form ---
_v_"_Three (3) copies of site plan (minimum scale: Xt'' = 1 ') Indicating:
• Accurate lot dimensions, all property lines, and all easements on the lot.
• The adjacent street right-of-way and the access driveway of the lot (length and width
specified).
• Topography of the lot indicated by either elevation call-outs or topographic contours.
• The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures (delineated
existing and proposed).
• The distance from all existing and proposed structures to the property lines.
• If applicable, the location of the Coastal Setback line.
• For hillside development, indicate areas of slopes exceeding a 35% gradient.
___ Three (3) copies of elevations, including section drawings, Indicating:
• The maximum height of the proposed structure, measured from the highest point of
existing grade covered by the structure to the ridge, of the structure (including any
roof tiles, roof shingles or other proposed roof material).
• The maximum height of the proposed structure, measured from the finished grade
adjacent to the lowest foundation to the ridge.
fV / 14· Three (3) copies of floor plans
"1 / iq· If applicable, a parking plan indicating layout and landscaping.
All plans must be assembled in complete sets and folded no larger than 9W' x 14". If so desired
by the applicant. only one copy of the site plan. elevation drawing and floor plan may be
submitted as part of the Initial application package. Once it is determined by the Director that
the submitted plans contain all the necessary Information described In this application. then the
appropriate number of plans (3 copies) will be requested from the applicant. Three (3) reduced
copies (no larger than 11" by 17") of all regular sized plans must also be submitted (Note: For
applications that are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. once the application has been
deemed complete. you will be required to submit an electronic version of the plans).
,,J
~I
___ Two (2) copies of a "vicinity map", prepared to scale, which shows all neighboring
properties within a 500' radius of the subject property (applicant). The "Vi9inity Map"
,/must be prepared exactly as described in he attached instruction sheet.
/
___ Two (2) sets of self~adhesive mailing labels and one ( 1) photocopy of the labels which
list the property owner of every parcel which falls within a 500' radius of the subject
property (applicant). The name and address of every property owner (including
applicant) and the local Homeowners' Association, if any, must by typed on 8%'' by 11"
sheets of self-adhesive labels. The mailing labels must be keyed to the corresponding
A-38
/
lots, as shown on the vicinity map described above. The property owner's mailing list
. must be prepared exactly as described in the attached instruction sheet.
\/''/..-' ___ Filing Fee:
1) \ .. '! \I • New CUP $7,222 + Data Processing Fee $4::: $7,226
1 ' • New CUP for Commercial Antenna $2,622 + Data Processing Fee $4 = $2,626
?,;,.,,· "';tfo,rl"A»,,/ • Revision to a CUP $4,730 +Data Processing Fee $4::: $A,Z~4-----· -
l~.-f"hy e1,(1"c~d'<.(-{ • In addition to the above Filing Fee, an $18 Historic Data Entry Fee (one time per
property) may be assessed if applicable.
~A completed copy of the "Storm Water Planning Program Priority Project Checklist'' form.
If necessary, a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and/or a Site
Specific Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SSSMP), along with associated Maintenance
Agreements, Transfer Forms and Trust Deposit (amount to be determined by Staff) shall
also be completed. Prior to preparing a SUSMP or SSSMP, please consult with the
Planning Division Staff.
Processing
Once the application has been deemed complete by formal notification, staff will evaluate your
project in preparation for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Please note that
the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otheiwise
supplement existing data. It is strongly suggested that you supply any requested information in
a timely manner in order to avoid any delay in the processing of your application.
Typical processing time for a Conditional Use Permit is anywhere from 3 to 6 months, from the
date of submittal to the date a decision Is made. You will be notified of the date of the public
hearing on your project once the application is deemed complete. Staff will prepare a report
and make a recommendation to the Commission. It is Important that you plan to attend the
hearing so that you may answer any questions the Planning Commission may raise.
(More detailed information regarding Conditional Use Permits is contained in Chapter 17 .60 of
the City's Development Code).
A-39
BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENTS
1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use.
<--1r. ·
2. Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed
to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use .
...-rL l :l~tvu'\. "-· 6v · ,, (')I; 5tll.t<Jcc :~ l\A'\. c-Z cA ( s )\!1_.S
3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no significant adverse effect
on adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof .
.,..,\(<'... cA.h. ',t\l'\&....J (i\. H. J ·s v f) Lii{.J .;+\0t..uJ.-o<~~
t>v"\. (JIJ· l. l\U rh.b.e.f ~ -. e(~rs ?.oo tf)
i}l'.1;( D. ?. 30. flu.:,L. l.:k·
1M .. <ti't!.J0 &.. \11\0 J. ·,.. . . . ..: .. . ~ J ·'. k 's ·t · G Vi\ m flfU it.1 t ttl ··""rl •1. ~ ....... rf \e.f'(. U
T\):i\ ct.. c 0-nc.t o~ clo..mc\cre .. ({> acj-rtce lt~ ~i'Df'e.tJ.ct~5 <AV\~ rnva.1.-cj hco ,~Q.Q ... ". T°?Y;l.avel.
4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan .
._.,. L rtv-{-~J1vVL a.V). "'-~(}c. P''l A(}
OV\ · -).rt· S ~Vv'vl''J"L ~ D(\ • Ju OD--~ (;>t.;._-1 i>.{
IV\ t.. t 1-~ -(v.., t vi .a J: . -~ L-t r:<. t j·
t\i) ( l'Y-\ '(.... L'f,;;;· )-V\ ··(!,(fl'\ <) • ·-\'((.(, -( L 6Jv-, l'. ,12.J ~~);-\ ()('' (),;;SA' , -~c-,j
fv_,{·.-a. lo. v-(~e ,HfLt. c+V(c. l ~\ ~(t:.r;t"'\ 5 c-+·:: 0 _ -ttfJ"l l:c-.. l or si~&UA..r.Z. o .. rd...
1_,.11n .. l~.s.s '{\-'/\t·<..Ytn.ti.1":;'.,,t C.:Y'"''"·\('r"cv~.n,1 -((t_,-L. i·; i\O 1W\f)fA.Lf Cm
,I [1 1 \;'·~"( ) ' f ( c>l •. -<? .. <:;,.'(Cl.\. 1.t. cv ,J,
A-40
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by City Staff)
Date Flied:
(To be completed by applicant)
General Information
APPLICANT /CONTRACTOR
i) ,,.-t~;v\ Stt11Je:
( aJ). Ljqj .. 01 TYL
Home Phone Work Phone
Project/Site Information
LANDOWNER
/):.yt J ( ~VI
Name
./J. ,, ..... .,
'(O box
Address
v~ V\ (lo L, ()
City/State/Zip
Home Phone
Address of project: 2_ ·' 0 'ti ... f~ tll t~v\ -;::l'<A k
Assessor's Parcel Number: 7~>11 0 l ~) 0 3 0
(~LS') qq ""/ :t/Di>
Work Phone
Existing General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: ,~K.5 -,S-________
List and Describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, Regional, State, and Federal agencies:
;-;::~Le. ... --~~f (,.L. I' 0-f { i) ~th J f\ L (' c ... J .. l 0 ;\ J Co ~Y\_,£-V\_ ~ s JI l.~> r\
Page 13
A-41
Page 2
J 1 \
Site Size: 1 f8 0 ' Project Square Footage: In r-tpt.\1\+-
Number of floors of construction: vV} ~\-I
Amount of off-street parking provided: _,N'--+-/14fl __
Proposed Phasing:
Anticipated Incremental Development: _ _:_/V_/_A_-----------------
If this is a residential project, please indicate the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range
of sale prices or rents, and household sizes expected:
rJ( ~-
If this is a commercial project, please indicate the type of project, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square foot of sales area, and loading facilities.
&,Jhnoct Arc}
If this is an Industrial project, please indicate the type of project, estimated employment per
shift, and loading facilities:
tJ/~\
------------~---~----------~-----~
---·---
Page 14
A-42
Page 3
If this is an Institutional project, please indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project:
If the project involves a City discretionary permit (such as Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or
Zone Change application, etc.) please indicate why these applications are required:
t+ 11/} ' l'l[·" \}, . CV\f 1 r;.,,,,.· \\ v (..i,,.c
Are any of the following items applicable to the project or its effects? (for any Items checked yes,
please describe why on separate sheet of paper)
YES NO
,,...,.,..
./
----
,,.
/
\,//
---
//
l/
1,,/',/
\.,/ ---•'
·" v/
---
,..
v'
------
•"
··' --I,,•'
v/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Change In existing feature of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hllls, or
substantially alter ground contours.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, or
public lands or roads ?r-e..,e,;.;£.\~··u<-; f\i.·d . .enn.r•.. An·-·a.~~
Change in pattern, scale, or character of general area of project.
Produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream, ground water quality or quantity,
or alteration of existing drainage patterns
Substantially change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Site is on filled land or on slope of 10% or more.
Use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammables, or explosives.
Page 15
A-43
Page 4
/ v 10. Substantially change the demand for municipal services (I.e. police,
fire, water, sewage, etc.).
/
,I
---11.
/
Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (i.e. electricity, oil,
natural gas, etc.).
/ 12. Relationship to a larger project or a series of projects.
Environmental Setting
On a separate page, please describe the project site, as it exists before the project. Please
include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical,
or scenic aspects. Additionally, please describe any existing structures on the site, and the use
of said structures. Please attach photographs of the site and the structures (snapshots or
polaroid photos will be accepted)
On a separate page, please describe the surrounding properties. Please include information on
plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Please indicate the type of
land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of the land use (single-family, multi-family.
shops, department stores, etc.) and the scale of development (height, frontage, setbacks, etc.).
Please attach photographs of the vicinity (snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted)
NOTE: Before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can accept this application as complete, the
applicant must consult the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code
and submit a signed statement indicting whether the project and any alternatives are located on
a site which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list (Please see attached
Hazardous Waste and Substance Statement).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please complete the attached Exhibit "A"
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and Information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statement, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and ~,~H7f. V'-l / __ / / /) c: / \:"J! ()l ~f~:i;\i-._,,,9---·--·' I 01::y\ ~?-ro1\J ~--
-"... -Signature Print Name
1tt.4-fw,, , LLC //
./ .~-Vl, d,c <>v~\
For / I Date
Page 16
A-44
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
EXHIBIT "A"
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please check of level of impact for each question. In
comment box, please provide reasons and supporting evidence for the section (attach
additional pages if necessary).
Issues and Supporting lnfqrwatlon Sources Pohtntlally Poterttlally Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unle&S Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE ANO PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation including, but
\,// not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning
ordinance?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
v/·'' plans or policies adopted by agencies
with jurisdiction over the project?
C) Be incompatible with existing land use ,,/
In the vicinity?
\,·"'/
d) Conflict with any applicable habitat \_.,.,....,,.,.
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established v/ community (including a low-Income or
minority community)?
Comments:
2. POPULATION ANO HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or y··/'
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth In an area
l// either directly or Indirectly (e.g. through
projects In an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially ~./'
affordable housing?
Page 17
A-45
Page 6
Issues and Supporting lnfonnatlon sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Displace substantial numbers of
,/
-'
people, necessitating the construction
v·
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structure to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault.
as delineated on the most recent
Alqulst-Priolo Earthquake Fault //
Zoning Map Issued by the State v
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? ,,.
Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? \,/
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, \/'"/ lncludinQ liauefaction? ~
iv) Landslldes? V"
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the \//
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geological unlt or soil
that is unstable, or that wol1id become /
unstable as a result of the project, and /
potentially result in on or off site \,../
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as /
defined in the Uniform Building Code, t.,/ thus creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Page 18
A-46
Page 7
Issues and Supporting lnfonnatlon Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Have soils incapable or adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or v/ alternative wastewater disposal
systems, where sewers are not
available for 1he disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standard or v~-
wastewater discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater ,/' supplies or Interfere substantially with v" groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of 1he site or areas, including
1,.// through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas Including
).,,// through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially
Increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on or off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing t ,/'
or planned storm water drainage /
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
/,,,·"''•'
t,-
Page 19
A-47
Page8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Les11 Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
.Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
//. hazard area, as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood k
Insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 1 QQ.year flood hazard
area, structures which would impede or
1./
/'
redirect nood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, Injury, or death v/ involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Expose people or property to V"',..../
,-
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mud flow? , ..
k) Have construction impact on storm v"'·
water runoff?
I) Have post construction activity impact
v/·
on storm water runoff?
Comments:
G. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or / v
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality vioialfon?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to v·-
substantial pollutant concentrations?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region Is non· I/ attainment under an applicable federal v
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Create objectionable odors affecting a
/
d) v',..
substantial number of people?
Page 20
A-48
Page 9
Issues ilnd Supporting Information Sources PotentliillY Potentlally Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
e) Conflict with or obstruct the \/'/
Implementation of any applicable air
quality plan?
Comments:
6. TRANSP()RTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal:
a) Cause an Increase in traffic that is \./'
~
substantial In relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system?
b) Exceed either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service /
standard established by the county \/
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in inadequate emergency \;/,/ access or Inadequate access to nearby
uses?
d) Result In insufficient parking capacity
/
t,,/
on-site or off-site?
e) Result in a change in air traffic \//' patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in locatton
that results in substantial safety risks?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, ,/
or programs supporting alternative \,,,/
transportation (e,g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Substantially increase hazards due to a ,.r''
design feature (e.g, sharp curves or /
dangerous intersections) or \/
incompatible uses (e,g. farm
equipment?
Comments:
Page 21
A-49
Page 10
lssue3 and Supporting Information Sources Potenttally Potentlally Less Than No ..
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless • Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resultin:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat ~/,.. modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive //~>
natural community identified in local or v
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean /
Water Act (Including, but not limited to, v/
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ... ),
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or /
migratory fish or wildlife species or with v/
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites
e) Conflict with any local polices or /,,.-ordinances protecting biological I/ resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or !;'/,/ Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
Page 22
A-50
Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Slgnlflcant Significant 1 Impact
ls1wes Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. ENERGYAND MINERAL RESOURCES. ·would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy l-''/
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a v,,,.
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a /
known mineral resource that would be v/
of future value to the region and the
residents of the Slate?
C) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally Important mineral resource /
recovery site delineated on a local v
General Plan, Specific Plan, or other
land use plan?
Comments:
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would the proposal Involve:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the t,,/
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through / reasonably foreseeable upset and v/ accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous ~/,/ materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of and existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site, which Is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites I /, ... --
complied pursuant to Government /
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Page 23
A-51
Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentlatly Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
ltJcorporated
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan /
has not been adopted, Within two miles v
of a pubilc airport or public use airport,
would the project result In a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a \r_,.../,,. private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
/1'"' interfere with, an adopted emergency V"'
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death _,.,,,.,,,.
involving wildland fires, including where \/'
/
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
10. NOiSE. Would the proposal result In:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation ./' of noise levels in excess of standards v /
established In the local General Plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation ~-/' of excessive groundboume vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent Increase in
ambient noise levels in the project /
vicinity above levels existing without v"
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic ,/'
increase in ambient noise levels in the 1,,/
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Page 24
A-52
Page 13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan v/ has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or a public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
v·"',,,. private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working In
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Comments:
11. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provisions of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i) Fire protection? \/
ii) Police protection? v /
lil) Schools? /' t/
Iv) Parks? v',,...
v) Other public facilities? I/ /
Comments:
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment [,// requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Page 25
A-53
Page 14
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Require or result In the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing /'
facilities, the construction of which \/
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or ,,
expansion of existing facilities, the v/
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available /
to serve the project from existing , .. ,,.-
entitlements and resources, or are new \/
or expanded entillements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the V' project's projected demand In addition
to the providers existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate ~·'·"'~
the project's solid waste disposal v·'
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
,
/
statures and regulations related to \;//
solid waste?
Comments:
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic (,,/./
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, v/ trees, rock outcroppings, and historical
buildings, within a state scenic
highways?
Page 26
A-54
Page 15
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Substantially degrade the existing /' ~/
visual character or quality of the site ~/
and its surroundings? ·
d) Create a new source of substantial
tight or glare, which would adversely /
l/'/ affect day or nighttime views In the
area?
Cornments:
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource ~,,.,,,,,,~
as defined in §15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change In
the significance of an archaeological \,.,//'
resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique / -
paleontological resource or site or \,/
unique geological feature?
e) Disturbed any human remains, ~//
,
Including those Interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Comments:
Page 27
A-55
Page 16
Issues and Supporting Information Soutces Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Slgnlflcant Slgnlflcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or \,-,/ other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or /
expansion of recreational facilities, V'
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments:
16. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on /'
the maps prepared pursuant to the \/
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Connie! with existing zoning for /
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 'v·/
contract?
C) Involve other changes In the existing
environment that, due to their location v/
or nature, could result In conversion of
Farmland, to a non-agricultural use?
Comments:
Page 28
A-56
Environmental Information Form
Page 17
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate Important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comments:
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Comments:
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments:
\,/
/
V"
,/
It,/
,/
Page 29
A-57
Environmental Information Form
Page 18
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
w./forms/Environmental Information Form
Page 30
A-58
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A VICINITY MAP AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
In order to satisfy public noticing requirements, certain planning applications require the submittal of a vicinity
map and accompanying property owners list. The size of the vicinity map varies by application and may
Involve either adjacent properties, a 100' radius, or a 500' radius. Please check on the application form you
are submitting for the vicinity map size you must submit.
With the exception of "Adjacent Properties" maps, a vicinity map and property owners list must be prepared by
a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service. The mailing labels must be certified as
accurate by the agent preparing the mailing list. Attached is a list of firms that provide services in preparation
of vicinity maps and certified mailing labels. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list and the cost of the
services provided will vary.
If you have any questions regarding properties of the vicinity map or property owners list, as described below,
please contact a planner at (310) 544-5228.
VICINITY MAP
The purpose of the vicinity map is to clearly show all properties within the required radius of the subject lot
(applicant). The vicinity map must clearly show the required radius line, dimensioned and drawn from the
exterior boundaries of the subject lot, as shown below. All neighboring properties (including lots outside R.P.V.
city limits) which fall completely within, partially within or are just touched by the radius line, must be
consecutively numbered and the names and the addresses of the owners provided to the City as described
below. Please devise your own consecutive numbering system on the map and ignore the lot number,
Assessors number, or any other number already found on the lots on the vicinity maps. An "adjacent
properties" vicinity map does not involve a set radius but rather needs to identify all properties behind, beside,
and in front of the proposed project site, as shown below. The city's planning staff can provide the base map
for preparing the vicinity map for a nominal charge. Applicants may also prepare their own maps, at a clearly
marked scale of not fess than 1" = 200'.
PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST
The property owner of every parcel (even if vacant, rented or government owned), which falls completely or
partially within the required radius on the vicinity map must be Identified, placed on a mailing list and submitted
to the City. The name and address of every property owner along with the assigned lot Identification number,
which corresponds to the vicinity map, must be neatly typed on 8 W' x 11 sheets of Xerox or Avery self-
adhesive labels, as shown below. Two (2) sets of self-adhesive labels and a Xerox copy of the list must be
provided to the City with your subject application. These labels will be used by the City to mall notice of your
subject application to neighboring property owners. The property owners list must be obtained from the most
current L.A. County Tax Assessor's roll. The Citv does not provide this service. The Assessor's office located
at 500 W. Temple Street, Room 205, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Office hours are 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday~
Friday. The telephone number is (213) 974-3441.
SAMPLE MAILING LABELS
Assigned Lot 1.0. Number
Property Owner Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
1
Harold Jackson
773 Graylog
RPV, CA 90275
2
Malcolm Hill
4117 Greenwood Meadow
Torrance, CA 90503
SAMPLE VICINITY MAPS
A-59
City of ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Community Dovolopmont Deportment
CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING LIST
Notice Radius Required ___ :-_'S,_c:_c_J '----------------
Number of property owners to be notified _ ___._1
t,;._· -----------
I certify that the property owners' mailing list submitted with the application(s) listed above includes all
of the persons listed on the latest adopted LA County Tax Roll as the legal owners {and If applicable
occupants) of all parcels of /and within <; 01:, •feet of the subject property noted above. I certify that the
property owners' mailing list has been prepared in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code and "Vicinity Map Instructions Sheet." I also understand that if more than 20% of
the notices are returned by the post office after mailing due to incorrect address information, or if the
address information is not complete, that I will have to submit a new property owners' list that has
been prepared and certified as accurate by a Title Company or other professional mailing list
preparation service, and the project notice will have to be re-mailed.
Property 0wner (Applicant) Signature
A-60
Exhibit D
A-61
CITY OF
August 2, 2018
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wlll conduct a public hearing on
Tuesday, August 21, 2018, at 7:00PM at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho
Palos Verdes to consider the following:
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230 !CASE NO. PLMH2018..0001l-ln accordance to
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.86.060, the City Council will consider revoking
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 because of th• ln•tallatlon of unpermltted antennas exceeding the
maximum of 5 Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts. RPVMC §17.80,080
states that If any of the conditions to the uee or development are not maintained, then the Condltlonal
Use Permit shall be null and void. The continued operation of a use requiring a Conditional Use
Permit that I• found In noncompliance with any condition of approval shall constitute a violation of
RPVMC. The ln1tallatlon of the unpermltted antennae constitutes a violation of the Council-approved
Conditions of Approval adopted under Re1olutlon No•. 2004-109 and 2005-75 and the RPVMC.
LOCATION: 26708 lndlan Peak Road
APPLICANT: James Kay
LANDOWNER: James Kay
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those thoughts in writing to
Mr. Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development, by Friday, August 10, 2018. By doing so, you will ensure
that your comments are taken into consideration for the staff analysis of the project. All correspondence received after
August 10, 2018 wlll be given separately to the City Council on the night of the meeting. Please note that written
materials, Including emails, submitted to the City are publlc records and may be posted on the City's website. In
addition, City meetings may be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish
to omit personal Information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the public record
regarding an Item on the agenda.
Information on the project, including past staff reports and project plans, are on file in the Community Development
Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review from 7:30 AM to 5:30
p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 p.m. Friday.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Director of Community Development Ara Mlhranlan
a r · v · . ov for further Information.
Ara Mihra P
Director of Community Development
NOTE: §TATE GOVERNMENT QQQ.& §eCTION 85009 NQTICE: If you challenge this application In court, you
may be limited to raising only those l11ues you or someone else raised In written correspondence
dellvared to the City of Rancho Palo8 Verdes during the public review period described In this notice.
PUBLISHED IN THE PENINSULA NEWS ON AUGUST 2, 2018
30940 HAWTHORNE BOLlEVARD I RANC~O PALOS VEROES. CA 90275·5391 I (310l 544·5228 I FAX i310l 544-5293 WWW RPVCA.GOV
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A-62
Exhibit E
A-63
Barty ;\. Bradley
Thomas I'. Gmclich
Lena J. Mur<lcrosian
.Jonathan A. Ross *
Lindy fi. Brn<lley
Jaimee K. Wellcrstcin
Katluyn Canale
J arnes JI. Saunders
John K Flock
Robert J\, Crook**
Mark I. Melo'*
Darren P, S'<tlute
Carol A Hllmiston*·"
Stephan P. Hyun
Danen G. MRycrs**
Lily Nhan
Sabrina Brlll
Dawn Cushman't
Angela l'vf. ](ossi**
J ennic Barkinslmya
Christian Castro
Dana M. Enyart
Arin Norijanian**
Via First Class Messenger
Ara Mihranian
BRADLEY ,> G1"1ELICH
Lawyers
700 N. Brand Boulevard, 10th Floor
Glendale, California 91203
Telephone (818) 243-5200
Facsimile (818) 243-5266
www.bglawyers.com
August 10, 2018
Director Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Re: REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 230
(CASE NO. PLMH2018-000J)
Location: 26708 Indian Peak Road
AppJicant: James Kay
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2018
Dear Mr. Mihranian:
N orthcrn Califomia 0 ffice
2033 Gateway Place, 5th Floor
San Jose, C;tlifornia 95110
Telephone (408) 573·6267
fiacsimilc (408) 43'/-1201
Harold A. Lallfer, Of Counsd
* Admitted in multiple jllrisdictions
** Special Coun.sel
i'Ccrtifie<l Specialist, AppeJJate Law
sbrill@bglawycrs.com
Our client, Indian Peak Properties, LLC ("IPP"), was provided a copy of the enclosed
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dated August 2, 2018, from his prior counsel Michel &
Associates on August 6, 2018. On August 8, 2018, we were retained by IPP to resolve this matter
and yesterday on August 9, 2018, we requested an extension of time or continuance of the
hearing via email to you and to Glen Tucker, Esq. your counsel. We spoke with Mr. Tucker
yesterday and he has advised us that the City staff and City Attorney refused to grant our office a
continuance or extension despite the fact that we were just brought into this case yesterday.
Therefore, we submit this correspondence with our comments and concerns about the
proposed project, pursuant to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dated August 2, 2018.
It appears that the City is attempting to prohibit a wireless caITier from providing
telecommunication services.
A-64
r<
Ara Mihranian BRADLEY l::iLGMELICH LLP
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Lawyers
Page 2
A. Background and Granting Original CUP
The City Council approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 230 via Resolutions No.
2004-109 and 2005-75 in December 2004 and July 2005, respectively, approving the use of five
roof mounted antennae support pole masts, with four antennae on each support pole mast, at the
subject property.
On November 28, 2014, the City issued a Notice of Violation ordering the removal of all
but five vertical antennae from the roof, and requiring that the remaining five vertical roof
antennae comply with the Council-adopted conditions of the original CUP No. 230. The City
also informed the IPP that an after-the-fact revision of its CUP would be required in order for the
City to consider allowing the unpermitted antennae to remain.
The additions to the roof-top structures were merely modifications to the existing
structures and as such, did not require additional engineering or any other revisions to the CUP.
On April 25, 2016, the City Attorney's office stated that the City would not approve any
after-the-fact additions to the roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts beyond those
authorized by the Council in the original CUP. On July 26, 2016, the City directed IPP to remove
all but the five roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts, to remove the large drum
structures from the roof~ and to submit the standard application for a Revision to an Existing
Conditional Use Permit, as well as the information required by RPVMC Section
l 7.76.020(A)(12)(b), with the exception of the frequency compatfoility study (which the City
determined was not necessary).
B. Completion of the Application for Modification of CUP 230
On October 28, 2016, the City received the application requesting a revision to CUP No.
230 from IPP. Ms. Mikhail, Senior Planner for the City, responded to the application on
November 23, 2016, indicating that the application "incomplete." Ms. Mikhail indicated that
what is needed for the review process to proceed to modify CUP No. 230.
• Elevations per RPV Municipal Code Section 17. 76.020(A)(l 1 (a)(i) that, at minimum,
detail the height of each roof-mounted ante1mae, support pole mast, and any additional
roof-top structure;
•Evidence of compliance with RPV Municipal Code Section 17.76.020(A)(10)(a), (b),
i.e. statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) that there has been compliance with those agencies'
regulations, copies of permits and licenses issued by those agencies (including the
Specialized Mobil Radio license), and proof that all permits and licenses are current and
valid; or a statement from the FAA and FCC that no such compliance is necessary;
A-65
Ara Mihranian BRADLEY (&tGMELICH LLP
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Lawyers
Page 3
• A statement of Anticipated Maintenance Needs in compliance with RPV Municipal
Code Section l 7.76.020(A)(6), by which the City will be apprised of the frequency of
anticipated truck traffic on Indian Peak Road that serves the roof-mounted antennae and
support pole masts on the subject prope1iy;
• Clear photos of the roof and all structures thereon from eastern, western, northern and
southern perspectives, i.e. a 3600 view of the entire assembly; and
• Evidence that the setbacks are adequate to contain any debris in the event of antenna
support mast failure. The review of the prope1iy side yard setbacks appear to be
approximately five (5) feet and are inadequate to contain debris in the event of a failure.
RPV Municipal Code Section 17.76.020(A)(2) requires a minimum of a twenty-five (25)
foot setback to each prope1iy line, as measured from the base of the equipment. Some of
the antenna support pole masts extend more than twelve (12) feet above the roofline.
If IPP provided the necessary infonnation described above, City staff would process the
application to revise the Conditions of Approval of CUP No. 230.
C. April 2017 letter
The letter from counsel for the City, Glen Tucker Esq. on April 14, 2018, indicated that
the City Attorney's office believes that this matter was capable of resolution by City staff and
the prope1iy owner and thus an imminent threat of litigation did not exist.
He also indicated the City was willing to suspend all code enforcement actions so long as
IPP processes its application for the CUP revision in good faith with the above-identified
corrections, and that the City would meet with IPP and counsel "to mitigate any
misunderstanding in communication." Mr. Tucker indicated the City was "happy to meet and
outline a process to identify issues and ensure appropriate information can timely be generated
for the City Council to make a decision."
C. June 2017 letter from Michel & Associates
The letter from counsel for IPP explained IPP's position that they complied with the July
26, 2016 instructions, and satisfied all the requirements of the appropriate Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) sections for IPP's Conditional Use Permit application.
IPP did not believe it was appropriate for the City to demand additional information in
order io complete this CUP modification process.
The City continued to conflate two separate and distinct municipal code sections, and
seems to apply them in whatever way suits the City, rather than as dictated by the language of
the code itself
A-66
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 4
,,,.-1
BRADLEY ~LGMELICH LLP
Lawyers
The RPVMC provides for two distinct review processes for commercial antennas:
(1) for "new towers! related structures and tower sites" for new installation or operation
[Section 17.76.020(A)(11) and (12)(a)]; and
(2) for "new antennas mounted on existing towers or structures" [Section
7.76.020(A)(12)(b )] .
IPP has maintained for years that all it is seeking to add new antennas to an existing
tower, and it is therefore subject only to Section 17. 76.020(A)(12)(b ). Previously the City
recognized that IPP's CUP application is for a modification of existing commercial antenna, and
that 17. 76.020(A)( 12)(b) was the applicable section. It is not an application for a new installation
or operation of commercial antennas.
As requested, IPP paid the fee and filed an Application for Revision to an Existing
Conditional Use Permit, as well as the information required by RPVMC section
17.76.020(A)(12)(b), with the exception of the frequency compatibility study, which is: (1) an
approved engineering study addressing structural and power compatibility with the existing
tower and antennas, and (2) a list of all proposed support equipment and anticipated maintenance
needs.
Nonetheless, on November 23, 2016, City Planner, Leza Mikhail, claimed that IPP's
CUP application was incomplete and requested that IPP produce "additional" information not
required by the applicable code section. The April 14, 2017 demand letter was is in direct
conflict with the City's July 26, 2016 instructions for IPP to submit "information required by
RPVMC section 17.76.020(A)(12)(b), with the exception of the frequency compatibility study."
1. An "Element" is not an "Antenna."
In the City's April 14, 2017 letter they stated incorrectly that the CUP "approved the use
of five (5) roof-mounted antennae support pole masts, with four (4) antennae on each support
pole mast, at the subject property."
This misstates CUP No. 230. The City actually approved five (5) vertical antenna masts.
Each vertical mast is part of an antenna. The City approved that each of five masts may have up
to four ( 4) radiating elements affixed on each antenna mast. The elements are also necessary
parts of a functioning antenna.
So five antennas, each having four elements, are approved by the existing CUP.
Attachment "1" is a picture of a Sinclair antenna, and is an example of the type of
ante1ma used at Indian Peak property. Attachment 1 shows ONE "antenna,'' consisting of one
mast and four elements. It is not four antennas on a support mast.
A-67
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 5
2. The Residence at Indian Peak is the "Tower."
BRADLEY St GMELICH LLP
Lawyers
On page two of the City's April 14, 2017 letter, in footnote 1, they stated, "while new
antenna added to an existing tower can be Director-approved under RPVMC Section
l 7.76.020(A)(l2)(b), here there are additional towers and the modifications are substantial
compared to what was approved under CUP 230."
This is incorrect. There are no new towers at the property.
Indian Peak does not have the traditional "guy wired" or freestanding tower as depicted
in Attachments "4" and "5." The only "tower" at this site is the Indian Peak residence itself. The
residence/"tower" has not moved or changed in any way since CUP No. 230 was granted. The
"tower" was and remains in conformity with all previous setbacks and other code requirements.
There are no new or additional "towers," nor other support structures. There are only additional
antennas.
3. The Horizontal Metal Structure is Not a "Tower."
On page one, paragraph three the City's April 14, 2017 letter, they stated that ('near the
building's ridgeline there is a horizontal metal structure where one antenna appears to be
attached." Attachments "2" and "3" depict different aerial views of the Indian Peak property and
the "horizontal metal structure" on the roof. This "horizontal metal structure" has been referred
to in past correspondence as a "tower." It is not a "tower." The residence itself at lndian Peak is
the "tower." The "horizontal metal structure" on the roof is a cross-arm suppo1i truss upon which
antennas are mounted. The horizontal cross-arm truss is pre-existing and was approved by CUP
No. 230.
Since the subject property does not have a traditional ve1iical "tower" for its antennas
support structures, we have provided for illustration two examples of ve1iical towers mounted
with antennas. Attachment "4" is a photograph of a traditional tower that shows the cross-arm
and antenna mounted on the cross-arm. Attachment "5" is a different photograph of a traditional
ve1iical tower with cross arms. This picture shows a four element antenna mounted on a cross-
arm.
The tower and horizontal cross-arm structure were existing and originally approved under
CUP No. 230. Neither the "tower" nor the horizontal support truss has been changed. There are
no new "towers" on the property. In 2007, the City approved five (5) roof-mounted antennas on
the cross-arm.
Since the granting of CUP No. 230, the only changes at the property have been the
number and type of "antennas" mounted on the horizontal support cross-arm mounted on an
existing tower. It is not correct to assert that ve1iical antenna masts, or elements on those masts
A-68
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 6
BRADLEY ~si GMEUCH LLP
Lawyers
are "additional towers." There is only one tower, and one horizontal cross-arm support structure
to which the vertical antenna masts, are attached.
Since there have been no changes or modifications to the "tower" or the existing cross-
arm since 2007, and there is no new "tower," there is no reason for these additional "antennas" to
be categorized as a new commercial antem1a installation under Section 17.76.020(A)(l l). Only
ve1iical antenna masts have been added to the previously existing horizontal cross-arm truss
structure. These new antennas, added to the existing "tower" and horizontal suppo1i truss, can be
Director-approved under RPVMC section l 7.76.020(12)(b).
IPP was previously approved under Section 17.76.020(A)(l l) and CUP No. 230
[Resolution 2002-27 at page 4 of 171 acknowledged that "the proposed project complies with
tile development standards for commercial antennae, as specified in RPVDC Section
17. 76.020(A) (2) through (10)."
The City's November 23, 2016 and April 14, 2017 demands for "additional" information
pursuant to RPVMC section 17.76.020(A)(l 1) regarding antennas added to an existing tower are
not justified under the Municipal Code. But the City ca1mot merely state that IPP's CUP
application is incomplete or non-compliant. The City must cite legal authority for requiring
"additional" information under an application for modification of existing structure, Please
provide us with the legal authority under the RPVMC that requires a modification of additional
ante1mas to an existing tower to comply with a brand-new CUP process under Section
17.76.020(A)(l 1).
D. October 23, 2017 letter from City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The last correspondence received from counsel for the City regarding completion of the
Application for Revision of Conditional Use Permit No. 23 0, and setting up a meeting to discuss
the Antennae and Support Pole Masts at 26708 Indian Peak Road, was on October 23, 2017. As
we have just now received the file from prior counsel, there is no correspondence between the
parties from October 2017, until the Notice of Public Hearing date august 2, 2018.
This letter indicated that IPP must satisfy the additional requirements the City had set
fo1ih in order to address IPP's application to amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 230).
Further the City wanted to discuss "the potential for re-designing the current configuration of
antennae and supp01i pole masts by replacing the current structures, which you identified as
"obsolete," in order to avoid the City's reinstatement of code enforcement action (Case No.
ZON2016-00S17).
On June 28, 2017, City staff, Counsel, and the prope1iy owner met to discuss the subject
property and the potential to replace the antennae and supp01i structures that are "outdated" and
A-69
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 7
BRADLEY~.)( GMELICH LLP
Lawyers
11 obsolete 11 with an alternative that would both address the telecommunications capacity needs as
well as the City1s safety and aesthetic concerns with the cunent structures.
In September, 2017, the Office of the City Attorney reached out to Counsel who asked
the City to grant more time. After numerous communications back and forth between the Office
of the City Attorney and Counsel through September, 2017 and October, 2017, Counsel again
asked for an extension on October 19, 2017 for the property owner to acquire a new expediter
company
The October 23, 2017 letter advised IPP that:
"The City stands by its earlier determination not to approve any after-the-fact additions
to the roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts beyond the five (5) authorized by the City
Council. Moreover, given the City Council 1s 2005 determination not to grant the extensive
antennae installations requested by the property owner due to the negative aesthetic and safety
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and environment, the City staff contends that the
prope1iy owner1s request necessitates a Revision to the Council-adopted Conditional Use Permit,
which in turn requires a public hearing before the City Council and an opportunity for public
comment (see Condition No.2 of Resolution No. 2004-109). At this time, based on the current
submissions by the prope1iy owner, the City staff does not believe it can provide a favorable
recommendation to the City Council allowing an increase in the number of antennae and support
structures. Further, the City believes that additional antennae constitute a 11 substantial change" to
the physical dimensions within the meaning of both federal and state law."
The City then agreed to review the completed application, once all of the deficient
materials have been submitted. The City is also "willing to consider the replacement of the
existing roof-mounted antennae and suppo1i pole masts with newer, smaller, less obtrusive and
conspicuous structures"
"Were the property owner willing to replace the existing structures with modern ones that
are less conspicuous, smaller, and properly placed on the roof so as not to create safety concerns
over mast failure, the City staff would be more inclined to support an application regarding the
subject property before the City Council."
The City indicated they would schedule a meeting with the property owner and Counsel
to discuss realistic options by which the property owner can bring the subject property into
compliance with the RPV Municipal Code as well as to establish a mutually agreed-upon
timeline/compliance schedule to effectuate the selection compliance option. From our brief and
limited review of the file no such meeting was ever scheduled.
A-70
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 8
NOTICE OF HEARING DATED AUGUST 2, 2018.
BRADLEY l5:.t GMELfCH LLP
Lawyers
As stated above we have just been retained to resolve this matter in the past 48 hours. We
have consulted with our client and he is more than willing to work with the City to present
alternatives to modify ru1d update the presentation and appearance of the telecommunications
antennae on the subject prope1iy to be less conspicuous.
In the past 48 hours we have in fact secured the services of a new permit expeditor in
order to prepare engineering plans, drawings and visual representations for several alternative
configurations of the antennae to comply with the City's request to "replace the existing
structures with modern ones that are less conspicuous, smaller, and properly placed on the roof
so as not to create safety concerns over mast failure."
At this point we would ask that the City Council provide our office with a 60 day
extension in which to supply the required documentation in order to complete the Application for
Revision of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 a11d to provide representations and appropriate plans
and specifications for updating and replacing the structures with less conspicuous antennae. We
would also welcome the opportunity to set up a meeting to discuss possible alternatives which
would satisfy the City's safety concerns.
If we cannot obtain the extension or continuance of this hearing, prior to the hearing, then
we will need to appear at the hearing in order to preserve our clients right to appeal any adverse
decision by the city council.
Additionally our client has instructed our office to pursue an injunction should the City
decide to revoke our clients Conditional Use Permit without allowing him the opportunity to be
heard at a City Council meeting with enough notice, and without allowing him the time to meet
the prior requests and requirements by the City to provide updated and more modern alternative
designs and configurations for the antennae.
Please let us know if you have any questions and concerns and we look forward to your
prompt reply regarding this matter.
A-71
Ara Mihranian
Re: Conditional Use Permit 230
August 10, 2018
Page 9
,_,-,,
BRADLEY <l':~,·t GMELICH LLP
Lawyers
Thank you for your courtesy and consideration.
SSB/mrt
Enclosures: Attachments #1-#5
Very truly yours,
BRADLEY & EL~1 LLP _,,,.7 ' .,,,/ ~ ,//~, ,,
/~-·w-
"-ti'.,ina-K::·lJyiJl !...(,,,,.,,,,.....,,.....,..
A-72
ATTACHMENT "1"
A-73
Si~CLAIR~
Superior then, Superior now;
A Norsat Company lfV I No rs.at w 1m....,...~1<>e.
Antennas
UHF and Tetra Antennas
SD314-H Series
E
0 u . ..c:: u
Cl.) ..... u c::
(/)
i
SD314-HF2P4SNM(DOO) 4 dipole, 8,5 dBd, offset, N~Male, HD, 406-512 MHz
• Covers 406-512 MH:z
• 8.5 dBd gain wilh offset pattern.
Also referred as: SD314-HF2P4SNM
• 200W power handling
• Can be top or side mounted (Universal mount)
Recommend SMK·125·A3 side mount kit when side mounting antenna.
Available from Sinclair separately.
The SD314·H series is an extremely rugged 4-bay exposed dipole antenna designed
for applications where moderate gain Is required. These premlum-quallty antennas
are well suited to public safety applications.
The design of these antennas provides for coverage between 370 to 512 MHz in 2
sub bands, 370-460 MHz and 406-512 MHz for private mobile networks, public
safety and public security networks.
Region United States Europe, Middle East and Africa Caribbean and Latin America
Telephone USA: 1 800 263 3275
E-mail salesusa@slnctach.com
Product SpociJJca!lon Sheet
EPR 017310
Customer Te<:h Manual 005261
International: +44 (0) 1487 84 26 19
salesuk@slnctech.com
SD314-HF2P4SNM(OOO}
lnterna«onal: + 1 905 726 7675
salesla@slnctech.com
lilS\Ja: 5
Slncla!~s commtm<Jn\ to prod\Jc\ leadership may rosu\\ In lmprvvement or chooga to lhJs prod~I c opyrl{lht ai Sinclair Tec/mol~les
J;
Canada and rest of the Wc:Jrfd
Canada: 1 eoo 263 3275
International: +1 905 727 0166
salescan@alnctech.com
Dated: 31-10-14
DatAd: 24-10-14
Page 112
A-74
Si~CLAIRij
Superior then, Superior now.
A Norsat Company ~I Norsat \JI k'liW~)rK:..
Electrical Specification!
Fr§<Juency RanQ.L__ Mtiz 406 to 512
Connector _ N:Maie--·-·---.1
!3aln (nominal) dBd (dBi) _____ ,MliQ_.6~) ___ _
J.r!P.ul VSWR (ma.&._ 1.5:1 , __ _
Polarization vortiCal
impedance __ ~·:__-: o so
Pattern Offset~---
Horlzontal beamwldth (typ) . dWirees ____ 222 _ •
'.t~rtical beamwidlhl\Yll} __________ d_~9l.~L---· _______ 16 ______ _
Average Power lnput@?.J<.L ______ , ___ ~_w_____ 200 '2
Lightning grotectlo11 _ DC ground--=~~--
Electrical Ult (available) 065 16,8,or 10 degrees
Mechanical Sp~Eif!£?~!!.L ______ .,...,.__,, __ _
Depth ------~-···---.JD_{rri.mL.__ _____ '.1§..~-----
Length/ Height In (mm) 114 (2896)
~ldth_______________ In (mm) __ 1=2~(3.,..05.,_) ____ _
Base ~lameter In fillrr!1_ 2.38 (60)
Base pipe mounting lerJ.Qth In (mm) 36 (914)_ ______ _
Radiating element material ·-----aluminum
Base pipe material • ........al"'um=ln..,u"""m'--------
Welght ··-------------.J!?!j~_gL.__ 21 (9.53) ·----
Mounting Hardware_(QJ!llil.Q.fill_, _______ , ClampP05, Clamp015, Clamp130 1 orClamp1?§.\L __
Actual StiliiP..~ weJ.gJi ______ ,, _____ lbs (kgL _20 (9.08) ------
fill!el2lrul dimensions~-----· In (mm) 118x4x2.Q_,@)""'97-'-'-x1'""0=2x=50=B) ___ _
.MEuntl!Jfi configurations Universal Mount
B.ecommended ~Qr Offset Sida Mount: SMK·125·A~
Environmental Specifications
1~~~~~1.IWll! _________ :El:QL ____ .::1QJQ..!140 (-40 (O ~O)
Wind Loadlng_6.rn.~..{Elat Plate Equivalent) ft'...(m:l 1.73 (QJfil.._ •3 E Wind Loa9l!Jg Area (j~ _____ J\'Jm.'.L 4.38 J.9A1.L '4
0 Rated wind vej9£l!YJ!l~ mph (km/h) 215 (346)
(...) .B?led filnd velocilti1f2' radial Ice)__ mph (kJnlb) ~~15""5,.,.(2~50~) ____ , ..C Lateral thrust (100 mph No lgfil_____ lbs (N) 70 (311.4)_ •5
(...) Tor~nJ.filllliQO mph No le~ ft~bs (Nm) _____ !J.lL4~L ______ '6
(1) Bending moment (100 mph No Ice) fHbs (Nm) 1g_(17B.2) '7 t) "
t:: ·-(,/)
I
Antennas
UHF and Tetra Antennas
SD314-H Series
Notes
'1 : N·Famale available
'2 : 300 Watts at 40 degrees c
'3 : Fial plala equ!valanL
'4 : Flat plate equ!va!enL
'5 : Values based on 100mph and O Inches oflce.
'8 : Valullll based on 100rnph and 0 Inches of Ice,
*7 : Values based on 100mph and 0 Inches of Ice.
OrdGtlng lnfonnatlon
Clamps must be ordered separalely.
Region United States Europe, Middle East and Africa carlbbe1n and Latin America Canada and re1t of the world
Telephone USA: 1 800 263 3275
E·mall salesusa@slnctech.com
Product Spacillcallon Shoot
EPR 017310
Cu.glomerTooh Manual 005281
lntematlona!: +44 (0) 1487 84 28 19
salesuk@slnctech.com
SD3f4-HF2P4SNM(OOO)
lntamatlonal: +1 905 726 7676
sa!eala@slnciech.com
Issue: S
Slnclllll's oommtl/1\enl to produol leade~lp may result In lmprove~ntorellanga llJ this produa1
Copyrlghl Cl Sinclair Technologlas
Canada: 1 800 263 3275
International: +1 805 727 0165.
salescan@sl11ctech.com
Dated: 31·10-14
Dated: 24-10-14
Page 211.
A-75
ATTACHMENT "2"
A-76
A-77
ATTACHMENT ''3''
A-78
A-79
ATTACHMENT "4"
A-80
. + .
A-81
ATTACHMENT "5"
A-82
A-83
Exhibit F
A-84
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REVOKING IN ITS ENTIRETY
ANO EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 230 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS AND RELATED SUPPORT
STRUCTURES AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the Applicant/Appellant, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr.,
submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental
Assessment No. 744 for after-the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted,
roof-mounted antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for
commercial use; and,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local Cf';QA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and
Environmental Assessment No. 744 would not have a significant effect on the
environment and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to be
categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,
WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001. and while
the Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the
Applicant installed at least twelve (12) additional vertical antenna masts with attached
antennae onto the previously existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array,
including additional cables and conduits for the additional antennae; and on November 8,
2001, the Applicant submitted revised plans to the City depicting a total of twenty (20)
vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-mounted antenna support
structure and array; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,
A-85
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated
November 28, 2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location,
number and placement of antennas on the project site .... "; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
February 19, 2002, March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 16, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-27,
thereby denying the appeal, modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally
approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay flied suit against the City in Federal District
Court in order to overturn the City's decision on the grounds, among other things, that it
violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the
"City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James
A. Kay, Jr. to use his five (5) mast antenna structure for commercial purposes, subject to
reasonable conditions"; and,
WHEREAS, the City revised the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 to allow the commercial use of Mr. Kay's 5-mast, roof-mounted, antenna array,
which existed at the time and was depicted on plans provided to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes with the original submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230
on June 21, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was agendized for the City Council's review and
consideration on October 5, 2004, and November 16, 2004, but on both occasions the
matter was continued to a subsequent City Council meeting at Mr. Kay's request in order
to allow his legal counsel to discuss additional proposed revisions to the conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with the City Attorney; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 21, 2004, adopted Resolution
No. 2004n109, thereby revising eight (8) conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 pursuant to the July 14, 2004, order of the United States District Court; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay subsequently petitioned the United States District Court to
vacate the conditions of approval imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the United States District Court issued an order in
response to Mr. Kay's petition, finding that the provisions of Condition No. 19 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 requiring "that Mr. Kay maintain the property as his
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 2 of 7
A-86
primary residence [were] not reasonable.'' but also finding that all other conditions of
approval imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109 were reasonable; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, on July 5, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2005-75 revising the language for Condition No. 19 of Conditional Use Permit No.
230 thereby requiring that Mr. Kay complete necessary improvements to make the house
habitable, including but not limited to, a functional kitchen and bathroom, and connections
to utilities, along with weekly landscape and maintenance services; and,
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2014, the City issued Mr. Kay a Notice of Violation
for the installation of unpermitted roof-mounted antennas resulting in a total of thirteen
(13) roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts, well in excess of the five (5) City
Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts. The City ordered the
removal of all but the five (5) City Council-approved roof-mounted antennae and support
pole masts from the roof, and requiring that the remaining five (5) City Council-approved,
roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts comply with the City Council-adopted
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230; and,
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the City set a thirty (30) day period for compliance
with the November 28, 2014, Notice of Violation. At the request of Mr. Kay, the City, in
good faith, granted a time extension to this compliance deadline to October 28, 2016;
and,
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2016, a Conditional Use Permit revision application
(Planning Case No. ZON2016-00517) was submitted to the City requesting to legalize the
unpermitted roof-mounted antennas; and,
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2016, the application was deemed incomplete for
processing, and because the application originated from code enforcement action, the
Applicant was given thirty (30) days, or until December 21, 2016, to submit the requested
additional information in order continue processing the application; and,
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, the City received a letter from Mr. Kay's legal
counsel, Mr. Nakasu, asserting that the application to revise Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 with an after-the-fact amendment should be granted pursuant to RPVMC
§17.76.020(A)(12)(b); and,
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2017, the City Attorney responded by outlining the City's
position that, pursuant to Resolutions 2002-27, 2004-109, and 2005-75, the five (5) City
. Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts "refer only to the
antennae and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001,
in photographs accompanying the application to revise CUP No. 230, and Environmental
Assessment No. 744." Further, the City Attorney stated that any suggestion that additional
antennae, support pole masts, and other structures were mere modifications not requiring
City Council approval directly contravened the binding resolutions; and,
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 3 of7
A-87
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2017, City Staff, the City Prosecutor, Mr. Nakasu, and
Mr. Kay met to discuss this matter, at which time, Mr. Nakasu indicated that the antennae
and support structures were "outdated" and "obsolete" and that they could be replaced
with an alternative structure that would both address the telecommunications capacity
needs, as well as the City's safety and aesthetic concerns with the current structures.
Four months elapsed from the June 28, 2017, meeting, during this time, Mr. Kay did not
make any further attempts to cure the application deficiencies in order to proceed with
processing a revision to CUP No. 230, or to rectify the technological obsolescence of the
existing structures; and,
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2017, Staff granted, in good faith, Mr. Kay additional
time to submit the requested information in order for Mr. Kay to acquire a new permit
expediter company; and,
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, the City Prosecutor sent a letter to Mr. Kay and
Mr. Nakasu, the purpose of which was to summarize events subsequent to the June 28,
2017, meeting, to reiterate the deficiencies in the CUP No. 230 revision application, to
discuss potential replacement of current, "obsolete," structures, and to discuss the
potential for reinstating the Code Enforcement case, should the City's demands not be
met; and,
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, City Staff, City Prosecutor, Mr. Nakasu, and
Mr. Kay met, and at this meeting, Mr. Kay proposed alternative designs to replace the
existing antennae, such as a faux monopole tree or new roof antennae on the rear yard-
facing roof pitch, that would address the City's concerns and meet the needs of the
commercial antennas. As a result, it was agreed that Mr. Kay would submit, by mid-
January 2018, a concept drawing regarding a proposed alternative design for the City's
initial review, followed by an application for the CUP on or before February 28, 2018. To
date, the City has not received any information from Mr. Kay or his legal counsel; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance to RPVMC §17.60.080, if any of the conditions to the
use or development are not maintained, then the Conditional Use Permit shall be null and
void. Furthermore, the continued operation of a use requiring a Conditional Use Permit
which is found to be noncompliant with any condition of a Conditional Use Permit shall
constitute a violation of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 21,
2018 to consider revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 230, at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. 2018"61
Page 4 of 7
A-88
Section 1: Having heard and considered the oral, written, and documentary
evidence presented at the duly-noticed public hearing conducted by the City Council on
August 21, 2018, the City Council makes the following findings:
A. The property located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, Rancho Palos Verdes,
California, (the "Subject Property") is the subject of Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 ("CUP No. 230"), as granted by the City Council in Resolution No.
2004-109, and as amended by Resolution No. 2005-75. The Applicant, Mr.
James A. Kay, Jr., did not successfully challenge, within the time provided
by law, Resolution No. 2005-75, and has from and after the adoption of
Resolution No. 2005-75 (the "CUP Date") accepted the benefits of CUP No.
230.
B. CUP No. 230 required removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight-and-
on-half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof,
authorized a maximum of five (5) vertical masts, each with a height of eight
and one-half (8 Y2) feet, and not more than four (4) radiating per each mast.
C. Condition of Approval No. 2.d states in part, "Any additional exterior
antennae, masts or other antenna and support structure(s) shall require
further approval or modification of this conditional use permit."
D. Further, Condition of Approval No. 2 goes on to state that the Director is
authorized to make only minor modifications to the approved plans and
conditions of approval. "Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the
enlargement, expansion or addition to, the exterior masts and antennae that
this approval allows outside of the exiting residential structure shall require
approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 230 by the City Council
and shall require a new and separate environmental review."
E, The Subject Property has at various times from after the CUP Date had
installed antennae and/or vertical masts on the roof as testified to by staff
and depicted in photographic evidenced submitted into the Administrative
Record. Such evidence discloses installation of as many as twelve (12)
additional vertical masts (the "Additional Masts") over and above the five (5)
permitted by CUP No. 230.
F. Mr. Kay has failed to provide any evidence that any permits of any kind
(zoning, building, etc.) were obtained by him, directly or by an agent acting
on his behalf, authorizing the construction of the Additional Masts. Written
correspondence from his attorney admits such construction has occurred,
does not contest to permits were obtained in advance, and has confirmed
such by submitting an incomplete application for an "after-the-fact" permit
for the Additional Masts.
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 5 of 7
A-89
G. City records fail to show any action by the City Council subsequent to
Resolution No. 2005-75 modifying, amending, or otherwise affecting CUP
No. 230 to allow installation of more than five (5) vertical masts on the
Subject Property. Further, although the City Council finds it would not
properly be the subject of a minor modification, staff has indicated that no
application for a minor modification was approved by the Director to that
effect.
H. The City staff has made various efforts to resolve these issues short of a
revocation beginning in 2014. Despite numerous meetings, exchanges of
correspondence, and opportunities to come into compliance with CUP No.
230 or, in the alternative, apply for a modification to CUP No. 230 to
retroactively permit the Additional Masts, Mr. Kay has not diligently pursued
any remedial opportunity and has continued to operate the unpermitted
facilities while essentially "stringing along" the City.
I. Based upon all the evidence presented, and after hearing the arguments
and testimony on behalf of Mr. Kay, the public, and City staff, the City
Council finds the evidence of construction of the unpermitted Additional
Masts to be essentially uncontested in that Mr. Kay has admitted they exist.
The City Council finds that no permits of any kind (zoning or building) were
obtained by Mr. Kay and therefore the construction of the Additional Masts
was in violation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and the
specific provisions of the Conditions Of Approval relating to modification or
expansion of the use of the antennae structure by the increase in the
number of masts above the five (5) permitted by CUP No. 230.
J. The City Council further finds that the violation directly impacts surrounding
properties due to the increased visual impact of commercial antennae which
the limitation on the number of vertical masts was narrowly tailored to
address, and that the Subject Property owner has repeatedly and knowingly
violated the Conditions of Approval by the installation of the Additional
Masts without any permits or other legally-required approvals, and
subsequently has availed himself of numerous opportunities to come into
compliance with the terms of CUP No. 230 such that revocation is the
appropriate action and is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the
community.
Section 2: Based on the information included in the Staff Report, the testimony
and evidence presented at the public hearings in the past before the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the administrative records related to those prior
proceedings, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with the City,
the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby revokes Conditional Use
Permit No. 230, as amended, in its entirety.
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 6 of 7
A-90
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2018.
~.~
Mayor t. "
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2018-61 was duly and regularly pass ··. and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 21, 2 8.
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 7 of7
A-91
Exhibit G
A-92
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANCiELES I RIVE/(SIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
August 29, 2018
William W, Wynder
wwynder@awattomcys.com
(310) 527-6667
SENT VIA E-MAIL jamesk.ay@buddycorp.com & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Jam es Kay
c/o Lucky's Two Way Radios Inc.
1350 E Flamingo Rd #13b34
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119-5263
236 l Rosecrans Ave., Suite 'i 75
El Segundo, CA 90245
p (310) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
Subject: Cease and Desist Operations of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and
Removal of Roof-Mounted Antennas at 26708 Indian Peak Road
Mr. Kay:
We are the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. At the duly noticed
public hearing before the City Council held on August 21, 2018, in accordance to Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") § 17.86.060, the City Council conducted its public hearing
to consider the possible revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 230 (the "CUP").
The revocation public hearing was necessitated because of your installation of
unpermitted roof-mounted antennas and the continued modification of the unpermitted roof-
mounted antennas since the City issued you a Notice of Violation on November 28, 2014. You
were not present at this public hearing. Your counsel proffered no defense to the proposed
revocation of this CUP except to request continuance of the hearing.
After considering all of the evidence introduced in the record, including public testimony,
the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2018-61, revoking in its entirety and
effective immediately Conditional Use Permit No. 230 for the installation of commercial
antennas and related support structures. A copy of that resolution of revocation is attached to
this correspondence
Demand is hereby made that all antennae-related operations must cease and desist, and
that all roof-mounted antennas must be removed from the premises immediately. The City will
conduct a property inspection within the coming week. Non-compliance with the City Council's
revocation and this demand will result in appropriate enforcement action(s) by the City.
II I
II I
01203.0011/501693.2
A-93
August 29, 2018
Page 2
Your immediate attention to this demand and the directive of the City Council is now
required.
Attachment
Copies:
012030011/501693.2
Very truly yours,
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
(v/e-mail only)
Honorable Mayor & Councilmember,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Doug Willmore,
City Manager
Mr. Ara Mihranian, AICP,
Director of Community Development
Glenn Tucker, Esq.,
City Prosecutor
Sabrina K. Brill, Esq.,
Bradley & Gmelich, LLP
700 N. Brand Blvd., 10th floor
Glendale, California 91203
A-94
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES REVOKING IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 230 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS AND RELATED SUPPORT
STRUCTURES AT 26708 INDIAN PEAK ROAD.
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the Applicant/Appellant, Mr. James A. Kay, Jr.,
submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and Environmental
Assessment No. 744 for after-the-fact approval to establish the then-existing 5-masted,
roof-mounted antennae and related support structures and equipment on the site for
commercial use; and,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 and Environmental Assessment No. 744 were deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (11 CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(1) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 230 and
Environmental Assessment No. 744 would not have a significant effect on the
environment and, therefore, the proposed project was determined by Staff to be
categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,
WHEREAS, after the submittal of these applications on June 21, 2001, and while
the Planning Commission was conducting the public hearings on this application, the
Applicant installed at least twelve (12) additional vertical antenna masts with attached
antennae onto the previously existing roof-mounted antenna support structure and array,
including additional cables and conduits for the additional antennae; and on November 8,
2001, the Applicant submitted revised plans to the City depicting a total of twenty (20)
vertical antenna masts with attached antennae on the roof-mounted antenna support
structure and array; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on October 23, 2001, November 13, 2001, and November 15, 2001, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on November 15, 2001, adopted
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 conditionally approving the project; and,
A-95
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay timely appealed conditional approval by letter dated
November 28, 2001, based on disagreement with "all conditions regulating the location,
number and placement of antennas on the project site .... "; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
February 19, 2002, March 19, 2002, March 25, 2002 and April 16, 2002, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 16, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-27,
thereby denying the appeal, modifying certain conditions of approval and conditionally
approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, Mr. Kay filed suit against the City in Federal District
Court in order to overturn the City's decision on the grounds, among other things, that it
violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California ruled in the case of Kay v. Rancho Palos Verdes and ordered the
"City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to issue a new resolution allowing James
A. Kay, Jr. to use his five (5) mast antenna structure for commercial purposes, subject to
reasonable conditions"; and,
WHEREAS, the City revised the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 to allow the commercial use of Mr. Kay's 5-mast, roof-mounted, antenna array,
which existed at the time and was depicted on plans provided to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes with the original submittal of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 230
on June 21, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was agendized for the City Council's review and
consideration on October 5, 2004, and November 16, 2004, but on both occasions the
matter was continued to a subsequent City Council meeting at Mr. Kay's request in order
to allow his legal counsel to discuss additional proposed revisions to the conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230 with the City Attorney; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 21, 2004, adopted Resolution
No. 2004-109, thereby revising eight (8) conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 pursuant to the July 14, 2004, order of the United States District Court; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Kay subsequently petitioned the United States District Court to
vacate the conditions of approval imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the United States District Court issued an order in
response to Mr. Kay's petition, finding that the provisions of Condition No. 19 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 230 requiring "that Mr. Kay maintain the property as his
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 2 of 7
A-96
primary residence [were] not reasonable," but also finding that all other conditions of
approval imposed by Resolution No. 2004-109 were reasonable; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, on July 5, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2005-75 revising the language for Condition No. 19 of Conditional Use Permit No.
230 thereby requiring that Mr. Kay complete necessary improvements to make the house
habitable, including but not limited to, a functional kitchen and bathroom, and connections
to utilities, along with weekly landscape and maintenance services; and,
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2014, the City issued Mr. Kay a Notice of Violation
for the installation of unpermitted roof-mounted antennas resulting in a total of thirteen
(13) roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts, well in excess of the five (5) City
Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts. The City ordered the
removal of all but the five (5) City Council-approved roof-mounted antennae and support
pole masts from the roof, and requiring that the remaining five (5) City Council-approved,
roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts comply with the City Council-adopted
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 230; and,
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the City set a thirty (30) day period for compliance
with the November 28, 2014, Notice of Violation. At the request of Mr. Kay, the City, in
good faith, granted a time extension to this compliance deadline to October 28, 2016;
and,
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2016, a Conditional Use Permit revision application
(Planning Case No. ZON2016-00517) was submitted to the City requesting to legalize the
unpermitted roof-mounted antennas; and,
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2016, the application was deemed incomplete for
processing, and because the application originated from code enforcement action, the
Applicant was given thirty (30) days, or until December 21, 2016, to submit the requested
additional information in order continue processing the application; and,
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, the City received a letter from Mr. Kay's legal
counsel, Mr. Nakasu, asserting that the application to revise Conditional Use Pemtit
No. 230 with an after-the-fact amendment should be granted pursuant to RPVMC
§17.76.020(A)(12}(b}; and,
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2017, the City Attorney responded by outlining the City's
position that, pursuant to Resolutions 2002-27, 2004-109, and 2005-75, the five (5) City
Council-approved, roof-mounted antennae and support pole masts "refer only to the
antennae and antenna array depicted in the plans submitted to the City on June 21, 2001,
in photographs accompanying the application to revise CUP No. 230, and Environmental
Assessment No. 744." Further, the City Attorney stated that any suggestion that additional
antennae, support pole masts, and other structures were mere modifications not requiring
City Council approval directly contravened the binding resolutions; and,
Resolution No, 2018-61
Page 3 of 7
A-97
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2017, City Staff, the City Prosecutor, Mr. Nakasu, and
Mr. Kay met to discuss this matter, at which time, Mr. Nakasu indicated that the antennae
and support structures were "outdated" and "obsolete" and that they could be replaced
with an alternative structure that would both address the telecommunications capacity
needs, as well as the City's safety and aesthetic concerns with the current structures.
Four months elapsed from the June 28, 2017, meeting, during this time, Mr. Kay did not
make any further attempts to cure the application deficiencies in order to proceed with
processing a revision to CUP No. 230, or to rectify the technological obsolescence of the
existing structures; and,
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2017, Staff granted, in good faith, Mr. Kay additional
time to submit the requested information in order for Mr. Kay to acquire a new permit
expediter company; and,
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, the City Prosecutor sent a letter to Mr. Kay and
Mr. Nakasu, the purpose of which was to summarize events subsequent to the June 28,
2017, meeting, to reiterate the deficiencies in the CUP No. 230 revision application, to
discuss potential replacement of current, "obsolete," structures, and to discuss the
potential for reinstating the Code Enforcement case, should the City's demands not be
met; and,
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, City Staff, City Prosecutor, Mr. Nakasu, and
Mr. Kay met, and at this meeting, Mr. Kay proposed alternative designs to replace the
existing antennae, such as a faux monopole tree or new roof antennae on the rear yard-
facing roof pitch, that would address the City's concerns and meet the needs of the
commercial antennas. As a result, it was agreed that Mr. Kay would submit, by mid-
January 2018, a concept drawing regarding a proposed alternative design for the City's
initial review, followed by an application for the CUP on or before February 28, 2018. To
date, the City has not received any information from Mr. Kay or his legal counsel; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance to RPVMC §17.60.080, if any of the conditions to the
use or development are not maintained, then the Conditional Use Permit shall be null and
void. Furthermore, the continued operation of a use requiring a Conditional Use Permit
which is found to be noncompliant with any condition of a Conditional Use Permit shall
constitute a violation of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 21,
2018 to consider revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 230, at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 4 of 7
A-98
Section 1: Having heard and considered the oral, written, and documentary
evidence presented at the duly-noticed public hearing conducted by the City Council on
August 21, 2018, the City Council makes the following findings:
A. The property located at 26708 Indian Peak Road, Rancho Palos Verdes,
California, (the "Subject Property") is the subject of Conditional Use Permit
No. 230 ("CUP No. 230"), as granted by the City Council in Resolution No.
2004-109, and as amended by Resolution No. 2005-75. The Applicant, Mr.
James A. Kay, Jr., did not successfully challenge, within the time provided
by law, Resolution No. 2005-75, and has from and after the adoption of
Resolution No. 2005-75 (the "CUP Date") accepted the benefits of CUP No.
230.
B, CUP No. 230 required removal of all but five (5) of the existing eight-and-
on-half-foot long masts and two of the television antennae from the roof,
authorized a maximum offive (5) vertical masts, each with a height of eight
and one-half (8 Y2) feet, and not more than four (4) radiating per each mast.
C. Condition of Approval No. 2.d states in part, "Any additional exterior
antennae, masts or other antenna and support structure(s) shall require
further approval or modification of this conditional use permit."
D. Further, Condition of Approval No. 2 goes on to state that the Director is
authorized to make only minor modifications to the approved plans and
conditions of approval. "Otherwise, any substantive change, such as the
enlargement, expansion or addition to, the exterior masts and antennae that
this approval allows outside of the exiting residential structure shall require
approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 230 by the City Council
and shall require a new and separate environmental review."
E. The Subject Property has at various times from after the CUP Date had
installed antennae and/or vertical masts on the roof as testified to by staff
and depicted in photographic evidenced submitted into the Administrative
Record. Such evidence discloses installation of as many as twelve (12)
additional vertical masts (the "Additional Masts") over and above the five (5)
permitted by CUP No. 230.
F. Mr. Kay has failed to provide any evidence that any permits of any kind
(zoning, building, etc.) were obtained by him, directly or by an agent acting
on his behalf, authorizing the construction of the Additional Masts. Written
correspondence from his attorney admits such construction has occurred,
does not contest to permits were obtained in advance, and has confirmed
such by submitting an incomplete application for an "after-the-fact" permit
for the Additional Masts.
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 5 of 7
A-99
G. City records fail to show any action by the City Council subsequent to
Resolution No. 2005-75 modifying, amending, or otherwise affecting CUP
No. 230 to allow installation of more than five (5) vertical masts on the
Subject Property. Further, although the City Council finds it would not
properly be the subject of a minor modification, staff has indicated that no
application for a minor modification was approved by the Director to that
effect.
H. The City staff has made various efforts to resolve these issues short of a
revocation beginning in 2014. Despite numerous meetings, exchanges of
correspondence, and opportunities to come into compliance with CUP No.
230 or, in the alternative, apply for a modification to CUP No. 230 to
retroactively permit the Additional Masts, Mr. Kay has not diligently pursued
any remedial opportunity and has continued to operate the unpermitted
facilities while essentially "stringing along" the City.
I. Based upon all the evidence presented, and after hearing the arguments
and testimony on behalf of Mr. Kay, the public, and City staff, the City
Council finds the evidence of construction of the unpermitted Additional
Masts to be essentially uncontested in that Mr. Kay has admitted they exist.
The City Council finds that no permits of any kind (zoning or building} were
obtained by Mr. Kay and therefore the construction of the Additional Masts
was in violation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and the
specific provisions of the Conditions of Approval relating to modification or
expansion of the use of the antennae structure by the increase in the
number of masts above the five (5) permitted by CUP No. 230.
J. The City Council further finds that the violation directly impacts surrounding
properties due to the increased visual impact of commercial antennae which
the limitation on the number of vertical masts was narrowly tailored to
address, and that the Subject Property owner has repeatedly and knowingly
violated the Conditions of Approval by the installation of the Additional
Masts without any permits or other legally-required approvals, and
subsequently has availed himself of numerous opportunities to come into
compliance with the terms of CUP No. 230 such that revocation is the
appropriate action and is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the
community.
§ection 2: Based on the information included in the Staff Report, the testimony
and evidence presented at the public hearings in the past before the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the administrative records related to those prior
proceedings, the Minutes and the other records of this proceeding on file with the City,
the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby revokes Conditional Use
Permit No. 230, as amended, in its entirety.
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 6 of 7
A-100
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21 51 day of August 2018.
~4-L
l ....... Mayor
State of California
County of Los Angeles ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Ver es, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2018-61 was duly and regularly pass and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 21, 2 8.
c -
Resolution No. 2018-61
Page 7 of 7
A-101