text:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Vice Chairman Mueller led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Lyon, Vice Chairman Mueller, and Chairman Long. Commissioner Duran Reed arrived at 7:10 p.m. and Commissioner Tomblin arrived at 8:45 p.m.
Absent: Commissioner Cote was excused.
Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Associate Planner Schonborn, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson.
The agenda was approved as presented without objection.
Director/Secretary Rojas distributed six items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1, one item for Agenda Item No. 2, two items for Agenda Item No. 7, one item for Agenda Item No. 8, copies of two e-mails from firstname.lastname@example.com, and proposed changes to the minutes. He also distributed one item of late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1 and one item of late correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items)
1. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit, and Site Plan Review Permit (Case ZON2003-00216): 7316 Via Lorado
Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining that on August 26, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, took public testimony, and continued the item based on staffs recommendation of denial of the project and public concerns raised in written correspondence and oral testimony to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised. He stated that the applicant has redesigned the project and explained the scope of the newly designed project. He showed slides depicting the outline of the proposed addition, as well as a line showing the approximate location of the horizon. He stated that with the revisions, and based on the new analysis taken from neighboring properties, staff felt that all of the necessary findings could be made to approve the height variation. Concerning the minor exception permit, even with the proposed revisions to lower the wrought iron, staff did not feel there was any practical difficultly, unnecessary hardship, or inconsistency with the code that would warrant the approval of the minor exception permit, and as such staff was recommending denial of the minor exception permit. Lastly, staff was recommending a conditional of approval that would require the fence be removed or be lowered to a height of 42 inches. Since the property is on a street corner, there is the intersection visibility triangle which would limit the height of fences to 30 inches, unless the Planning Commission finds that it will not cause obstruction of a view to oncoming traffic. He explained that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it will not impede the visibility of traffic coming around the corner, and therefore staff was recommending approval of the site plan review to allow the fence to be 42 inches high in the visibility triangle. Mr. Blumenthal explained that, based on letters and phone calls to staff, there was some confusion about the noticing requirements on the project. He stated that many neighbors felt there would be some type of notice regarding the hearing, but explained that since this item had been continued from a previous meeting there was no public notice required. He further explained that staff did send a copy of the staff report to all interested parties on Thursday, as a courtesy, so that they would be aware of what staffs position was.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had looked at the privacy concerns from the two adjacent homes on Via Victoria.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff had looked at privacy concerns from 30129 Via Victoria and felt that since the second floor was set back so far from this property and the windows on the side were clearstory windows, there would be no privacy issues.
Vice Chairman Mueller referred to the slides and asked staff how they determined where the horizon line would be, since the site visits had occurred on cloudy days.
Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that in prior photos the horizon line was visible, and staff used the same features in the new photos to approximate where the horizon line would be.
Vice Chairman referred to the slides and felt that the horizon line was actually higher than what was depicted by staff. He asked staff if they had been out to the property on a clear day when the horizon could be seen.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that from the time that the project was resubmitted there had not been a clear day, which is why staff had to use the old photos to extrapolate where the horizon would be.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had done a view analysis from 30133 and 30129 Via Rivera.
Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that staff did a view analysis from 30133 Via Rivera and determined that the best and most important view was from their living room which had view corridors overlooking the ocean, however in the direction that the project site is, there are already single story homes there and they do not have a view corridor across that site. Regarding the privacy issue, he explained that staff had looked from both 30133 and 30129 Via Rivera and determined that privacy was not an issue because of the distance that the proposed second story addition is set back.
Chairman Long opened the public hearing.
Nabil Salem 7316 Via Lorado (applicant) stated that at the previous public hearing conducted in August the Planning Commission agreed to a continuance so that he could address the issues of concern raised at the meeting. He explained that the project has been redesigned and altered to come up with a final version that takes care of and meets all of the requirements of the City and Planning Commission. He explained that the new design reduces the height of proposed addition by 12.48 feet, reduces the overall size of the proposed addition to 698 square feet, and modifies the wrought iron portion to not exceed a height of 42 inches. He felt that any privacy issues have been addressed, he has minimized any impairment of views, there will be no significant cumulative view impairment, and the size of the new structure will be totally compatible with the immediate neighborhood. He stated that at the previous hearing he had promised not to come back to the Planning Commission until all of the concerns had been addressed, and he felt that he had taken care of all of the key items addressed by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Salem if he has had the opportunity to look at the view from his neighbors home and how that proposed structure will impact the view.
Mr. Salem answered that he had looked at the proposed structure from three of his neighbors homes. He felt that once his addition was built, the roofline would not exceed the existing single story rooflines in the neighborhood.
Brian Oslin 8621 Bellmead Drive, Huntington Beach, stated that he was the designer of the project. He felt that the changes to the project have been substantial and that the reduction of four feet in height is about all that can be made. He explained that he has reduced the plate height, ceiling height, and the roof pitch. He stated that he has also reduced the width of the second floor addition which, because it is a gable roof, will further reduce the ridge height. Further, the size of the overall addition has been reduced by approximately 700 square feet and eliminated two additions of the first floor.
Commissioner Cartwright asked how many square feet had been reduced from the second floor addition.
Mr. Oslin answered a little over 300 square feet.
Commissioner Cartwright explained that when he had visited the site, the applicant had stated that there was some complication that would make reducing the height of the pilasters very difficult, and asked Mr. Oslin if he agreed with that opinion.
Mr. Oslin explained that pilasters are made of concrete block and in order to reduce the size the pilasters the stucco and glass block inserts would have to be removed, and felt that a lot of the character of the pilasters would be lost, however it could be done.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Oslin about the cumulative view impact and if any other designs had been considered for the proposed roofline. He wondered if the roofline could be oriented to run east west rather than north south.
Mr. Oslin answered that it was an earlier consideration, however it did not work in terms of the layout of the clients desires.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Oslin if he had considered any other type of articulation to help reduce the mass of the structure as viewed from Via Lorado.
Mr. Oslin answered that he had not considered anything beyond what was presented on the revised plan.
Chairman Long asked Mr. Oslin to clarify his statement regarding running the roofline from east to west, and why it couldnt be done or why it wasnt desired by the client.
Mr. Oslin clarified that the roof line could run from east to west however Mr. Salem wished to run it from north to south to allow for views from each of the rooms on the second floor. Further, because of the location of the stairs, an east west orientation would cut the house in half.
Kurt Kreiner 30133 Via Victoria stated that his home is adjacent to the proposed project and that the proposed project will affect his view of the Channel Islands and the coastline, and was therefore opposed to the project. He also felt that there was a privacy issue, as Mr. Salem will be able to look directly into the back of their house from his addition. He stated that Mr. Salem has never been to his property to view the impact of his project to their view. He did not think the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood and that precedence would be set in allowing this structure to be built.
Commissioner Lyon asked Mr. Kreiner if his lot is situated higher than Mr. Salems lot.
Mr. Kreiner answered that his lot is higher than Mr. Salems lot and that the neighborhood was set up so that the lots tier down so that there will be views from as many lots as possible.
Commissioner Lyon asked Mr. Kreiner if the deck that currently exists has the same view onto his property as the proposed window will have.
Mr. Kreiner acknowledged that the deck has the same view, however the Salems very rarely use the deck, and noted that the proposed window will be in the family room where the Salems will most likely spend a lot of time.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Kreiner where the Channel Islands would be in relation to the proposed ridgeline.
Mr. Kreiner answered that the addition will cover his entire view of the Channel Islands.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Kreiner if the privacy issue being raised was not a new issue, just one that was being intensified by the proposed addition.
Mr. Kreiner stated that was correct, that the privacy issue was being intensified quite a bit.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if they visited the Kreiner property and took pictures of the view impairment.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff did visit the property at 30133 Via Victoria, however there was not a clear day to take photos. He stated that staff could see view corridors from the living room.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff what they did in situations like this where there is not a clear day and the views could not be analyzed.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that in situations where a resident is claiming view impairment and staff cannot see it because of the weather, staff will state that they could not verify the impairment because of the weather, and then use their best judgment to determine whether there will be an impact. He explained that if it becomes a critical issue, in the past the Planning Commission has continued items to hope for a clearer day.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if they felt there was any blockage of blue water view from 30133 Via Victoria.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, as far as staff could tell, there did not appear to be any blockage of the blue water view, however he noted that there would be no way to guarantee that.
Marilyn Knauer 30128 Via Victoria stated that she strongly objects to the proposed project, as it will block the views from her neighbors properties. She felt the project was very incompatible with the neighborhood, especially in terms of size.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Knauer if her view was directly over the applicants property.
Ms. Knauer answered that her view was directly over the Salems property.
Steven Goldstein 30123 Via Rivera stated that since he was notified of the new staff findings on October 10, he has been trying to measure the reaction of the homeowners on Via Lorado, Via Victoria, Via Marie Celeste, and Via Rivera. He stated that he visited 42 homes, and of the 30 homes he found people in, 27 people signed a petition in opposition to the proposed project. He felt that this outpouring of interest and concern should serve as a strong indication to the Planning Commission that this project is not welcome in the community. He also felt that this was a rush to judgment, considering the fact that the findings were first sent out to people on the Thursday before the meeting, and many did not receive the staff report until Saturday afternoon with their mail delivery, and some did not receive a staff report at all. He stated that the Planning Commissions directive to the applicant at the last meeting this was heard, was that the entire package was to be completed and everything required needed to be done by October 2nd, and noted that it was not done until October 9th. He explained that there are two factions in the neighborhood, the neighborhood incompatibility faction is still adamant because of the size of the project, and the view impairment faction is still incensed because they have gone from 50 percent cumulative view impairment to insignificant view impairment in four days time. He did not think the project complied with Section 17.20.30 regarding neighborhood compatibility and scale surrounding the residences. He noted that the staff report states that the proposed residence will be 1,303 square feet larger than the average resident in the immediate neighborhood, and 298 square feet larger than the top end of the range. He questioned how this could be considered compatible. For these reasons, he requested the Planning Commission deny the request for the height variation.
Commissioner Cartwright noted that the staff reports for the meeting go out on Thursday for the public as well as the Planning Commission, and therefore he and the neighbors should not feel singled out regarding the notification. He asked staff what the criteria was for who would receive staff reports
Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that typically staff reports are sent to the Planning Commission, the applicant, and to the property owners. In this case, however, reports were sent to anyone who wrote or phoned in regarding the project. He stated that he was aware that Mr. Ahn was inadvertently left off of the list, and staff hand delivered a report to him Friday.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Goldstein if he agreed with the placement of the horizon line on the staffs photographs.
Mr. Goldstein did not agree with the placement of the horizon line, and distributed photographs that he had taken.
Brent Goodrich 30143 Via Rivera stated that he did not think there was much time for any of the neighbors to react to the recommendations contained in the staff report. He stated that Proposition M states that its purposes are to protect, enhance, and perpetuate views available to property owners, and these views provide unique and irreplaceable assets. He felt that tonight the Planning Commission would be deciding whether or not they would be setting precedence by approving a trend-setting project. He stated that this project has both a significant cumulative effect upon the views of the neighbors, and a project which is incompatible with the neighborhood. He strongly disagreed with staffs findings that the proposed structure would no longer cause significant cumulative view impairment. He felt that if a significant number of homes in the neighborhood chose to follow the same approach and add a second story, there would be a massive cumulative impairment of views. He noted that the applicant chose a roof line that ran north to south as opposed to east to west, because it fit in better with his plans to have a view from all of the rooms on the second story. He discussed neighborhood compatibility and noted that this home will be 40 percent larger than the neighborhood average, and 298 square feet larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. He questioned how this could be considered compatible. Finally, he felt there was a safety issue, in that the pilasters were built in violation of the then existing code. He did not think there was any reason for these pilasters to be grandfathered in at this time. He respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the project.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Goodrich if the roofline ran east to west rather than north to south, would he be satisfied with that change.
Mr. Goodrich answered that he would not be satisfied with that, adding that he would not accept the proposition that his neighbor is allowed to appropriate any part of his view to improve the value of his property.
Linda Baek 7333 Via Lorado stated that she lives directly across the street from Mr. Salem. She began by explaining that if Mr. Salem made the first story addition without the second story addition it would add up to 3,588 square feet, which is still larger than the average home in the neighborhood. She stated that she purchased her home, not only based on her home but also the entire neighborhood. She felt this second story addition would entirely change the character of the neighborhood. She did not think it was fair or equitable to allow Mr. Salem to get an ocean view to the detriment of his neighbors. She explained that her views are not blocked by the addition, but she does have a privacy issue with the proposed second story addition. She stated that the second story would look directly into her yard. She felt that allowing Mr. Salem to build his addition would establish a precedent for other second story and oversized homes.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked Ms. Baek in what area of her home there would be a privacy concern.
Ms. Baek answered that her childs bedroom, the living room, the master bedroom, and the main yard area all face directly into the second story addition.
Tracy Ahn 30129 Via Victoria began by stating that she never received a copy of the second staff report. She was concerned with the compatibility issue, and felt the proposal was an unacceptable increase in size compared to immediately surrounding neighborhood. She explained the two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood were built in locations where their tall structures would have a minimal impact on houses in the neighborhood. She stated that location of this project was on a gentle slope with no multiple story homes within quite a few neighboring residences. She stated that driving up Via Lorado from Palos Verdes Drive West, the proposed two-story structure dominates the viewscape and appears out of place. Regarding view impairment, she felt that precedence would be set in allowing this two-story residence in the neighborhood. She did not think the approval of this project met the necessary criteria and urged the Planning Commission to deny the project.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Ahn if she had a privacy issue regarding this proposal.
Ms. Ahn responded that she did with the first design, however the new design shows the type of glass that one cannot look out of, and therefore there is no longer a privacy issue.
Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms. Ahn if she currently has a view from her roof deck onto the Salems property.
Ms. Ahn answered that she does not have view onto the Salems property, but if the Salems are standing on their deck she can see them.
Heather Oaklander 7321 Via Marie Celeste stated that she agrees with all of the comments from her neighbors. She noted that Mr. Salem had said that he has worked hard to meet his needs as well as those of the City, however there was no mention of meeting the community needs and the neighbors needs. She was concerned that Mr. Salem had done so much work without permits and was now trying to get them legalized.
Mr. Yang 30129 Via Rivera strongly agreed with the comments of his neighbors, especially regarding cumulative view impacts. He was concerned with the size of the proposed project and felt it was out of place in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Lyon asked if the modifications made to the design took away the view issue for Mr. Yang.
Mr. Yang answered that the view blockage is not significant from his property, however the second story is clearly visible from his home.
Mr. Salem (in rebuttal) did not feel there was a privacy issue with his neighbors, as there is already an existing deck in the same spot as the proposed windows. He stated that there were no windows facing the property of some of the neighbors concerned with privacy. He felt that shifting the roofline to an east west direction would add windows that would add to the privacy issues. He felt that he had been diligent in informing the neighbors of the changes to his design and his neighbors had not approached him with their concerns.
Commissioner Lyon asked about the window that looked directly into the Kreiners property and how the privacy issue could be better addressed.
Mr. Salem responded that the window overlooks the driveway of his neighbor, and not the house. He also stated that his neighbors behind him are far away and not right up to his property. He stated that he would put a type of glass in the window that he cannot look out of.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem if the intent of his second story addition was to move the square footage up to the second floor, just to have square footage in the home.
Mr. Salem answered that he needs the additional square footage to complete his home to his satisfaction.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem if he was looking for the second story addition for any reason other than square footage.
Mr. Salem responded that he was asking for the second story addition for additional square footage as well as for the view.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if he was going to gain a view that he really doesnt have presently.
Mr. Salem answered that the view he currently has is from the deck, which is not living space.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem why he could not reorient the ridgeline from north to south to east to west.
Mr. Salem answered that changing the orientation of the addition would make the addition closer to the neighbor and increase privacy concerns.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff if the Building Code requires there be windows upstairs or if skylights would be sufficient.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Building Code has two requirements that would apply in that situation: the bedroom on the second story must have a window to comply with emergency egress requirements as well as the light and ventilation requirements which could not be handled through a skylight.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if the windows had to be on the east side of the property, or could they be on the north and west side of the property.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there was no requirement that the windows be on any specific side of the building.
Given what staff said, Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Salem why he would not reorient the ridgeline to minimize view impairment to the neighbors.
Mr. Salem responded that he did not feel that there was a privacy issue as the structure was currently proposed and that reorienting the ridgeline would not minimize view impairment to the neighbors. Further, if he changed the orientation, there could possibly be view or privacy issues from other neighbors.
Chairman Long closed the public hearing.
At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened.
CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont.)
Commissioner Duran Reed discussed the Minor Exception Permit stating that she agreed with the staff report regarding the Minor Exception Permit for the wall. Discussing the proposed addition, she did not think that it had been designed in a way to minimize impairment of a view from the neighboring property. She stated that she had gone to several properties to look at the views, and felt that the horizon line was different than what staff depicted on the photographs and that the proposed addition would block portions of the water view. She felt that allowing this proposed second story to be built would set a precedence. She also felt that allowing the second story to be built would cause significant cumulative view impairment. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, Commissioner Duran Reed explained that she was not particularly opposed to two-story homes, but the problem was that driving north on Via Lorado and looking at all of the one story structures, and suddenly coming up to a very large two-story home on the corner lot. She explained, however, that it was not so much the square footage of the home, but more the way the home was designed. She gave credit to the owner and architect for attempting to minimize the size of the home by bringing down the ridgeline, but did not think that it has gone far enough. She suggested recommending a denial of the proposed project.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he has not seen what he would consider a significant view impact with the revised ridgeline, with the possible exception being the Kreiner residence, as he felt his concerns seemed the most valid. He did not think a privacy issue across the public street was valid. He felt that Mr. Salem had been accommodating and cooperative in trying to accommodate the concerns of his neighbors. On the other hand, he was very impressed with so many neighbors coming out with their objections to this project. He stated that he would like to see each alleged view impact, particularly Mr. Kreiners, on a clear day. Discussing neighborhood compatibility, he noted that compatibility does not mean that a project has to be identical to those in the neighborhood, and it was not uncommon to approve a project that is larger than the largest home in the neighborhood, and that is not objectionable as long as it doesnt appear massive and bulky. Therefore, there was an issue for him on compatibility. He further felt that there was a potential significant problem on the cumulative view impact. He wondered if continuing the item to allow the staff and Planning Commission time to see the horizon might be helpful.
Commissioner Cartwright stated that this was a very difficult situation, mainly because it is obvious there are a large number of neighbors who are emotionally involved. He stated that he was conflicted because so many speakers spoke passionately about why they were unhappy about the proposal, however he felt that they also said that it wasnt so much this proposal but the fact that it would be setting a precedent that would allow subsequent applications to be submitted. He was confident that there was nothing the Planning Commission could do tonight that would set any type of precedent, as every application that comes before the Planning Commission has to stand on its own merit. He felt that the decision might be easier if the horizon line could be clearly seen. He did not think the findings could be made to approve the Minor Exception Permit, and could not support approval. Regarding the privacy issue, he explained that there was already a privacy issue from the deck and it was not clear to him that it would intensify if it were in an enclosed structure that people frequented more often.
Vice Chairman Mueller agreed that the only privacy issue occurred on the south side next to the chimney, and that a privacy issue across a public street was not valid. He discussed the view issues, and noted that in viewing the redesigned silhouette there were two properties where he felt there was view impairment. He stated that any time the view impairment involves blue water view, he considers that somewhat significant. He did not think the proposed addition had been designed to minimize the view impairment. He felt that the intent of the second story in this application was not only to increase space through additional square footage, but to also capture a view. He stated that the applicant has a deck to take advantage of that view, however he is asking to capture and create a view for his property and perhaps take away a small part of his neighbors view. He did not think this was a good enough reason to build a second story, especially when looking at the cumulative effect of putting ridgelines that are north/south along that entire street. Therefore, he did not think the proposal was compatible with the intent of the design of neighborhood. Regarding the Minor Exception Permit, because this is a corner lot, he felt the fence should adhere to the guidelines and the pilasters should be reduced in height.
Chairman Long did not think the findings for the Minor Exception Permit could be made and was not inclined to support the approval. He stated that he did not participate in the August 26th hearing, however he has read the minutes. He stated that he has not had a chance to visit the site since the re-design, however he feels he has heard enough and had enough contribution from the other Commissioners, that he can make a determination. He stated that he was not clear one way or the other on the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He agreed that the Planning Commission has approved houses that are larger than the average in the neighborhood, but was concerned that there was no ultimate control on density in the neighborhood compatibility rules. And since there is no control, one cannot point to any rule and say that will apply. Nonetheless, he stated he was opposed to the project mainly because of its impact on views. He did not think that all reasonable effort had been made to minimize the impairment of view, and therefore could not make the appropriate finding. Discussing finding no. 5, he felt that, while it may be the case that no one property has a significant view impact from the project, there is enough of an impact on enough people that, taken as a whole, the impact on the neighborhood is such that he cannot make the finding. Therefore, since he cannot make findings 4 and 5, he cannot vote in favor of the Height Variation Permit.
Vice Chairman Mueller moved to approve the Site Plan Review, deny the Height Variation without prejudice, and deny the Minor Exception Permit with prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining.
Chairman Long explained that the Resolution, stating the Planning Commission decision, will come back on the Consent Calendar at the October 28th meeting.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 119 Rev. "B" (Case ZON2003-00108): 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has requested a 60-day extension in order to allow time to respond to items of staffs concerns. He stated that the Planning Commission has already granted an extension to the original action deadline and that the maximum extension allowable to the Permit Streamline Act is 90 days, which extended the action deadline to October 17th. He explained that in order to discuss the project in further detail and work out alternatives to the project, the applicant will have to withdraw the current application. Therefore, after consulting the City Attorney, the applicants request for an additional 60 days is in violation of the Permit Streamline Act and staff is recommending the Planning Commission hear the item in full at this meeting and render a decision on the project. He added that staff could not positively make all of the findings necessary to recommend approval of the project, and that staff was recommending denial of the application without prejudice.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if the Planning Commission denied the issue as requested, would that then allow the City to receive applications from the individual antenna providers.
Assistant Planner Luckert explained that Spectrasite is working on behalf of Verizon and AT&T, and felt that he would have to refer the Vice Chairmans question to the City Attorney.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if service would be affected if the Planning Commission were to deny the proposed project.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it was staffs understanding that service would not be affected, as the antennas are currently on the pole and operating, and this was a request to make some changes to the existing service.
Vice Chairman Mueller stated that he did not know when the applicant received the consultants report, and asked if the applicant had been given enough time to address the consultants comments.
Assistant Planner Luckert answered that according to the letter written yesterday by the applicant, he did not feel he had adequate time to review the report.
Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is a lease agreement between the City and specific carriers and amendments can be made to that lease by the City Managers Office and/or the City Council.
Chairman Long asked if there was a lease with this applicant.
Assistant Planner Luckert answered that there was not a lease with Spectrasite.
Director/Secretary Rojas added that in this situation, aside from the lease, there are Conditional Use Permits that the City has issued to individual entities to have antennas on the monopole. He noted that the City is the property owner in this situation, and earlier this year the City Council authorized Spectrasite to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to go through this process.
Chairman Long asked who is authorized under the Citys code to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and what is the precise section of the Code that identifies who is authorized to be an applicant.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that Code Section 17.60 discusses Conditional Use Permits, however he did not believe the section specifically addresses who is authorized to be an applicant for a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that the language of the conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit might address this issue.
Chairman Long opened the public hearing.
William Bennett 2201 Dupont Drive, Irvine (applicant) stated that he was representing Spectrasite Communications. He clarified that Spectrasite Communications manages this existing wireless telephone facility and documentation on their right to manage it is on file in the City Managers office. He stated that Spectrasite was requesting an approval to the modification for a collocation on this existing facility. However, due to the late arriving third party review, Spectrasite has not had sufficient time to consult with their carrier clients. He explained that Spectrasite did not wish a denial, as it had always been their intent to work with staff, and they would like to address every issue raised by the third party review and the staff report. Therefore, if it was the inclination of the Planning Commission to deny the project, Spectrasite would like to withdraw the application.
Chairman Long asked staff if the applicant could withdraw the application without the Planning Commissions approval.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the applicant could withdraw the application.
Chairman Long asked if a withdrawal would resolve staffs concerns regarding the extension.
Director/Secretary Rojas answered that would solve staffs concern regarding the extension.
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Bennett when he received the third party consultants report.
Mr. Bennett responded that he received it late last week.
Chairman Long closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Cartwright asked what the practical difference was between withdrawing the application and the Planning Commission denying the application.
Assistant Planner Luckert explained that the applicant would have to pay a new fee for the new application. Further, if the Planning Commission were to deny the application, the applicant would have the opportunity of appealing the decision to the City Council. If the applicant were to withdraw the application there would be no appeal process.
Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept the applicants withdrawl of the application, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (6-0).
Commissioner Lyon moved to hear item no. 5 before items 3 and 4 of the Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.
Chairman Long suggested an amendment that the Planning Commission accept the withdrawal of item no. 6 and waive the reading of the staff report.
Commissioner Lyon accepted the amendment to the motion.
The amended motion was approved without objection. Therefore the request to withdraw item no 6 was accepted and item no. 5 would be heard prior to items 3 and 4.
Chairman Long noted that, because of the time, it was unlikely that the Planning Commission would hear items 7, 8, and 9 and asked the Planning Commission if they would like to continue those items.
Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she would like to keep item no. 9 on the Agenda, as she has been waiting for this item since July.
Commissioner Duran Reed moved to continue items 7 and 8, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection.
5. Grading and Site Plan Review Permit Appeal (Case ZON2003-00039): 30637 Calle de Suenos
Commissioner Cartwright recused himself from this item because of the proximity of his home to this project.
Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the project. He stated that in the initial analysis of the proposal staff received some concerns about view impact caused by this project. He displayed pictures of the subject lot and noted that the proposed project will impair the view of Catalina Island from 30621 and 30615 Calle de Suenos; however, since the proposal is to grade the project down and the proposed house is within the allowable 16/30 building envelope, staff does not consider the impairment significant. With regards to neighborhood compatibility, staff initially reviewed the proposed project with the other homes in the development. He noted that the ten homes in the immediate neighborhood are in a different zoning district, this proposed home is in the RS-1 zone, the rest in the RS-4 zoning district. Therefore, staff limited the neighborhood compatibility analysis to the homes in the R S-1 zoning district. He explained that staff found the proposed project compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that, based on staffs analysis, the Director approved the project in July 2003, however on July 31 the property owners from 30621 and 30615 Calle de Suenos filed an appeal. Their concerns were that the proposed project causes view obstruction, the way in which the house will be situated on the lot, and that the house does not comply with setback and neighborhood compatibility. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal thereby upholding the Directors decision to allow the construction of the house.
Chairman Long opened the public hearing.
Anshoo Gupta 30621 Calle de Suenos (appellant) stated that he has many concerns regarding the project, however he has narrowed those concerns down to two main concerns. He stated that his property is directly next door to the project, but he was not considered in the neighborhood compatibility analysis because he is on a separate survey map. He stated that of all of the view impacts, his property has the most significant view impacts. He felt that was inconsistent with the process of neighborhood compatibility. Secondly, he was concerned that his view of Catalina Island from his primary viewing area will be completely eliminated by the new home. He felt that this would significantly impact his property value and his living style. He showed an aerial photograph showing the homes on the cul-de-sac at Calle de Suenos. He noted the location of each home and the distance from the curb to the front entrance of the home, and the distance from the curb to the back wall of the home. He showed that the proposed house was set back much farther from the curb than any other house on the street, and felt that the house was set back too far from the curb. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the project as proposed so that the house can be redesigned to better fit in with the entire neighborhood and not block his view of Catalina Island.
Commissioner Tomblin felt that there are three or four distinct separate tracts of homes in this development, and asked Mr. Gupta if he didnt think there was a distinct difference in the lot sizes when comparing his lot to the neighboring lots on Calle de Suenos.
Mr. Gupta stated that he did not know the lot sizes of all of the homes, however he felt the neighbors lot is significantly larger than the other lots in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tomblin stated that the Planning Commission has to not only look at the neighborhood compatibility, but also has to remember that sometimes a particular house has to be considered differently because the lot is much larger by design than the rest of the lots around it. Therefore the Planning Commission also has to be fair to the property owner because he did buy a larger lot so that he could build a larger home.
Mr. Gupta understood that and stated that if this house was set back a little further he would not lose his view of Catalina Island.
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Gupta if, when he purchased his house, he realized that he was next door to a lot that would eventually be developed and asked if he felt he was guaranteed a Catalina Island view.
Mr. Gupta responded that he knew there would eventually be a house on that lot, however he assumed the house would be similar in nature to the homes in the area and situated in a similar way.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Gupta how big his lot is in comparison to the applicants lot.
Mr. Gupta stated that his lot is approximately 60,000 square feet.
Vice Chairman Mueller noted that Mr. Guptas home appears to be set a little closer to the street than some of the other homes in his neighborhood, and asked Mr. Gupta if there was any particular reason for that.
Mr. Gupta responded that he did not know, and that Mr. Cartwright had also pointed that out to him.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Gupta if he were to do an addition to his property that might block a neighbors view from this separate zoning district, would he then accept their concerns and redesign his addition.
Mr. Gupta answered that if he did something from his property that impedes the view of any of his neighbors, he would respect their objections.
Carl Steadly 30615 Calle de Suenos (appellant) stated that his biggest concern regarding his view was from the living area upstairs from the picture window. He stated that he had the misperception on what a neighborhood is. He felt that neighborhood issues are to keep houses harmonious, compatible, and keeping additions from impacting other neighbors. He stated that the proposed new home sits on a separate survey map known as Panorama Estates, and is therefore not considered to be subject to the stated rules of being harmonious to the twenty closest homes, of which his and Mr. Guptas happen to be a part of. He stated that their two homes are the very two homes which will take the brunt of the damage from this project, yet they have been told they have no standing in this issue. He stated that all of the Panorama Estates residents have signed a letter to the effect that they see no impact from the proposed home, but none of them have any view impact as they are down on the other end of the road. He felt that Mr. Cartwrights home is the only one that has any type of a view impact, and they have managed to preserve a view corridor going from their house directly out. He explained that the lot has a natural angle towards the north, which is accentuated by the fact that it sits on the inside of a 45-degree curve in the road. The house has been pushed to the very rear of the property because of the desire to increase the view spectrum as well as to accommodate the overly large size of the project. He did not think there was any valid argument to have such an abnormally large setback coupled with a four-car garage. He further questioned what the plans are for a wall, how far will the wall extend back, how far out does the pool deck protrude and what is its height, what are the limitations for shrubbery on the property, and what is his recourse considering that he is on a separate survey map and considered non-relevant to the issue. In light of his questions, he suggested that erecting a silhouette at the site so that all could clearly see the extent of the proposed residence. He stated that potential solutions would be to alter the project in any or all of the following combinations: put the garage on the opposite side of the property, move the house closer to the street, remove one of the four car stalls, or modify the house down from 9,000 square feet down to a more normal size. He stated that they are still neighbors regardless of any imaginary line.
Commissioner Tomblin referred to the aerial map and asked Mr. Steadly if he felt his lot is the same size as the subject property.
Mr. Steadly answered that his lot is 27,000 square feet and the subject lot is 37,000 square feet.
Commissioner Tomblin stated that there are three distinct tracts of home in this neighborhood: estate size homes in Panorama Estates, separate custom homes, and a tract of homes where Mr. Gupta and Mr. Steadly live, and that the lots reflect these situations. He felt that the intent of the design of the area was clearly a separate type of design and that when looking at neighborhood compatibility this is why there is a separation of tracts. He stated that Mr. Steadly and Mr. Gupta should have realized when they bought their homes that there would be development on this much larger vacant lot.
Mr. Steadly stated that his main complaint was the placement of the house on the lot.
Jody Rice 6866 Crest Road explained that before he purchased the property on Calle de Suenos he did extensive research on what was buildable on the property. He went to the City to get all of the necessary information, and while the lot was in escrow he had already contacted a geologist and surveyors to make sure what could be done on the property, based on the City guidelines. He stated that he had always taken Mr. Guptas views into consideration when designing the house, and that he turned the lot so that it would soften the view that Mr. Gupta will have across his house. He stated that he cannot eliminate the fact that he is going to protrude into his Catalina Island view. He distributed a recent survey he had conducted showing how that view is impacted and how it crosses his lot. Mr. Rice stated that the survey clearly points out that anything built on his lot will have some impact on the views from both appellants homes. He explained that he has tried to minimize the impact by staying within the 16/30 foot guideline, he has increase the setback on the very side the appealing parties are concerned about, has addressed the issues of planting and fences, and done everything possible to minimize the impacts. He invited the appellants and the Planning Commission to drive by his current home to see how he has made the style of the home and the landscaping compatible and appreciated by all of the neighbors.
Louie Tomaro 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he is the architect for the project and reiterated that he and the owners had spent quite a bit of time looking at how to maximize the views given the slope of the lot, keep the grading at a minimum, and minimize view impacts to the neighbors. He stated that he turned the building orientation several times to maximize the views for all of the neighbors. He stated that the two neighbors realized that there would be development on this property and he tried to maintain view corridors as much as reasonably possible. He stated that this is the largest lot in the tract, over 37,000 square feet, and the current location of the building parallels the existing terrain to minimize grading.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if it would be possible to build further down on the lot to help minimize view impairment, as the lot is so large.
Mr. Tomaro answered that the house was originally down on the lot further, but then there was an issue was the neighbors to the south losing their view.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked if the area where the four-car garage is proposed is currently a flat area.
Mr. Tomaro answered that it is flat in that area.
Commissioner Duran Reed asked if everything past that area slopes downward.
Mr. Tomaro noted on the plans a retaining wall approximately one third of the way in from the front of the entryway which is where the cut would happen.
Jon Cartwright 30630 Calle de Suenos stated that he was representing both the Homeowners Association as well as himself, and noted that his home is directly across the street from the proposed project. He explained that he has written two letters to the Planning Commission and both letters asked that the Directors decision be upheld. He stated that Mr. Rices home will impact the view from five residences, three in Panorama Estates and two outside Panorama Estates, and he felt that his view will be impacted the most. He stated that, according to the Code, Mr. Rice has a right to build a 16-foot home on a down sloping lot. Nevertheless, Mr. Rice consulted with his neighbors to design and situate the house in a manner that minimizes view impairment. He stated that the design of the Rice home allows him a view corridor over the Rice property, his neighbor to the south a view corridor, and allows expansive views for the three homes affected on the west side of the street. He stated that the private road, which serves as a common driveway for the residents, is only 34 feet wide and the lots extend to the street. He stated that if Mr. Rice moves his house towards the street it will create a closed hall effect which would kill the whole design concept of Panorama Estates. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the appeal and uphold the Directors decision to approve Mr. Rices house as proposed. He concluded by saying that the members of the Panorama Estates HOA unanimously approved this project and was particularly pleased with the manner in which it is designed and situated on the lot.
Robert Herkus stated that he did the survey for the property and he was available to answer any questions.
David McInyre 30692 Calle de Suenos was very pleased with the way the home was situated and, based on the topography, did not think the appellant should have expected the house to be built in any other manner. He did not feel the home was too large, based on the size of the lot. He did not think the appellants had enough of a view of Catalina Island to make it a major point of contention and possibly deny the project.
Chairman Long closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked what the minimum lot size was for an RS-1 lot.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Code requires a minimum 40,000 square foot lot size for an RS-1 zone.
Director/Secretary Rojas added that these lots were approved as a Residential Planned Development (RPD), which set aside some common open space which is owned by the HOA.
Vice Chairman Mueller understood that this lot is the largest on the street, however he did not understand how a 9,000+ square foot house in this neighborhood is considered compatible.
Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the lot is a down sloping lot, with the two-story section towards the rear of the home and the single story section towards the front. He stated that the other homes on the same side of the street are developed in a similar manner, while the homes on the other side of the street are on pad lots. He stated that staff felt this home was compatible because of the design, explaining that when looking at the house from the street, the property will take the appearance of a single story home.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked what the lot coverage requirement is in this neighborhood.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the maximum lot coverage is 25 percent.
Commissioner Tomblin moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2003-46 thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Directors approval of the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2003-00039), seconded by Commissioner Lyon.
Commissioner Duran Reed discussed neighborhood compatibility, saying she did not have any objections to where the home is situated on the lot, however she was concerned about the size of the structure, as it is substantially larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. She discussed the grading and one of the findings necessary to approve the permit which says that the grading and all related construction does not significantly aversely affect the visual relationship with neighboring properties. She felt this raised the issues of what is the visual relationship with the neighboring property and does it affect a view from neighboring properties. She stated that the City Council has made it very clear that applicants do have the right to build to 16 feet when there is no discretionary review or grading involved. She specifically asked the architect where the grading begins, and the grading begins in the area which impacts the view and the visual relationship to the house at 30621 Calle de Suenos. She explained that she went along the south side of the property at 30621 Calle de Suenos and she felt the new home would be like a great wall from this property, and that visual relationship was something that she felt was significantly adversely affecting the home at 30621 Calle de Suenos. She also felt that this proposed residence would negatively and significantly affect the view from 30621 Calle de Suenos. She felt that the proposed home could be graded down to try to minimize any affects of the visual relationship and views to the neighboring property.
Commissioner Lyon stated the appellants are not in any way disenfranchised, and have the same rights in their zoning district as anyone else does and that the view regulations are identical. He felt that the Rices have an inherent right to build up to 16 feet and that it so happens that the home will obscure a portion of the view of Catalina Island. He felt that the Rices worked very closely with the neighbors to minimize view impacts, and felt that the clear majority of the neighbors have been satisfied by the proposed placement of the residence on the property. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he felt the rules are just and written to be fair. He did not think that including the Gupta house in the neighborhood compatibility analysis would significantly change any conclusions made by staff. He felt that the key to neighborhood compatibility was not the size of the house, but how large it appears. He felt that this house appears relatively small as viewed from the street. He therefore supported denial of the appeal and upholding the Directors decision of approval.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff to clarify when the new neighborhood compatibility guidelines went into effect and whether the neighborhood compatibility guidelines were to be applied to this project.
Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the new neighborhood compatibility guidelines that require the construction of silhouettes for all new homes went into effect on June 19th of this year, and this project was deemed complete prior to that date so the new guidelines do not apply to this application.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked staff what prompted them to stay within Panorama Estates when looking at the 10 closest homes.
Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that in past practice staff has limited the immediate neighborhood to properties in the same zoning district and the new Guidelines require it.
Director/Secretary Rojas added that neighborhood compatibility is primarily used to compare the size and look of the home, and there are different standards between different zoning districts, so that is why staff doesnt believe its fair to compare structure sizes between zoning districts.
Commissioner Tomblin felt that this proposed residence was compatible with the neighborhood, as the neighbors have testified, and that building the house further towards the back of the property would have created much more of a view impact to the other neighbors.
The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Directors decision passed by a vote of (3-1-2) with Commissioner Duran Reed dissenting, Commissioner Cartwright recused, and Chairman Long abstaining.
Chairman Long explained that he was not able to make a site visit and therefore did not feel he was qualified to vote on this issue, which is why he abstained from the vote.
Vice Chairman Mueller explained that he looked carefully at the view issue and how the proposed home was situated on the lot. His only concern was the size of the house with respect to the neighborhood. He felt that the difficulty was the way the house is situated and the way it looks from the street, and if the house were slightly smaller it would not really change the look of the house from the street. He stated that it was hard to imagine that reducing the size of the house or changing the placement of the house would significantly change the situation. He also felt that the Rices, staff and the Planning Commission had worked hard to find a viable solution for the neighborhood.
As it was after 11:00, Commissioner Duran Reed made a motion to suspend the Planning Commission rules and hear item no. 9
The motion failed due to a lack of a second.
Vice Chairman Mueller moved to suspend the rules to hear item no. 11 and continue the remaining items, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.
Commissioner Duran Reed moved to amend the motion to hear items 3, 4, 9, and 11, and continue the rest of the items.
The amendment failed due to a lack of a second.
Commissioner Lyon moved to amend the motion to hear items 3 and 4, and reconsider at that time whether or not to hear additional items, seconded by Vice Chairman Mueller. Approved without objection.
CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued)
3. Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2003-00282): 6510 Ocean Crest Dr.
Commissioner Lyon was recused, as his residence is within 500 feet of this project.
Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting that staff had concerns originally because of the way the mock-ups were constructed in comparison to the photo simulations. He explained that the applicant has adjusted the mock-ups to more accurately reflect what would be install, however staff still has concerns about the height of the mock-ups. The applicant has expressed a willingness to work with staff on an alternative design and was asking that the Planning Commission provide input on the proposed design and alternatives. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission provide feedback to the applicant and continue the item to November 11, 2003.
Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant was looking for alternative solutions to the antennas.
Associative Planner Blumenthal explained that in order to get the coverage needed, it has become apparent that the proposed antennas would not be viable, noting that to lower them enough and locate them on the roof to meet what the photo simulations were showing would not give them enough coverage. Therefore, the applicant was submitted alternative design ideas to the Planning Commission to see which one would be the most feasible, and then bring that design to staff with an analysis.
Chairman Long opened the public hearing.
Adan Madrid, Trillium Telecom Services, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach stated that he has worked with his architect to come up with three design options for the antennas, which he distributed to the Planning Commission. He felt that options A, B, and C were all significant improvements to what is currently proposed. He stated that all three options would be compatible with the apartment building, however option A is the preference of Trillium Telecom. He explained that option A represents a design that has the least impact to the existing building and the tenants and is the most benign type of installation that can be offered on the building.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if these proposed options would provide the same coverage.
Mr. Madrid answered that the options would provide the same service and that even though the antennas are lower they meet the same coverage objectives.
Vice Chairman Mueller stated that the antennas have blended into the architecture on one side of the building, and asked Mr. Madrid, if he used the same architecture on both sides, would it match the architecture on all sides of the building.
Mr. Madrid answered that was an issue he would be happy to explore further.
Vice Chairman Mueller again asked about the coverage of the antennas if they were to be placed on the side of the building and not on the top as originally proposed.
Mr. Madrid explained that in this particular case the height of the antennas (in the chimneys) was chosen to avoid blockage from the edge of the roof and by placing the antennas on the side of the building this issue would go away while still maintaining the coverage needed for the antennas.
Vice Chairman Mueller pointed out that if the height of the antennas is an issue and directly related to view obstruction, then placing the antennas on the side of the building would be preferred.
Commissioner Cartwright felt that all of the options were feasible and that the Planning Commission would want the option that has the minimum visual impact, and asked Mr. Madrid which option that would be.
Mr. Madrid answered that option A would have the least visual impact.
Commissioner Cartwright suggested that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to work with staff to come up with an option that would have the least visual impact.
Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the item to the meeting of November 11, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lyon recused.
4. Conditional Use Permit (Case ZON2003-00283): 7000 Los Verdes Drive
Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the project consisted of the replacement of an existing light standard with a new light standard that would accommodate two panel antennas. He stated that staff has determined that all of the necessary findings could be made and therefore recommends approval of the application. He noted that one of the standard conditions of approval had been left out and that the following condition would be added: "The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the improved plans or any of the conditions, if such modifications shall achieve the same results as would strict compliance with said plans or conditions.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if the there would be a precedence set because no mock-up was required for this project.
Associate Planner Schonborn stated that there was a photo simulation for the project that was included in the staff report and that there is a mock-up in the sense that there are two panels on the existing pole since the new pole will be at the same height and location as the existing.
Director/Secretary Rojas added that there is a condition that requires the applicant to obtain a building permit for the pole, and the building department will be able to verify the height and width of the new pole.
Vice Chairman Mueller asked if lowering the light would still provide adequate lighting to the parking area.
Associate Planner Schonborn answered that lowering the light would still provide adequate lighting to the area.
Chairman Long opened the public hearing.
Adan Madrid Trillium Telecom Services, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach, stated the he concurred with the staff recommendations and the conditions of approval. He felt that the new pole would be compatible and consistent with the other light standards in the parking lot, and requested the Planning Commission approve the project.
Chairman Long closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 20030-47, thereby approving Case No. ZON2003-00283 as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Mueller. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Duran Reed abstaining since she did not visit the property.
Commissioner Duran Reed moved to suspend the rules to hear agenda item no. 9, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Lyon, Cartwright, Vice Chairman Mueller, and Chairman Long dissenting.
11. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 28, 2003
Commissioner Lyon stated that he would not be at the October 28th meeting.
Commissioner Duran Reed requested that agenda item no. 9 be put first on the continued business items for the October 28 meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:18 a.m.


text:
Two years ago, I decided to do what all American sports fans with an affinity for having some action on a game should do.
I went to Las Vegas for March Madness.
Consider it a pilgrimage. There's no better place to be, not even the actual games, than Vegas for this made-for-gambling event. Of course, if you actually want to be able to sit down while watching any of the games, then maybe Vegas in March isn't for you.
It was during this trip that I actually learned an important sports betting technique and it came from simple observation.
My journey started on a Wednesday, the day before the 2010 tourney began. I left the SGV for Nevada and arrived at the Bellagio by early afternoon. After checking in and dropping my luggage in my room, I headed straight to the sports book.
There's simply nothing like a sports book. I'm sure most of you have been in one, but it never gets old and only continues to get better due to technology. There are now high-definition big screens in some books, but those aren't the big draw; the odds board is.
Team names and numbers and odds and totals and point spreads all in lights spread across huge wall space. You can literally blow hours just staring up at the odds boards … so I did.
I came to Vegas for that trip armed with ample cash and a hankering to bet a postseason tournament featuring teams that I had seen next to nothing of. In exchange for having the best postseason of any sport, college basketball has sacrificed its regular season, which is by far the most worthless and meaningless of any sport.
So there I was, doing what countless thousands will do this very week, staring up at an odds board that featured teams I knew very little about. How the heck would I find anything to bet? The usual suspects, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, et al, were heavy first-round favorites. The rest of it was gibberish.
After sitting in a recliner for a good two hours and alternating between watching the board and watching the people line up and make their bets, I decided it was time to do the other main thing I had come to Vegas for — eat.
What happened in the next 45 minutes determined the positive financial outcome of the trip and equipped me with a mental approach that I will forever apply to the tourney. This year especially. Oh yeah, the beef chow mein at "Noodles" inside Bellagio was pretty damn epic, too.
It's in that restaurant where I put together everything I'd just seen a little while earlier in the sports book. All these guys lining up to get down were pretty much suckers. I kinda doubted there was one legit bettor in the group. Instead, they were just like me — just another guy in town with a head of currency cabbage in his pocket ready to plunk it down on the spectacle that is the tournament.
Most of these guys knew nothing about the other 61 or so teams in the tourney not named Kentucky, Duke or UNC, either. They were there more for action than to win. My strategy now became real clear. I made my way back to the book, waited in line and upon arriving at the window bet EVERY underdog in all 16 of Thursday's first-round games.
The following morning I awoke, turned on the TV in my room and ordered corned-beef hash and eggs from Bellagio's room service. When the guy taking the order told me "We make our corned-beef hash right here on the premises, Mr. Toleegrand," I knew it was going to be a good day. And it was. The underdogs went 12-4 against the Vegas number.
Betting all the underdogs blindly thist today, or any Thursday for that matter, does not ensure you'll reap the kind of profits I did. Heck, you might even lose money. By no means am I trying to tell you that in 2010 I solved the riddle that is Vegas and sports betting. What I am trying to tell you is that if you adopt the thinking behind what led me to blindly bet the 'dogs and apply it to most any sporting event in which the public is heavily involved from a gambling perspective, then over the long haul you are likely to cash more winners than losers.
As for this year's tournament. Using the methodology I just described and taking it a step further, I will be looking to bet against the teams that are fresh in everyone's minds because of the strong performances they had last week. This will mean betting on teams that I've never actually watched before. In the first round, I like Davidson +7.5 points over Louisville, LIU-Brooklyn +20 over Michigan St., Norfolk St. +22 over Missouri and St. Bonaventure +7 over Florida St.
For those of you filling out brackets, might I suggest to take a more wise-guy approach this year. The elite teams are not as talented as years past. The gap between them and the mid-majors is closer than any time I can recall in recent history, and that's saying something considering both Butler and Virginia Commonwealth reached the Final Four last season.
Just remember, the masses come out of hibernation to bet the tournament. The masses aren't interested in betting on the Murray States or Wichita States of the world. They like the name teams no matter how down they might be this season. If I'm right, and who knows whether that's a good or bad bet at this point, this tournament should be one for ages … for the wise guys especially.
Follow me on Twitter @ChemicalAT

subset: commoncrawl


text: Our friends in Ohio Amish country at one time provided our Brooklyn workshop with some of the materials we use to make our heirloom quality furniture. Today, Elam and his family are still making family crafted pieces from their workshop where they have been building for generations. The Carlisle Shaker table is the perfect example of their ongoing tradition of detailed woodworking. This particular piece is a 42″ Diameter Round on a beautifully crafted leg pedestal that matches perfectly with the shaker dining chairs. Included with this table are two 12″ leaves that when inserted extend this table to a full 66″ wide. Come visit our showroom at 137 Varick where our talented sales staff are more than happy to help you 7 days a week.


text:
Happy December ~ Springerle
It is Christmas cookie season again, and I decided to try my hand at something new this year called springerle. They are traditional German anise cookies that use a special mold. My parents gave me a metal springerle board last Christmas, and I am part German, so I thought I would give them a try! They are really sweet little pieces of art.
2 eggs
4 oz powdered sugar
1 teaspoon anise extract
2 cups all purpose flour, plus a little more for the board and rolling pin if the dough is too sticky
1 teaspoon baking powder
Beat the eggs until light with an electric mixer on high speed in a large bowl. Reduce the speed and add the anise and sifted sugar. Beat until well combined. Sift the flour and baking powder and stir them into the egg mixture. The dough will be rather stiff.
Roll the dough to about 3/8 inch thickness. Imprint the dough onto the springerle board and cut apart with a pizza cutter. Place the cookies on a baking sheet (this recipe will make about 2 sheets worth of cookies), and let them dry uncovered overnight. This will allow the designs to stay crisp when they are baked.
In the morning, preheat your oven to 350. Bake the cookies for about 8-10 minutes, until cooked through but not golden.
It must be the same design cast aluminum springerle board that I've had for 25 or so years. I use baker's ammonia available from King Arther which is traditional for this cookie and cake flour making mine and brush the bottoms with a little water 20 minutes before baking to get the little rise at the bottom called a "foot." Your cookies look like they kept the imprint nicely. Good job.
Linda Albert
Thought you might like this. A link to a German baker who has been using "our" springerle board for years to turn out hundreds of cookies every year.


text:
Do you love the art featured in the apartments, etc. on Gossip Girl? Well then you're going to love Season 6, Episode 6, "Where The Vile Things Are," airing tonight November 19 at 9/8 on The CW because the art will take center stage.
In the episode, Lily Bass (Kelly Rutherford) hosts an auction to benefit the Art Production Fund (APF) featuring art from her own personal collection, including one of her favorite pieces — "Spectrum," by Richard Phillips — which has held a prominent place above the stairs in her apartment for many years. When Chuck Bass (Ed Westwick), Ivy Dickens (Kaylee DeFer) and Lily each decide they want the Phillips for their own reasons, a bidding war ensues.
Other pieces featured will be by Patrick McMullan, Jessica Craig Martin and Marilyn Minter — all of whom have had their work previously featured on the Gossip Girl set — along with pieces by Kehinde Wiley, Miltos Manetas, Josephine Meckseper, Dustin Yellin, Spencer Sweeney, Chris Dorland, Todd DiCiurcio, Pierre Elliot and Fab 5 Freddy, appearing for the first time in the series.
Richard Phillips's piece "Lindsay III (2012)," featuring Lindsay Lohan, also appears in the episode. To download an image of "Lindsay III (2012)," click here.
In addition to having their work featured on screen, Phillips, Sweeney, McMullan, Fab 5 Freddy, DiCiurcio and Doreen Remen, co-founder of the APF, make cameo appearances in the episode.
What's your favorite piece seen on the set? Tell us about it in a comment below!


text:
Warm September in D.C. and across the U.S.
Did the District follow suite with much of the remainder of the U.S. with warmer than average weather in September?
The numbers for September have been crunched and sure enough it has been a warm one in the District and for the lower 48 as well. That coupled with dry weather has caused the drought to expand.
♦ The average temperature in September at Reagan National Airport was 72.2 degrees, which was 1.2 degrees above average. Interestingly enough, temperatures have been above average each consecutive month since November 2011!
♦ Rainfall was slightly above average with a total of 4.29 inches. Still, rainfall is well shy of average with a precipitation deficit of about 7.50 inches since the start of the year.
How does this compare to the rest of the lower 48 for September? Well, the hot weather was focused in the West in September.
♦ NOAA reports California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming each had temperatures in the top ten warmest for any September since weather records began.
♦ The Ohio Valley was the exception to the rule. Temperatures were cooler than average and precipitation above average. As a matter of fact, Ohio and Kentucky had their top ten wettest September.
♦ Nationally, temperatures averaged 67.0 degrees, which is 1.4 degrees above the 20th century average, according to NOAA. This ties September 1980 as the 23rd warmest September on record. Just like D.C. has seen 11 months of above-average temperatures; the U.S. had 16 consecutive months of above average temperatures.
♦ The drought area expanded a bit from August; now 64.6% of the contiguous U.S. was experiencing moderate-to-exceptional drought, slightly larger than the extent of drought at the end of August.
♦ Wildfire activity was well-above average in the Northwest, specifically Montana, Oregon and Washington. Nearly 1.1-million acres burned in September, making that a record for the month.
Year-to-Date in the U.S.:
♦ The first nine months of the year were the warmest on record for the contiguous U.S., with a national temperature that was 3.8 degrees above the average.
♦ The first nine months of 2012 have been the 11th driest such period on record for the contiguous U.S. with a precipitation total 1.98 inches below the average of 22.67 inches.


text:
Food briefs for Oct. 13-19
Flavor kicks off brunch, Sunset Dinners and more: Beginning Saturday, Flavor Del Mar restaurant will offer three-course prix-fixe Sunset Dinners from 5:30-7 p.m. Sundays-Wednesdays for $29.95. Also Saturday, Flavor will begin offering brunch from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Chef Jason Maitland's creations include Slow Cooked King Salmon Benedict, Prime Beef Short Rib Loco Moco, designer bloody Marys and more. The restaurant has added live entertainment from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Sundays, and a $19.95 two-course prix-fixe lunch menu. The dining room now opens at 5:30 p.m. nightly with themed bar/lounge specials Mondays-Thursdays. Go to www.flavordelmar.com .
Fleming's launches small plates: Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar introduces seven small plates designed for sharing: Sliced Filet Mignon, Jumbo Shrimp Scampi Skewers, New Zealand Petite Lamb Chops, Ahi Tuna Skewers, New Bedford Scallops, Filet Mignon Skewers and Fleming's Lobster Tempura. The plates come with salads, slaws and dipping sauces. Fleming's also announced it has launched a new private-label wine with Il Borro winemaker Salvatore Ferragamo of Italy called Forty-Six Diamonds Toscana 2009.
Karl Strauss upcoming releases: Karl Strauss Brewing Co. has three releases in the coming months. Starting Thursday, customers can purchase 22-ounce bottles or drafts of Big Barrel Douple IPA. And beginning Nov. 1, Fullsuit Belgian-Style Brown Ale, the company's winter seasonal, will be available in 12-ounce bottles and on draft. In mid-November, Two Tortugas will be released in 22-ounce bottles and on draft. The Belgian-inspired Quadruple Ale is the second in the company's 12 Days of Christmas holiday ales series. Go to www.karlstrauss.com .
Local woman releases cookbook: Celine Cossou-Bordes has released "Cooking With Trader Joe's: Pack a Lunch," which uses Trader Joe's as a "prep kitchen" to make lunches. The 272-page book from Brown Bag Publishers retails for $24.95; go to www.cookTJ.com .
Mama's Kitchen bake sale: Mama's Kitchen will host its seventh Mama's Pie in the Sky Thanskgiving Bake Sale beginning Monday. Pies are $20 each and benefit Mama's Kitchen, which offers meals to those in the San Diego community affected by cancer and AIDS. Order pies online at www.mamaspies.org, or call 619-233-6262. Pies are on sale through Nov. 21; varieties include pumpkin, pecan, apple and no-sugar-added apple; pies will be delivered throughout the county for pickup Nov. 23, just before Thanksgiving. Go to www.mamaskitchen.org .
Pie sale: Marie Callender's Whole Pie-To-Go sale runs through Oct. 31, with more than 30 varieties of pies on sale for $7.99 (plus tin).
Del Mar cafe wins airport concession: Pacific Breeze Cafe has signed a 10-year concession agreement to operate a restaurant at San Diego's Lindbergh Field airport. The Pacific San Diego outlet will serve breakfast fare, soups, salads, sandwiches, coffee drinks and cocktails. Other locally owned restaurants signed to airport concessions are the Cohn Restaurant Group, which will operate a Vin De Syrah wine bar, Ryan Bros. Coffee and Jack in the Box.
Sausages feature local brews: Iowa Meat Farms and Siesel's butcher shops are now carrying sausages made with locally brewed spirits. Old Viscosity Pork Shoulder Brats feature Old Viscosity dark ale from Port Brewing Co. in San Marcos ($4.49 a pound). And Hard Cider and Wild Boar Sausages are made with Julian Hard Cider ($7.99 a pound). Visit bestmeatssandiego.com .


text:
The Fancy Dress Warehouse Mega Sale is full of items that you just won't find cheaper anywhere else. These are final reductions and we are offering these items at bargain basement prices to make way for brand new lines! There is a generous 75% off all sale items. We've literally hundreds of lines to choose from. Take a look at our Mega Sale now and pick up some deals while we still have stock.
Welcome back! Simply click below and you will be taken to the new Fancy Dress Warehouse login area.
3rd December 2014: Christmas Opening Hours
Opening hours for the festive period.
20th October 2014: Halloween Opening Hours
View the Halloween 2014 operating hours extension.
13th December 2013: Christmas & New Year Opening Times
Christmas and New Year opening hours and order cut off dates.


text:
Reviewing the tens of thousands of pet insurance claims that come in each month, VPI noticed an abundance of claims that were unusually quirky but that ended well thanks to action on the part of our policyholders and their trusted veterinarians. The Hambone Award is named in honor of a VPI-insured dog that got stuck in a refrigerator and ate an entire Thanksgiving ham while waiting for someone to find him! The dog was eventually found, with a licked-clean ham bone and a mild case of hypothermia.
Each month, VPI employees select one interesting claim as that month's nominee. All nominees considered for the award are pets that have made full recoveries and received insurance reimbursement for eligible expenses.
From the pooch that ate an entire Nativity set to the dog who became a "chair" of sorts for a large farm animal, these claims were in a league of their own and deserved special attention.
The top pick will receive VPI's Hambone Award and designation as the most unusual claim of the year.
Each year the public will vote for the year's most unusual claim from among these monthly nominees.


text:
The EA Security Architecture is built upon five EA Conceptual Principles and four EA Principles for Security:
All authentication, authorization, and auditing be consistent across the enterprise.
Inform all stakeholders of information security policies, standards, guidelines & procedures.
Implement coordinated and consistent incident prevention/response through proactive communication.
Apply and maintain best practices for protection of enterprise technology and information assets.
Super Work, great job
Copyright © 2015 North Dakota Information Technology Department - ITD
Use Adobe Reader to view, print and collaborate on PDF files.


text: HDR: Man injured at Duke Energy substation expected to return to work Friday Posted on September 19, 2013September 19, 2013 by Brandy Carl From Hickory Daily Record: A man working at a Duke Energy substation was hit by a 2,000-pound electrical component Thursday morning. By Thursday afternoon, the company he works for said he was released from the hospital. SHARE


text:
Track List
Album Notes
The husband-and-wife duo of Steve Lawrence & Eydie Gorme were firmly established as one of the best traditional pop acts in the United States when they recorded this lush Christmas offering for Columbia Records in 1964. On That Holiday Feeling!, Steve and Eydie deliver solid solo performances -- Gorme on "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" and "White Christmas," Lawrence with "Let Me Be the First to Wish You Merry Christmas" and "The Christmas Song" -- while they show off the splendid vocal give and take that made them stars on "Sleigh Ride," "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!," and "Baby, It's Cold Outside." Featuring arrangements from some of the best studio men in the business (including Don Costa, Al Cohn, and Patrick Williams), That Holiday Feeling! is a beautifully crafted artifact from the era of great singers, and captures Steve & Eydie at their best. The GL Music reissue includes two bonus tracks. ~ Mark Deming
ReviewsThere are currently no reviews, be the first one!
Also Purchased
See Also
- Two on the Aisle/Together on Broadway (Gorme, Eydie)
- The Greatest Hits, Vol. 1 (Gorme, Eydie)
- To You, from Us (Gorme, Eydie)
- 20 Golden Performances: Steve Lawrence and Eydie G (Go, Eydie)
- Greatest Hits, Vol. 2 (Gorme, Eydie)
- Cozy/Two on the Aisle (Gorme, Eydie)
- Long Play Collection (Gorme, Eydie)
- Cozy/A Man and a Woman (Gorme, Eydie)


text:
Book Search
1-1 of 1 results for Author: elisabet weedon (sorted by Publication Date, showing all)
Improving Disabled Students' Learning
Experiences and Outcomes
Series: Improving Learning
How do disabled students feel about their time at university? What practices and policies work and what challenges do they encounter? How do they view staff and those providing learning support? This book sets out to show how disabled students experience university life today. The current...
Published May 29th 2009 by Routledge


text:
GroupAustin Regional Clinic, P.A.
Contact InfoARC Southwest - Pediatrics
1807 Slaughter Ln, Suite 490
Austin, TX 78748
Phone: (512) 282-8967
Fax: (512) 406-7351
Year Joined ARC: 1998
Education: B.S. in Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1990
Medical School: The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 1994
Residency Internship: University of Arizona Affiliated Hospitals, 1997
Certification: Board Certified in Pediatrics
Professional Positions and Honors:
- Co-Chief, ARC Pediatrics
Languages Spoken: Vietnamese
Personal Summary: Dr. Duong enjoys spending time with her husband and three daughters. She has completed three marathons and enjoys running with her well-meaning but very ill-mannered chocolate lab.
Views on political or religious issues expressed by medical staff may not necessarily represent the views of the Seton Healthcare Family.


text:
Hostelworld "meet the world" by Lucky Generals
Rating: 5.0
By by John Tylee, campaignlive.co.uk, Thursday, 08 December 2005 08:30AM
Paul Hammersley, the DDB London chief executive, and David Hackworthy, his chief strategic officer, have been slated to take leading roles in the new shop with Sir Frank and the former Lowe London chairman Paul Weinberger. But as Campaign went to press neither man (both at a DDB meeting in the US), had quit.
Nor had Mark Cadman, the JWT managing director. He is said to be weighing up the prospect of promotion at JWT against an equity stake in the start-up. Ed Morris, Lowe's executive creative director, has also been approached.
Meanwhile, it is believed Sir Martin Sorrell, WPP's chief executive, has had talks about his possible involvement, but nothing has been agreed.
Lowe's 20-strong Tesco account team is expected to be offered jobs by Sir Frank.
Besides Tesco, the agency could launch with business from Heineken and Olympus.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.
This article was first published on campaignlive.co.uk
Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.
If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.
Rating: 5.0
Agency: Grey London
Rating: 5.0


text:
Some things just are what they are. Certain phrases have become so well-understood that precise descriptions are no longer necessary for you to grasp everything you need or want to know about a thing or person. Examples of this include "it's a fixer-upper," "dittohead" and "that time of the month."
So when I tell you that Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is a swashbuckler, that should be all you need to decide if you'll see it. It's much quicker to just say "swashbuckler" instead of "rip-roaring high-seas adventure with plenty of blood and thunder."
The story comes straight from the popular series of novels by Patrick O'Brian concerning one Jack Aubrey, the captain of the HMS Surprise, a ship in the British fleet fighting Napoleon in 1805. Russell Crowe, channeling Errol Flynn and William Shatner, brings a fair amount of both to his cunning, charismatic portrayal. As Captain Kirk had his Spock & McCoy, Captain Aubrey has his foil in the ship's doctor, naturalist and all-around sage, Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany).
Surrounded by a finely-cast crew (notably featuring Billy Boyd of the Lord of the Rings movies), Aubrey and Bettany write their names in the history books -- the former in war, the latter in science. There are also a substantial number of very young lads playing the deckhands (director Peter Weir always gets really good performances out of child actors), and their presence makes the story more intimate, particularly when they get hurt or killed.
The tale takes place near the Galapagos Islands, where the Surprise has been sent to stop a French supply vessel that is larger and more deadly. A cat-and-mouse game ensues, punctuated by expertly-shot sea scenes (done in a tank for the most part, though you'd never know it), interesting crew plotlines, and plenty of masculine male bonding, and I mean plenty. Lord Nelson (the unseen but frequently referred-to admiral of the fleet) gets more love and respect from this bunch than any female (and in the one scene where a woman actually appears, she's treated like a space alien). This is a man's, man's, man's, man's, man's movie.
Master and Commander is great as an archetype of the genre, and if you love adventure, you can't go wrong here. The formula for these sorts of pictures is as set in stone as the Western, but thanks to the superb direction and camerawork, it comes off as fresh and invigorating as the sea spray. Though it's aimed at fans of the books and older moviegoers, this film is so well-made that nearly anyone -- apart from the easily seasick -- can get swept away. The people who always complain that they don't make 'em like that anymore can just shut up now.


text:
Mobile Bakery / Pizza
I am wanting to assemble a mobile trailer with the Casa2G100 to do hearth breads (at home) and pizzas (at events).
I was able to fish around to find some posts on building out a trailer, but I am having a hard time narrowing my search to fit my situation.
Can someone direct me to resources that speak to a larger oven, like the Casa2G100 and it being mounted on a trailer. Trailer specs, oven suggestions, any special considerations, etc.
Re: Mobile Bakery / Pizza
Maybe this isn't exactly what you are looking for but maybe you can get some ideas from a company from the east coast. Check out What We Do to see if maybe a truck mounted unit might be something you could be interested in. I love their look and image! Just an idea.
Re: Mobile Bakery / Pizza
Look at the build by 100million. Not sure if it meets your needs but he did a pretty good job of documentation. If you have the dollars, there is a company that will sell you a trailer for this purpose (and they are really nice).
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2006/10 Forno Bravo, LLC


text:
Sound Consumer archive
October 2012
Initiatives to label GMOs
I-522 and Prop 37
by Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs
You think the odds of getting I-522 on the state ballot to label GMO foods are stacked against us? You're right.
Learn who opposes I-522 »
Non-GMO Project Verification: What does it mean?
by Chris Keefe
Until labels for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) become mandatory, we have two voluntary labels for GMO avoidance — certified organic and Non-GMO Project Verified.
Labor shortages growing problem
by Eli Penberthy, co-editor
Stricter immigration enforcement, an ineffective guestworker program, and lack of national immigration reform are to blame for shrinking the number of available farmworkers.
Letters to editor
Labeling GMO initiative · Titanium dioxide? · Carrageenan? · Butter-flavored v. real butter · Sugar in deli foods · Gelato ingredients?
News bites
Washington crop circles · Cattle for climate change? · Honey theft · Bhutan's organic pledge · Cities tapping aquifers · 2,4-D soy · GMOs killing butterflies? · Walnuts boost semen quality · Alaska salmon drops MSC · Regulating factory farm pollution? · Trans fats and aggression · Occupy Monsanto
Brilliant fall apples
It's always hard to say goodbye to the luscious berries, cherries and peaches of summer, but true fruit-lovers take heart in one of the jewels of autumn: the lovely apple.
Recipes from the October issue
Savory ways with apples
Pie, crisp, crumble .... everyone has a favorite dessert recipe for apples. But why save fall's favorite fruit for the end of the meal?
What's new in store — October 2012
Go raw! From "pies" to "cookies" made with coconut and nuts, to and kale chips and pistachio butter, PCC offers a range of raw foods that are as delicious as they are healthy.
Sweet cooperation: chocolate from farmer-owned co-ops
by Eli Penberthy
Chocolate's good for the heart, skin and even mood — and here's yet another reason to indulge: eating chocolate from responsible companies can support farmers in developing countries around the world.
Soil & Sea: reports from our producers
Learn how the national drought is affecting cattle farmers and Washington's apple industry, and why Alaskan Coho salmon had a disappointing summer.
PCC Board of Trustees report
Board application deadline · Board reports · IYC 2012 activities · Improving school food · PCC Farmland Trust


text:
THE RAT PACK is Back at Reagle Music Theatre, 11/11
The Rat Pack, starring sensational Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Sammy Davis Jr. impersonators Gary Anthony, Andy DiMino and Lambus Dean, returns to Reagle Music Theatre of Greater Boston for one show only on Sunday, November 11 at 2 p.m. in the Robinson Theatre, 617 Lexington Street, Waltham.
This remarkable tribute show, featuring the classic hits "Come Fly with Me," "That's Amore," "Mr. Bojangles," "My Way," "Everybody Loves Somebody," "The Candy Man," and so many more, sold out the last time these musical mad men were in town. Now they are back by popular demand, straight from Las Vegas, singing all the famous trio's tunes that made the '60s so swinging.
For this exclusive engagement, The Rat Pack is backed by a hot seven-piece band of regional musicians who specialize in the jazz and big band sound of the decade.
"Our Frank, Dean and Sammy are no ordinary celebrity impersonators," says Robert Eagle, producing artistic director of Reagle Music Theatre. "They practically channel their alter egos, bringing their sound, style, and devil-may-care humor to life for a new generation of audiences. At times Gary, Andy and Lambus look and act so much like their counterparts you'd swear you were back at the Sands Hotel in Vegas during the Rat Pack's heyday. They put on a fabulous show, and they leave our audiences begging for more."
Gary Anthony (Frank Sinatra) has been one of Vegas' most in demand Sinatra impersonators since moving to the Entertainment Capital of the World in 1994. A native of Los Angeles, Anthony grew up in a musical family headed by his father, a big band director. Music came naturally to the third of 11 children, and although the performer also sings as himself, even as a child Anthony knew that "Frank was the man."
About Author
- Casting Roundup: Sarah Chalke, Kim Raver Headline New Pilots
- ADVENTURE TIME Headed to the Big Screen?
- Pilot Season Roundup: Colm Feore, Daniel Stern, Dave Annable to Star in New Shows
- James Franco to Star in New Fox Comedy, WHY HIM?
- Christopher Meloni to Star in WGN America's Slave Drama UNDERGROUND
- Check Out Alex Dunphy's Full College Essay from Latest MODERN FAMILY Episode
- Photo Flash: HBO Reveals Key Art for GAME OF THRONES Season 5
- Syfy to Honor Leonard Nimoy with Special Programming This Sunday
- Grammy Winner Kelly Clarkson Exclusively Premieres New Music from New Album on MTV, VH1 & CMT First
- CONSTELLATIONS' Jake Gyllenhaal and Ruth Wilson Set for THEATER TALK This Weekend


text:
A Productive Vacation
For many of you it is spring break. Do you feel like a newly freed Israelite, having escaped from the hard work of school? For a whole week you can get up at whatever time you want! But remember, even when we are free -- especially when we are free -- we have the responsibility to take care of ourselves and others.Â
So, don't just loll around the house and watch TV. Help your mom with the groceries; play catch with your little brother; plant a garden for Mother Earth.
Chefs in the Making
Bubbie's Charoset:
by Batya Shultz, age 10, Harkham Hillel Hebrew Academy, in memory of her great-grandmother who died on April 1, 2003.
12 ounces cooked
pitted prunes
1/2 cup chopped walnuts
2 red delicious apples
3/4 cup sweet
red wine
cinnamon to taste
Iraqi Charoset
by Jacob and Jordan Pardo, ages 8 and 4, Sinai-Akiba Academy
3 cups chopped walnuts
4-5 tablespoons
of homemade date
syrup (made from
cooked and
squeezed dates)Â
Apple Charoset
by Katie Lu, age 9 1/2,
Pressman Academy
3 apples
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
1 tablespoon sugar
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
2 tablespoons grape juice
We welcome your feedback.
Privacy Policy
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
Terms of Service
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.