Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2006 Planning Commission Packet • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANivING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: PLACE: TYPE: ROLL CALL Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-206 2. Application #06-428 3. Application #04-177 4. Application #06-367 GLIEM 18344 Baylor Avenue QUITO VILLAGE GROUP, LLC. 18804 Cox Ave NEXTEL/SPRINT 19550 Prospect Avenue LEE 14493 Big Basin Way The Site Visit Committee. is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to • be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. ~. Consent Item 1 • City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John Livingstone, AICP ~~ Community Development Director DATE: August 23, 2006 RE: Capital Improvement Program/Finding of General Plan Consistency The Public Works Director is requesting that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding that the City's Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. In the material provided by the Public Works Director each project is listed and the associated General Plan goal or policy is stated. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution. Attachments 1. Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 2. Resolution 3. Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet (Exhibit "A") 4. Pages from the General Plan, which include supporting Goals and Policies cited in the spreadsheet. ~~ ~~ Memo To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director Date: August 23, 2006 Re: Proposed Projects for the 2006/2007 CIP Update I am pleased to transmit to you for your review 10 proposed projects in connection to the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update. The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the new CIP projects are consistent with the General Plan. The 10 new projects for consideration have been reviewed by the City Council. Attached to this memo is a spreadsheet with a brief description of each new project and the applicable pages from the General Plan, which correspond to the referenced Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures of the each General Plan Element. I will be in attendance at your meeting if you have any questions regarding the new projects. Ultimately your recommendation on the projects will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the September 6th CIP Public Hearing. If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please feel free to contact me at 868-1241. t • • Page 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request from the Public Works Director to find that the Proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on August 23, 2006, by the following roll call vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary to the Planning Commission .~ a .~, 0 ~, a 3 z 0 0 rw a ~. a G a~ as O L+ d ~. .., O. C~ U • r Land Use Element • LAND USE ELEMENT • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 1 of 9 Land Use Element OVERALL HEIGHT LIMIT Except for structwes located within the Vi]]age boundary (as defined by the Village Area Plan, ] 98~, no stnrcture shall be over two stories or 26 feet in height. In the Village, structure height v~~ll be limited based on compatibility v~dth existing structures and the natural environment. (Include graphics to extend this to a full five pages; begin ]and use Policies on next page...) LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES The following goals, policies; and implementation measures are an important part of the Land Use Element in that they offer specifics to help guide citizens and policymakers. GOAL 1 : SHPERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN Adhere to the adopted Saratoga Sphere of lnfluence Plan POLICY 1 Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the existing city limits and it is determined by the city that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic and urban service impacts to the Ciry. POLICY 2 The City shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Policies and area appropriate for arutexation and urban development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 P:11 four urban service areas to be studied to detemrine if further retraction of urban service boundaries is required. These studies should be coordinated with LAFCO with public,hearing before the Cornnvssion and Council. GOAL 2: NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan which is incorporated herein by this reference. GOAL 3: HISTORIC CHARACTER Enhance the unique historic character of the Village as the center of community activity, .commerce; and vitality. 6of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 00-t)UQS Land Use Element PoucY 3 The City shall encourage the designation of heritage resources and assure their protection, maintenance, and enhancement by the provisions of the heritage preservation ordinance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 3 To be implemented by the Heritage Preservation Ordinance and the Heritage Preservation Commission. GOAL 4: ECONOMIC VIABILITY Encourage the economic viability of Saratot?a's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents, keeping in mind the impact on surrounding residential areas. POLICY 4 Non-resideritia] and industrial uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as setbacks,. landscaping, berms, and soundwalls. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 4 Review the Design Revie~~ and Limited lndustrial Ordinances to determine if increased setbacks and landscaping are required. PoucY 5 Non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non-residential uses. Existing non-residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non- residential zoning districts added. POLICY 6 , . The City shall revise the zoning ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses in commerciare such usestwould be appropriateere such uses have not previously been permitted and v+he Goal 5: DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings. GOAL 6: NEW DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USES Relate new development and its ]and uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. 7of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 0~0~9 Open Space Element OPEN ~ SPACE- ELEMENT • • 1 of 9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary oo/,~~.~ Element PREFACE GENERAL OPEN SPACE GOALS GOAL 1 To provide and maintain open space resources of local and regional significance accessible to e public. GOAL 2 To preserve the hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition and inherent natural beauty. GOAL 3 ro erty from natural hazards such as fire, flood, To use open spaces to protect human life and p p seismic; and geotechnica] hazards. GOAL 4 To achieve and maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural em'ironment an man- made structures and land uses. GOAL 5 ~ roductive To protect and conse'v a ve elation and wildlife habit t,trnine al ]and; archaeological and historic , , agriculrural ]and, nan e g sites and areas of ecological significance. GOAL 6 To encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture. GOAL ~ To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. GOAL 8 To preserve and protect existing view sheds, view corridors, and scenic open spaces. GOAL 9 To create and maintain distinctive; amactive entrance ways reflecting the City's rural character an scale. 2of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~~~~: Open Space Element GOAL 10 To ensure that any new development is sensitive to the natural envirotunent and the community's open space resources. GOAL 11 To provide and maintain parks ~~hich are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community: and the neighborhoods of Saratoga. GOAL 12 To provide and maintain a trail system which links open spaces, schools, public facilities; the Saratoga Village, and historic sites. GOAL 13 To encourage the awareness; appreciation. and use of the City's open space resources in Saratoga's residents, particularly its yquth. GOAL 14 To preserve and maintain existing open space resources. GOAL 15 To preserve open space and recreational resources provided on school sites and surplus school sites through acquisition and/or land use convols. GOAL 16 To preserve, protect; and maintain riparian habitats and creek corridors. GENERAL OPEN SPACE POLICIES POLICY 1 Preserve; through a variety of methods; as ,;,uch as possible of the open space areas described in the Open Space Element for visual greenbelts, conservation and management of environmental resources, public health and safety protection and for recreational use. POLICY 2 Prepare an open space management plan in conjunction with its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan would identify open space needs as well as the appropriate use and ongoing maintenance needs of open space areas. PoucY 3 Encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals, citizens, groups, civic organizations; and those having special needs; such as the physically disabled; in the open space planning process. 3of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ry ~, n Space Element POLICY 4 rade existin municipal open space, parks, and trails to serve the current and lmprove and upg g future recreational needs of the community. 'These shall be consistent with preservation o open space. POLICY 5 Be vigilant in maintaining existing and e~;e parks and dedicated. open spaces to ensure that they remain part of the Public domain rn peril ty UNINCORPORATED HILLSIDE AREA POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 6 'fhe City shall make a concerted eff shall erot; cthe Residential Open Spa a zoning districwrthin the unincorporated hillside area and PP y of the City's Sphere of ]nf]uence. standards [to] these ]ands [should they become part of the City. POLICY 7 A significant component of the 'stence tied to ]the herit ge~of Saratoga. rose aluatingcfutvre lands which have a long history of ear onent of open space and to uses, efforts shall be made to maintain agricultural lands as a cornphal] discourage the early preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. 77re City cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts. POLICY 8 Public use and enjoyment of the uninco b~; a~and acquisitions encouraging both pri~ate andlpublic encouraged through direct or tndtre p recreational uses. Appropriate regulation of privately held ]ands to obtain maximum use of open space resources, such as the establishment of trail and open space easements, should be consistent with conservation of the natural environment. POLICY 9 Future land uses v~~thin the westternsrolf and use in the unincorporat dehillside areasa andlwith the conststent both with existing pa trtclude City's desire to maintainlthoe Sre caal districtt parksynature preserves and resource protection areas; city county, state, federa , P private campgrounds, picnic areas, and similar low-intensity recreational uses; non-residential, or- profit uses, v,~hich in~~ite members of the publi esovhrch a P envP onrnentally sensitive andrvisually small-scale, ]ow impact manner; residential us non-obtrusive, maximizing open spadse P neriesoorchards, and pastures; andtexisting recreapon agricultural uses, including vmeyar , facilities. 4of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary .no~~~~ n Space Element IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 To promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area, the City of Saratoga should pursue a cooperative agreement with the County of Santa Clara that will enswe Saratoga's ability to comment on development projects in the unincorporated hillside area. If necessary to secure the ability to comment on development projects in the unincorporated area, . pursue expansion of the sphere of influence, to include those areas with a.strong relationship to the. City due to visibility and/or the protection of infrastructure and services. if the expansion of the Sphere of lnfluence is pursued; the City v~~ll apply the Residential Open Space zoning district standards, as the prezone classification for all lands outside the existing Sphere of Influence. The Ciry.of Saratoga should work v~~th thaTe`'''n os ant to Local AgencytForma Trout Commission establish logical plannrng area bound p regulations. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 The City should offer incentives to agricultural ovmers and operators as away of continuing 'such uses. Incentives could include alJow~ing the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the site, as eve]] as the resale of goods relaied to on-site operations (e.g. equestrian equipment); residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (e.g. vineyards, wood lots; or orchards) or open space dedications; allov~ring additional dwellings on family farm operations v,Jhen such additional dwellings v~dll permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses consistent v~~ith VJilliarnson Act provisions (not constituting a residential subdivision of the ]and under the Williamson Act); modifying road construction standards in hillside agricultural areas (e.g. curbs and gutters; which could interfere with agricultural operations; should not be required). SCENIC OPEN SPACE POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 10 In evaluating scenic open space for planning purposes, the Ciry shall consider microscale, intermediate scalea;j wee s aleslmay have~the h ghesttpotential fornprovidn g qualitytscenicropen which encompass space. POLICY 11 'Hillside Development The hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its prime macroscale views. Therefore, development must include careful study of the effect on scenic open space. POLICY 12 Existing Vegetation The preservation of native and other vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be given priority over development and provide for the perpetuation of such species. Fire safety shall be an important consideration when evaluating the preservation of native vegetation.. 5of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~DU01~ Oven Space Element • POLICY 13 Natural Environmental Features The preservation of the natural environment including geological and ecological features shall be encouraged. POLICY 14 Major Ennyways and Arterials The major entryway's and arterials throughout the City shall be designed to enhance Saratogta's residential character and scale, nubli ahs and arterials shall be an important consideration in evaluating the design of major tTY`~' y . PoucY 15 Street lmprovements Open space objectives shall take precedence over the width and landscaping of roadways and the inclusion of curbs; sidev~~alks, and gutters. POLICY 16 Parking Lots The design of parking lots shall be evaluated for opportunities to reduce large continuous expanse of asphalt and to promote the establishment of visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing parking lots. POLICY 17 Acquisition of Scenic Open Space The acquisition of scenic open space for park sites shall include an evaluation of the microscale; intermediate scale. and macroscale potential of each site. POLICY 18 Scenic Views and Trail System The City's trail plan shall access as many natural views as possible; including hillside macroviews and rriicroscale views. POLICY 19 Creeks The City's creeks shall be preserved and restored where possible; as natural scenic vie-~s. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 3 Hillside Development otentia] im acts to scenic views shall be In addition to the applicable city development standards, p P evaluated prior to developmmited disrua lion of natura]vegetatbion~ uste of structural heighblimitse colors; controlled grading, 1 P and structural design and density guidelines. Special consideration should be given to the eventual development of a canopy effect of tree growth. • 6of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary OQO~35 Open Space Element IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 4 '• Existing Vegetation The City should provide information and assistance to the public in the preservation and care of native trees N~hose existence can be threatened by environmental stress and development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 5 Major Entryway and Arterials A street tree planting, landscaping, and maintenance program should be developed to encourage drought resistant; native vegetation to be planted and maintained throughout the City, especially in City owned and privately maintained rights of way. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 6 Parking Lots Large continuous expanses of asphalt should be limited by measures such as overi]ow parking on pervious surfaces; an increase in tree canopy coverage required and the encouragement of shared parking v<~th adjacent and compatible uses. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 7 Non-scenic views enhanced Man-made, non-scenic, or unenhanced vie~~s such as railroad and utility facilities and quarries should be enhanced insofar as possible by erosion control measures; landscaping; use of color, and other methods of scenic improvement. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 8 • Scenic Open Space Inventory As a public reference; the City should prepare and update an im~entory indicating all dedicated ' scenic open space resources in Saratoga. TRAIL SYSTEM POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES POLICY 20 Regional Trails Network A regional system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be encouraged, which includes trails v~~thin and between all City; County, State; and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space ]ands, as well as trails providing access from the City of Saratoga to these lands. POLICY 21 Trail Acquisition Criteria The City shall promote the acquisition of trails as a mode of access and for recreational purposes, through purchase, dedication, or gift. The trails network should emphasize creating connections between neighborhoods; schools, parks, public open spaces; historic sites; and activity centers; connections to the regional trails network; and acquisitions of trails that respect the rights of property owners as well as their privacy and security. Trails proposed for acquisition are identified on the Trails Map. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~ of 13~Q~~~ n Space Element . POLICY 22 Coordination Trail planning, acquisition, development; and management shall be coordinated among the various volunteer agencies and local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or funding for trails. . POLICY 23 Traditional Trail Routes Trails shall be established along traditional routes whenever feasible. POLICY.24 Development and Maintenance Trail development, patrol, and maintenance responsibilities shall be coordinated with al] entities involved in each trail segment. In most cases, development responsibilities are borne by the property owner and maintenance activities are undertaken by the City. The City is encouraged to v,~ork v,~th volunteer groups to maintain City trails. , POLICY 25 Trail Location and Design Trails shall be located; designed; and developed v,7th sensitivity to the resources and environmental hazards of the areas they traverse; as we]] as their potential impacts on adjacent lands and private property, including potential impacts to private property owners' privacy and • security. Trails shall be designed to City specifications; require minimal grading; and include effective erosion control measures. POLICY 26 Development Controls ' ~' The City shall control land development along designated trails in order to provide sufficient trail right-of--way and ensure that new development adjacent to the corridors does not detract from the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the cot7idor. POLICY 27 Creekside Trail Restriction The City shall not acquire, plan; or develop trail easements or public access easements along Wildcat Creek or Saratoga Creek, across single ofmulti-family ]and uses as designated in the Saratoga General Plan abutting said creeks; or adjacent to said creeks between the centerline thereof and any single or multi-family designated property. This policy statement shall apply to Saratoga Creek from Prospect Avenue south to To]]gate Road, and to Wildcat Creek from Quito . Road south to the Villa Montalvo Arboretum property line, with the exception of the section between Carnelian Glen Drive and Douglass Lane, as shown on the Trail System Map. POLICY 28 Access for the Disabled Whenever feasible, trails shall be designed and developed to meet the accessibility needs of all segments of the population 8of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~~~~~.~ n Space Element POLICY 29 • Trail Access Trails shall be designed with adequate ingress and egress points to minimize the need for parking at trailheads. Parking should be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. POLICY 30 Transportation lmprovements 'Transportation improvements, such as road widening and bridge construction; shall include bicycle paths; as indicated on the master • • 9of9 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary OQ~©'~~ Circulation and Scenic Highway Element ~ CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENT • • City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 1 oiB,~OQ1C~ Circulation and Scenic Highway Element • PREFACE Fo]]o~~~ng is a circulation element consisting of the genera] location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, tetnvnals and other local public utilities and facilities; al] correlated v,~th the ]and use element _of the plan. Also included is a scenic highway element for the development; establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division l of the Streets and Highways Code. GOAL 1 : BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Promote a balanced transportation system in Saratoga with anention to energy efficient transportation. ' POLICY 1 The Ciro shall encourage and participate in the County-wide implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga. POLICY 2 The Ciry shall work toward improved public transit; including more frequent service and access to the village. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 1 Coordinate with County 'Transit on City efforts necessary to increase transit availability. ~~ . PoucY 3 The West Valley Corridor right-of-way shall be designated as a public use corridor. GOAL 2: SAFE. MOVEMENT Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic v~~thin and through the City, taking into consideration the em~ironmental; historical, an3 residential integrity of the City. POLICY 4 The City shall require public right-of--way to be offered and all private roads designated as collectors. PoucY 5 For safety, every new or de~~eloping public or private cul-de-sac greater than 500 feet in length, and every new and developing residential area in the City with more than ] 5 residential lots on a cu]-de-sac should have a primary and an emergency access. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 2 Modify Subdivision Ordinance accordingly. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 2 of 8 t~0UU20 • • City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and Report/Goals, Policies, and Jmplemenration Measures A circulation element consistinga st ortat onrou~esttormmals,tand other local public proposed major thoroughfare P utilities and facilities; al] correlated with the land use element of the plan. A scenic highway element for the development; estcob~shrne mg w,thrSectionn260 cofnic highways pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 Chapter 2 of Division ] of the Streets and Highways Code. O~IERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Goa] C1.1.0 Provide a balanced transporiatiori sysai ~~ She City's rut ] ha a cter.to all segments of the commurvty and to m Policies C] l.] 7'he City shall encourage and o serveaSarat ~aimplementation of a vanety of modes of transport Cl.] .2 Encourage development of inter-regionallan aim jo opments:n to support local and regional transportation solution P STREET SYSTEM AJ~TD ST,e,J~T~ARDS OF SER~~ICE Goals C1.2.OaFacilitate the safe movement of vehicular traf~r; 1 andaT a~a nt al in egrity of theg into consideration the environmental, hest , City to maximize benefits and minimize adverse impacts and costs. C].2.Ob For traffic management and street .d of gesidentialeareas.fficiency of vehicular traffic with the safety and ltvabthty Policies CI 2.] Make efficient use of existing tratrave]ed through the arrangement of land the total number of vehicle miles uses, improved alternative modes, and enhanced integration. of various transportation systems. Maintain and develop aCity-wide street system that manages vehicular C1.2.2 access, but also provides for emergency access. Page 39 Fehr & Peers Associates, lnc. ~O! ~Q,~~ Ciry of Sarotogo Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementotion Measures CI.2.3 Adopt the proposed roadway classifications as shown on Figure C-2 and as described in the Background Report. CI.2.4 Maintain a minimum Level of Service (LOS) D operations standard at all signalized street intersections that are under City jurisdiction. (intersections and roadways included in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program are held to a LOS E standard). CI.2.5 Require public review of any development project or other proposal that. causes an intersection to degrade by one or more levels of service (e.g: LOS A to B, LOS B to D). C1.2.6 Accept Level of Service E or F operations at City-maintained signalized intersections after finding that no practical and feasible improvements can be implemented to mitigate the lower levels of service. A proposed development that exacerbates LOS E or F operations and causes a significant intersection impact should be considered for approval if it will provide a clear, overall benefit to-the City (e.g., library expansion or relocation, new community center). C1.2.7 Ensure that new development or redevelopment projects provide adequate property dedication to accommodate future roadway improvements at key intersections and other problem areas. CI.2.8 Manage traffic flow on major and minor aneria] roadv~~ays to discourage through traffic in residential neighborhoods. CI.2.9 Align and design through collector streets to minimize adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods through which they pass, while functioning efficiently to collect and distribute traffic. C].2.10 Design new local streets to reduce travel distance, promote alternative modes; and provide a more even distribution of traffic. CI.2.l ] Establish the primary access for major traffic generators on arterial roadways and design overall access to minimize traffic intrusion to residential neighborhoods. C1.2.12 Strive to maintain traffic volumes and speeds on collector and local streets that are compatible with the character of the adjacent ]and uses, the function of the street, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic. CI.2.13 Protect the integrity of and improve existing hillside streets by planning future development according to existing street capacities. • • • Poge 40 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 0©(3022 Ciry oJSararoga Circulation and Scenic Nighwoy Element Bockground Report/Goals, Policies, and Jmplemenrarion Measures C1.2.]4 Focus future improvements on the most congested intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation. CI.2.]5 Require development projects to mitigen~~ d reef cal and feasble street traffic and parking impacts by unplem 8 p improvements. Im lementation Measures C1.2.]6 Continue to use the Capi~ements to the street~sys emprogram and implement needed tmpro , CI.2.17 lement roadway and signal timing modifications to improve operations 1rnP then turn pockets, adjust left-turn phases, . ]en and enhance safety (e.g•~ g ' widen lanes). CI.2.18 Establish street and driveway accessib1lTO dwa 11as shown onlFigure C-2. or ariena y i n designated as a major or m s or street access does not b~d ~ v l f oi e opment Ensure that driveway al de ividu traffic flow as part of the City review process projects. C1.2. ] 9 Instal] coordinated signal systems on al] major arterial roadways in the P should be obtained ffic City to improve tra Countya Sta~e and Federal funding sources, and from all available City: . developer contributions. 20 2 C1 Evaluate the need for upgrading or enhancing intersection control (e.g., ctions on arterial roadways an i , . nterse signalization, stop signs) at existing verall access and circulation. . collector sweets to improve o 21 2 C1 Install traffic signals to serve existing an eprand enh race P destrian~ safety. s , , , provide acceptable traffic operations tssu CI.2.22 Require a transportation analyst woe analysislshalle dent~fy potent al g ~ 50 or more net new daily traps ro ect access, and and roadway operations, p j i on impacts to intersect alternative travel modes, and shall identify feasible impro acros nt~{cance project modifications to reduceroeriai miaint fined by the VTA• City staff tent with the i s should be cons regarding access, the discretio s u t n should have ues safety is erationa] and sight distance; and other p Evaluate development proposals and design roadway improvements based C1.2.23 on established Level of Service standards. Poge 41 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. OOU~23 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Xighway Element Bockground Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures C1.2.24 Require that roadway improvements identified as mitigation measures for development projects be in place prior to issuance- of occupancy permits. C1.2.25 Require new development or redevelopment projects to dedicate property to accommodate roadway improvements at the following intersections: Saratoga-Surlnyyale Road/Prospect Road, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue/Cox Avenue. C1.2.26 Tdentify potential capacity improvements and access modifications to maintain adequate circulation in the vicinity of the Civic Center, West Valley College, Redwood Middle School, the Public Library, St. Andrews School and Sacred Heart. ' C1.2.27 Consider paying for improvement costs to serve a development project, as appropriate, where the City's economic development interests may be served. CI.2.28 Develop and adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan to specifically include a process for identifying problem areas, and for evaluating; funding, and implementing traffic calming measures to reduce ~~ 'high traffic volumes and travel speeds on City streets. • C1.2.29 Design local streets to carry ]ow traffic volumes at low speeds and to function safely while minimizing the need for traffic control devices or enforcement. Physical features should include gentle curves, changes of grade, narrow widths, short lengths, and T-intersections where feasible. CI.2.30 Design streets to minimize impacts to topography, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. • CI.2.31 lmplement the action programs identified in the 13illside Specific Plan to provide adequate vehicular access including improvements identified for Pierce Road consistent with Policy Cl.2.l 3. Where feasible, improvements will include widening of travel lanes, increasing vertical clearance, installing additional signs, and providing new pavement overlays to improve safety. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION Goal CI. 3.0 Limit the intrusion of commercial truck traffic on streets within the City. Page 42 Fehr & Peers Associa~es, Inc. O~fl024 Ciry oJSaratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Po]_~es .3.1 Require trucks to orily use the designated routes shown on Figure C-3 Cl a local delivery. unless making . Encoura e or re uire deliveries to be made during off-peak periods (i.e., CI.3.2 g q commute eriods), especially in areas outside the morning and evening P the eak enods. where intersections operate at LOS E or F during P P ]m lementation Measures Continue to strictly enforce the truck route ordinance by citing violators. CI.3.3 CI.3.4 Require as part of the develop h deliveries be moade oupside thewtypica] re guar truck deliveries that su peak commute travel periods (e.g., 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 4:00 pm to .6:00 pm) as appropriate. I.3.5 Establish and maintain reserved comet Villa e. Tunelimit forsdesignated C ro riate areas such as th g streets in aPP P loading areas may be established' to allow public on-.street parking m loading zones at other tunes., 1.3.6 Require new or redevelopment pr`; 1la e° prh small co~tmmercial ]ots~ng C areas except for areas such as the g Enforcement will be provided by the Sheriff s Department similar to other on-street parking areas in the Ciry. TRAM SIT Goals Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for CI.4.Oa • destinations within and outside the City. Promote the use of alternative modes of transporiandn aneed transigt,tbicycle and CI.4.Ob and convenience of existing P . safety, accessibility; pedestrian systems. Po]_- Coordinate with the Valley Transportation Authority to.increase service CI.4.1 range and frequency within the City as appropriate. Existing service is illustrated on Figure C-4. Pale 43 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. D~V~25 City ojSararoga Circulation and Scenic Xighway Element Background Reporr/Goals, Policies, and Implemenrorion Measures C1.4.2 Install transit improvements to improve service, increase safety, and maintain traffic flow on streets serving as transit routes. CI:4.3 Encourage the public school districts, private schools, recreation groups or other operators to develop a local bus system and to expand ride-sharing activities that will help to reduce school-generated vehicle traffic in neighborhoods and on City streets. Bussing should be the first measure considered to reduce school-generated traffic before substantial roadway capacity enhancements are implemented. C1.4.4 ]nvestigate the feasibility of a local shuttle service within Saratoga to reduce local traffic volumes on City streets and overall parking demand. The feasibility study shall identify potential routes and fiu,d•ing sources.. Implementation Measures CI.4.5 Require development projects to dedicate right-of--way for purposes of constructing bus turnouts and/or bus shelter pads on major and minor arterial roadways as appropriate. C1.4.6 Provide seating and shaded waiting areas at transit stops, with stop '~ locations near entrances of buildings to encourage r~dersh~p. CI.4.7 Recommend to the Valley Transportation Authority specific streets (e.g., • Cox Avenue) to be included on new or modified. ~ ; CI.4.8 Improve the links of local transportation systems and alternatives such as bicycling and walking with private and public regional transit such as bus transit, light rail, and Cal?rain. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be funded as Capita] lmprovement Program projects or through private development pro,}ects to further encourage the use of transit. CI.4.9 Provide information to the public on available alternative transportation choices and routes. C1.4. ] 0 Encourage local businesses to provide employees with transit passes or other financial incentives to use. transit to commute to and from the workplace. C1.4.1 l Recommend potential stop locations for local school bus service and provide minor street and landscaping improvements as appropriate. CI.4.12 Commission a feasibility study of local• shuttle service within Saratoga. Funding for the study should be obtained from federal and .state grants/sources and private development projects. Fehr & Peers Associares, Inc. Page 44 pQU026 City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Xighway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN A7~'D EQ~STRIAN FACILITIES Goals Cl. S.Oa Integrate facilities for safe bicycling, walkirig~ and horseback riding into the overall transportation system. C1.S.Ob Encourage equestrian and pedestrian tra~sa~as where safetysandtaesthetics ks and Trails Master Plan along roadways permit. • Policies CI.S.] Develop and maintain a CO for commuting and rercreationtem of bikeways that promote bicycle ndmg CI.5.2 Integrate the City of Saratoga bikeways system with the bikeways system of adjacent communities, where economically feasible. C1.5.3 Pursue the development of a new multi-SaraPoa that willelirik~ he Stevens Railroad alignment through the City of g. Creek Recreational ?rail in Cupertino with the Los Gatos Creek ?rail in' Los Gatos. CI.5.4 Pursue other potential rights-of--way such a edestrian, and/or equestrian District and utility easements for bicycle, p trail development. • CI.5.5 Assure implementation of the City's d of trail maintenance pu suarit to the dedication, construction, and a metho Parks and ?rails Master Plan as part of the subdivision or site approval process. C1.5.6 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes ~ ebs anda m ortant ommunity through residential areas linking transit ten P centers such as the Village. CI.S.Z Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to all public and private schools to enhance safety. C1.5.8 Provide trails, sidewalks or separated patwhere needed to prow de safes and along some collector streets in areas pedestrian access to schools. Re uire adherence to the trails policies noted in the both the Parks and C1.5.9 9 page 4S Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. n~OQ2,7 Ciry of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Trails Master Plan 'and the Hillside Specific Plan. ] 0 S CI Develop a set of practical and realistic transportation demand management . . (TDM) measures that can be used by employers in 'the City to reduce the number•of single-occupant vehicle trips. These measures would encourage ride-sharing and transit alternatives. Implementation Measures • CI.S.I l Update and adopt the Bikeways Master Plan to include goals and objectives, a detailed list and map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. The Bikeways Master Plan should include the proposed facilities shown on Figure C-5. 12 CI 5 Upgrade existing bikeways and designate new facilities where they can be . . accommodated according to current Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) technical guidelines (prior to adoption of City standards in the Bikeways Master Plan). For example, travel lanes on Fruitvale Avenue north of Burgundy Way should be restriped to provide bicycle lanes with 5-foot minimum widths or pathways. C1.S.13 with the school districts and other entities to develop Coordinate "Suggested Route to Sc}ioo] Plans" for all public and private schools in the City. Plans shall identify all pedestrian and bicycle facilities, a.nd traffic control devices for residents to determine the most appropriate travel route. The plans shall also identify existing easements for sidewalks. , , 14 C1 5 Prohibit parking in designated bicycle lanes on a]] streets unless adequate . . width is provided according to VTA guidelines or City standards. ] 5 S CI Requ-ire the provision of secure bicycle parking as part of all future . . development projects that include multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional uses. C1.5. ] 6 Develop a plan to review and identify additional bicycle parking locations in the Village area. l7 CI S Require new development projects and redevelopment projects to dedicate . . right-of-way and/or provide improvements to accommodate bicycle Janes on streets identified on Figure C-5. S l8 CI Require new cul-de-sac streets to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian . . access between residential areas, public uses, and community areas. CI.S.l9 'ects to include amenities such Encourage non-residential development prod Page 46 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ~~D~~2~ arato o Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Ciry of S 8 Background RepordGoals, Policies, and Implementation Measures as showers and lockers for employees to further encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile travel. ro ects (i.e., pedesvian street C1.5.20 Lncrease priority of pedestrian safety p j crossings, sidewalks or pathways) as part of the Capital lmprovernent Program. - - --- - rovements a funding priority by: ])continuing to C1.5.21 Make bikeway imp desi n and construction as part of the City's consider financing bikeway g tnco orating bikeway' annual construction and improvement fund; 2) ' rp improvements as part of the Capital lrnprovement Program and pavement management efforts; and 3) aggressively pwsuing regional funding and other Federal and State sources for new bikeways. U date the Parks and "Trails Master Plan to maiU~dnnclude the proposed C1.5.22 P Citywide pedestrian path system. The plans o trails shown on Figwe C-6. CI.5.23 Prohibit motorized vehicular traffic on trails, pathways, parks and dedicated open space areas except for maintenance and emergency purposes. C1.5.24 Include new sidewalk or path constructinnen oec o ei gaps inrpedestrian program; or as part of any new develop ~ ale Road, facilities on the fol]ov~~ing arterial roadways: Saratoga-Sunnyv Saratoga Avenue, Prospect Road, and Cox Avenue (see Figure C-6). C1.5.25 Include new sidewalk or path con ~otiment or redev ]opment to close Program, or as pari of any new de p gaps on local and collector streets near schools. .26 Review the need to instal] sidewalks and crosswalks on all City streets CI.S within one-half mile of all public schools. .27 Review the present equestrian zones ands element consistency with the CI.S athwa s lan of the circulatio trails and p y P STHESTIC QUALITIES AND ~RITAGE LAT'ES AE Goals 6.Oa Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through • CI. street design and landscaping. Page 47 Fehr ssociates, Inc. ~~~~~~' City ojSarotoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures C1.6.Ob Svive for aesthetically pleasing views from all roads in Saratoga and the Sphere of Influence.. C1.6.Oc Encourage the preservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage resources by the City. Policies ~ - --- - -- - ---- CI.6.l Identify areas of critical need for beautification and coordinate plans with revitalization or anticipated development of areas such as City gateways. CI.6.2 Adhere to minimum City street standards based on location, terrain, character of areas and the anticipated function of the roadway. CI.6.3 Permit variation of the con~~entional City street development standards, as described in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in order to preserve environmentally sensitive roadside features where vaffic safety will permit such variations. CI.6.4 Identify the function of a street in advance of construction, and apply design criteria to minimize disruption to the area caused by through or 'heavy vehicle traffic. ~ . CI.6.5 'Encourage the planting. of trees and plan the development of landscaped medians along major arterial roadways. CI.6.6 Enforce ordinances to prevent the use ofnon-conforming roadside signs on al] roads and highways within the City, whether erected by private individuals or business enterprises. CI.6.7 Require increased setbacks of up to ] 00 feet for structures,•walls or fences to be located on lots adjacent to officially designated scenic highways where it is determined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. CI.6.8 Require increased setbacks and landscaping for commercial and multi- family residential structures on corner lots adjacent to.arterial streets, as required, to reduce the visual impact of such structures and to enhance the appearance of important intersections where it is determined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. CI.6.9 Approve designs for new hillside sweets that maximize the use of natural • terrain for roadbed construction and minimize "cuts and fills." Page 48 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ~©.~Q~O ' Ciry of Saratoga Circulorion and Scenic Higl+way Elemen- ort/Goals, Policies, and lmplemen~arion Measures Background Rep ]m lementation Measures q and re are 1.6.10 Review Subdivision Ordinance strwa stcrossTsect~ons.e uacy P P c roaa y illustrations of corresponding . 're a si ht distance analysis to enswe adequate~e C'cc or by private C1.6.1 ] Requt g .variances from street design standards proposed by developers. Use Ca]trans design standards as guidelines for sight distance studies. Encourage residents of streets and roads b on as heritage lanes throug.Y-tthe CI.6.] 2 nominate those rights-of-way for des~gna Heritage Preservation Commission. esi commercial areas with pedestrian amenities, shade trees, and on- C1.6.13 D ~ to create inviting environments. street parking The desi nation of Heritage Lane shall not preclude City action necessary CL6.14 g vehicles while maintaining the to guarantee safe access for emergency integrity of the existing heritage lane. ~G SUPPLY A7~'D )\7.ANAGEn'IENT PARK Goals , , rovide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into C1.7.Oa P adjacent neighborhoods. vide on-street parking spaces in commercial areas that provide directlots tos to . CI.7.Ob P1O ro erties while requiring off street public and private parking abutting p P seine the majority of the demand. Po]__~es C1.7.1 Review on-street parking policies and utilization in the Village area. arking in the Village area for short-term use by those CI.7.2 Designate cwb p ublic facilities. ` visiting businesses and p e the location of parking lots behind buildings to emphasize the C1.7.3 Encowag buildings' physical and visual connections to the street and to maximize • pedestrian access and safety. e the use of carpools and vanpoo]s by providing preferential CI.7.4 Encowag spaces as appropriate. Page 49 Fehr & Peers Associates. Jnc. Q~~4.,~1 Ciry of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highwcy Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures lm~lementation Measures CI.7.5 Enforce parking ordinances in terms of. time limits and zones. CI.7.6 Establish time limits for on-street parking in commercial areas. CI.7.7. Adopt design standards for parking stalls, aisles and driveways for on- street and off=sweet facilities. • • Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. P ~~~ • Safety Element • 0©~~33 Safety Element PREFACE: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION T}ie identification of hazards that affect the city is the initial step in the safery.planning process. It is also the most important stage in this process since inaccwaie hazard identification and the formulation of inadequate safety land use policies could result in unnecessary loss of life, injury, and property damage. The natural hazards that have affected Saratoga in the past and those that may affect it in the futwe can be identified with a high degree of accuracy. Geologic, flood, and fire hazards have all caused considerable damage within the community in the past, while recent earthquakes have been minimal in their damaging effects. Although the future extent of natural hazards is unknown, in all probability the futwe will include the same•types of hazards as have occured in the past. Accurate hazard identification is an accounting of historical information to be used as the basis for the evaluation of the future and the risks involved in relation to current and proposed ]and uses. HAZARDS OF LAND INSTABILITY The physical and geologic characteristics of Saratoga have the potential to produce geologic related problems for land development. Land development in areas of geologic instability can sudject life and property to hazards caused by both seismic and non-seismic conditions. Many hazards occw when property is developed in ways which are unsuitable to geologic conditions in the area. When structures or roads are built on geologically unstable land such as landslide areas or unstable slopes and soils, there is a definite risk to the community. Geologic hazards are unavoidable in California. However, some geologic conditions represent greater hazards than others. Faulting and unstable bedrock present great risks, while surface instabilites can often be engineered to make construction safe. When unstable soil combines with steep slope, development can be hazardous and the environment is endangered by potential landslides. Recognizing and delineating the geotechnica] hazards which could result in injuries, property damage, and economic or social dislocations is an important function of the city planning process to protect the public health; safety, and welfare. The background geotechnica] data for the Safety Element of Saratoga's General Plan is contained in the Saratoga Geotechnical Report (] 974); the Ground Movement Potential maps and Geologic Hazard Analysis of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed and of the Congress Springs Study Area by Wi]]iamCotton and Associates (1980); and also in the Geologic Hazards Analysis of the Lower Saratoga Hillsides Area by Terratech (] 985). Included here is a summation of those data, and additional geotechnical information which has been compiled from more recent site specific geotechnical investigations. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY Includes the ]ow-lying, relatively flat valley floor and northwestern foothills. Outside the city • limits, but within the sphere of influence, are the Castle Rock portions of the Santa Ctvz Mountains. These mountains are very rugged, comprised of steep canyons and sharp to rounded ridge tops. City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary 2 of 22 n~an~:~4 Element • VEGETATION The mountain areas in the Sant in this areanas well as redwood and douglas fir. They anyon floors oak and madrone are abund near streams .are covered with sycamore, elder, and maple trees. Much of the area is densely covered with chaparral, with only a few areas covered with grass. GEOLOGY The dominant geologic featurmo of the terrains Theefault zone dete ii7riines the geology andt zone, bisecting the mountainous po topography of the area by separating two different rock assemblages and their associated erosions characteristics. The fault zone is composed of a complex system of fault traces and fractwed rock. The rock formations to the east of the San anddalso large shea~z ne areas.s Thetmountain area is volcanic rocks, some diabase and gabbro, separated from the flat area within the city' limits by the Santa Clara formation, composed of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated gravel, sand, and clay. The valley floor of Saratoga untainoussareaf The a]]uviuum isf comp sed of unconsolidaed particles streams flowing from the mo consisting of clay, silt; and gravel. This is Class 1 and II agricultural soil and is considered fem e by the United States Conservation Service. TS AND RELATED HAZARDS GEOTECHNICAL TERRAIN UNI There are large areas of the ci f aryl rs eotechnic ]characteristics are desiglnated geotechiveall characteristics. These areas o g terrain unts. There are five such terrain units in Saratoga and its sphere of influence. 7'he following conclusions can be made based on an evaluation of the geotechnical data for each terrain unit. 1. Terrain unit I (not shown) cannot support urban residential development but can support very limited rural residential development in accordance with site- specific geotechnical studies. The Santa Clara County General Plan states that specific hazards within this terrain unit must be placed in permanent open space. 2. Terrain unit II can `uPoP meat in accordance rwith site spec fic geologric ]land rural residential de el p soils investigations. 3. Terrain unit II] cannot supports abcordance v.7th site speneific geologicaland rural residential developmen soils investigations. 4. Terrain unit 1V cannot support urban residential development but can support rural residential development in accordance with site-specific geological and . soils investigations. 3 of 22 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary QQl(~©35 Safety Element 5. Terrain unit V can support urban residential development. Geological investigation is not necessary, but soil analyses should be required. Additional data on each terrain unit is available in the 1974 Geotechnical Background Report. These data are supplemented by the geology and soils section of the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan (adopted in 19~ LANDSLIDES AND'SLOPE INSTABILITY Although most landslides are natural occurences, some damaging landslides are the result of human carelessness or haphazard construction. When construction is allowed in areas where landslides exist or where landslide susceptibility is high, the potential for substantial property loss and human endangerment increase. The potential public costs for the repair of roads and utlities or disaster relief make it imperative that the city restrict developme in geologically hazardous areas. Most sloping land has some potential for landsliding. Slope stability is affected by several interrelated factors, such as steepness of slope; weak, unconsolidated soil units or formations with a high clay content; water saturation; vegetation removal; and seismic activity. Usually a combination of several factors will bring the hillside to the verge of a failure, and single factor such as heavy rainfall or an earthquake will be the catalyst responsible for initiating slope failure. The development of sites where these conditions exist tray also trigger landslide activity. As shown on trap 2 (relative geologic stability), a major portion of Saratoga is underlain by a geologic stability zone. This type of geologic unit is moderately stable when. dry, but moderately unstable when saturated. Within the city boundaries, landslides are most likely to occur where silt •~ and clay have been eroded along the stream channels traversing the city. Map 2 also shows areas in Saratoga that contain rock formations conducive to abundant landslides. These areas primarily lie Wrest of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, pass through a portion of the Northwestern Hillsides Residential District, and continue past Big Basin Way. The zone is also present within the sphere of influence, along the city's northwestern boundary and crossing Bolhman Road. Landslides and unstable slopes are prevalent in this area, and can create hazards within the city limits as the slide debris and rock moves down the incline toward the city's valley` floor. Landslides and slope instability are the major non-seismic geologic hazards in Saratoga. Although most of the hillside areas in the city experience these hazards to some degree, the most severe risks are found in the vicinity of the Congress Springs area and the upper Calabazas watershed. The present land use consists of hillside residential and watershed areas. The noi-them portion of the Congress Springs area is traversed by the potentially active Berroca] fault, which has contributed to deformation and fracture of the bedrock.in the vicinity. It also lies arithin a tni]e of the San Andreas fault; the proximity of these two fault systems has produced unstable slope conditions. Large landslide deposits blanket the underlying bedrock throughout much of the hillside region, and approximately 50% of the hillside contains landslide debris. The most geologically unstable area of the city lies in the Congress Springs area. An extensive section of several active landslides is shown on Map 3. The upper portion of the section includes the hilly region south of Congress Springs Road, part of the natural channel of Saratoga Creek, a section of the Congress Springs Road alignment, and a considerable amount of the ]ow foothills located north of the road. Slope movements have been noted in this region for over 50 years. The Congress Springs Road surface has been significantly deformed and elevated about 14 feet since City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~~~D~~6 Element 1931 when the present alignment was constructed. Extensive structural damage has been experienced by all man-made construction within or south of this region. (MAP KEYS) Active landsliding can also be traced across Belnap, Bohlman, s and LoOwer~Saratoga Hill idete driveways at a number of locations within the Congress Spring areas. Santa Clara County has surveyed a short section of Bohltnan Road below the intersection of On Oibit Drive and found it to be moving at a rate= 2.7 to 3.6 inches per year. This is considered an extremely high risk area for future development, even in those areas which appear to be stable at the present time. The equilibrium of even the most stable ground within this hillside could be destroyed by the ad~c tank efflu on Rapid failure of these slopesn ould ause considerablete introduction of sep property damage, personal injury, or loss of life. Other highly unstable geologic units within Saratoga and its sphere of influence are those , designated on map 2 according to the key (ON PAGE...) rtecul~]trwhensatwated. slThe upper shown on Map 3 which are considered extremely unstable, p y Calabazas Creek watershed is located in this hillside region. Although the majority of the ]and is underlain by relatively stable ground, the stability of large portions of the hillside is,undennined by landslide deposits and unstable soils, The most extensive occurrence of landslide deposits is in the central portion of the watershed located north and south of the Mt. Eden Road-Pierce Road intersection. Forty percent of the total land area in the Mt. Eden-Pierce Road vicinity is covered by landslide deposits. Isolated landslides are common in this area, as are large landslide complexes which cover entire P 1lsplorptyes. Examples of these large slide deposits are those on Pike Road and on the Garrod Farms ro e Within the same general area, the Quarry Road slide adjacent to the Calabazas creek has moved part of the roadbed into the creek. To prevent potential geologic hazards from occurring in areas of slope instability and unstable soils, Saratoga requires that detailed geotechtvca] investigations be made for all land use proposals the northwestern hillside area of Saratog, in the Northwestern Hillside Residential District (NHR~, the Hillside Conservation Residential and adjacent Santa Clara County lands (see map), District (HC-RD) in accordance with Section ] 5-13.050 and 15-14.050 of the City Code. The sphere of influence is within Santa Clara County's jurisdiction and development review area. Saratoga's sphere of influence is defined as that area outside the city's incorporated boundary, but designated by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission as the unincorporated area most likely to be influenced and annexed by the city at some future date. The county has adopted a geologic hazard zoning district where development is restricted due to large area-wide landslides. The county has established specific guidelines for review of development proposals in this district to aid in identifying areas of land instability, and to require that appropriate conditions be met by developers. This zoning designation has been applied to the major slide area at Congress Springs Road, shown on map 3. SOIL CREEP AND EXPANSIVE SOILS Soil creep and expansive soils are most prevalent in the western hillside regions of the city. Soil creep is the slow, downslope movement ofnear-surface materials. The rate of soil creep is a function of slope angle, soil thickness, and texture. It can be regarded as a continuous process, and may cause retaining walls, foundations, and paved roads to fail over a period of time unaccompanied by any obvious signs of slope failure. Soil creep should not have a prohibitive 5 of 22 City of Saratoga General Plan Executive Summary ~©~~~~ h. v L • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers - -- ~ - - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 17, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS: If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. C1P conformance with the General Plan PUBLIC HEARIlVGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #06-206 (403-28-069) NGLIEM, 18344 Baylor Avenue: -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square-foot addition and construct asecond-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square-feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (THERESE SCHMIDT) 2. APPLICATION #06-428 (389-12-019) - CAZUELAS AUTHENTIC MEXICAN FOOD (tenant)/QUITO VILLAGE GROUP, LLC. (Property owner) -18804 Cox Ave: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing approximately 950 square foot vacant tenant space in the Quito Village commercial complex. The restaurant will face Cox Avenue and will be located between the existing Sushi 2-2 Train and Shamrock Shoe Repair businesses. The site is zoned CN. (SUZANNE THOMAS) 3. APPLICATION #06-367 (503-24-064) -LEE, 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners): Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 879 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 4. APPLICATION #04-177 (386-35-069) - NEXTEL/SPRINT, 19550 Prospect Avenue - 12033 Miller Avenue -Church of the Ascension (The Planning Commission continued this item on August 24, 2005): Nextel/Sprint requests Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the aforesaid address located in the R-1-10,000 zone. The project consists of the installation and operation of cellular antennas concealed within three poles. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. This application was initially presented at a public hearing on August 24, 2005. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item to a date uncertain. The current proposal -antennas concealed within the three poles - is a revision to the originally proposed monopine that was presented at the August 24~' public hearing. (LATA VASUDEVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciry Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certif cate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on August 17, 2006 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin~(a,saratoga.ca.us \ O MINUTES ~~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and City Attorney Richard Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 12, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2006, • were adopted as presented. (4-0-0-3; Commissioners Cappello, Hunter and Zhao abstained) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 26, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 26, 2006, were adopted with corrections to pages 3, 7, 11, 12 and 13. (5-0- 0-2; Commissioners Nagpal and Rodgers abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Correspondence dated July 26, 2006, from Mr. Paul Fontamont was acknowledged as received. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Chair Rodgers announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 3, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 2 NT CALENDAR CONSE There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-276 AMINI 15397 PEACH HILL (517-22-100): (The Planning Commission continued this item on .June 28, 2006 to allow the applicant to return with revisions). The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel atwo-story, single-family residence, which may result in the demolition of over 50% of existing walls, and to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 5,595 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 53,162.5 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1- 40,000. Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2006. • Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow an addition to an existing two-story home including the refacing of the home and with the potential of demolition of over 50 percent of the home. • Pointed out that significant comments were made at the June 28~h meeting and issues of bulk and mass were raised. Additionally, staff expressed concerns over the possibility of privacy impacts although nearby neighbors expressed no such concerns • Said that staff had been directed to work further with the applicant to address some of the concerns raised by the Commission. • Reported that she and Planner Lata Vasudevan met with the applicant on several occasions. • Said that the applicant changed the features of the elevation. Of concern had been the mismatch of window styles and treatments and the fact that the columns seemed large. The columns have been revised and are now smaller with texture. Details of the windows have also been changed to be more consistent and using multi-paned windows that are now more true to the Greek Revival architecture. The cornice is finer and more detailed. The proposed colors have been re-evaluated and a photo simulation has been provided. These revised colors are better and blend in more with the environment. • Stated that staff finds that the applicant has addressed the issues raised. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the proposed rounded window over the entryway had originally been proposed as a circular window, had been changed at staff's recommendation to a big square and is once again circular. Planner Deborah Ungo,-McCormick: • Explained that the circular window as original proposed would have required exceeding the allowable 26-foot maximum building height to accommodate it as originally proposed. The Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 3 applicant did not want to go through the Use Permit process that might have been used to process a request to exceed the maximum allowed 26 feet in height in order to retain architectural integrity. • Said that staff is recommending approval with changes. • Advised that the applicant is available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked if the project still includes 10 columns. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the number is the same but that these columns are now narrower and have a base. They are more in keeping with this style and do not appear as massive as before. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the neighbors had seen the new design and if they had no concerns. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that yes the neighbors have seen the revised plan and had no comments. They told staff after the last meeting that they had no concerns with original plans. She added that except for the neighbor from ,across the street, the remaining neighbors' homes are all obscured from view of this home. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if this revised plan is more true to the architectural style. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. The revised detailing, materials and colors greatly enhanced the original proposal. . Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if any further modifications to the side view elevation had been considered. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the applicant did a couple of different elevations but they ended up looking busier than proposed. It is better this way. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick if she feels this design is architecturally significant. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Amini, Applicant: • Explained that his brother could not make it today. • Advised that they had worked with staff and did what was recommended. • Said that he likes this improved design and is glad for the changes as they make it much better. • Said that this new home will look beautiful and be a piece of art. • Said that he worked with all of his neighbors and they are all happy with his project. One neighbor, Tom, is here tonight as he was unable to be at the last hearing. • Stated he is proud of this design and would appreciate approval by the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Tom Lavey, Neighbor on Peach Hill: • Said he is a direct neighbor as this parcel takes access through aright-of-way on his property. • Pointed out that he is the only one who can actually see this structure. • Stated his support and said he looks forward to having this house nearby. • Said he hopes it will be approved. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello expressed appreciation for the changes made and the fact that the concerns raised at the first hearing have been addressed. He said that he also appreciated and thanks the applicant for the provision of athree-dimensional rendering. Commissioner Zhao said that this new design has its own architectural style. She said that the added details on the columns reduce their perception of bulk. She said that she could support this project. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked the applicant as well for the three-dimensional rendering as it helps to better envision the structure. • Reminded that the neighbors had no concerns. • Stated her appreciation for all that was done to stay true to the architectural style. • Said that the improvements made to the proposal allow her to support approval. Commissioner Hunter thanked the applicant and said she is glad the project came back to the Commission so quickly. She said it is sad to lose an historical home but is happy that they are keeping the main room, which will be a glorious room in their remodeled home. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that he was absent from the original hearing but read the minutes. He said that the applicant has done a yeoman's job on the changes and he feels that the findings to support can be made. Commissioner Hlava said that she also had a problem with the bulk of the original design. She said the applicant did a nice job and this home is now much more elegant and not as stark. It will be much prettier. It used to look bulky and now it does not. Commissioner Cappello said he likes this design better than before. Chair Rodgers: • Said that she echoes the comments of the other Commissioners. She too felt the original design was bulky and out of scale and she appreciates the changes made. This is a great design and she hopes the applicant will enjoy it. • Said she also appreciates the color changes, as they will blend in better into the hillside. • Thanked the applicant for the three-dimensional elevation. • Stated that this is a very pretty design and she is proud to have it in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Cappello pointed out that there are options on color. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that the applicant prefers the first option. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears the columns are a lighter color than the body color. Mr. Amini said that a color printer does not provide a faithful depiction of proposed colors. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick distributed a sample that demonstrates how the contrast will work. The use of two shades gives more depth. Commissioner Zhao said that Option One looks nice and gives a contrast. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the color option should be indicated as a condition. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said it would be helpful if the specific color recommendation were put into the motion for approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval (Application #06-276) to allow the remodel and addition to an existing residence on property located at 15397 Peach Hill, with the selection of Option One paint colors, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION• #06-107 WONG 14015 SHORT HILL COURT (397-14-018): The applicant requests Design.Review Approval to remodel an existing two-story, single-family residence to construct an addition to the first and second story of the existing home. The maximum total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,032 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is approximately 41,785 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow an addition. to an existing two-story residence. • Explained that the addition would be located on the rear portion of the two-story. The front of the property presents as a single-story as the property slopes. to the rear. The rear yard is adjacent to the West Valley College parking lot. • Said that the nearest neighbor is 200 plus feet to the rear. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 6 • Said that little would change from the front although there will be an enhanced entrance. . The addition will allow the reconfiguration of the bedrooms and to enlarge the living space. • Said that a unique characteristic is a small tower feature in the back with windows on all elevations. One neighbor has asked the Planning Commission to require one window to be blocked of any view of their rear yard or removed altogether. However staff believes that large trees adequately screen the addition from all neighbors. • Informed that a small terrace is located on the second floor as well another terrace as on the roof. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the neighbor with concerns is here. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. Commissioner Kundtz said that during the site visit he took time to view the areas in view of the addition. He said that the only thing visible was a jungle gym and tennis court. There are no views of bedrooms or living space on neighboring property. He questioned what the concern was with privacy impact. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the concern is the potential view of the play area. She advised that the applicant would be replacing two large oak trees, which were removed with permits, with 24-inch box oaks. r counted that another ro'ect's roof terrace was removed b the Commissioner Hunter e p ) Y Commission and questioned why this one is recommended for approval by staff. Director John Livingstone explained that staff recommends looking at each proposed roof terrace on a case-by-case basis. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the neighbor is not opposed to the terrace itself but did not want direct sight onto his property asking for a higher railing. Commissioner Hlava said that one couldn't see anything from the tower windows. Commissioner Hunter asked what is in the tower. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied a breakfast nook. Commissioner Zhao asked if there are any regulations for a terrace. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that there are no regulations against a terrace. They need security railings per the Building Code. Consideration is based on each project and privacy impact issues. If there are no privacy impacts, a terrace can be recommended for approval. In this case; there is no privacy impact. r Ca ello sou ht clarification about the terrace railing and the fact that the • Commissione pp g neighbor is requesting a higher railing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 7 Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. Commissioner Cappello asked if this railing would be see-through. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes although a solid railing could also be required. Commissioner Cappello asked for clarification that the neighbor is just requesting a higher railing not that it be solid. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the staff recommendation is to ask the applicant to raise the wall/railing and to eliminate the window in the tower facing the backyard neighbor. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that this is how the draft resolution is currently stated. .She added that architecturally, it would be nicer if that window in the tower were retained. If necessary, opaque glass could be used in lieu of removing that window altogether. Chair Rodgers asked if there is a third floor after looking at Plan Sheet A-3. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said no, there is not a third floor. To be considered a floor there has to be a ceiling. Since the roof terrace is open it does not meet the definition of a floor. Chair Rodgers said that it appears as if the circular staircase and powder room are on a third level. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that all those features described are under the roof on the second floor. There is a small terrace off the kitchen and a second roof terrace. The staircase is the only enclosed part of the roof level. Chair Rodgers sought assurances that there are no parts of a third floor that are capable of becoming habitable space. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. She added that third floors in single-family residences are not allowed. Chair Rodgers asked if the 26-foot maximum height includes the tops of chimneys. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. She explained that there is a certain distance required for clearance from the roof for the function of a chimney. Commissioner Zhao expressed concerns about discrepancies between the roof plan and the rear elevation, as they don't appear to match. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Marcelo Drab, Project Designer: • Said they have enhanced the front entrance a little bit to break up the monotony. • Said that the existing home has a low provide and some front elements are being changed to make it a little more attractive. • Reminded that most of the addition is at the rear of the house. • Said that this is a long lot and they will be matching existing colors and materials. This addition is more functional than anything. Commissioner Zhao again raised the differences in two plan sheets. Director John Livingstone said that the roof plan does not show details such as railings. Commissioner Nagpal advised that the elevation plan is best to show what it would look like. Mr. Marcelo Drab said that the elevation could not be represented in a floor plan. It is the shape from the top only. He said that the neighbor did request the taller railing to screen the opening of the terrace. Commissioner Nagpal asked what materials are proposed for this rail. Mr. Marcelo Drab said some kind of handrail. Commissioner Nagpal said she would like to know the specific proposed material. Mr. Marcelo Drab replied wood. Commissioner Cappello asked if the rail could be seen through. Mr. Marcelo Drab replied no, that the neighbor did not want to be seen. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant prefers the rail stay lower as shown. Mr. Marcelo Drab replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked if they prefer to retain the window in the tower. Mr. Marcelo replied yes. Mr. Aaron Wong, Property Owner & Applicant: • Said that this is his future home and that he is currently living in Milpitas. • Said that he wants privacy as much as his neighbor does. • Stated his plans to plant more trees as well as an approximately 25 foot long wall to block car lights onto his property. • Said that he would like to conserve the window in the tower if possible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 9 • Assured that one cannot see anything currently and even less so when he plants his additional trees. • Asked that he be allowed to keep the window in the tower for the coherence of the building design. Chair Rodgers asked for an explanation of plan sheet A-3. Mr. Marcelo Drab said that the bath is on the second floor and not on the same floor as - - -- -the -roof ter_race.._ Chair Rodgers said that it does not appear to be the same bath on both plan sheets. Mr. Marcelo Drab, after comparing the two sheets, advised that the bath has changed and is not property depicted in the plan. Chair Rodgers asked how tall the area is under the roof. Mr. Marcelo Drab said the attic is about 4.5 feet tall and he couldn't put another floor in that space. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that a third floor could not be added and assured that building plans are checked. two-sto hi h area which offers s ace Chair Rodgers pointed out that the kitchen nook has a ry g p for a third floor. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reiterated that a third floor would not be allowed. She said that the current 8-foot ceiling heights would be raised to 10-foot ceiling heights in this home. Mr. Marcelo Drab said that some areas will have cathedral ceilings but below the 15-foot height. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hlava said that she is happy with the design and can make the findings. She said that the window in the tower should not be removed as keeping it causes no privacy impacts and the tower would look strange with no window on just one elevation. She expressed support for increasing the height of the terrace railing. Commissioner Kundtz said he too sees no privacy issues. He advised that he walked the property. He said that the design integrity requires leaving the windows as proposed on the tower. He said he was okay with the proposed railing wall and said he supports staff's recommendation. i Commissioner Hunter agreed but said that she has some reservations about roof terraces. She stressed the need to be .consistent on the subject. She said she would support approval of this request. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 10 ' loner Ca ello said he a rees with all the comments. He said he does not see Commiss pp g any privacy impact issue that would warrant a change in design of the tower. He said he can make all the findings and he would support raising the railing height if the others want to require that. Commissioner Zhao said she too could make the findings, to support. She said she agreed with the staff recommendation to raise the rail height. She said she too has some reservation on the issue of roof terraces and is not sure the history on the issue. If there are no regulations against them, she is okay. Commissioner Nagpal said that the window in the tower should not be removed. She said that the findings to support this. project can be made and that this home would be a welcome addition to the community. Director John Livingstone said it appears a consensus has been reached on having a solid railing. Commissioner Cappello said it must distinguish itself from the existing wall using material such as stamped concrete or wood. Director John Livingstone suggested that it be left up to staff. hair Rod ers: C g • Said she agrees with the others on the issue of retaining the tower window. • Said that Design Review is based on good design and respecting privacy based on unreasonable impacts and she does not see any unreasonable impacts from this project. • Said that the tower would be out of balance with one window removed. • Said that the terrace wall should. be raised for privacy concerns as well as light impacts. • Said she did not care what material is used and that she is happy to let the applicant work with staff on that issue. • Stressed her concern over the potential for a future third floor. Commissioner Nagpal pointed to the color chart and said it appears somewhat yellow. Commissioner Hunter said she understand it was existing. Commissioner Nagpal supported leaving final color selection to staff but she would like more muted colors if possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval to allow the remodel of an existing two-story single- family residence on property owned by Mr. Aaron Wong located at 14015 Short Hill Court„ with the retention of the window on the tower and Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 11 requiring a more muted final color selection to be approved by staff, by the following roll call voter AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers explained that her vote was against the inclusion of a roof terrace. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Commissioner Hlava asked for an update on the Council's consideration of the Amended Ordinance on the Storage of Personal Property. Director John Livingstone: • Explained that two separate issues were considered. One was Storage of Personal Property and the other was living in recreational vehicles. The only modification from the Planning Commission's recommendation was to increase the maximum allowed days per year from 18 to 21. • Said that two items have been appealed to Council. One is the Design Review Approval for a new home on Sunset Drive. He reminded that this parcel is to be annexed into Saratoga as a condition of approval. • Stated that the second appeal is a project that did not come before the Commission but rather was approved administratively. The approved paint colors were not used. The applicant is now seeking occupancy and does not want to change the colors used to paint the structure and is asking for a modification of the approved colors. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the Administrative Design Review process. Director John Livingstone advised that Council had asked that an overview report brought to them on the Administrative Design Review process. Staff prepared the report and Council subsequently formed an Ad Hoc Committee including the Mayor and Councilmember Waltonsmith to work with the Community Development Director. Commissioner Nagpal asked if anyone from the Planning Commission would be on this Ad Hoc Committee. Director John Livingstone replied not at this time. City Attorney Richard Taylor advised that the Ad Hoc Committee is just two members of Council at this time. They are free to meet with any citizens and/or Planning Commissioners that they wish to meet with. mmissioner Hunter asked if the times and laces for these discussions would be made Co p available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2006 Page 12 City Attorney Richard Taylor said no. These are more informal meetings. The Ad Hoc Committee can proceed as they see fit. When the Ad Hoc Committee makes its report to the Council, it would be done in a public meeting. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that if any proposed changes were made to Code they would come to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Richard Taylor replied correct. He said that it is likely that any significant change made to the process would result in a change to Code. Chair Rodgers asked what the appeal issue is for the Sunset project. Director John Livingstone replied the Design Review Approval and not the proposed annexation. Commissioner Hunter asked when Council would hear this appeal. Director John Livingstone replied September 6tn COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. .COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk l__J ~. ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item 1 Application No./Location: 06-206/18344 Baylor Avenue • Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Hien Nghiem and Cecile Tu (Owners) Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner Date: August 23, 2006 APN: 403-28-069 Department Head: ~~ John Livin stone, CP, Director 1...._I....._..1.._..1.........L..__.I.__.1.._...1._J ~ ---_._ ..........F.. D. E6 . _ ... .~ .__.__~ R TAM[lN MlE V/I __.-__-__.~. i o~DRI[010 - w -- -- --- --- ~ ---~ ----, v _ - ~/1Y"~~: D~BF~~ ..-'-'---~ -'----r a~o __~ ~GDl( Y- ...__..... .. _...._._. -~ I ~ ~~ a. _ ~ '~ i ~ ~~_.1_.... _ _ _... _. ' ...- .._ s~iie R ~ 5prdn .._ ' ~ _- .-...... --_ RD e:npg ~ '- ._ _. r-_.~ -.__ ...... .__a .. __.~~p-.- pfi..- A5~ ... ._........_.... _ ..-.._ .~- -..__ C:::::.1 soo-e. rouge ~i \ .1 ~ ._ \.. N so-eec_taoek ~ , ...._.~ _._ ~PD __..._.... ®18344 Baybr Avenue ,__~ .. _ _ ~..1~ ~- - f Q 50Pft rotice \ ~ 8€~~--.-_ ~AFn R ~ .._ _.. ~. .-_ .. .._~ ~..- sleeve --- _ __..~ . ~_ - ~ -_ s ............._...__ ..... __ ~ ~ V Ro ,611 308 460 800 750 ft ___~.__. ___._ _ ...-~ - DleM50R AV 18344 Baylor Avenue • Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue `~ • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 12/22/05 Application complete: 07/22/06 l Notice published: 08/09/06 ~`~ Mailing completed: 08/09/06 Posting completed: 08/17/06 n``7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~` The applicant requests Design Review Approv to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square-foot addition and con ct a second-story addition consisting of approximately 75 uare- e The total fl r area of the proposed residence will be approximate 1,074 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than -feet. The of size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. STAFF RECOA'IlVIENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application with out prejudice for Design Review with required findings by adopting the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the item and provide staff and the applicant direction on a modified design. • 2 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M 10 (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 8,190 Sq. Ft (Gross & Net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None Proposed PROJECT DATA: Pro osal Code Re uirements Lot Maximum Allowable Coverage: Building 2,221 sq. ft. Driveway 1,230 sq. ft. Backyard/patio 247 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 3,698 sq. ft. 4,707 sq. ft. 47% 60% Floor Area: Maximum Allowable 1St Story 1821 sq. ft. (Exist 1,500 sq. ft.) 2"a Story 753 sq. ft. (Existing 0) Garage 400 sq. ft. (Existing 400 sq. ft.) TOTAL PROPOSED 2,974 s . ft. 3,040 s . ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement 1-story 2-story 1-story 2-story Front 25.4 ft. 25.4 ft 25 ft. 25ft Rear 38.4 ft. 35.44 ft 25 ft. 35ft Side (E) 7.9 ft. 12.97 ft. 7 ft. 12 ft. Side 7.43 ft. 27 ft 7 ft. 12 ft Height: Maximum Allowable Pro osed Residence 21 ft. 26 ft. 3 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b) (5), "This division does not apply to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." PROJECT DISCUSSION Zoning Code Section 15-45.060(2) requires Design Approval by the Planning Commission when any single-story structure is converted to a multi-story structure. The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct asecond-story addition as well as expansion of the first floor. The project site is located in an older established neighborhood (circa 1950) consisting of predominately single-story, small homes on small lots, designed in the modern minimal traditional architectural style. The subject home has many traditional features including simple wood siding, aloes-hipped roof, and a focal or "picture" window located on the front facade. The applicant is proposing to alter the architectural design of the home to a modified modern split-level home. Split-level homes became poplar in American design during the 1950s and provided for an expansion of the traditional ranch home to accommodate three-levels (a lower-level garage, mid-level living space, and anupper-level sleeping area) which generally followed a mild sloping terrain. The upper level sleeping area is frequently constructed directly over the garage. The a licant is ro osin asecond level slee in area directl over the ara a and pp P P g p g Y g g projecting back the entire width of the home creating a design commonly referred to as "shot gun" or "railroad flat." The applicant is also proposing an extension of the existing uncovered entry to create an arched covered porch flanked by fiberglass pillars. The proposed color pallet consists of peach chiffon stucco with white vinyl windows. Black composite shingles for the roof and an almond colored garage door are also proposed. Stone or brick quoins are proposed at the corners of the front facade on the garage and second story elevation. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has circulated the City's Neighbor Notification Form and has received five (5) responses (copies of the Forms are located in "Attachment 3"), all of which have expressed issues or concerns. Primary concerns include: architectural compatibility with the neighborhood, excessive bulk, and infringement on abutting parcels. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance is not required for this application. Trees The applicant is not requesting removal of any protected trees. 4 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue General Plan Findings The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan including the following Policy: Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The Ciry shall use the design review process to assure that tl:e new construction and major additions. thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The application does not meet all the Findings required for Design Approval as discussed in detail below. Compliance with the Ciry's Municipal Code Section 14-25.030 (r) -Design Standards and Dedication of Streets: Driveway Approaches -There shall be a minimum of one driveway approach to a lot, but no more than one driveway approach for each forty feet of lot frontage for any lot. The applicant is proposing a circular driveway; however, the lot does not meet the minimum frontage requirement of 80-feet to allow for an additional curb cut. Design Review Findings The proposed project is not consistent with the Municipal Code, which requires all Design Review Findings stated in MCS 15-45.080 must be met for approval: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed dwelling is 21-feet in a zoning district that allows a maximum height of 26-feet. The proposal meets, or exceeds, minimum setback requirements. The proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the existing footprint with a small expansion in the rear to accommodate a larger kitchen on the first floor. The proposed second floor addition cantilevers above the garage and the rear of the first floor. The applicant is proposing one window on the second floor eastern elevation, which is located in a hallway. While the proposal will introduce a second floor window, which may provide an opportunity for the residents to look onto the abutting eastern neighbors parcel, the proposal would not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of abutting neighbor because the neighbor's residence does not have windows that would a line directly with the proposed window. The applicant is proposing one window on the second floor rear elevation, which is located in the master bedroom. The window would provide an opportunity for the residents to look onto the abutting parcel's yard to the rear; however, the proposal meets minimum set-back requirements and the proposed window is not excessive. The neighbor to the rear has asingle-story home; therefore, there would not be direct line of site between sleeping areas on the second floor. The proposal would not create excessive shadows onto the abutting rear lot. The proposal meets this required Finding. • 5 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposal will preserve the natural landscape. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The proposal meets this required Finding. (b) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of protected Native and/or Heritage Trees. The proposal meets this required Finding. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Policy 1 of the Residential Design Handbook defines bulk as follows: "The bulk of a structure is related to its floor area, height, design, and relationship to its surroundings. A structure is perceived to be bulky when these elements are combined in such a way as to create a residence that is out of scale, visually and structurally, with neighboring residences and its own natural setting." The proposed "shot-gun" design of the second-story consists of a long rectangular two-story addition, which cantilevers over the garage and proposed kitchen addition. The addition is out of scale to the existing home as well as homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal does not meet this required Finding. (d) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately single-story, modest homes with a few two-story homes located within athree-block radius. (See Attachment 4) While atwo-story home may be appropriate for this location, the proposed design creates excessive bulk, which will result in a home that does not provide cohesive transitional opportunities for the neighborhood. The proposal does not meet this required Finding. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed construction is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The proposal meets this required Finding. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project does not conform to the following design policies and techniques found in the Residential Design Handbook: a. Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk i. Technique #3: Use Materials and Colors to Reduce Bulk -Some of the recommendations in the Handbook suggest using different materials to soften elevations, using natural color materials for foundations and lower portions of a house, and using materials that create horizontal proportions. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing wood siding and replacing it with stucco painted "Peach Chiffon," which will significantly change the perceive bulk of the structure by making the structure much more "visible" from the 6 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue street and surrounding parcels. The applicant is proposing stone or brick quoins at the corners of the front facade on the garage and second story elevation. Exact building materials have not been provided. Quoins are architectural features generally associated with French architectural .design and are general not associated with modern American split-level homes. The use of the quoins creates a vertical orientation of materials which naturally draws the eye upward and creates excessive bulk if the architectural feature is out of scale to the proportions of the home. ii. Technique #4: Minimize Building Height -The applicant is proposing to cantilever the second floor over the garage area instead of setting the second floor back to reduce the perception of excessive bulk and height. iii. Technique #5: Design Structure to Fit with the Existing Neighborhood - While a two-story addition maybe appropriate for this neighborhood, the proposed design creates excessive bulk and is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. iv. Technique #6: Use Architectural Features to Break-up Massing -The proposed design utilizes a single, long roofline visible from both directions of Baylor Avenue, which does not break-up the mass of the structure. The applicant is proposmg a small "pop-out" on the eastern second floor elevation; however, the rest of the wall expanse is solid with little articulation. The proposed fiberglass pillars and the stone/brick quoins are not sympathetic to the proposed modern split-level design, which creates an awkward mix of architectural features. Conclusion Staff is unable to make required Design Review Findings to support this application as designed. Staff has requested the applicant consider redesign of the proposal that would incorporate techniques to reduce bulk. The applicant responded by adding the brick/stone quoins and creating a small architectural projection along the second-floor eastern facade. STAFF RECOA'IlVIENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the application for Design Review with required findings by adopting the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item and provide staff and the applicant direction on a modified M design. 7 Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Denial. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project . notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters. 4. Neighborhood Survey. 5. Letter from the Applicant to the Planning Commission regarding the proposal. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-206 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nghiem; 18344 Baylor Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square- foot addition and construct asecond-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square- feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 1,074 square-feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b) (5), "This division does not apply to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves;" and WHEREAS, the application is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The application does not meet all the Findings required for Design Approval; and WHEREAS, the application is not consistent with the following Municipal Code Section: Section 14-25.030 (r) -Design Standards and Dedication of Streets: Driveway Approaches -There shall be a minimum of one driveway approach to a lot, but no more than one driveway approach for each forty feet of lot frontage for any lot. Tne applicant is proposing a circular driveway; however, the lot does not meet the minimum frontage requirement of 80-feet to allow for an additional curb cut; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof of the required findings for approval under Article 15-45.080 of the City Code. The following is a discussion of each of these unmet required findings: Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed dwelling is 21-feet in a zoning district that allows a maximum height of 26-feet. The structure will be approximately 25-feet from Baylor Avenue, 35-feet from the rear property line, and 7-feet from the side-yard property lines for the first floor and between approximately 12-feet and 27-feet from the side-yard property lines for the second floor. The proposal meets, or exceeds, minimum setback requirements. The proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the existing footprint with a small expansion in the rear to accommodate a larger kitchen on the first floor. The proposed second floor addition cantilevers above the garage and the rear of the first floor. The applicant is proposing one window on the second floor eastern elevation, which is located in a hallway. While the proposal will introduce a second floor window, which may provide an opportunity for the residents to look onto the abutting neighbors parcel, the proposal would not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of abutting neighbor because the neighbor's garage is abutting the parcel with the primary living areas and sleeping areas located on the opposite side of the parcel, not within direct line of site of the proposed window. The applicant is proposing one window on the second floor rear elevation, which is located in the master bedroom. The window would provide an opportunity for the residents to look onto the abutting parcel's yard to the rear; however, the proposal meets minimum set-back requirements and the proposed window is not excessive. The neighbor to the rear has asingle-story home; therefore, there would not be direct line of site between sleeping areas on the second floor. The proposal would not create excessive shadows onto the abutting rear lot. The proposal meets this required Finding. Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposal will preserve the natural landscape. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The proposal meets this required Finding. (b) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of protected Native and/or Heritage Trees. The proposal meets this required Finding. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Policy 1 of the Residential Design Handbook defines bulk as follows: "The bulk of a structure is related to its floor area, height, design, and relationship to its surroundings. A structure is perceived to be bulky when these elements are combined in such a way as to create a residence that is out of scale, visually and structurally, with neighboring residences and its own natural setting." The proposed "shot-gun" design of the second-story consists of a long rectangular two-story addition, which cantilevers over the garage and proposed kitchen addition. The addition is out of scale to the existing home as well as homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal does not meet this required Finding. Application No. 06-206; 18344 Baylor Avenue (d) Compatible bulk and lieigh~ Residences in the area are predominately single-story, modest homes with a few two-story homes located within athree-block radius. (See Attachment 4) While atwo-story home may be appropriate for this location, the proposed design creates excessive bulk, which will result in a home that does not provide cohesive transitional opportunities for the neighborhood. The proposal does not meet this required Finding. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed construction is in the general area of the existing residence, no grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The proposal meets this required Finding. (fJ Design policies and techniques. The proposed project does not conform to the following design policies and techniques found in the Residential Design Handbook: a. Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk i. Technique #3: Use Materials and Colors to Reduce Bulk -Some of the recommendations in the Handbook suggest using different materials to soften elevations, using natural color materials for foundations and lower portions of a house, and using materials that create horizontal proportions. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing wood siding and replacing it with stucco painted "Peach Chiffon," which will sigmficanthy change the perceive bulk of the structure by making the structure much more "visible" from the street and surrounding parcels. The applicant is proposing stone or brick quoins at the corners of the front facade on the garage and second story elevation. Exact building materials have not been provided. Quoins are architectural features generally associated with French architectural design and are general not associated -with modern American split-level homes. The use of the quoins creates a vertical orientation of materials which naturally draws the eye upward and creates excessive bulk if the architectural feature is out of scale to the proportions of the home. ii. Technique #4: Minimize Building Height -The applicant is proposing to cantilever the second floor over the garage area instead of setting the second floor back to reduce the perception of excessive bulk and height. iii. Technique #5: Design Structure to Fit with the Existing Neighborhood - While a two-story addition may be appropriate for this neighborhood, the proposed design creates excessive bulk and is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Application No. 06-206; 18344 BaylorAvenue iv. Technique #6: Use Architectural Features to Break-up Massing -The proposed design utilizes a single, long roofline visible from both directions of Baylor Avenue, which does not break-up the mass of the structure. The applicant is proposing a small "pop-out" on the eastern second floor elevation; however, the rest of the wall expanse is solid with little articulation. The proposed fiberglass pillars and the stone/brick quoins are not sympathetic to the proposed modern split-level design, which creates an awkward mix of architectural features. Now, THExEFOxE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Design Review Application, the application is hereby denied based on the Applicant not meeting their burden of proof as set forth in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080, not being in conformance with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and not being in conformance with the City's Municipal Code. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-55.080 and 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become final fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of August 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission • ~~ ~~ Attachment 2 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 11`}' day of August , 2006, that I deposited 129 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 403-28-069- 18344 Baylor Ave; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-206 -18344 Baylor Ave APPLICANT/OWNER: NGHIEM/TU (Both Owners & Applicants) APN: 403-28-069 • Description: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square-foot addition and construct asecond-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square-feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, August 14, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of mate information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1230 August 11, 2006 Ownership Listing Prepared for: 403-28-069 DEBRA J LAMPEN 18344 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 403-27-094 403-27-095 403-27-096 LORRENCE J & BEVERLY OTTER CHARLES MERRIAM _ _ _ . LESLIE & RADMILA MOLNAR OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18378 VANDERBILT DR 18366 VANDERBILT DR 18354 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4720 SARATOGA CA 95070-4720 SARATOGA CA 95070-4720 403-27-098 403-27-099 403-27-097 MAHTAB FATEMI JOSEPH GAROFALO DIANE H RAPSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15200 OLD JAPANESE RD 18330 VANDERBILT DR 18316 VANDERBILT DR LOS GATOS CA 95033-8350 SARATOGA CA 95070-4720 SARATOGA CA 95070-4720 403-27-100 403-27-101 403-27-102 SHIRLEY HEROLD MICHAEL Y & PEGGY JENQ ALANGHAT G KARUNAKARAN OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3223 OR CURRENT OWNER 18302 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-1223 18278 VANDERBILT DR TOGA CA 95070-4720 SARATOGA CA 95070-4719. 403-28-001 403-28-002 403-28-003 BEEBE L & ROSARIO TUPAZ GLENN E & CAROL CROW LAWRENCE L & JOAN JOHNSTON 2831 CORTINA WAY OR CURRENT OWNER 929 LIBERTY CT UNION CITY CA 94587-1553 18253 VANDERBILT DR CUPERTINO CA 95014-4018 SARATOGA CA 95070-4718 403-28-004 403-28-005 403-28-006 LAURA J PARISH JUNE LAM ANDREW & BARBARA WACKER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18277 VANDERBILT DR 18289 VANDERBILT DR 18301 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4718 SARATOGA CA 95070-4718 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 403-28-007 403-28-008 403-28-009 LESTER T HERMLE PAUL M & AMANDA MORRIS MARTINA I & KENNETH PAVLOFF OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18313 VANDERBILT DR 18325 VANDERBILT DR 18337 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 403-28-010 403-28-011 403-28-012 DENNIS L & LORETTA PFAFF SRIRAM THIRUVENGADAM ANJAN & RAJI LUKKOOR OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18349 VANDERBILT DR 18361 VANDERBILT DR 18373 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 8-013 403-28-014 403-28-015 GORY & LYNN HUGHES EVAN V & GAYLE JUDD VIJAYKUMAR J UPPIN " OR CURRENT OWNER 19288 BOUNTIFUL ACRES OR CURRENT OWNER 18385 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6409 18409 VANDERBILT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 SARATOGA CA 95070-4721 403-28-029 403-28-030 403-28-031 WHITNEY L & ROSE EVANS JANE M CHAN RICHARD & MAUREEN WILLIAMS ' OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18420 PURDUE DR 18408 PURDUE DR 18396 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-032 403-28-033 RONALD & CAROLINE PASQUALINI VIKTOR & ANNA POLONSKY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18384 PURDUE DR' 18372 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-035 ADELGUNDE K DUVALL PO BOX 9474 SAN JOSE CA 95157-0474 403-28-036 JULIO BERMUDEZ OR CURRENT OWNER 18336 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-038 LAURA A LEWIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18312 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-041 MICHAEL C & KAREN HEDMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18276 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4711 403-28-044 MEHDI SAFIPOUR OR CURRENT OWNER 18240 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4711 403-28-047 HELENA L FANCHER OR CURRENT OWNER 18265 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4710 403-28-050 JOHN CHANAK OR CURRENT OWNER 18301 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-053 LORA NETTIE OR CURRENT OWNER 18337 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-039 ROBERT PERKINS OR CURRENT OWNER 18300 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-042 GARY W & LI MILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 18268 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4711 403-28-045 RICHARD C & MARY GURNEY OR CURRENT OWNER 18241 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4710 403-28-048 JOHN C & NANCY COMMONS OR CURRENT OWNER 18277 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4710 403-28-051 WALLACE C & LOLA WEISLER OR CURRENT OWNER 18313 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-054 EDWIN G & LORRAINE OLSON OR CURRENT OWNER 18349 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-034 RAMIN ZOUFONOUN OR CURRENT OWNER 18360 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-037 CHRISTI L KOZ OR CURRENT OWNER 18324 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4713 403-28-040 ROBERT D & RUTH PRILLINGER 773 ARROYO RD LOS ALTOS CA 94024-3111 403-28-043 PATRICK J NOLAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18256 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4711 403-28-046 MABEL Y & DIANNE FOK OR CURRENT OWNER 18253 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4710 403-28-049 JANET ST CLAIR OR CURRENT OWNER 18289 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4710 403-28-052 JUN-NAN KUO 1598 MISSION SPRINGS CIR SAN JOSE CA 95131 403-28-055 CLIFFORD C WILES OR CURRENT OWNER 18363 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-056 403-28-057 403-28-058 ANGELENA FREDRICK RUSSELL & ALICE CROWTHER DAVID A & SUSAN JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER 5695 ENNING AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 18377 PURDUE DR SAN JOSE CA 95123-3406 18403 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-059 403-28-060 403-28-061 SHERRY G MIRANDA MARK A DARCANGELO AL ZOGHI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER p0 BOX 3342 ~5 PURDUE DR 18427 PURDUE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-1342 TOGA CA 95070-4712 SARATOGA CA 95070-4712 403-28-062 403-28-063 403-28-064 SHIRLEY LEISTER MICHAEL R DILTS BRIAN. BERNARD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18444 BAYLOR AVE 18430 BAYLOR AVE 18416 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4733 SARATOGA CA 95070-4733 SARATOGA CA 95070-4733 403-28-065 403-28-066 403-28-067 JILL PRESTIGIACOMO JOHN P & EDITH CRUICKSHANK THOMAS R & GAIL POFFENBERGER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18402 BAYLOR AVE 18388 BAYLOR AVE 18374 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4733 SARATOGA CA 95070-4704 SARATOGA CA 95070-4704 403-28-068 403-28-070 403-28-069 JOSEPH & PATRICIA PLOSHAY DEBRA J LAMPEN DAVID W & REBECCA GRUS OR CURRENT OWNER 2310 BRODERICK ST OR CURRENT OWNER 18360 BAYLOR AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115-1005 18330 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4704 SARATOGA CA 95070-4704 403-28-072 403-28-073 403-28-071 ROBERT & PATRICIA SALVADOR MATTHEW C GILBERT FAREED S FARD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12309 SARATOGA CREEK DR 18300 BAYLOR AVE 18284 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3532 SARATOGA CA 95070-4704 SARATOGA CA 95070-4702 403-28-074 403-28-075 403-28-076 SHIVARAM H MYSORE RONALD SCHELDRUP TSAI C HUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 905 OREGON AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 18270 BAYLOR AVE SAN MATEO CA 94402-3367 18242 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4702 SARATOGA CA 95070-4702 403-28-077 403-28-078 403-28-079 FAYE PARSONS RICHARD WETTER DAVID R & ANNE MACK OR CURRENT OWNER 4926 MOORPARK AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 18241 BAYLOR AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-2133 18269 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4701 SARATOGA CA 95070-4701 403-28-081 403-28-080 403-28-082 TOKIO J & YOSHIKO KAKIUCHI SUSAN A HOLLIS ROBERT W MOORE 963 N CENTRAL AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 19608 FARWELL AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008-0133 18297 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5507 SARATOGA CA 95070-4701 403-28-083 403-28-084 403-28-085 HENRY C & DEBBIE CRAMER CATHY M MORRIS RICHARD D SCHULTZ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18335 BAYLOR AVE 18339 BAYLOR AVE 18353 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 8-086 403-28-088 N KOMATSU-SAMPSON 403-28-087 HYUN & KEE HWANG OR CURRENT OWNER H & MIKE SHANLI OR CURRENT OWNER 18367 BAYLOR AVE 20780 4TH ST 11 18395 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 403-28-089 403-28-090 403-28-091 MAUREEN P FISHER ALADIN & RAMAJANA DEMIROVIC MARIE PACIER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18409 BAYLOR AVE 18423 BAYLOR AVE 18437 BAYLOR AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 403-28-092 403-29-034 403-29-035 MASOOD & D JADALI TSEHAI ZEWDE THEODORE ZIOLA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18451 BAYLOR AVE 5240 BOBBIE AVE 5232 BOBBIE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4703 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1911 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1911 403-29-036 403-29-037 403-29-038 NEIL S GLICK DAVID E & LAURA WILLS PHILIP & MARY MACTAMMANY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5224 BOBBIE AVE 5216 BOBBIE AVE 5208 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1911 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1911 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1911 403-29-039 403-29-040 403-29-041 PATRICK M & SHANNON UTTER TSEHAI ZEWDE ELIZABETH E HESSINGER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5198 BOBBIE AVE 5190 BOBBIE AVE 2240 TAMIE LN SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1935 403-29-067 403-29-068 403-29-055 403-29-056 MASOUD KESHMIRI MARTHA BALDWIN CURTIS ENGELHARD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 180 PECORA WAY 2248 ARLEEN WAY 2236 ARLEEN WAY PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028-7435 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1903 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1903 403-29-069 403-29-116 403-29-117 SITYRLEE FREITAS JERRY S & NANCY CROWLEY RAGHUPATHI & USHA MALIGE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 2224 ARLEEN WAY 5160 BETLO CT 5146 BETLO CT SAN JOSE CA 95130-1903 SAN JOSE.CA 95130-1905 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1905 403-29-118 403-29-119 403-29-120 MANOOCHEHR GHIASSI EUGENIA MAK CATHLENE M MENENDEZ 143 SPRING ST OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER LOS GATOS CA 95030-6229 5118 BETLO CT 5102 BETLO CT SAN JOSE CA 95130-1905 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1905 403-29-121 403-29-124 403-29-125 MARC A & LINDA PINARD PHILIP T CHAMBERS MICHELLE PENDLETON OR CURRENT OWNER 648 HOLLINGSWORTH DR OR CURRENT OWNER 5086 BETLO CT LOS ALTOS CA 94022-2359 5081 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1905 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1908 403-29-126 403-29-127 403-29-128 MICHAEL A & CAROLYN NICKEY BRENNAN E & ANGELINA POLLEY JOSEPH & CYNTHIA ZELANIS 2430 ROSS DR 10570 IRON RIDGE CT 18911 TWAIN CT AUBURN CA 95602-9662 RENO NV 89521-4203 SARATOGA CA 95070 403-29-129 403-29-130 403-29-131 BETTY SHUMATE SAM & CAROL TON ANTHONY C & DOLORES ROLLIS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5141 BOBBIE AVE 5155 BOBBIE AVE 5169 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1910 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1910 .SAN JOSE CA 95130-1910 403-29-132 403-29-133 JOSEPH PAPPA JOSEPH A & BARBARA THOMSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER BOBBIE AVE 5182 BOBBIE AVE JOSE CA 95130-1910 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 403-29-135 403-29-136 CHRIS DOAN NANCY MATHEWS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5154 BOBBIE AVE 5140 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 403-29-138 403-29-139 ROXANNE L RICHMAN AZMY I IBRAHIM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5108 BOBBIE AVE 5094 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1907 403-29-141 403-29-142 MARK F & WENDY SMALL SORIN L & PETRUTA NEGRU OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5066 BOBBIE AVE 5052 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1907 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1907 403-57-048 403-57-049 LYNN A ROEDER ALF L OFTEDAHL OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 2314 VILLANOVA RD 2302 VILLANOVA RD JOSE CA 95130-1939 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1939 403-29-134 MICHAEL Y WU OR CURRENT OWNER 5168 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 403-29-137 GREGORY C & SUSIE MORALES OR CURRENT OWNER 5124 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1909 403-29-140 GLENN C & SHIRL WIPPICH OR CURRENT OWNER 5080 BOBBIE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1907 403-57-047 LISLE & DELPHINE WISHART OR CURRENT OWNER 2328 VILLANOVA RD SAN JOSE CA 95130-1939 386-14-029 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: THERESE SCHMIDT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • .I • Attachment 3 •i • ~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: ! ,~ ~ ,~v Applicant Name: ~Girc~:~C11' ~., ~J Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. JD.1My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ nr, ~ ~ ~t ~ ~~ Neighbor Address: ~~ ~if!n() ~C ~~f9( ~Ue ,~.C-r'~~t; ,,, ~~~_ q .5 (~`,_~__(')_ Neighbor Phone #: _~j I. ~ ' (L (O~ Signature: City of Saratoga _ ._.zning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ I i `f OS~ PROJEC A DRESS: f `6 3 ~ Lf i31~ Y LIZ. P-y' C' l Applicant Name: tfl~rv IJ6-NIENI ~ Kim Llt-lJ i L(. Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. StaJ~j`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ®M si nature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; I Y g understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~'1lJ i•~ G R•~ Neighbor Address: t£~33.a~ ~AYt_niz Ayr, ~.qr ~ ~,~} , C~- ~ jG?D Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~ 3 Zy --z2~Z Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Because of the small lot size (8,000 sq. ft.) and close proximity (15 feet) between houses in ow neighborhood, a large two-story addition has never been built on ow block since ow incorporation into the City of Saratoga. Such structwes would block sunlight from their neighbors and restrict views and plant growth, invade privacy, and would be totally out of place with all of the other houses on ow block. Every other remodeling done on ow block since ow incorporation into Saratoga has been modestly and tastefully done without destroying the original neighborhood atmosphere and spectacular views. The proposed addition must be redesigned to eliminate the second floor. • • • l~'eighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: / ~~ ~ ~ ~~ o PR0IECT ADDRESS: ~ Y r4'1/~2 Applicant Name: Uu JAN 0 9 2006 CITY OF SARA'~UGA Application Number: ~ ~ °~~ ~ The Saratoga Planntng Commission requires applicants to work tivith their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the' evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which. need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ,~y signature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ DL ~7 ~ ~ (;(,t ~-/ ~ L• ~ Neighbor Address: 1 ~~ i3 ~U"12c7U~ -~~ • '' ~~ lffC 1J~l~~~o~~o~ i13~- {~ /%f~~GT O l9 2 S~~I N ~-. ~~lr'. ~ <~ C~ Neighbor Phone #: ~}0 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ Signature: Printed: `Q~GL~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department • Neighbor Notification Template for ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ L Development Applications `' ~~, Date: f' ~- ~ s ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 0 9 2006 !~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~~='~~ ~~y~oY ~7/~ • CIl'Y OF SARA (Ot,:• Applicant Name: Application Number: ~"~ y ~`? & The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to ~vork with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applica(ions prior to tlze'evening of the public hearing on the proposed project.- The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the pzrblic hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this docz~ment is representative of all residents residing on yoz~r property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right [o amend yozrr opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of worn; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ©My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): - '~<C: .da tin-'L .. .~ -~_f1Gct_~/l .7~-.. ~i.C.~2.j ,.~ L~72i' _ ~ Z/i~Lt awf ~L~-~,-~9~ V ~ ~~-~~"' ~~Cr~G~7t•G.n-~@. l - ~ ~,. ((1-Gt.a-- yQ-C-re~~E'-r ~ ~C'3'Yl1'Q,~•~o '~/ ~J p 7'i"v~ C ,~~~/L~~i^'~ Z~C"~1'"t~ •'L'Z-~7'7"d-'~ 'G'~a~ ~-'l7-+.C 72a'-C~~~I.~Gl~O ufiZ~4 /LL`~ •x2"'~C.~ 6`~ ""'-~.Gc=G-az ~..~~ ~ i `~_r GG~ -fiKC.~-.~ ley, ~-T ~~~ r ~ ~ ~ - ~-•--~~y Neighbor Name: lJ Neighbor Address: ~~-~'-'~-~~ '~--~ ; ~-~- Neighbor Phone ~[~~) p~ /', Signature: i rJ Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~ ~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: ~'~• 3~ ~ ,~~yl~ Y ~/~ , ~r~cl ~ Applicant Name: CITY OF SARA'fUGA Application Number: b ~, .>-~ The Saratoga Planning Commission regzrire.s applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the'evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors ivho fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they nzay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yozrr property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend yozrr opinion at a Inter date and communicate it to the City of Sm•atoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): / ~ ~~ /~ ~>,~ 0 J 15 _lr.~'y ~ 9 2006 "• ~J GLQ%~ `, .Neighbor Name: cJ~~~L•l~t ~~.a•'`... Neighbor Address: ~ y ~1v G ti /°`1~~~'~ ~~•I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~'~~'~~ ~~~~~4 . Signature: ,-. ~ ~~ ,, - , Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Attachment 4 • NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY 2ND STORY ADDITIONSIN THE VICINITY OF 18344 Baylor Avenue _., ; 1... _i..........~~........ _.... ......a irn RO___... _..___.. ~E t" ARtE wr .._...__ ..__T~,,. ~ __l _L ~ ~ -- _ ___~ , _. PASEO RIEBLO _. _ / 1 -... Th 1 _.I:1::: _ ~ RV RV ` ~ ~ ~ cwAbAdRn Av __ ~i~ I ~~; ~ .lom~E ~v _. _eoea _ ae ,.. . ~~~ S\ ~~ ~cN.v;viwu AV - ...1....._I.... _._ i. ~........ _.._ L A 0 _......_...._...____----... ~~ _ ~ ~ --- ;; ~ 1 --- _---- ~ I om 'IR ~ .. r- r \R ..,J .......~. _ ....... __..'........'........OV ....._.. _[~ 1 _ pAy4Qq A o ~ -7 ... ~ ~..-...~ .._.... ._. ...__....... .. _-. ~ .. 1L5Y _........_.._.._._.. ~ ~~~Oi...~ ...........---..... v Ro .: Sf.. .IMC..........._.... - .. __ t _ ~~`-t_ { U SOOf[. rotbe ~ % ~~- ~ ~ ~ N Street_Lebeb ~ ~ _ _ ~ 183448aYbrAvenue •\ , ~.~.11.: _ E Q 50111[ tgtlCB ~ .. ~~ -- OE R D ..- . qrt._._ . _..:-...~ . ®- __._. __-_ s ..._ .._ gyp.. ..._.. AIII~ - - _ rARURO AV ,,,,,,,,,,.,i ._ ft _. GIEMWR AV CIFMSOR AV .. .....` 1. 18339 Baylor Avenue - No record of 2"d story addition. May have occurred prior to annexation. 2. 18396 Purdue -Received Design Approval under application No. 90-018. 3. Located in the City of San Jose. 4. Dashed line represents City Limits. • C • Attachment S • Dear Honorable Commissioners: Saturday, July 22, 2006 I write this letter to request an approval for the plan to remodel our house at 18344 Baylor Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070. This house was built in 1957 as any standard house in this valley. This house includes a small kitchen and 3 bedrooms as many fine house build during this period. As lifestyle change and living standard improve, we would like to increase kitchen space so we could spend some quality family time with our children. Also the house was build during the time which people rarely works from home and need a home office where we can do some work without interference from the family activity. We would like to add additional rooms for a bigger family size and a comfortable working environment. As with these desires in place, I work with an architect come up with a remodel plan that conforms to all the requirements from the city code and a minimum change to the original house plan. I feel that with this house plan will add value to the community and enhance to look of the neighborhood. We are very happy to live in this community and we work hard to make this family oriented neighborhood a better home for our children as well as the family around us. Thanks for your time and consideration Hien Nghiem ~" `, ,~ ~~ L ~E ;~ .~ . 10 ~` ~~ . ,, ,,ti ~;' • • r~ • Attachment 6 • C • • U ~N~~ m . a~~ 5 v ~ C ~-. ~ ~ -Z ~ ~ ~`~ to N ~ ~ ~',~~Y ~v,r. . ~'~ ~ ~ yo `` j e o ~~ ~! 1 6. k Y ^ M i Yd. ~ ~ ^ a_ ~ a al^ e. a rlE ' ---~--- $ YS ? ` ° ~° * a ^~t ` _ ~n ~~ Y E!• O ^C r~C ~ F ~ F a S~ ~ r 0__ - Y E~1 r^ tl a~i .- k F 1 ~ ~ bl ~ xr -~-~ ~ 5 l a tl^ a r ~-a t ~ ~a~e~ gd r r ae^i bEE•. c -,.- t~+ k 4, ~ hf C ~ aQ e a .~ tl^~e ~o °o S" O ~ O ~ ~ b$ ~ T ~ • V b 3i ' ~y ~~ 4~ 1 0 1 E~^ ` tl , f Q a ~ ~~ ~^ 1 ~- - i 0 r~r a Z ~ ~ x ~ 'g W ~~ ~ b ~~ ~S ~ • ° a r ~ W .~ c q 4 1 tl ! r rn a aim nun8 O ~~ ~ V ' m V ^ a r L ^ N '! ' u5 °d W q "Y yy" I ~~~is~ ~ U O m rn ~ ~ SSSM„ ~~ ~~"~' #ms~ gayrf "'F,r,2~"'. i3 ~S ~ ~r~ OV v .~ ~~ y N t/1 ~\~ O O N ~'tyr~{,.Z~ ~ „ w r ~~ i'~r* ~ UI w r-. w Oa ~ d ~~ N ~ O ~ l~• ~ iF~`e+'1'..' { Y' ~`.. y ~ r'~'T xi A}. ~ . N I~ Q W O ~ N ~ ~ d ~ N a ~}.1~ tt3' ~~3 ~ ~ s i ~W ,}~ S ~ ~~. ~' L Q I ~ N C V> C Y ; ~f -~~~y% .T. E' i ~.~M~4~y}r'A'.r yc Q co ¢ w Y"M" LU w r z .n z ~ W ~ w~ U ~ ' v , i ~ r ~~>'~ 4 f,x ~ 31~,~~ ;~~ J O ~ - w f sue.. (O J O .O e+ O d Q W (~/ O Za J W> '` i ¢~J~;a~~ ~f ~ fx ~ t O (n N~ t0 N .~.~. r ..+ r+ ~ O fY lL ti J d Z Z J p..~`tiyy'Yq ) S} ~ ~ C ty. ~ Z O ~ U 1 fn ~J O ~n~ V7 N O ~ ~ ~~~jj IalJJ ZQQZ Oo~J GW VZOI~ ~J 4i 4~~~TT t ~ ~' I fY 0D O Q N N~ 3 0 C~ U W" r J O 0' Z j Z F 4 `U'J~~ ~ j~ J1~7,~ .fi4.~ ~~ l ' U ~r~ c~a d ~ r-z a ~°o U ~ i}ihaG.'~gm-c~w '~r"~~f~'~~ ?,,~f#q'°~~~r,, ~,n ~~i4?: V a ot~ v !n ~ ~ a ..+t4~`,~Pl'~n ` ~.. V.4.a .ert .i.*5r~..~ , i'v~tT~~. Z !- CVl ~ ~ ~ ~ !-OyvN WC~'l~rn~ V! "~'3~. O KZ F~F~ Nm ND Z U ~~O ~J.. ~W 3 Q OO Q O}C~w ~ `jV ~O~RW RW~RW ~Q 7 ~ •j~liN %v NC= ~ ~ LNG W UU O._ O ~ O X !!11111 C)m W2 WZKWZ~J O L NNm ~ NY ,,,~fV 'N~ ¢ Q <LNC7 Q Ua~N~ O UIOm ~w { ~ly~Nn~N ~~ ' Q WIl~O~OQ Ov °y ~ ~ J Da 00~ W ~ ZJO I1NNNMjn YN 3 O Q JOy~4_ ~ ~ Q~64 Q<6Q«< J Z H m y o b t~vl tr x O !- U O a N J Q Q 00 ~'QN ~ w ~ mO~w~ ~ a~ N ~ F 3 a ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ >» ~ = ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ g ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~9~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~c ~s~~ ~~QQ~~~~~~e5»s~~s~~~s~~aeaa~a~a ria ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ z0 i7, z ~ `° CC! WOO OOO OO~ ~ Mi N.o 6 ~ f ~1 m e e TES z ~ ~~,, qy \..J m ~1 ~~' o ~ ~ 0 ,.~~~ ~' ~ ~ F o w >~ o ~F >~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ z ~a ~ r ~ ~~ ' ~ ~., ~ ~ d ~ Cx7 ~ d ~ aa 1 = ~ `~ ~f93a ,.7 a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~' o ~ ~ Q ~ ~ a, i]zl '5' ~ W ~ F"1 ~ ~ 1 • • 1 - Z ~ ~ ~ ^° ~ ~ 1 h• li • 11 !F^M MJ ~ '~~- J ~ z GO j :.Ik S $ ~ « ~ N ~~ • • • w Y 2 ~~ qqw qq ~ bm b~ ~ z W~WpO l ¢ N~ W~ ~` G ~~~~m 5'' ~ ~° ~ W Q ~~i~~~ (i ~~ ~~ w f .l f y {y z Y~ Wi , Op' ~~ € ~ ~ 2 W 0 { ~~ k ~z 66 V1 ~ yw 00 ~. ~ . Q 1 ~ jol"A~ Li ow N 2~Z ~~ Y ViWa o~ (F~ ~~V ~~7 4 N ~ Z W Y 1~ ~ .lti~gW ~ ~ ~ ~ t2Nn 2e ~W Q ~ 2 5~ ° ~ °W~ 2 -~ ~Q2 Q~i t~ y ~4yOjO C~ ~ C ~C~i ~2 t.7 V~ ~ m~ m ~ V ~¢" ~ &JW ~~UN~~ Z F i q I ~ g O i ~ 2 g W r . W . j~ N U' Q . i O E3 W p ¢ CO1 ~~ O W ~ q 2 WW i ~ ~~~o p Y wN~ ~U~ ¢ chi >_~ ~¢ ~ o o ~'ve° za4 Wq ?~cWNn 3~~ ~ ! ~ U ~~Inti ~~ ~Q Oy,¢ 2W~ . 1< ~Zp°~ ~° Wsi ~~~~ }p~;=0 ~ 2 ' /1 q ¢U~~ C'1~ ~~~ a q erj« W ~ ! ~ ~ 20Y C~oQZ O~ ?~W 2¢¢ R 2 Z ~°~~ ~, hW4 1-~~ Q~j I Z ° W ~ ~o o¢ ~ 4~W~ WW ~~co, ~ow~ ~o° w °3~, yHy OC ti >. >'OW W ~QW ~O~gl Iny2 O q ~ ~ W< WO (n Vq~2 ~~ Wom WyUN ~~W ~ ~ ~~ po2m ~ WU W°R ~ OjWO ti4 ~y~ ~¢~Y ~~~u W ~ ~4 xU~~ i ~W ~O O U KW N N D 4 W ~ W~ Wd Op°> a.g ~SU ~-~ZzZ~ H t~~MEERa 21-U ~~O ~''' 3 4 C W ~n iu 0. F- ~¢ ~~ ~ ~~wW ~o ~~~ W"'o¢ ~~H ~I~ i'$~ W o~~ Wao _ No „~o voi ~~~~ ~ i~~ x~~¢ a~ ~~~,{{~ ~g o pp G3 "//a ~! ' &~lSlvla .5 I ~ I $ I ~. ~ I ~ I ~ 1 ~ I I ~ I -------------------------------------- -------------3.-~-d ------------------------------------------------ - --- ---------------------------- ,00'OL 3 „OZ,Zl.BB N _ I .,..~ ......~ .~..~-a-.,.TO ~4 4y ----------------------------g----- ------ - ---' --=-_3 ~ d- ~--~------- ,~ - - ----- --- a ~-- ~ D a Q ~ ~ ~~~' ~ ~ U --~ ' --~ U '{ ~ 2 Zqa ~ ~ N ~ U L W U ~ c: ,~ U `'~ Z yL ~~`• yg' O cL ~- N z _,,i~._.._.._._,_, ~, o 0 1 J i' ~q ~ ' ~' n ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ I + _ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ?,~' ZO Q i Q O ~~ + ~ U ' a~'! pb t+ .n ~` ~ ~ o. ~ ~ `; r; n e ~ o ~ ~ >-' = o p ~ ~ U 3c y a lu Z ~ ~ ~ O. x~. 3 O -. Z N w U ~~ x ~ Qp ~ vW, ~~" ~ rt- ~ J ~ ^ a 2 .., O `, ~2 I ~ F (• I ~ I t_._____~__ - I - I _ .v .... ~ I ~ I I ~ b ssr~~ .,:~ ~ ~ r~1 • __ o ~ ssd~s U~ i i q I g ~,~ I ~ ~ I I k t i 4 ~ r _ ,00 _ _ _'' QZ,Zl.88 N ! MO oo SSb'2fJ ij MQ :, ( v x~t/M301S + ~ I • ~ ! ~ON00 R n~ ,. Nry N J h h `/qO N N ti 'NONJ Ol £9'9911 'NOW Ol 'NOW ,l!'bLL - - ~dn'r'A•d -------- tQ - - - - - - - a - ---------------------- ----------~- - - - - - - - W/W 3-,.oz,iieg N 2 ONl~fb'38 .~0 SISb'8 h O ~ N ' N N `(• o P v hh NN NN NN ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~~ , ' x~YM301S MO ~ ~' ":~ x~b'M301S .,., ~ SAO j 'ON00 i -- -- 4 'ONOO_ -- -- ~~ ~- --~-- -- • • Q ' Z v~ 2 o ~ O ~ j z o ~+, ~ Z /`~ Q O ~ O Z c0 fV ~ y~ M ^ 7i'6 O Q J ~ ~ > Gq ~oo~ v~ Z ar~ww E r^~ ~ u O v 1 ~ ^ 1 \ Q ~ Zd ~ ' {1 ..11 vJ O ~ F•vv ``ate t U ~; 11 ~~ ~ ~ ; O .Q !~ ~ V . ..~J. ~O Z ~ Z ~ Q ~ v Q ~ ~ a; ~ ~~ Z ,W O ~ ~ ~ ~!. ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ti U F- O (vl V Z ~ ~ Q ~ W J Q O ~ ~_! (~(^~ V ~ ~ Z ~ U I O `t ~ Z ~ W Q (~~ ~ U O t A T' k Ob a a Yea. VA' 11A a D ~ I• ~ v bpi '' _ . E~ L . .~ a b : - I 1 v • ~ __..- .-_ • aj• ~ --~- _-_-1-_~ -- - ~ y i b ~~ a • - Db!a '- - ~ y e a -- - Daa a • a s a • "e,: E a ...i ._ ~-__-_ ~ E ..~- v s `4 s s °~. e t b - i e a D • E;a ~ , ~TC . ~ 3 ~ • ~. D ., t • D a}a s ~ . D • t • ~-..r' • tr ' a i ~ [ ~` / D b l :tD ~> 4 ~ ~ a a ~ • ~ • o} l d \ a b D!!M c~ ~ ~ '~ U c ~ ~ .c ~~~ ~ ~~ ;~,~~ a~~~ ~ o ..... b .~ ~g~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Y ~ Z^ ~' a ~ ~ $ ~ O v, c~ '~ $ v a m 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~w tic ~ j I ~x +~ ~,,, ~'~~ 4~t: .,.~, pr,~ } I 7 ~ y:.,k f .aka ~ *y~ h ~fi ~ ~_ ~ ~~. - '~'~ C ~y Fx ~. 1 ~ ~ ~f E4 f &~.YY r r i'~ ti ' ~~~~N~' /tt PY,{~y X`i~~ ~2 ~ w+A6! A~f 'iy,, t ~~ ~ ~t~~ ~~;~ ~r ~ ---- i ~ I ~ --- ~ - -_I - - ~ I U LL ~ ~ ~ o$ o I ~, ---------------------------------------9-r------------------------------~~- ----------- ---------- _ , ('---------------------- ~ ----W = - - w ~- `~ V o - - ------------------------------~ --------- N ----------------- ------ --------- x ------------------------ ---`- ---- x p _ ~ ~ ~,~ x ~~ ~ ~ ti' !fpm ~ ~ ~ LLQf N ~ ~ ° •~ • N V ~ ~ ~ W J O ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U a ~ x __ ~y~ A Q L ~N - .._. .- __ ~ O I ~ s~t ~ a m o W ~ ~1 ~~ ~y ~ ~ N I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~` j ~ ~0 U U `~ ° g ~ ' ~ y ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Q - ~ -- -- I N S i t=opi ' `- I ~ O c N CrD N cQ i~S N ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ $ ~ BD~Ll W F Z ~ 2' y cN~ N v w N... W ~p -- -- -- - ~ - -- x-- -- -- - N -- ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ s N ~ -~ (M/bl X09) ~/1 d ~107Ad9 /~- x ------------------- ----~dfJ~l~ - -- --------- --- ~ ~ -v `~ X N f~ _ a o?j ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ c F ~~ ~ E.,, ~ c ~ z d~ ~ o; ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ z ~ _ ~~a*~ a s ~ ~ ~~„ ~ c ~ , W Z a ~ o ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~.~y O W -'Y'i ~ v~ ~ g 3 ~ ~ ~ - ~ o ~o • ~ • U ~' ~~~ o~ d d ,~ w Q ~ N " ~. ' ° '~~~$ Z r7 U fD . ~ h ~ 11.1 z o ~ ~ o a da 0 z ¢ov', a W oV ~ ~Cz]. SV Z ~ ~ a ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~. a z gas ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ r, rn O ,~ v~ ~ o ~ E ~ ~ y C _ -- -- - M -~- ~ ~ ^' ----- ^) U ~ I ~ I ----------------------- =------- z ~ ° & I -------=--------------°----------------~-r-------------------------------a -- -- - ------ =---- - ~ = ~ N --- -------------- ---------- ----------------'--'-- '-- '--- ' '-- - ----------------- o--'°---'-- ---- ------~'--- +~ -- -~ -~ x ~ K p, i~ yy ~U ~~ N o x ~ ~ c~ ~ $ ~U ~ ~ 4 U~ ~ OF -~^Ga~y ~~ x LLW K A N ~ N J ~nAA~~" tq'~Q`~ t~? W ~~ 'W~+~1+ x ~ '•~ ~ ° W Q U ~~ j O n} r ~W ~ ~, ~ ~n ~, /^~ VJ V ~ ~ I } ~,~ °~ ~ o _ a ~ ~ W • ~ I~ e~i, h x ~? ~ ~ ~ V $~$ ~i° ~~ r I~ myyW~ N= C (~J~) ~ ~ I ~ 0 O tO I y 6' b? f. vu W N 2 N a M ~ ' J ~ M(-~ " w ~ F ~ W WZ y ~.1 "~ ~ I ~ L o ~ q F N~ h a a Q O a z ~ F raS 1 e $C4 ~ i I 4 1 v ~~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 c O ~ ,. ~ 1 80'lb 1 1 ..1 ' p ~ a 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 j ~ ~ °v3 ,~ K r~ "' ~ } 3 ~ ^ ~ F W 1 J W n a . ~ ~w ~ m ~ C7 ~ a ~ ~.. N W U N ~ __ _ x__ __ __ ~- -ic -- x ~ ~ N o ~ -v- ~s ~ (M/~1 X09) ~/1 d ~IO~.I b8 LL ~oo N - - x ~~~ --------------------- --~d,~-~ d - -- --------- --- i~ ~ -,. ~ x ~ R4 ~ ~ e ~ ~ . _ K _.. _ N • ~ ° ~O'~i ~ c h v c ~ `~ ~ m~.a ~ ~ ~ N~~_~ ~' aa ° ~ ~m p _ v ~ m ~ W $ ~ ~ U m m m '8 Z m ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ m ~ >, ~ [~ e~ ~ '.3' ~ m a E a a ~ h o o ao m d' y ~¢ Q n ~ { ~ 2S a~'Ua V~ ~ ~ c is ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' °' $ Z ~ m m d [~ j] ' ~ 3 LM U ~ m ~ C L ~p f0 ^ d O ~ ~ ~ v ~' ' c A n . O ~a ~ ~ ~ p ~U `1° m~n m~ -o 0 L C F -EL ~~ U m~.~ Z a_ U W U W O a Q Z 2 W Z Z O Q U ~ ~ W w ~ m 8 E ~ 2 Y ~' ~ ~ ~ Q w o ~ ?°„ oa F- '~ N N 3 U~ N ~ ~ ~ Z v v ~ v Q ~°- ~ °a ~ ~ ~ N c~I ~ m v O do r~ a ~~ ~ `~ °n~ ~~ " ~' o!s ~. _,~ ~' o J ~p m ~ a ~ ~o U m ~ c T O a ~ c`4 o ~5 8 ~. ~ a m O 3 Q ~ m n ~ v -~° .° e ~ s a ~ s a ~ W . ~"hqv~ ~ s L ~,'~~ W.,,..~, ~~~~~~~~ F:~~ ~;~ .wl 7~~,~ tt~~'~~~f rV. a }~ L.uci5~~~; ~~ $ F 5 ~ -F d~ r n r•. ~ 5 ,s.. a ; • ,~ n ~.~ N^ E# ~+ ' `` ~ ~~~~~s~-~f F ~'~ f `fir w"k S ~sL ~~~~~. c~ U N ~ O a~ oo ~ N ~ U ~ a> d . 1 ~ ~~,~> a~~b o .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w t L o~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~Ny ~~ ra ~ ~ O ~ ~..1 y ~ d' N ~ ~'~a €~ 4 a ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ o z z ~ ~ z 3a W ~ 3 ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ z ~~ ~ o ~ °~~ J en ~~ S ~ ~ 0 o ~ h II ~i ~ ;~ ~ 9ti" o ~ ~ M ~ ~ a ~ $ W qWy J A ~ < ~ 11 •+sa wxr~ Q' ~ ~ a a ^^ rN., N N ~ p .$.1 E .1-.vt z .r.u z .l-.LL .e a,l _ J C9 ~ ~' M v ss C N OOOO ~ M O O _w n w ~ ~ Ri n Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C 0 fq tq faA fa fA Q p v N O tMD ~ O ~ M ~ LL od r M ~ ~M~~ <O OO y t~n 000\JOOO~ ~ O ~~-- - .es ,t•st a ,m-s .c-z .1-.t .~o-z „ast .l._ ------i~~ ,m ~------ - ~' 0 J LL _ ~ 11 ~ ~ LL U 0 ca A 04 O 0 a w F F ~ I\~~ \~ \ 2I ~_ m o> .~ d .~ a~ .~ Z ~' U w~~~ a~'~ 5 v ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ a o~j ~~,~pAN $\ ~ .a ~ ~ Z ~~ ~- z3 ? >° a ~ ~ ~ Z7~zl 'o d ~ _ ~ ~a ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ z a ~, w W ~~ .. 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ °° v~ O °O, ~ ~ ~ o0 ~ o I ~~ , ,::~,~ 4 { ,I i .~. + ~ I 'It ,,`r 1 ._y_.... , . '^S . •.r, ~,-~ ~rc• - ~, •-rc.+ u 1 i _ ,w.at..~.,~`` ~x~?"' _ Y = ._ _ _... _ 1 1 ' ~ 4 1• i ~~1 ~`l~`...:;...;Y"..~.~~.,...::..'~v ` 'R1,.~~1~ >:.~`~`a:>'Ji; ^+= 'p~ tP~" :' ~., ~ 1 1-i~ tt~ ~, ._- ~ ... - _. -. _ 1 }' j I' ~ _-1rµ ~y t ~cv"La~ i j I i `I. 1 >. ~_. ; t ., Y '.. r ~ ~ ~ C ~ .. __ 1 __._ _. .d ~ .. 9 = 1. ..._._ ; ~ i~:~ I , ' ~ a~~~~.^Y•'f~. Yea.. ~ ~:~z~l.~Q ~ 5 ~ ' .. I 1 1r'I ~ ~ 'I t ~' 7 %^.~. ~ y~,;` INS' ~ rJ ,1. ~ i , to .. ,~:`~T;~L~"s~i~`i"~~~``~.:.,..,.-,~;.`•t~ ~~a~ 4~:rs,. ,~,:xN•,.~~z-~s..~:w~~t~ ... M~ss->:ssk.:::~s:,c~:u._ ~ . ~ ~` ' ,' I ; ~~ ~ i ~ { S. I , 4, ' i i ~ kl ~ i...__ ~;> .. 1 @ i 1 ,ii ~ ~ <:. $ i. If:, e sal ~ I ~-_---1 1 ' ~ ~. -'af ~ <t i~ it =; ~ t~ !, i ~~ ~ ,; i ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ . 'a1 _~~'iZ~;;~,~ ~-^_~x:>~~ss<<s~s~st~ ~cs,s~'y ~~~: ;=:.x..~.~~~ss~~M:~s. ~ _E~i ` II ~ "= I i t ~' t . 5 ~ _~ ~ '• ~t I t ~... L, i ~ i ~ r ~~ 1 Il ~.... ,-' J y ~1 i I v x ~ ~ `-, E - v & r 1 Ii ~ tV _y .a r r -- i '~ { a I ~ ui i ~ t. _ .. .. :U ..a _ j ~ i .,, .. 1~ ....___.... ~. _ V t F ....t. . ---..._.. ... _ ~.. y~.al:"~.. i....C`~,`ai \nS`y1`:"~`~~ ~"„~r,, ~..~ .,.~_" <,..~1w::a._aS;, ,~,,...:.e+ a_ ..,5'~x~~i tiy.. ~:i ~..~:.a:~a .. _:. i ~. .. < . .£~ :;r,, ... u> `h`c~c~ $ •~ oU~~~ ~~~~~ m U -~ ''' " ... ~EE ~' LgG~~l~lli .L-E ~~ ~ i .LL-,4 .__- .._. ~I u uuuuuuu l unuutuw I unuunuu uuununu ~ 1 uuuauuu iuuuauna uunnunu I 1 unuwum uuununu I nuuuunu ' ununuau I unuuuuu uuuuuuu ' unuuuon uuuuunu I 1 uuuuunu uuuuuuu I unuuuuu uuuuuuu I uuuuunu uuuwuul ~ I uuwuuw uuuuuuu 333 ~ ~ I unuuuuu llllllllllllll g 1 Illlllllllllll uuunuuu ,AAff 1 uuuuunu uuuuuuu uuuuuuu ' I I ^uuuuuu uuuuunu --~ --- ----- I ~- ---- unuunuu ' uunuuuu ' I I uuuunun uuuuunu nnuuuuu uuuuuuu 11111111111111 I I ~ ~ ~® ~ i ~ Z Illlllllllllll --- ~ ~ O llll{Illlllltl llllllllllllll ~ Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll 1 Z I Illlllllllllll I O I Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ r uuuuuuu uuuuunu 11111111111111 I ~ I ¢ ~ I , J W unuuuuu mmluuw Illlllllllllll '4l >~ I ^p q^ E J I y unuuuuu m ~ = ~ P W ~ ~ = ~ 9 ~. ~ uuumu Illlllllllllll ~ ~ I F' 1 //pp y uuuuuuu Illlllllllllll I Z uuuuuuu IIIIIIIIIIi III ~ ~ I I p ' I I uuuuum yy u ~ L uwuuw 8 uuuuwl LL uuuuun uouuun ( 1 ~ I 1 ununul 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 Iuuuw ltnuuu ----- n 1 u unuuu uuuwl w i lunuu 111111111 {q1 • gg g w utl1 i 11111 111111111 Yp IIII I Illlllll 11111111 W ~ 11111 11111 111111 IIIIi II 11111 1 Ilffll ' 1111111 111111 1 ~ 111111 1111111 111111 11111 1111111 I /111111 11111 ~ 1 /1111111 tllll ~ 1 1/111/11 Illlill I Illlliffl Illlill 1 1111111 ~ ~ 1111111 IIIllllll lllllllll ~ I 111111111 I F 11111111 111111111 ~ ~ ~ I 111111111 ~ 111~~1~~1 I 111111111 1/1(1)11 Illlilllll _ ~~~~~~;~~ I InIl111U 11111111111 , 111111111 . ~ lllllllllll Illllllllll ~ llltllllllll 1 k 11111111111 1 Illlllltl1111 illllllllllll ---~- lllllllllllll ' I L L' J` {9 ' Illlllllllllll I uuluw I . . ~ .L•,4-~ L•E I I I I I .L•,E d I I L L',~ ~ ~I I 11111111n1111 ~ ~I Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll ~ Illlllll 1 ' 11111111111111 llllllllllllll I ~ Illlllll Illlllll! I Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll I ~ Illlill\ Illlllll! I ' Illlllllllllll llllllllllllll I 11111111 1 1 1111111 Illlllllllllll ~ 1 1 lllllllll 11111111111111 llllllllllllll Illlllllllllll I ~ 111111111 111111111 ~ I 111111111 - Illlllllllllll 11111111111111 1 111111111 1 IIIIIIII unuuuuu uuuuww ~ ~ 1 ~ unnm I n u nuuunlw d I au uuuu I nuauuun Illlllllllllll ~ uuun I 111111! 11111111111111 ~ I 1111!!! 1 Illlllllllllll 11llllllllllil Illlllllllllll I ~ 1111!! 1111!! I 1111 ~ 11111111111111 uuuuuuu uuuuuua nuuuuun I ~ I I 1111! tun d I uu g uu t >,~ ~ I uumman umuuuw --- u1 I w --__'--- -... .. ' __--- aununun uuuunun nunuuun w I u u I uuuuuuu nuuuuun u t I . nonunun uuuwum d 1 I nuuuuuu uuuunun unu n I a n n uuuunuu I iiiiiiiiiiiiii ~ . ulummm gg i ' ~ ~ i O Ilunulttlll unuunun unuuuua d ~ Z ° ' ~ ~ ; I ~ ¢ f Illlllllllllll 1 uuauuun lllllllllnlll ~ ¢ ~ I I w uununuu uuunuu t ~. I t ~ I ~ 111111111111 ~ 0 q ~ W uuuull^ uuuuun !~ _ J I I uuuuun uuunnu W I -- uunnun ^uu°°n ~ i ~ I ' W ! i . uununml unuunun I J nuaunun nuuuauu uuuullll° I _..'.. ~_ ... ~ I I .. I . uuuuuuu uununun g ~ ~ L I I 1 1 nnouuu^ nununun nunuuna 8 I . nunuuun uununun ~ I 9 I # ' unaunun numunul I ~ I ~ unwuuul uunuaun I ~ l- I nnuunuu uuuuuuu I I -- uuuuuuu nunuuuu uuunuuu I 1 I I uwunaal uunulum ~ I 1 ' uuuuunu uauunuu ~ I d I uunnuuu uuwuuw I pp I uununu° nnuunun ~ G I 1 I uunuuun unuuuun unnllmm I I ~ I 1 L uununun unuuuun I 1 . uunuuun nunlunlu uuuunw ~ I I . Illlllllllllll llllllllllllll I A uuwuuw 11111111111111 ® y 1 1 uutuuuw uununun Illlllllllllll ! H I ~ ^uuunuw ii i i i ~ ' ' i i ii iiiii I 9 , 9 ~I ~I .LL'b I II .LL-9 ~1 '' ~ 9 ~ I I .LL-.4 1 a ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~ rr ? ` ~ ~ 'r' ~ d I . o ~ 4 ~ , ~ o . LTi z 0 ~ ~~ ~~'~ a ~U ~ ~V ~~'gg a ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~° w z`'a ~o ~ ~ II M ?} s ~ ~ ~ ~E ~ o x ° ~ ~ ¢ ~~ ° ~ 8 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ W N i n °' U rn 7 C ~ ~ ~ v a~'~ 5 _ ~ ~ OI_ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~.~ ~ U " " ~ ~ ~ .f-AL•, .L-, ~I lmmmm~mmn inuuuuuuanuw i^ uuununuuuuuu Ill! 11111 111 111 111 111 111 I Illllllllllllltlllllllll Ill! llla 111 1111! 1111! ll I Ill! 1111 llllll llll111111 111111111111111111111111 ~ I lllllllllll l1l11lll11111 I IlUlll111i 1111111111111 $ I Ill! IIII 1111 111!1 IIII 111 snj ll lllllllllllll lllllllll ~ I Illllllllllllltlllllllll 4 11111111111111illi llllll ' Illllllllllllltlllllllll IIli11111111111111111111 Ill! llllllllllllllll IIII d I 111111111111111111111111 ~~ ' Ill ll 111 IIII 111(1 11111 li l 1111 ll11111111t11111111 111111! 1111 111 1111! 1111! I II1111IIII11111111111111 lull llll111lli lllllllll ~y I 111111111111111111111111 O I Ill 111(1 111 lllllll ll 1111 5N lla llllll IIII 111 ll 111 ll . III III IIl11111I111111111 i 1111 11111 ll 11111 1111! ll ~ I Il ll l 1111! 1111 1!111 111 ll I IIIIIII l1111111I11i 1t 11 ' -U llllllllllllllllllllllll Illllllllllllltlllllllll y9yq~ ~1~~~~~~~1~~~y!Yry III111111111111111111111 llllllllllllllllllllllll Llllll 1111! 1111 1111! 111 ll 1111 111111IIH11111111111111 Ill 11111 llll11111111111111 Illlllllllllllllllllllllll 1111 llllll 111 IIII 1111! 111 ' 11111111111111111111111111 1111111111111Illl ll ll 1111! I ll lllllll llllllll lllllllll 111 lll1111It111l Ill( 1111! ' Illlllllllllllllllllllllll ' uumuuunuuuuu lllllllllll) 1111 1111 llllll Z ll\IllII IIII IIIII111111111 I III (IIII llllll (IIII ll Il 11111 111 ll 111 IIII 111 111 11IIII1111111l111111it gg iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~8 ~ > 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~1 II Ill! 1111 111(1 IIII Iii 55 Ill 11111 lllllllllll lit 8 Ill 1111! llll1111111111 ! W 1 111 11111 1111 IIII llllll ! J IIIS IIII IIII (IIII (IIII { 1 ~ 1 II (IIII III II II II Itll 1111! W I I ~ 1 I ll li1111111111111111111111 Illlllllllllllllllllllllll I1111111111111111111111i11 Illlllllllllllllllllllllll ~ 1 I Illlllllllllllllllllllllll t 1 1 IIII ll 111 !lllllllllllll 111 I IIIIIIIIIllll111111111111 I ~ ' ~~I I ' ~ 1 ' ' ~ 1 1 l; I ~ I ' rii I - - Ly nu I _ 8 uw Im1 ~ I 111!11 8 I llllll ~ uuw uum ~ I 1111111 I !IIII ; 11111 ~~ uu t1l , I li ~~ 'L ~~ I -L ---' I 7 .~ ~• ~ 8A ~ - ~I '~ ~; ~ ~ ~~~~ 111 IIl1 j~ Ill! y g Illll 11111 llllll Hpkp uuul `~ ~ d auw uaul ~ p Waal ~ ~S unu ,~ uw 1111 ill L llllall«aaalalaaa lllllllllllll lllt111tl1111 III III IIII IIII III llllll III III IIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII III I llllll 111 1111 111 lllll11111 1 I 111111111111I~II !lllllllll O I 1 { ~ uuunnnnuunuuu ~~ I Q I fl i s ~ ~ ,f- nuuuuuuunuum nuuuuuuuuuuuu nuuuaun°°wnw I I 1 ~ I uwuwlumlulnuu gg uunuununuuuuu. ~ ~ ~8 I ~ 1 uuunuuuluuunw I J nuuuuauuuuuun ~ ~ W ( _ ~ 1 I I ' I nuuunuunuuunu ~ ~ I I nuuuouuuuuuuu F ^uuuuuuluuuaw ¢ I ~uuuuuunuuuuuu Z nunuuuuuuuuuu a. ~, I .O - - { 1 1 I nuuunuuuuuuua uuuuuuuauuuw uuuuuuuuul u ~ nauuuuuuu a LLI I ~~ I nauuuuuun m uuuuuuuu w ~ I 1 nlunununu u uuuuuuuuu I ® & luuuuuunum - ® ~ - uuuuunuuuu ' uuunnuuw uuuuuuum uuuunuuu uuuuuuw uuunlum ®® uuuuuuu uuuuuw ~~ uuuuuw uuuuuw 'may uuuuw uuuum uuuuu ~ I uuuu! uuuu) I aaaa uuunl ~ I Ill! 1!!111 uuuual uauuw I uuuuuw uuuuuw ~ ~ ~ I uuuuuw uuunuuu d I uuunuuw ffi. uuunuuw ~ 'A >y I uuuuuanu uuuunuuw ~ uuuuuuum ~HI uuuuuuuuu unuuuauow I uuuuoununl uuuuuauuuu I uuuuununum- uununuuunw I uuuuuuuuuua uuuuunuuunm uluuuuuwuuu ,I . ~ ~I ~I J~-.L L- ~ 0 z ~ ~ ~ s N ~ "' 1-~ ~~~~i~FA ` u9 W N O ~ ~ N O ~ Q~' c ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ 1 W Q 0 W `~ Q ~ `~' ~ 1 ~ x~ ~: ~~ z oV ~ oV ~- ~/93N * 3i ^~ ~ ~ at ~ ~ M • ~ ~ ~ ^; ~ FTI /.il c3 Q ,°° vl M+1 Fit iii J ~ aMo C S gg E ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ I I .P,Z .6A 1-. ~ - .G- 1 1 111 111 1111 ILllii 111(111 Illtllll IIIIIII 1 Illll Illllll Ii llllll I I I 11111 111111 111111 Illllll ~~ llllllll llllllll llllllll ,llllllll lla 111 Illllll! Illtllll Illilllt llllllll 11111111 llllllll llllllll Itliltll llllllll llllllll 111111! I I ~ I ~ I I llllllll llllllll lllllllll 1/111111 llllllll ;UII III ^IIII 111111111 Illllll) (IIIIIII Illtllll 11111111 ~l llllllll yy Illilllt '9 Illllll llllllll I I~ ~ I ~~ llllllll 111111111 ; Illilllt Illllll) 11111111 ,1111111 Illlllil Illllll llllllll Illtllll llllllll 11111111 llllllll 11111111 Illl ll ll 11111111 llllllll / ~ llllllll lllllll /1111111 lllllll llllllll I ~ I 6 I ~ Z Q _ ~ 11111111 uuuu 11111111 11111111 " 11111111 ~ uunn llllllll 11111111 I C C d; 1111 11 lllllllll 1111I.Illl 11 Ill! llllll 111 llllllll llllllll llllllll llllllll 1111tI11 I - I l v I11 1 Y111 {Nl 111111 ~{{~~( Ylll,l I I / LLI 1111j/ lll ll~tJlll I11111nRtllll ll1 l1 l^ 1 u lltllll ® V 3 (11111 ® OG ~ llllll a uuu 1.-111 111 Ill 1 111 h 1 11111111 uuuu uuuu uwul ~ itlall !!1111 llllll 11!1111 luau Wool nom uuuu aaaa uuuu loam uuuu Waal Waal uuw uovu mall! mom aaaa nuuu uuuu uaum aaaa 11111111 aaaa anal 11111111 ~~ I 11111111 11111111 !uuw 11111111 llllllll uuuu $ i Y~ ' uuuu ~ !uuw uwm 1 uau 11111111 (1111114 uuuu uuuu ;Inuw nuuw Ili 1111! Ill 111 ll G _ 1 1 '`/ I 11111111 llllllll llllllll llllllll llllllll 111111111 llllllll ~ g Y y Ill ll 111 11Illlit llllllll llllllll 11111111 Illllll 11111111 I ~ I lllllll Illl1 Il ltll 11111 1111 1111 ~ X ~ ~ lllllia fill 1 Itlll lit Illllll llllllll Illtllll I i 1111 ~ 111 1 L'O llllllll Il llllll 1l llllll __-_. _-- yl 5~ f 6 .B~~Z~ ~ `--d- ~ .L-,~ ~ y 5 I~ !q - --'- .EAL ----- . I I I so I ~ ~ '~~ ll 111 ' 1111 Ill 11111 llllll 111111 uuu I 111111 Illlll\Illllll Ill lllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111 ' IIIIII1111111 (lllllllllllll (lllllllllllll (IIII II II IIII I p I ~.U Illllll I lllllll 111!1111 iiiiii\1 11 llllllll 11111111 11llllll llllllll Ill 1111! ti1111111 1/1111111 5 Illllll 111 IIII 1 2 11111111111111 I 6 11111111111111 1111 I 111 1111! 1111 (lllllllllll I 11111111111 111111 (IIII IIiII 11lllllll ~ I ^Il ll 1111 p ill llllll ~ ~ 111111111 llllllll ~ ~ £ Illllll I llllll • wwu !uuw !uuw aaaa I ~iiiil ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~p au B Iu l E iiiiiiii uuuu uuuu al ua ^ ~ Il ® 1 ' I uuuu ^uun llllllll 11111111 Illlull lllllllll uuuu Illtllll! uuuu llllllll I IIIIIII y 11111111 R lllllllll ( ~ ~ I d• H I IIIl1111 nom !uuuu uuuu B ~ I i£ aaaa iiiiii uul uw I I ~y I Z F nw uuuu ~ I loom ~ iiiiiiii iiuuu uuuu 1~ I I J W unuw lanuu uwuu ~ I 111111111 \!uuw i uulu uuw \uuw ® C 3 I ~ ~ I 3 I g J uumu 1°unn iiiiiiii aaaa! wool g I I I uuam unuw wuuu Iowa uuuu ~ I anuu aaaa I unnu uanu uuuu uuw !u ~ ~ ^ uw Ill lit it i ~ ~ I F '~ n uu uun uuw u1n t 1 uu lu € I ' ® I I I ~l 1 ~ y ~ 9-L ~ I 1 d- 8 8A s I I I I I I U ~~~8 •~ N o ~, ~o ~ Q ~ N O7 ~ ~ • ~ ~ U " E ~ Nm~ h~~w ,<<«<, ~<««~~ ««<<~~~ ««<<~~<« «<«„~„~ ~«„~~,~„ a ~ o j ~ ~ r, ` a ~ ~ ~ z ,; c ° ¢ „ c ~ Q ~ ~ a7~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~~ as >~ w ° v ~ ° ¢ V z _ o u^ 4$ ~"~ " 4`r~ •~. 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i~a 0 ~ W ~ ~ O ~ ~ . ~ ~ p(, °O vii C x '~ Deno ~ en 3 ~ ~ ' ~ V ~ C ~ g N N u b_ ~~ O _ co w ~ O ~ ~ ~ F n n ~ u „ 0 =.~ ° n w ~ w ~ ~ ~- ~ O ~ ao ¢O °4 ¢ ~° C7 ~ ~, Ewa ~ w ~ ~oZ~ ~ ~ QU ~ Q = ~ Fes- G:U Z V Q U ~ ~ ~ LL w ~ ~ Z 0 O _ ~ O a0 ~m~ J O ~ ~ ~ ~ m w ~ =Owl O ' tJiZS ~ F- ~ = ~ Z C9 D - wZw ~ ~Q J ui O O U N Q 1- N E Z O U W to Q Q Z _O U w m 00 ~~ Z O U w U U I d C7 U m ~ ~ ~ O m a~'~5 p ~..~ ~ ~' o ~v~~ N . U r~- ~~ ~~ a o?j ., R ~ z a ,; ° Q ~ ~ „ ° 0 ' Q ~ fir,; ~ ~S rn W , ~ rn m ~~ ~ "~ ~ a o¢ v ~ C7~ o¢ z ~ ~~i :~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ A ~o a ..7 ~~ Z ~o ~~ 3a ~ o`o ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ono ~ W W $O S ~ ~ ~ o a a~ a 0 z g a pW,, Q V O J Item 2 :~ • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Application No./Location: 06-428; 18804 Cox Avenue ~ Application Type: Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in a CN Zone Applicant/Owner: Maria Cortez/Quito Village Group, LLC (Owner) Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner -Sly Date: August 23, 2006 APN: 389-12-019 Department Head ~L John F. Livingstone, AICP • ;~ ~ ~ L- ~• ~. ..~ (/./ . .• ... • r .. ., ~' r •r : 'i_ ~~ ',.~ .~, f' . "tat ., / ~, ~ /*/t `0.L AC. i ^i lL. ,/ ^• .: i +,. •,a ./ M .~ ~. -~~ .~. ~-_.... - ~ ~CUX ._... _ - + 3 ---rT'. - L ~ i ~ J e i + ~ • ' O .~, ° 4! O ~ d u q ~ S ~ ._ _., ~ ~ ~i . ;..~ .... 1 (I ~ O ~~ B~ JI q Y 1 Y R !! r . . .. • ..n' ~ J ~~ • ,. u • , , • ._ •'`r ~n''a a,u`'~ r ; m +•,.;,i r . ^ s t ~ • ` ~JJ Y ra ~Y . Y Y ~.. 1 ~;~: .~ ~ ~ , ` . ~ ~ 0 i t' t J .. , - `•c:-. ~`.~ D ei a ~ a ~ a e a ~ O ~ 2 , b ~i a I °' ., O ~ u ° ; ° ~ WWW w.-; ..,,;, a` „-y 1 •snr ' anrmre as 1 -~ - ' • 'Ya vYtiaxo , ,•,_ __... N ~~ - --~--...~._-. .~. a ~ o a ~ o a ~ a ~ a ; o * a ~ :, Subject: r.,r_ ~ ___-_~ ...___ ~ 0 `~a~_.ia~,_s?..-~._*`--~_-_~_._-.r___~~, g 188114 CnX AvCOUe + e ;'~ + ~ + i + , ~ f~ APN: 389-12-019 ry~_ , __. _ _ • ` j --~ '~; ' of ~ a d a ~ a ~ b a ~ a I a i 500'Radius 18804 Cox Avenue File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue CASE HISTORY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 06/19/06 Application complete: 08/01/06 Notice published: 08/09/06 Mailing completed: 08/04/06 Posting completed: 08/17/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing commercial space. The proposed tenant space is approximately 950 square feet in area and is located in the Quito Village Shopping Center. The shopping center is located on an approximately 274,000 square foot parcel along Cox Avenue at Paseo Presada and includes approximately 81,000 square feet of tenant space. Establishment of a restaurant in the C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 15-19.030 of the Municipal Code. The proposed business, "Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food," will be open daily, offering both take-out and dine-in service, and will join several other restaurants in the center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. • File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS - ommercial Nei borhood ZONING: C N, C gh GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 274,000 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: No exterior changes are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • • File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Background The proposed 950-square foot space is located in an existing shopping center known as "Quito Village," which is located on Cox Avenue at Paseo Presada. Quito Village consists of two multi-tenant buildings located on a 274,000 square-foot parcel in the C-N zone. Anchor tenants include Gene's Fine Foods and a 24-Hour Nautilus, along with numerous restaurants, retail businesses, professional offices, personal services, medical offices, and educational facilities (see attachment 5). The tenant space was formerly occupied by Perfect Tan but has been vacant since October 2004 (see attachment 6 and 8). The proposed business will join several other restaurants in the center, including the Yong Lo Garden Chinese Cuisine, Sushi 2-2- Train, The Movable Feast Cafe, and the Prolific Oven Bakery & Coffee House. Proposed Restaurant as a Conditional Use • This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to establish a restaurant. A CUP is required to establish a restaurant in the Commercial zoning designation pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 15-19.020(b)(1). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other" and "to promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City." There are approximately two dozen businesses in the Quito Village Shopping Center, providing such diverse services. as travel, fitness, education, groceries, medical care, personal services, shoe repair, and dry cleaning. There are also four existing restaurants. The addition of a Mexican restaurant would increase the diversity of the shopping center and support the objectives of the Code by promoting a pleasant and concentrated shopping environment. The subject tenant space is located along Cox, between Sushi 2-2-Train and Shamrock Shoe Repair and is approximately 950 square feet. The space is currently vacant. The restaurant will be open Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. The applicant proposes seating for 18 diners inside and an additional 4 diners outside. Economic Impacts General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Although this is a commercial center, the proposed tenant space has been vacant for over a year. There are no other Mexican restaurants in the shopping center. File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue Parking The existing parking lot includes approximately 350 spaces. Pursuant to Section 15- 35.030(1), the required number of •spaces for a restaurant is one space/75 square feet. Although this is a more intense requirement than the one space/200 square feet required for the previous tenant, there appears to be sufficient parking available. Staff has surveyed the parking area several times, particularly around lunch and dinner time, and found numerous vacant parking spots near the proposed tenant space. Signage The size and material of the proposed signage is consistent with the appearance of existing Signage for the center. The frame and backboard of the existing sign will be repainted with the same colors. The letters will be a maximum of 11 inches in height and will call out "Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food" (see attachment 7). The sign will be illuminated, as are the nearby signs for Sushi 2-2 Train and Kelley's Wine and Spirits. Illumination will be provided by two 150-watt weatherproof lights (identical to those for Sushi 2-2-Train) and will be turned off when the restaurant closes. Public Comment The applicant notified the existing tenants in the center, along with several of the neighbors (see attachment 8). Staff also notified all neighbors within 500 feet of the project. Staff has not received any comments at the time of writing this staff report. C USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the. district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to provide opportunities for retail stores, off ces and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other" and "to promote stable, attractive commercial development. "The proposed use will increase the diversity of dining choices in the neighborhood, provide a conveniently located service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities, and beneftt the surrounding uses by promoting additional pedestrian traffic in the shopping center through the use of both indoor and outdoor seating. The restaurant will be open for business during normal business hours. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The location of the outdoor tables and chairs will be subject to .approval by the Community Development Director and the cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. • The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof in that the proposed restaurant may attract more visitors to the area and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. There are no other Mexican restaurants in the shopping center. Conclusio~z The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Saratoga City Code. The proposed restaurant is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor is it expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to restaurant uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit application number 06-428 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACH1Vl1JNTS 1. Resolution of Approval 2. "Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food" business plan from the applicant 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels 4. Fire Department requirements 5. Parking lot plan and location of proposed site 6. Photo of interior subject space 7. Proposed signage including dimensions and lettering 8. Neighbor notification letters 9. Tenant improvement plans, Exhibit "A" • M • • Attachment 1 File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-428 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Maria Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue (Property Owner Quito Village Group, LLC) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning. Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a restaurant in an existing tenant space located at 18804 Cox Avenue (The Quito Village Shopping Center), which is located in the C-N (Commercial Neighborhood); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing .at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes establishment of a restaurant is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This exemption consists of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (CN). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to provide opportunities for retail stores, off ces and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other" and "to promote stable, attractive commercial development. "The proposed use will increase the diversity of dining choices in the neighborhood, provide a conveniently located service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities, and benefit the surrounding uses by promoting additional pedestrian traffic in the shopping center through the use of both indoor and outdoor seating. The restaurant will be open for business during normal business hours. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ~ or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The location of the outdoor 'tables and chairs will be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and the cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. • The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof in that the proposed restaurant may attract more visitors to the area and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. There are no other Mexican restaurants in the shopping center. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06- 428 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The restaurant shall operate as represented on the plans marks "Exhibit A." 3. The sign will only be illuminated during business hours. 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 6. The owner/applicant shall contact Santa Clara County Health Department and verify required permits. If required by the Santa Clara County Health Department, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue 7. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to and obtain. approval from the Community • Development Department for a business license. 8. The owner/applicant shall maintain the cleanliness of the outdoor dining area. 9. The owner/applicant shall install an additional garbage can in close proximity to the outdoor dining area. 10. The location of the outdoor tables and chairs shall be subject to .approval by the -- Community Development Director. 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and ~ expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (attached). Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • File No. 06-428; Cortez; 18804 Cox Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of August 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner (Quito Village Group, LLC Date or Authorized Agent) Applicant (Maria Cortez) Date ,~ • Attachment 2 • S1~15~~U =~ , ~±~~_ ~ -~ 200 ~i i'Y U ' Cazueias Authentic Mexican Food ~ sF~~: E- Business Description Our proposed restaurant will be family owned and operated with a focus on customer service, cleanliness, and a savory authentic menu.. - -- ------- - -- --- -- - -- - - - - ~- --- We, the Cortez Family have been in the maintenance business for over 20 years providing a variety of services to commercial properties around the South Bay. Dealing with restaurant owners has taught us what is required and expected in this service industry. Maria has been cooking her entire life and has cooked for church events as well as for private parties. She brings a vast amount of knowledge to the kitchen and has always dreamed of opening her own restaurant. Our menu will offer high quality food made fresh daily at a reasonable price. We will serve from the basic taco to our signature mole dishes. We will also feature a healthy vegetarian and lean menu, offering from salads to vegetarian burritos made with whole wheat tortillas, lean chicken or fish. alking with residents and city employees, Saratoga lacks a restaurant which serves traditional authentic Mexican food in city limits. We will offer both take out and dine in service, focusing on a sit down cliental for dinner. We will a able to seat 18 customers indoor and hope to offer our patrons outside seating, two 30"patio tables with a total of two chairs each, which would be located outside our establishment. Total Max Occupancy is 34 Persons. We have done business with Quito Village. Shopping Center's owner, Temacommercial Inc., for over 20 years and have the management's full support for this new business venture. Diana Shannon is the property manager and can answer any questions you might have in regards to the center or our family's backgrounds. Sincerely Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food _%~ / Maria Cort • • • Attachment 3 • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 4th day of August , 2006, that I deposited 110 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 389-12-019; 18804 Cox Ave; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~ ~~l,-~ Denise Kaspar :~` C Advanced Listing Services City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-428 -18804 Cox Ave APPLICANT: Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food (tenant)/Quito Village Group, LLC. (property owner) APN: 389-12-019 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing approximately 950 square foot vacant tenant space in the Quito Village commercial complex. The restaurant will face Cox Avenue and will be located between the existing Sushi 2-2 Train and Shamrock Shoe Repair businesses. The site is zoned CN. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, August 14, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the. County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of--date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner 408-868-1212 August 3, 2006 ' Ownership Listing epared for: 389-12-019 CAZUELAS AUTHENTIC MEXICAN FOOD 18804 COX AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 386-13-041 HERMAN N FUR1N0 OR CURRENT OWNER 12820 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4121 386-13-044 SOHRAB TAGHIPOUR OR CURRENT OWNER 18676 PASEO PUEBLO SARATOGA CA 95070-4127 386-13-062 NEIL LAM OR CURRENT OWNER 18661 COX AVE ARATOGA CA 95070-4107 6-13-065 MICHELLE M NITSCH OR CURRENT OWNER 12884 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4122 386-14-014 BARBARA BAKER 10 DAWN HILL DR SANDY UT 84092-4901 386-14-027 DELORA SANFILIPPO OR CURRENT OWNER 18809 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4100 386-58-020 EDITH CUNNINGHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 18897 SARA PARK CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4175 9-12-002 GORY A & ELLEN REYNOLDS OR CURRENT OWNER 18747 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 386-13-042 DAVID B MAHAL OR CURRENT OWNER 12860 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4122 386-13-045 ANNE VONDRUSKA OR CURRENT OWNER 18660 PASEO PUEBLO SARATOGA CA 95070-4127 386-13-063 PAUL P BUDNIK 555 CRESCI RD LOS GATOS CA 95033-8512 386-13-043 LEON H & BETTY FRANTZ OR CURRENT OWNER 18692 PASEO PUEBLO SARATOGA CA 95070-4127 386-13-061 FRANCISCO ALFARO OR CURRENT OWNER 18645 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4107 386-13-064 ROBERT C & EILEEN JAMESON OR CURRENT OWNER 18693 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4107 386-14-011 386-14-012 PRINCE OF PEACE EVANG LUTH CH SARATOGA COURT INC OF 2000 CORPORATE RDG 925 OR CURRENT OWNER MC LEAN VA 22102-7861 12770 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4147 386-14-016 PRESBYTERY OF SAN JOSE 12850 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4147 386-14-026 DAVID J MORRISON 4100 MOORPARK AVE 201 SAN JOSE CA 95117-1708 386-58-014 ROBERT L CARE OR CURRENT OWNER 18895 SARA PARK CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4175 386-58-021 MARCUS T KHOO OR CURRENT OWNER 18893 SARA PARK CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4175 389-12-003 PAUL ROLAND OR CURRENT OWNER 18761 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 386-58-015 HANNAH QUAIN OR CURRENT OWNER 18891 SARA PARK CIlt SARATOGA CA 95070-4175 389-12-001 JAMES E BEEBE OR CURRENT OWNER 13005 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4124 389-12-004 HITOMI S KAWAGUCHI OR CURRENT OWNER 18775 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-005 389-12-006 389-12-007 VASILIOS A BILIONIS VICTOR M & B GUTIERREZ- NEZIIZ & HANA SABIC OR CURRENT OWNER CONTRERAS OR CURRENT OWNER 18789 DEVON AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 18817 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 18803 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-008 389-12-009 389-12-010 FRANK SANCHEZ KENNETH E & JEANNE WILLIAMSON NEIL T REID OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18831 DEVON AVE 18845 DEVON AVE 18859 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-012 389-12-013 389-12-011 JOHN R & MARY MARCOLINA SHERILYN A DAHL TAK WANG _ _ . OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1228 RUPPEI:L PL 18887 DEVON AVE 18901 DEVON AVE CUPERTINO CA 95014-5049 SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-014 THOMAS L & BARBARA SUIT OR CURRENT OWNER 18915 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-017 CUPERTINO VILLAGE ASSOCS LLC 30 E 4TH AVE SAN MATEO CA 94401 389-13-001 LAURA A CHAPPELL OR CURRENT OWNER 18724 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4195 389-13-004 SEYED-ALI REJAAISHUSHTARI OR CURRENT OWNER 18676 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4108 389-13-021 DEBORAH & MARJORIE PALUMBO OR CURRENT OWNER 18629 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4 1 1 8 389-13-024 GARY W & ALINKA NIVA 16090 VIEWFIELD RD LOS GATOS CA 95030-314] 389-13-027 ZILLMER TRUST PO BOX 814 SARATOGA CA 95071-0814 389-12-015 HONG T NGUYEN OR CURRENT OWNER 18929 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4607 389-12-018 STEVEN E STERN OR CURRENT OWNER 18860 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4196 389-12-016 ALEN S MALAKI OR CURRENT OWNER 18955 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4627 389-12-019 QUITO VILLAGE GRP LLC 160 W SANTA CLARA ST 990 SAN JOSE CA 95113-1731 389-13-002 389-13-003 ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI SLAVKO & KATARINA MARUSIC 14860 CODY LN OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 18692 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4108 389-13-005 CHING KUNG 891 QUINTINIA DR SUNNI'VALE CA 94086-8741 389-13-006 SANBORN 2005 OR CURRENT OWNER 18644 COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4108 389-13-022 THOMAS E & OPAL CRIBBS OR CURRENT OWNER 18645 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4118 389-13-025 FRED ESPARZA OR CURRENT OWNER 18693 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4118 389-13-028 VICTOR K & BARBARA ULMER OR CURRENT OWNER 13004 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070=4125 389-13-023 ALEXANDER GRUBMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18661 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4118 389-13-026 HARSONO S & PAULA SIIvIKA. OR CURRENT OWNER 18709 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4118 389-13-029 WILLIAM WONG 13145 MONTROSE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4628 • 389-13-030 STUART & VICKI HUIZINGA OR CURRENT OWNER 92 PASEO LADO TOGA CA 95070-4 1 1 9 389-13-033 ROBERT W & ERIKA ESTLER OR CURRENT OWNER 18644 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4119 389-13-053 ROBERT M & ANNA MALK.IN OR CURRENT OWNER 18693 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4651 389-14-001 FRANK S SABELLA OR CURRENT OWNER 18724 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4646 389-14-004 LUCILLE CARVELHO 6339 TUCKER DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-3950 389-14-019 KATHY J MOLLICONE OR CURRENT OWNER 18709 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4623 389-15-002, 014 ROBERT J MALONE OR CURRENT OWNER 18886 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-005 AHMAD Z SIDDIQUI OR CURRENT OWNER 18844 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-008 EUGENE H & S CARBONE OR CURRENT OWNER 18802 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 I5-011 MEZ TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 18760 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-13-031 ANITA S BEECHIE 1409 FLORA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95130-1219 389-13-051 UNADKAT & ANANDI DHIREN OR CURRENT OWNER 18661 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4651 389-13-054 PETER G RADIN OR CURRENT OWNER 18709 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4651 389-14-002 ROMULO & MARTHA BELLIDO OR CURRENT OWNER 18708 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4646 389-14-017 MARTIN GILCHRIST OR CURRENT OWNER 18677 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4623 389-13-032 EMMA L WYCKOFF OR CURRENT OWNER 18660 PASEO LADO SARATOGA CA 95070-4119 389-13-052 JEROME F PRUSA OR CURRENT OWNER 18677 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4651 389-13-055 ROBERT & KIMBERLY BOYD OR CURRENT OWNER 18725 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4651 389-14-003 MERVYN A STATON OR CURRENT OWNER 18692 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4646 389-14-018 FRANK M & MARY PEREYRA OR CURRENT OWNER 18693 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4623 389-14-020 389-15-001 WARREN & DEBORAH TEITELMAN PAUL B & CABBIE KIM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18725 MCFARLAND AVE 18900 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4623 SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-003 JOAN DAMS 14850 OKA RD 23 LOS GATOS CA 95032-1928 389-15-004 MARTIN J KELLER OR CURRENT OWNER 18858 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-006 CIAMPOSSIN FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 18830 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-009 MANUEL 3 BALERO OR CURRENT OWNER 18788 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-012 CRAIG A CARNES OR CURRENT OWNER 18746 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-007 SONIA & PIERRE YING 4715 MALERO PL SAN JOSE CA 95129-1455 389-15-010 DON & KATHLEEN TANAKA OR CURRENT OWNER 18774 DEVON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4606 389-15-013 CHARLES . YOUNIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18747 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-015 389-15-016 MARGARET ARCHER SAMJUNG & CHRISTINE KIM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18775 MCFARLAND AVE 18789 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4625. SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-018 389-15-019 JAMES B & BETTY KECK GARY L & JENNIFER CAUBLE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18817 MCFARLAND AVE 18831 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 ~ SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-017 PATRICK T & SHEILA DRUMM OR CURRENT OWNER 18803 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-020 JESSIE GUITERREZ OR CURRENT OWNER 18845 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-021 389-15-022 389-15-023 JAMES R & JULIE LEMEN MOHD N & SAMINA AFTAB SUBHASH GUPTA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 5 TOH HEIGHTS 18859 MCFARLAND AVE 18873 MCFARLAND AVE SINGAPORE 50780 SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 SARATOGA CA 95070-4625 389-15-031 389-15-032 389-15-033 STANLEY BAE MICHAEL HESS MICHAEL G GROSCH OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13090 HEATH ST 18858 MCFARLAND AVE 18844 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4611 SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 389-15-034 389-15-035 TOSHIYUKI & MASAKO SAITO ELSIE J PERRY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18830 MCFARLAND AVE 18816 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 389-15-036 MICHAEL & KAREN BUSTAMANTE OR CURRENT OWNER 18802 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 389-15-037 389-15-038 389-15-039 STEPHEN E & JENNIFER MAC MATTHEW C & LISA VAN DYKE JOHN PECKHAM QUIDDY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18774 MCFARLAND AVE 18760 MCFARLAND AVE 18788 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 389-15-040 389-16-001 389-16-002 KEVIN P & ERICA CONNORS SHAHRAM & MOJGON SAHBARI GEORGE J HAYTKO OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 18746 MCFARLAND AVE 18960 MCFARLAND AVE 18950 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4626 SARATOGA CA 95070-4636 SARATOGA CA 95070-4636 389-16-003 389-16-029 389-16-030 TED & ELADIA SALAH CLANTON FAMILY TRUST THOMAS J & SANDRA SLOAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13033 MONTROSE ST 18920 MCFARLAND AVE 18900 MCFARLAND AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4628 SARATOGA CA 95070-4640 SARATOGA CA 95070-4640 389-16-031 386-14-029 TENAYA L & SCOTT ADAMS CITY OF SARATOGA OR CURRENT OWNER ATTN: SUZANNE THOMAS 13075 HEATH ST 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070-4610 SARATOGA CA 95070 • • Attachment 4 • ~~PGLARA CO~~a ~ FIRE "` COURTEEV ~ SERVICE EIRt DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Bivd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET PLAN REVIEW NUMBER Q s BLDG PERMIT NUMBER ••jPm ^. G '~,`'~ ~~<<rmci.~°°` Internationally Accredited Agency 1 531 FILE NUMBER U G- Q 2 8 NO. REQUIREMENT Review of site plan for a Use permit to allow a Mexican Restaurant in an existing commercial space. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make ,application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable ,construction permits. No fire department conditions or requirements. r~ ~J CFty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ AUGUSTINE DESIGNS 6/23/2006 1 of 1 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION ~ BY Commercial Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION CAZUELAS MEXICAN RESTAURANT 18804 Cox Av Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • Attachment 5 h y y .y U ~.! -- , o -I! C Ly Q y ~` ~ ~ V y ~- V seassa~raN .~ a~lannoN e~ ° ~ e a ~ ~~ c ~ N 1 ;,.J1II~Iilll ' ~ LC c ~ ~ E ~~~~~ ' ~~ ~ S 1 ~ ' ~' .i - • ~ ` ~ . w l l l f i!/! ~~ ~~~ yy_pC ~ V ~~ Qi 2 ~.~ ~rva1Tz-z• tqs ~~ IPI~H ~olems l ~ - = ~ ~~ '$Q ~ S uu ' ~ ' y Y'U a ~ ~ ~ . ,, ~~ 70~1S3kld 03SVd T~ a ~'~ ~ ~.I •i ~~ f f d S'' ~~~ I `W` ~~ .J r - I - 1 ~ ~~ ~~ .~ J • • 't _~ • Attachment 6 • • • • Photos of Interior Tenant Space Application # 06-428 Design Review for Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food ]8804 Cox.Avenue i~ i ~~ ZiC" ~GtG~-. ^~-'v ~r o ~n. t" V 1 e-t~ Photos of Interior Tenant Space • Application # 06-428 Design Review for Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food 18804 Cox Avenue • FroH.-~- ~-o ~~ear 'V i e~.J • Attachment 7 • m~ ~ ~ ` ^ W J ^ ^ /~il • ~ 1 J J ~ O ~ ^^ ~1~1 ~ qq 1~ a • ~ a a~ ~, 8 r a ~ o +• ~ a ~3 ~ '~ h `~ " e n 0 0 ~ 3 ~ R u 3 m ~~ s N ~ ~ ~- U ~~ ~' •/ a~• 1~ T'~ I 1 ~1{ i {rT,~ '. HI Z4 ~I ~t 3 ~J I 1 { ' i i i f i ~~, i ~_ k N W N Q U E C O ~ m c~j ~ v d ° ~ C1 ;~ ~ ~ • • Existing Sign will be painted same color and new business name place on it. ~ I~~ ;~ ~+~ fisting Support lchors • • • • ~7 C~~~~~ ~~/~ /7, 7~5~f ~ c .. ~, ..~ ,w ~ .. b ~ _ 'vs S,~ AZI.. ~.,y~~..yF~ 4::3"x' i~.+.. ~' _ ~-0+7~ - +.),~~1 • Attachment 8 ~. C~Sty of Saratoga • - Neighbor Notification Form • tee' ~ 18804 Coz Avenue PRO AD RESS: Applicant Name: Cazuela3 Aut~lentlC 1VIeaiCaD FOOt~ (Marva Cortez, Owner) Application Ntmnber: . Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they ~' )lave directly to the appliean~ Please ensure the signature on this doctanent is representahivie of oll ~ residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion. leased below, you reserNe the right to amend your opinion at a later dale doming, the acat~+pl p~blie review and appeol perio~d.4. . 'LJM si below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I y unde~d the scope of wa~: and I do NOT l~sve any croBCer®s or saes wlhich seed to be address by the appli~aet prior to the ~s public hearing on the proposed project ~My side below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. undue the sc~c of work: and I have- issaes or eoeeer~s, wI~ after ~ wits ffie appBcaut, have. ~~ beea addrsased. My oonc~ are the following (please attach additiohal sheets`if may): Neighbor Name: YC7UN~' rS ~~OG~2r(t P. f Neighbor Address: ' ~ ~., Neighbor Phone #• GfQ~ - 4~ Oc,~ ~ (~ 7 7 7 SignaUu+e: Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department • Cyty of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form tee= 18804 Cog Avenue PRO AD RESS: A~licant Name: Cazuelas Aotbentic .Mexican Food cMer;a co~e~, owner) Application Nmnbea: . Sta,,~and the Planni»g Commissio» prefer drat neighbors takie this opportrariry to express airy co»cerns or issues they may lwve dinedly to the applicant. Please eszswe the signature on this docranent is r~epresentataivie of all residenLt residdrg rnr y~oroProPertY Regardless of the opi»io» Wised below, y~vu reser-~e the right to ame»d ynus opi»io» at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods- `~y aim below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ understand the scone of wo~: and I do NOT have aay cASCerns or issues which seed to be address by the appli~t prior to the ~s public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have t~cviewed the project plans; I. understaad the. scone of work::. and I have issues or concerns, w after discassioe with ffie applicant, have. ~~; beta addressed. My ooh are the following (please attach additional sheets if ny): • Neighbor Name: l~ I ~ ~/_~ ~C ~^~ 1 ~'~~~~-- Neighbor Address: 2~t ~ S ~9-~?~'~- ~ ~ -'~~G~ ~v~ u~ ~C~ Neighbor Phone #: Sigoatim: Printed: ~~~ `i~~%l~i~ • Ciry ojSaratoga Pla»ning Department City of Saratoga Dater PROJECT • Neighbor NotiBcstion Forme 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: CazuelaS Aut~lentlC Meaiean FOOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Numbr$: Sta,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors talae this opport~aiity to express any concerns-or issuers they ~' have directly to the applicant Please ensure the signature on this docuineRt is r~epresentatiwe of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion. eacpressed below, yeu reser-~e the right ro avnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods- • ~iy sib below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sconce of wor]~:; and I do NOT Lave soy eoo~ or iaues whic)b seed to be addrrss by tLe appli~t prior to the ~s public hearing on the proposed project- OMy signature below certifes the following: l have reviewed the project plans; I. understand the scope. of word: and I have issues or gyros, wl~ atlter di~assiot witti ffie app>Icaot, 6=ve per, beet addressed. My oaf are the following (please attach additional sheets if ntsary): • Neighbor Name: Neighbor AdtirCSS: ~~ r a C? / ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~Lio3~ ~I~ -~7~GY1_ Signattu~e: Printed: 7 , `• '~ ~~ P o ~ M alt _rY, ,~na-~P~ Fi Sh cr U Ciry ojSaratoga Planning Department • • • C`~tf Of $9TatOgB NeigLbor Notification Form ~`= 18804 Coat Avenue PRO DRESS: Applicant Name: CazuelaS.AathentiC Meg.iean FOO(I (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Numb: Sta~and the Planning Commixsion prefer that neighbors take thu oPPortunit~' to express any concerns or issues they nay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opueu~n expressed below,. you reserHe the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual pablic review and appeal periods- ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the stove of work:. and I do NOT have any coaceraa or issues which need to be address by the applicaBt prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certf es the following:. I have reviewed the project plans; I unciers~d the scope of work:. and I haves issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have. e9t; been addressed. My t~ncetns arc the following (please attachadditional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ~7 ~~ ~ ~~ f ~~7~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • ~ - C~ty of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form .t Date: ~ 18804 Cog Avena~e PRO DRESS: _ Applicant Name: CaZUelas Anthentie Mexican Food Maria Cortez, Owner) A ~bC2t]On N1IDlb~: _ - Stof j"and -tfie Planning-Commission prefe, that-neighbors-tabs-this oppvrtuau3'-to express any concerns or issues they ~' have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yow property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actlwl public review and appeal ~ / ! ~./~ ` ,~ . /~~~~ . LJM signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I y unde~d the scooe o ~ • and I do NOT >tiave any concerns or issues whicL need to be address by the sppii~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed Project signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject pleas; I understand the of and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have. et-t; bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please ~ additional meets if ntcessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 1 ~~ ~~ v~,~ AvQ ~A-~A ~ ~ G~q C A SSL ~G Neighbor Phone #: (~~'' 7~ 1 -~ 7~ Si~mvc Pwtrd. ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department G~ty of Saratoga ' Neighbor Notification Form ~ .~~o ~`- f ~' 18804 Coz Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: CazuelaS AOthentlC Meaiean FOO(~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Number: Sta,~jand the Planning Conunission prefer that neighbors take tliis opportunity to express airy concenrs or issues they ~' have directly to the applicant Please easwe the signature on this doctonent is r~epreseataniv~e of all reside>lts retidotg on~p~P~Y Regardless. of the opinion ea pressed below, y~urt reser-~e the. right to amend ywur opinion a loser date during the acatual public review and appeal periods. y signattu~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans.; I and d the sc~e of wo~; and I do NOT have aay eo8ceras or iasnes wl3ic6 need to bt addkr+ess by the apt prior to the City's public hearing am the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the. sc of worms and I have issues or eons, wTtich afiter dlacassioa with ffie applicant, )lave. a~; been addressed. My ooncems are the following (please attach additional sheets if sary): Neighbor Name- ~ G( ~' ` ~~~ ~s Neighbor Address: ~ti~-~~~~ ~~ ~ (/ ~ ~ ~ c~ rte, Sigaariue: Neighbor Phone #• ~~ - y? 7~ ~~3 ~ (~ Printed: ~ ~ v~~ • Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department Date: L PROJECT ADDRESS: A~licant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food. cMaria Cortez, Owner) Application I~Iumber: Sta,Q''and the Planning Coaunission prefer that neighbors tabs this opportunity to express any concerns o~ issues they gay have directly to. the applicant. Please ensure the signatwe on this docianeat ~ r~epresentativ~e ojoll residents residing on yow properry• Regardless of the opinion expressed below, yovu reser-~e the right to mnend your opinion at a later date.duriag the acatual public review and'aPP~P~+~- My sig~r+e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope o~ and I do NOT bave any coBtxra: or issues which seed to be address, by the appll~t prior to the Cites public hearing o~ the proposed project. OMy signature below ceroifies the following: I have rcviewod the project pleas; I. understand the`sc of word and I have issoes or c~cerus, which after' with the appiia~t, ><ave. ept, bee' addressed. My ooncen~s are the following (please attach additional sbcets if n~cesssry): Neighbor Name- 1 ~ Q ~ -e-~ rS ~ ~ ~ `" _ ~ ~~ M M Neighbor Address: lggtZ ~~ ~e S ~~ ~ ~ a G-r/k Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~ orb 3 ~( ~g8~ • • cyty o! Saratoga Neagtibor Notification Form 1aa04 Coa Avenue Ciry ojSaratoga Planning Department . ~~ qty o! Ssratogst Neighbor.NotiBcstion Form >~e: 6 -18804 Cog Avenue PRO RESS: Applicant Name: Cazuela3 AOthentiC Meaiean FOOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Nwnber: Staf jand the Planni~rg Commission prefer thatneighbors lobe thu opportunity to express any concerns or issues they ' have directly to-the applicant. Please ensure the signahwe on this docionent is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless ojthe opinion. eagtressed below, you reserve the right to mnend yovur opinion at a date during the actual public review and appeal periods. !~` My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project places; I understand the scaue of wo~c: a~ l do NOT have any coscer®s or braes which seed to be address by the appli~aet prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed PmJ~- ~My signature below certifies the following: I have rcviewod the pmject p1ans;1. understand the scour of worms: and I Nava issues or eonccras, which after discaasioa wig ffie aPP~~ ~,e ~~.`~ ~~Sed, My oonc~s are the following (please attach additional s if r Neighbor Name: l U,~.~ /T_~ /l!~/L. S Neighbor Address: ~~° ~ SignaUu~e: • Neighbor Phone #- 7,~~' .~~ ~ ~~~ Printod: Cary ojSaratoga Planning Department C~ o! Sarat .Neighbor Notification Form Vie= b 18804 Coz Avenue PRO DRESS: Applicant Name: CezuelaS Aut~lentlC Me]c1CaD FOOd (1vlaris Cortez, Owner) Application Nwnbea: ._Sta~and.the Planning-Commission_pr_efer_tlwt_neighbors lobe this opportunity to express --- cnry-concerns~or issues-they~~ay lwve-diredly-to the applicant:-Please e~swe the- . signature on this`document is r~epresentativ~e of all Tesidents residptg on your property. Regwdless of the opinion. Wised below, you reserNe the right to mnendY~ opinion at a later date during the acatual public review mid appeal periods. . L~My signature below certi#ies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scooe of work:: and I do NOT Lave any coeceras or bases ~vLicL Deed to be address by the appli~t prior to the Cites public hearing oe the proposed project. ~My signature below certi5es the following: I have r+evicvr-od the project plans; 1. understand the-scone of ware: and T Lave bsaea or concer®a, wLicL after discasslous with ffie applkant Lave. ems, bees addressed. My oonc~s are the following (please attach additional if n~essary): Neighbor Name: s ~~~ ~~fT f-'`~n /~ ~z'~~'r Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ ~-~~ /~ v~~ Neighbor Phone #: 7~ ~ 3 ? _I - ~~~ Signature: Printed: I'yJ lK~-. ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department • • • ~~ O~ SeratOgt~ Neighbor Notification Form tee= ~ 18804 Cog Avenue PRO ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Cszuela3 AOt~IeDtIC McZ1CAn FOOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Ntmiber: understand the scope of work: and I do NOT bsve aoy eoncenau or ~saea whicL Geed to be address by ttie sppliq~t prior to the City's public hearing on the pro'Posed project. at a later date daring the ac~tuol pablic review and appeal periods. UM si below certifies the followin : I have reviewed the project plans; y g Sta~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they ~' have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this d'ocivnent is riepresentativ+e of all resided re.Yidutg on ynw~ property Regardless of the opinion. used below, yea reaervie the right to amend your opinion OMy si~aturc below certif es the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1. ~mderstand the sccmc of a-o~. and I hsve issree or eonceros, wl'~ after discassioa with the applksot, harve. ~~t beea addressed. My ooncetns are the following (please attach additional sheep if may): Neighbor Name: ~ ~ \ 11 i Q ~ R t ~R, ~'f'cyr-~ ~ M A~~.~- Neighbor Address: .~ ~ ~~5o L~~ ~, ~,,~.~-u ~ 4 ~ C~ ~,~ o~ o Nciglbor Phone #: ~O Uy 3 7 y y 3~ signature: Printed: ~. ~ City of Saratoga Planning Department • City of Saratoga ' NeigLbor Notification Form . 18804 Cog Avenue Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Meziean Food (r'Iaria. Cortez, Owner) Application Ntmlber: Sta~'_'and the Planning Commission prefer drat neighbors take this oppotYunity to express any concerns or issue they may have directly to the appliean~ Please ensure the signature on this docutnent is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion e.~ressed below, you reservoe the right to avnend your opinion at a laser date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ and d the scope of work: and I do NOT have ~sny concerns or i4saes whicL need to be address by ffie applicant prior to the City's public hearing an the proposed project ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I tmd the scope of work;, and I stave issues or concerns, which after discnssioa with the applicant, have.l9bt been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n$cessary): Neighbor Name• Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department • City o! Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form /~ ~ tee' 18804 Cog Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Cazuela3 AOt1leDtlC Meaiean FOO(~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation I~ber: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that~neighbors lobe this opportunity to express airy concerns or issues they nay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ojaA residents ~esiding.onYervProPertY Regardless of the opinion. wed below, ynu reserNe the right to mnend your opinion at doter date during the aeuol public review and appeal periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work:; and I do NOT have any ou8ceras or banes which Geed to be add~r+ess by the appli~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project OMy signaturc below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I. understand the scop~ofwor~C:and I havaissnea or coecerns, which after discnssioe with ffie applicant, have. B~, beep addressed. My concerns are the foDowiag (please attach additional sheets if n~ciessary): Neighbor Name: /~~'~ d ~ ~ ~ -~ d'~/L. ,~' ~/~t~'~ ~L~ Neighbor Address: ~~~~ ~ ~~2~#20~ \U ~ ~' ,Q . _ Nci bor Phone #: "~`~' ~ ~ O - Q D Signature: Printed: ~ ~~~.L ~/is~i~- • Ciry ojSaratoga Planning Department ' ctity of Saratoga • - Neighbor Notification Form ~' o ''`e= '' ~~ ~` 1~E04 Coa Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS: Applic~t Name: CaZilelBS Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Applicatitm Number: ._,$ta~and-the-Planning Co~runission-Prefer that. neighbors Labe this opportunity to expmss - airy-concerns-o~ issuP,s-they-nay-have-directly to-the-applicant Please_ensure the signature on this docivnent is representative of all r+esulents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion eatmessed below, you reserve the: right to amend ynw opinion at a later date during the ae~ual public review and appeal periods. ~y signatin~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of wok;: a~ I do NOT have say coeceras or issaes whicL seed to be address by the applit~t prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certi5es the following: I have rcviewod the project plans; I. ~mderstand the stove of wor~a: and I have issaes or coneeras, w~ ~' dbca~ioe with ffie appUcaot, have. u1jt been addressed. My ooneems are the following (please attach additional sheers if nt~xssary): Neighbor Name- ~ ~~ ~~- ~ rrl~, Neighbor Address: ~~:~,~~'~~ ;~'~~, ~~ Neighbor Phone #: Gf ~O ~~ G- ~ ~~ G Signattue: G~~v Printed • City of Saratoga Planning Department • city of Saratoga NeigLbor Notification Form (~ 1~ Ol.a >~e 1~E04 Coa Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS: _ - __ Applicant Name: Cazuela3 Autbentie Meaican FOOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application NiBnbea: _ . Stge'and the Planning Comr~issron prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express _. _ airy concerns or issues they ~' have directly to the applicant Please ensure t signature on this doaon~rt is represeniatrve of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion. e~ssed below, you reservie the right to amend your opinion at a date during. the aciual public review and appeol periods. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the sc~e of work:: and l do P10T have soy aoHCera~s or lames which Heed to be address by the appliq~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifes the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. understand the stove of wor9r:: and I have issaes or mss, which fitter d with ffie appBcsot, have. ~~t, beeo addressed. My oo one the following (please attach additional sheets if'n~ctssary): Neighbor Name: ~^10,'~arU ~d~YY10 ~ ~ ~D~S Neighbor Address: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~1 ~ Ncigbbor Phone #: ~' ~~ ~,~ s,~ Wa a City ojSaratoga Planning Department ctily of Saratoga ~ - Neighbor Notification Form Zap G Hate: c~ N ~ CS 18804 Cog Avenue PROJECT ADD S: Applicant Naive: Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) . Appbcatilm Nlmiber: Staff-and the Planning Comn+issian prefer that neighbors-take this_opportuniry to express - - airy-concerns-or-issues-they-rnay-have-directly-to-the-applicun~-P-lease-ensure the signahrre on this docwnent is representative of all residenrt residi~tg on ynto property. Regardless of the opinion. expressed below, ynr, reser-~e the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the aatupl public review and appeal periods. `~ay signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work:: and I do NOT Lave soy oooceros or saes w6icL seed to be address by ffie appli~t prior to the City's public hearing. on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: l have. reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of worms. and I' isave ~a or conceros, wlid~ at~tr discassioo with ffie applksot, )have eft, bees addressed. My oo are the following (please attach add<tio~al slseets if n~xssary): s ~vNrV~ Neighbor Name: ~~S~N ~ Neighbor Address: I ~S"o ~ c o ~ ~~~ ~ 25 ~~ ~Sc:1~ ec,~ ~sv~. U Neighbor Phone #c~~~ 3 ~ `~ - ~~~ --~ Si Printed: i2o13 f2 % v.~w~ ~' • City of Saratoga Planning Department • qty of Saratoga • NeigLbor Notification Form ~e~ ~ 18804 Coz Avenue PRO ADDRESS: Applicant Name: CazuelaS AothentiC Meaiean FOO(~ (Marie Cortez, Owner) ; Application Number: --_ Staf j~and_the:Pl4nni~rg_Coo~ission_ prefer that. neighbors tak <+e this opportunity to earpress airy concerns or issues they may have disectly to the applicant.. Please ensure the signature on this docume~rt is represe>statiwe of all residents residing on ynra- property. Regardless of the opinion. messed below, ynu reser-ee the right ro amend your opinion of a later date durisig the acitupl pablie review and appeo! periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I _und\\erstand the scone of w~ and I do NOT Lave any coucera: or issaes wLicL Deed to bt address by the applit~fprior to the City's public hearing oa the proposed project. OMy signature below ccrti5es the following: I have t+evievr-od the project plans; I. ~mderstand the soovc of wo~c:: sad I have ;saes or eoeceras, which after with ffie appNcaot, have. nit; been addressed. My oonc~rns are the following (please attach additional sheets if sary): Neighbor Name: t/t/`' P v ~ v ~ (~i Q~ ~/~ ~ ~ e~ C7 Neighbor Phone #: ' ~ 6'3 Printod: ~'T~(grJ S9~IM City ojSaratoga Planning Department Nci~r Address: City of Saratoga NeigLbor Notification Form Die= `~ ~ 18804 Cox Avenue PRO ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Caza~elas Anthentie Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) ApphC2IiOD Number: - --Sta~and the. Planning Commission prefer that .neighbors. take this opportunity to express airy concerns or issues they nwy have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signahwe on this docwnent is repiesentativae ofall residents residing on your property. 1~egardless of the opinion eag~ressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date dwing the actual public review and appeal periods. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I . understand the scone of wor3c and I do NOT Lave any concenu or issues which Heed to be address by the applicant prior to the City's pnbHc hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of wor3c and I have issues or concerns, which atiter discussion with tLe appNcant, have. Bit; been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if nt#cessaryr Neighbor Name: ~,,, ~~ ,,,.,, _ N'l . ~a .~~. ~~~ ~~, ~' r~ ~~ /~ J Neighbor Adtiress: ~_~ ~ = J~~ ~~" Neigfibor Phone #: `/ ~c~l ~ • City of ,Saratoga Planning Department Ci of Sarat • ~ ~ NeigLbor Notification Form. tee= 6 18804 Cog Avenue ~~ w.w . w.w TAA. A~licant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Mezican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) A.pp)ication Number: _ _ Sta,,~''and .the Planning Conr~+rssroA prefer that neighbors. lobe this opportunity to express --- -- any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this docrvn~rt is representut~ivie of aA residenLt residing on yore property Regardless of the opinion. messed below, you reserHe the right to amend your opinion at a loser date drying the a~>ral p,rblic review and appeal periods. My signahu~c below certif es the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understood the scope of work:: and I do NOT Lsve soy co8ceros or issaea w6icL Heed to be addtr+ess by the ap~pli~a. of prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed p~r+~ject. ~My signature below certi5es the following: I have rcviewod the project plans; I. the sc~ of warja. and I >~ave iasaa or cooceros, w)~ atler dlacaasioa with t>be app>Ikaot, IYSVe. e~, beeo addr+e~ed. My ooncx~a are the following (please attach additional s if necessary): ~- ,, p^ ~ ,, ,, /' Neighbor Name• ~~'~1" ~"~- ~iZ' ~" ~ ./ bbor Phone #: ed: sK~~v~~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department NeiQhhnr Addres.~: City of Saratoga ~ . Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~'=~ l~ I ~ L' k: PROJECT ADDRESS: 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: CaZnelas Aothentie Mexican Food cMaria Cortez, Owner) A.ppBcation Number: __Sta,,~''and the Planning Commission. prefer. that neighbors take this opportunity to express -any-concerns-or issues-they-~3' have directly-to the.applican~_.Please ensure the signature on this doc~aneirt %r representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion. expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~My sib below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l . understand the sco~ue of wad: and I do NOT Lsve anI- cronceras or sees which need to be s-ddress by tLe spelt prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certi5es the following: I have rcviea-od the project plans; I. t>ie scone of wore.. and I >tsve issoea or concerns, w after- won wiit6 the applicant, have. B: been a~dr~cased. My oonc~ are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~c~ssary): Neibil»r Name- Neighbor Address: ~~ ,~~; ~~°C~~.C%'A~ Neighbor Phone #: U SignaUtre: Printed: ~~ ~~ .-~ ~-- ~-~-~ I', f ~~~; iJ~(~~., C~~~cti ~~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department C~ of Sa~rstogn h' Neighbor NotiBcatioa Form • Vie= ~ ~G ~° 18804 Cog Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Cazuelas Aothentic Mexican Food Maria co~te~, owner) Appbcation Number. • y sigr~atur+e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scone of work:: and I do NOT Lave. say eroacera: or bsHes w6icL seed to be address by the appli~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed projecK. ~My signature below certi5es the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. Sta,~''and the Planning Com»iisszon prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express _- airy concerns or issues they ~' have diredlyao the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representat~ivie of all >•esidents residing on yow property Regardless of the opinion. Wised below, y~vu reservie the right to amend yovur opinion at a later date during the acYuol public review and appeal periods. understand the scone of wot~:: sad I Lave issaa or eonee~ts, wLicL after diseassioa wits ffie applkaot, have. a~t; bees addressed. My ooncerna are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~c~:,~. o~ ~,o~, 4..~`c~c~~.-~ G\r~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: W n ~ ? -~ ~ ~ \ (01 • Signature: Printed: City ojSaratoga Planning Department i ~' . G~ity of Saratoga L~ ~ ~ ~ ` NeigLbor Notification loran ,;~ I; ' .-ti~ ~ ~ 2006 Date: 'Z - ~° 18804 Cox Avenue '~'~,~~~~ e~ ~~,~:«;: ~ . PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Nye: CaZUelas Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Number: ~,o - •{/01 - - - ---Sta,,~and-the-P-louring-Commission prefer_that_neiglsbor _take_tleis opP--vrtur~uY to express airy concerns or issues they ~' have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signatwe oar this docronent is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion e~ressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the acYrral public review and appeal periods- y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the ~Pj'oj~ P~~ ~ understand the sc~e of work: aad I do NOT Lave any concerns or i~snes wLicL need to be address by tLe :ppli~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I understand the scope of work;. ar~d I have issues or concerns, which after discassioa witL tLe applicant, have. abt; been addressed. My concerns are the following (please adiacb additional sheets if necessary): ///- ~ /~ _ o , , , /L~f . ~-. ~. n ~ r/-Y n /Y~6-.T~.1Mo~itari~ ~~ ~_~~C/!'!S 06„~ ~ t~~- ~~ ~~~ NeighborName• ~~ ~~~-D 9.~ ~Pu ~ fi~ ~vr~~S Neighbor Address: `d0~ LoX 14~ 2 Neighbor Phoae #: Signature: Printed: ~ ~y~ ~~ ~` ~. • Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department ~~ <~.._ ~eig~abor ~toti~cat~®n ~'orm~ ~~ ease r : 200; Date: -] _ Z~ _ 2UD~ 1$04 Cog Avenne PROTECT ADDRESS: Applicant Nature: Caza~elas Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Nutnba: ~ ~ - -~/~ ~ Sta~j`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take uhis opportunity to express _ _ _ any concerns or issues They ~'-have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this docu~rtt is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the rig~it to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeol periods. y signature below certifies the following: Y have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sc~e of wow and I do NOT have any concer®s or issues which seed to be 9ddress by the appl'itYsnt prior to the Cites public hearing on ffie proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: l Nava reviewed the pmject plans; I understand the scope of ~ aid I have lssnes or concerna, wgicb agter d~iscnssion wiR6 tlye applicant, have. ®~t, been adder. My coacems are the following (please attach additional sheets if'n~ssazyr doa~ se~ts~ ~ o~~.r /' ~ ~i~!' )mac,l- J~~uw Neighbor Nature: ~a r~~ a ~ a ~ ~vn~S Neighbor Address: ~ ~~SO(~ Lox Ulve Signature: ~~~ /`~ ; , ~':~ ' =_ • Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~~~/ , ~,~ City of Saratoga Planning Department `~~ v ` S ~~~1 ~% Gtity of Sa~toga ~teighbor ~to1t$cation Form - Date: ~ 1$804 Cox Avenge PRO DRESS: Applicant name: C~uelas Aotheotic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owaer)~ ,.:: !=, i +.:_ '- ~, a ; 3 ~ L~~ ~',~ Application Ntmabec: Sta,~•and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors tabs this opportunity to express airy concerns or issues they' may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the si~atr~rre on-this-docu~t-is-representative-of all_r_esidents nesldmg o~ yoraProP~'h'• Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the aciLal Public review and appeal Periods. y signadure below certifies tho following: I have reviewed the pmojed plans; I imd the ~ and I do NOT wave any concerns or issues w~ Heed Lo be address by tDe appif~t 3uier to the City's public heatQ-g on the proposed project ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pLams; I understand the scapg of wor1G and I Dave issues or concerns, w>~icb after disenssio0 witD tDs applicant, Isave nid been addressed- My concerns are the following (please at~cli additional sheets if accessary): I ~ ~_J ~G.C~ ~[4r0~ `~oc71 JU~IpV Neighbor Name: __T Neighbor Address: ~~~~v CGS ~.~.~ ~~. ~ a,~- ~ Neighbor Phone #• Signature: Printed: ___. -~ Ciry of Saratoga Planning Departanenr • City of Sarstt>ga 1~Teiis®r ~Tofi~cati~n Form 1~~04 Coz ~ " PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~;E `~: lCt ~: ' Applicant Naane: C~za~elas Aat~entic Mezican Food (1vlaria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Number: ~~ - `~~ ~ Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors ta1~ this opportunity to express a~ry:concerns-or issues-they-may-have-directly to the applicant.. =Please_ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeol periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work and I do NOT have any concerms or issues whlcb need to be address by rite app3i~ant prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the slrpHcant, have not; been addressed. My cancems are the following (please attach additional sheets if accessary): Neighbor Name- ~z;. r~~ o o cl ~ l o r ti ~~-' Neighbor Address: ~ ~-~ )q.~t.. ,~ .Slg7lattlre: Neighbor Phone # ~ ~ ~ ~~ r Printed: City ojSaratoga Planning Department C~iy of Saratoga , ~Teig~t~or iiTOti~catiom ~orm~ _., ._ ,. r; __ tee' ~ - 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 104 Coz Ave~oe PROTECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Caz~a~elas Aot~eot~c Meacican Food (IVtaria Cortez, Owner) ,~N~: OG -ka~' Staf j''and the Planning Conunissiox prefer that neighbors take this opportunuty to express _ any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Pleose ensure the signature on t7iis docuaeient is representative of all seside~ts residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below. you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during idle acuol public review and appeal periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of worms and I do NOT have smy concerns or issues which need to be address by the $ppl~camt prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of worl~ and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have. nbt been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name• Y~ ~ a ~ SOS Fi ~~ .~ 5 ~~ Neighbor Address: I g 71 L ~ ou 'pk,.~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~U$ ~ g /n~,' ~ b7~ Signature: Printed: `i~~----~ ~~ ana H N~~ C ~rn n ~o,~ ee) City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saraltoga leT~b®r N~catitz~ Fran Date• ~ - Z -~~ % Avell~e _ .. ._ - .. ... PR07ECT ADDRESS: 1~~04 CO ~; (; ~ tif~1_. ,_.. ' .Applicant Na>ne: CdiLtl~l~S Alltbel~tiC M8g'ICA]D F®tlt~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) AppbcaLion Ntmzber: DG ' ya ~ Staff and flee Planning Commission prefer that neighbors tape this opportsanity to express ---airy-concerns=or-issues-they-may have-directly-to-the-applicant-P-lease enrwe the signature on this docrr>~eent is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project places; I understand the scone of wed aced I do NOT have any concerns or issues which Deed to be address by ffie ~ppliexan! prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signaturc below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of woeic and I have issues or concerns, which miter disenssaon wit>b the apgHcant, have. not: been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additivna] sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ r r'cl G O w. M.• e: r G - ~ ~~G- I ~S ~k-~ '~ Neighbor Address: I ~7~C~ CJvx Ric Signature: ~'~~/ ~/~ - //6 Neighbor Phon #• 9 Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department G~-ty mf Sar'a#®gs 1~~g~-~or ~1oi~cation ~orsn - .. ,. ... 104 Cog A~ea~~e ~ , ; ~ ~, ;_~, _ rr r`t!'^` Date: ~ . PRO ADDRESS: Ca~~las Aat~en~e Mezica~l Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) App]~caont Name: r er that neighbors take this opportunity to express Sta~`'and the Planning CommissioAP of concerns or issues they may hati'e directly to the applicant. Please ensure the ~~' -- -- - - o -all residents-residing_on y_o~ proP~3'• signature on this document fs rePresentat~- f w o inion Regardless of the opinion expressed below. you reserve the right to amend yo P .. _...... . at a later dale during the actual public review and aPP~ P~o~' goature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~iy ~ unde~d the c~~e of wow and I do NOT have any concer®s or Issues which aee~ to be address by the applie~aat PnOZ to the Cites public hearing on the proposed pmj I have reviewed the PTOje~ P~~ I ^My signature below certifies the following: whic>~ after discnsslou understand the scone of worl~ and I have Issues or coneerna, wltb the applicant, have. Dot, bees addressed- My ~~ ~''e ttie following (please ~h additia~nal sheets if n~essarY)~ Neighbor Name: ~ ~ (> > ~ ..~ G v e Neighbor Address: (~f7q ~ ~X 1~v-~ Nei gbbor Phone #: y 4 ~"• ~~p - 3f~'s_ ~ S. Printed: G .~- Planning Department Ciry of Saratoga city of Saratoga NeigLbor Notification Form • Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Meatican Food (Maria Cortez, owner) n~^ ~ ~~ rr~n~_ 18804 Coz Avenue Application Number:, Stg~"and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors tope this opportunity to express airy concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please enswe the -- signature-oar-this-docrvne.nt-is-representative-ofall-residents residi~tg on your property. Regardless of the opinion e~resserl below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the adiral public review acrd appeal periods. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I derstand the stave of work;. and I do NOT Lave any coaceras or issues which need to be address by the appli~t prior to the City~s public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the of work:. and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion whir the applicant, ha env ~ bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional meets if ne#cessazy): • Neighbor Name: ~ ~ , G1~ v Neighbor Atidress: S r~'-~~~ ~ ~ 7 ~~~eighbor Phone #: ~//l d ' 3 ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ Signature: Printed: ~1~ ~s M~raar-e~- ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department City mf Saratflga ~1~ight~®r i~1~fi~catiom ~®ran Die' 1$04 Coz Avel~~~ PRO DRESS: Applicant Name: C~~~IaS A~t~~fll~C McXICaYI ~' OOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Ntmmbea: Sta~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors taJFe this opportxnity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the = - - -signature=an=this=document-it-representative-of all-residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the ac~:aal public review and appeal periods. .L~IMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed tme project plans; I understand the sc~e of worl~ and I do NOT hae-e any. coscer®s or issues which Heed to be address by ffie appli~sst prior to the Ciiy's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I undue the scope of worlG and I have is~ssea or concerns, which after discnssios with the s~Iicant, hove. nt~t. bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if mazy): • • Neighbor Name: p~`7 hl~' I'! TiVcSS Neighbor Address: ~~'~(r~ Cox A-vx ,,~/ ,~A `~ G /~ G i.7 ~.S(J' `~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ l9 ~ ~ y '-~ y~f y Signature: Printed: _- ~? ,/ City of Saratoga Planning Department _ City of Sarat~a 0 [~ ~ [~ ~ ~ (~ 1e1~~a~s®r ~To,ca~a~an ~~ar~ AUG 0 8 2006 Date 1$$04 Cox Avenue c~rY of sArt~TOOa P$~)'~CT ADDRI~~$: ~""MUNITY DEVE~pu"~- licant Nauae: Ceps An#lhen#ic Mexican Food Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Niunber: ~~ -'~/a Sta,,~ared the Planning Commission Prefer that neigl~~ taJfae this opportunity to express have-directly-to-the-aPP-lcaat. Please ensure the - - -- . any concerns'or=Issues- =~' o ail residents residing on yousproP~Y• signature on this ~ ~ representative f to maend your opinion ' Regardless of the opinion e~ressed below, you reserve the right at a later date during the ac~teal public review and appeal P~'i~• ~My signature below certifies the fallowing: I have reviewed the project plam~s; I_ understand the cede of word: and I do NOT have artg emncer®s or issQes which Heed to be 9ddress by the ~pii~ant Prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed Pr'°)ect. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project ~tnssion zmderstand the scope of worm acrd I hhxe issues or r.®neerna, which after with the a~caot, have. net: been addressed. luty concerns are the following (please ait~h additiartal sheets if necessary): • av UL° V ~ v~ ~f Sc ~oc~' Neighbor Name- Neighbor Address: f R'~.7L~ CD ~ _ /~ ~1 vq ~ ~~7 I ~~~7~ ~~,tZG~ ~t ~ U Neighbor Phone #: ~f ~' :/- / Printed: 7 v ~ ` a ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ / Signature: n - ~ f; 0 1 2006 - CIl"Y OF SA~A'I'U~iA `"~M11NiTY D~V~I h~k' City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: `~ V PROJECT DRESS: 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Mezican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Numbea: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors tape this opportaasity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. --Regardless o, f the opinion. ea~prressed-below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods- My sigoahu~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pL~ms; I understand the sc~e of work:. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addtresa by the applicant prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I undue the scope o w~; awl I have i~aes or concerns, which-after discussion wiffi the applicant, have. not; been addresseid. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if na~ary): • • Neighbor Name: I ~ ~ Neighbor Address: gull ~~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~ ~ Neighbor Phone #:-tU~ '~ lei ~~ `t' Signature: Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department City mf Saratoga ~T~gh~or ~Tuti~cation loran • • Date: ~ ~ 6 6(~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 18804 Coz Avenge Applicant Name: Cazaielas Aut~ent~c 11+Iezican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Numb: Sta,~and the Planning Coma»ssion prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they_may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this docwne+tt is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion ea~ressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the acttwl public review and appeol periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I hav review a project plans; I understand the scone of worlG and I do NOT have say concerns or issues which need to be address by ffie applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I_ uuderstaad the scope of worm and I have Issues or concerns, which after disrussioa with the applicant, have n©t been s+ddress~. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessaryr ~ Gz-~• Y~.C> dL. o u v~ ~~1X ci~.« S ~C~ P_C~ ~ J v~ i CSC o V~ c+ ~ J~/`~ LL''"'~ ~ ~ C~ Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 1~1~ C.~~ Psv~ 1 ~ ~ Neighbor Phone ~"a7`'[ ~.l..r~ Signat~e: r City of Saratoga Printed: f,d~o~ Planning Department City ~of Saratoga leteit~or AToti~cation ~®rim Date' ~ ' ~ ~ 1~~04 Coz Avelane PROLE ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Caznelas Ant~emtic Me~caD Ford (Maria Cortez, owner) Appbcation Nwnb~:, Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature-on-this-docuane~nt-is-representative-ofall-residents-residntg-on your-property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at, a later dais during the actual public review and appeol periods. ~M si below cues the followin : I have reviewed the jest plans;l Y g Pr'o understand the stove of wank,; and I do NOT It9ve ooy comcerass or issues e~vlticL Geed to be address by tme :ppl~cant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signatiu~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the stove of work: and I Have issues or concerns, whicL after discussion with the applicant, have. mbt, bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additiossal sheets if mazy): • • Neighbor Name: ~ Neighbor Address: ~~~ ~~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #:~~ ~C/ ~`~~~ Signatiue: Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department qty of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ ~~~ o PROJECrr ADDxlFSSS: 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: CAZile18S AI1th8lltiC Mezican FOO(~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Number:. Sta,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opporb~nity io express airy concerns or issues they may leave directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this doctanent is representative of all residents residi~tg on your property. Regardless of the opinion e~essed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a date during the acaiual public review and appeol periods. My sib below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of ~. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by ffie applicaet prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scamp o~ f ~. ~d I hsve issues or concerns, which after discassion with the applicant, have. eol: beeg addressed. My c~ncesas are the following (please attach additional sheets if n$cessary): Neighbor Name: ~~~ /'~ov~i. ~ Cf ~ ~'a-~ Neighbor Address: ~~f'f~ Gol~ /~-/~ /! ~~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~ ~ ~ `~~~~ .~ , Signahire: Printed: ~p/t,~ ~~~ ~'^~ . • City of Saratoga Planning Department C3ity of Saratoga Neighbor NotiScation Form Die' G~ 18804 Coz Avenue PRO DRESS: Applicant Name: CnzuelBS Authentic Mezican FOOd (Maria Cortez, owner) Application Numbea: Sta,,(J'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opporbauty to express arty concerns or issues they tray have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this dopanent is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the'opmion~ea~pressedbelow, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review acid appeal periods. ~~~ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I erstand the sc a of w ~ •. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to addr+esa by the spplica~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understaad the scope of r -. and I have iasnea or concerns, which after discassioa witlb the appUcant, have. nit, been addressed. My canc:eins are the following (please attach additional sheets if ~cessary): • Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~c~ ~ o ~ ~~ ,Q,~- Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: I?~c~nc~ ~'~ ~~1~' • City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor NotiScation Form Date'~~ 18804 Coz Avenue PROJECT ADDRESS. Applicant Name: CazuelaS AutheDtiC MeziCan F00(~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Applicarion Numbea: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signahtre-on=this-docu~neRt is-representative of-all residents-residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion Wised below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a to during the actual public review and appeal periods. My signatlu~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scc~e of work;, and l do NOT have any concerns or i8snes which need to be address by the appli~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. DMy signature below certifes the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of wow: and I have iss~uea or concerns, which after dfiscassion with the applicant, have. e$t: bera addresseEi. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~ccssary): • Neighbor Name: ,~ r~ Neighbor Address: f Neighbor Phone #• ~ .?) ,~~ t..% ~ - % ~ Signature; ~,`~ r v- Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department city of Saratoga NeigLbor Notification Form Die' ~ 18804 Coat Avenue PRO DRESS: Applicant Name: CazuelBS Authentic Me]C1CAI1 FOOt~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Number:, Sta,(~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this oppordasiry to express any concerns or issues they tray have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the _ _. _ _ ____~ignatzcre._on_this_docsnnen~ is_repr_esentatiyre_of_all residen~s_residing on_y-~ property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the agtual public review and appeal periods. ~ `~,JMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scaue of work:. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the appif~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I uncieastand the scope of work: a~ I have issues or concerns, which after discussion witL the applicant, have. ebt: been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~essary): • • Neighbor Name• ~/~~ ~~Q-~ .2 Neighbor Address: ~ ~~-~ N ~~~a~ ~.~ Siguanue: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: 7 ~ ~~ 7~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department City of ~aratogs ~1e~bor ~Iot~cation loran Date: 1~~04 Cox Avemae PROTECT RESS. Applicant Nye: Caz~aielas Aatl~en~ic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) AppbCallOII Ntwlbea: Sta~''and the Planning Conunission prefer that neighbors taJEe this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this docianent is representative of all residents residvsg on your property. Regardless of the opinion e~cpressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. L~fMy signat~u~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed tl~e project plans; I understand the scope of word and i do NOT have ~y cxtmcerns or issues which need to be suddress by the applicant prior to the City's public bearing on the proposed project. ^My signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I anderstagd the scope of work; and I have nssues or concerns, which after d#scassion with the applicant, have. nit, been addressed. My concerns are the following (please arch additional sheets if n~essary): Neighbor Name: ~ \ ~~,~- ~.~ Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ Neighbor Phone #• ~Z y~-- ,~-CZl`~ Signature: Printed: ~~~ ~~ -~-- City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor NotiScation Form 18804 Cox Avenue Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Numb: Sta,,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they tray have directly to the appliean~ Please ensure the signature on this doctanent is r+epresentativ+e of all residents residing on your property. Regan of the opinion expressed below, you reservoe the right to amend your opinion at a date during the achtal pubfie review and appeal periods. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work:. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by ffie applit{ant prior to the Cifij~s public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work:. and I have issoes or eontxrns, which after discnss~ton with ffie app cant, have. Hot: bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): • Neighbor Name: Mark V. Mingrone, O.D. Neighbor Address: 12930 Saratoga Ave. Suite fs - ; Saratoga, CA 95070 408 255-2020 Neighbor Phone #: Signature: ~ c~i.-~~~ /~~c ~~ Printed: Mark V. Mingrone, O.D. 12930 Saratoga Ave. Suite i3 - 2 Saratoga, CA 95070 408 255-2020 • City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Sarat~a ~teigilt~®r ;itoti~cati®m ~or~ • Dater PROJECT A 1~~0~4 Cog Avela~e Applicant Name: C~zaielaS A~t~eHit1C Me]CtCdHI Foo(~ (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcation Number: Sta~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express - -a concerns-or=issues=t have-direct to~the a lican~__Please ensure the ny hey-may ly PP signature on this docunlatt is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opution.eag~ressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. C ~iy signatuue below cergl;es the following: I have reviewed the project platLS; I understand the sc~e of work: and I do NOT h9de any concerns or issues which Heed to be address by ffie $~pli~t prior to the Cites public hearing oa the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scopgof ward and I have issues or concerns, which after discnssios with tlye applIcaut, have. sot, bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ r 1~j~~' Neighbor Name• ~I ~"I N~ M S M C ~"I Neighbor Address: -~'~- ~~ 11`~(i- (i(/j/~) ~ l ~~?~o (.,~ ~ . S ~js-d ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~g ~ ~ -Z~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Ci#y ~f Sarat®ga , i~teig~a~®r i~T~fi~ca~ia~ F~r~ I}ate: PRO7E g; 1~$O~ CO% AVelaa~c Applicant Name: Ca~e~as Aat~en~ie Me%ican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Ntmabea: . Sta,~and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this oPPortautit3' to express any concerns or issues they Wray have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all"residents residAig on your property. Regardless of the opinio>a expressed below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods- ~'My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sc~e of worms and I do NOT have any concer®s or Issues which need to be address by the $ppI$~t prior to the Cites pnbfic hearing on the proposed project ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I uaderstaad the scope of work:. and I have issues or concerns, which after d#scnsslon with the applicant, have. nbt; bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name• Neighbor Address: 1~~~~ cc>x ~~~~ ~~' ~,~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: 3 7 ~ ~- ~ ~ 5 ~ Signature: Printed: r~ L_J Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga NeigLbor NotiScation Form Date: ' 1 PR07ECT ADDRES 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: CazuelaS Aut~entiC MeziCaD FOO(~ (Maria Cortez, owner) Application Number: Sta,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they inay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the ---- - si a o~ tJiis doclonent=is-representative of all i~sidents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion e.~pressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the ad~iwl public review and appeal periods. • y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of ~ and I do NOT hsve any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I undue the scope o~ and I have issaea of concerns, which after discussion whit the applicant, have. eft been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if ntrcessary): Neighbor Name• Neighbor Address: .~~~ n , \ ~~ ~ .~ Neighbor Phone #- -' ~,~,~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neigh~r Notification Form Die' / °~ 15804 Coz Avenue i PRO ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Meacican Food (Maria Cortez, owner) Appbcation NtunbeF: Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportaaeity to express any concerns or issues they tttay have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the _ ` signattre on this document is representative of all residents residAtg_on y_oter property. Regardless of the opinion eacpressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the wheal public review and appeal periods. r My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I un erstand the sc~e of work:. and I do NOT have any concerns or Issues whicL need to be address by the appBq~t prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ the scope of work:. and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have. ems. been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~ressary): • Neighbor Name: ~. I ~,i~'~ n~'J~, ~ ( ~`~'~. e~~~ ,i C-(.i~ l~ ~"1~ NC1g11boLt!'~~EES, M.D. DR. V. GpNESH, M.D Campbell Medical Group r, Saratoga, CA 9507CE Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~'~' Signature: Printed: i/ } 1 . j ,1 v 2 ~ ~ ~,~ ~~ _,' ..LAS L.~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department city of Saratoga - Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ ~~~ PROTECT ADDRESS: 18804 Coz Avenue Applicant Name: CAZ11eI>IS Auth@IItC MexiCaD FOOd (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Numbea: Sta,,~and the Planning Contntission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any contents or issues they tray have directly to the apptican~ Please ensure the - _ -- - s1 a ox this dacu~erent is ---------: gnatur represeenta~tn~e of all r ~ --ts i .. g on your property. Regardless of the. opinion. Wised below, you reserve the right to mnend your opinion at a later date during the ac~uol public review and appeal periods. My stgnahu~e below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I erstand the scone of work;. and I do NOT have any concerns or Issues whicL need to be address by ffie applic~t prior to the City's publc hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following:-I-have reviewed the project plans; I und~td the scope of work; and I have issises or concerns, which after discussion witL ffie applicant, Gave. ea been addressed. My c~nceats are the following (please Mach additional sheets if n~Cessaz ): • Neighbor Name: C..l~'i,,~.~` C.. ~I fc Neighbor Address: , ~ Ne ghbor Phone #: '--tom" J Signature: Printed: ~~~ ~~~•... ~G~.t~~, tom, ~. • City of Saratoga Planning Department Gtity of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form D~e~ °'~ --l ~ ~ ~ 18804 Coz Avea~ue PR07ECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: CaZ7lelas Authentic Mezican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Application Number: Sta,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take thin opportunity to express any contents or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the _ _ _ - - _ signature on this docinnent s_r+epresentative of all r~sidetiis residing on your property. Regardless of the optnion used below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later re during the actual public review and appeal periods- My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work:. and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I -unde~cstand the-scope-off and I have-issues or concerns, wkich aftea' die~sion with the applicant, have. ems, bees addressed. My cwncems are the following (please attach additional shee~Es if ns+cessary): • • Neighbor Name: ~ fGr1"t~atvti9;~) L~~ f ~L ev"~D Neighbor Address: r~ Koh ~ ~~ ~~- Neighbor Phone #• C3 ~ y~~ `~~ Signature: Printed: ~~~ ~P~ ~ ~ .~i r~e~~~ ~ ,~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor NotiScation Form tee' ~`~ vl .18804 Cox Avenue PR07EGT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Cazuelas Authentic Mexican Food (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbcatzon Ntnnber: Sta,,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this oppordasity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the - signaturt= -e on this -document is representative ofall -residents ~residAtg on your property. Regardless o, f the opinion eacpressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a lacer date during the actual pubfie review and appeal periods. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scooe of work:. and I do NOT have any csnceras or isseea which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed projecK. OMy signature below certifies the following: l have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work:. and I have issues or concerns, which after disenssion with the applicant, have. Bat: been addressed. My concerns are the following (please aitach additional sheets if n~ssary): • Neighbor Name: .>. ~,' Neighbor Address: Stuart P. Goldberg, p.D.S, ea er ,wens, . 18805 Cox Ave. Ste 130 Saratoga, CA 95010 Neighbor Phone #: y~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~' ~~ ~ Signature: Printed: ('~,, ~- :; • City of Saratoga Planning Department ~: -~,. _ TI~E~~PROLIFIC OVEI~I .. 5o Woverley Street -Palo Alto r ~~~~~~ ~'~j-~ t:65o.326.8g85 f:65o.3z6.8g86 18832 Cox Avenue -Saratoga t:go8.378.988o f:go8.378.g88i /''~ 3938 Rivermark Plaza - Sonta Clara Coz Av~~l~i~ t:go8.g86.8388 f:go8.g86.8o88 s-.pj+uv~.~aa...a~oau~. ~yws.vrs~sv a a t~~IQ~C +`+~~~~~ 1' Appbcation Number: d ~ l ~~ } (Maria Cortez, Owner): Sta,~j`'and the ~'lanning Cornmissiax prefer that neighbors tatbz this oPPo~~Y to express -- - ------arty-concerns or_issues-.they may.have directly to the applicant }'lease ensure the signature on this docurne~et ix representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to avnend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. QMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sc~e of work: and I do NOT have any concerns wr lssnes w4dcb need to be address by the applicant prior to the Cites public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project. plans; I undue the scope of work;. and I have issaes or c®ncerna, which ajfter discnss$oa with the applicant, have. nbt, bees addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ G~ ~~ ~.. g -e ~ tJ v1 ~, y a ~ roc ~ ~ -c ~ u `~i _ z7 ~ -c ~' (,~oL ~' Neighbor Name: ~~ d ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ y -2 ~ ~~~ ~/ `~ ~~~,~-c .,-L Neighbor Address: Ig4'32 ~~~ ~.~ ~c, r d ~' o °,~-~. Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: SrSn P~ Ca~~ nod' rPCCi~~I ~y Cry .. • • City of Saratoga Planteing Department ---,,, ::flri ~t ~ ~T ~Y7~® .rte - 31 ts~ ~iir8$1 ' ~ti1 ~ THE ~'V L ~ 1 ~ ~~t~~:at1i`s~i ~tDT~I r ,,~ "_~ U 4~ .~ Foroz Yousefi Branch il4anager /Vice President ~ ~ s i t i;e "' ~~ Saratoga Office Coz AV~~,~e _. __~ 1.~ 860 Cox Avenue (408) :3 r9-?60(7 ratoga. CA 950'0 Fax (408) 374-1242 ~#~~II~C 1Vi~~~a~ ~Oad (Maria Cortez, Owner) Appbca>zon Nom: D 6 - ~~ ~ . _ Sta,~'und the planning C.ormm~ission prefer that neighbors take this opportx~eity to express -any concerns or issues they nary )lave directl,~ to the applicant }'lease ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless o, f the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opi~sion at a later. date during the actual public reviea+- and appeal periods- • DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand ~e scope of work: and I do 1~OT have at-y concerns or issues which need to be address by the applitt prior to the City's public hearing on the .proposed project. ^lViy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ierstazsd the scope of works and I have issues or con+xrms, which after dls~oe with the applicant, have. nbt, )base addsessed. lViy concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~Cessary): r7 ~ ~ r~'1 ~ ~~Gt iicc/-~~ r ~~~ 7K y ~9~ 5}- 9~a - ~ s 9~ Neighbor Name• Ida ~t k o ~ ~' ~•c. ~J ~s T~ Neighbor Address: 1 ~4 (~ o C',n,~ 14~~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: ~a c;~~- S~t gnPJ eop~.. nil' rc c~~~eo/ * ~~.- a os ~~ C', ~ ~ . ~~~y/~ ~ ~ r s--,~T City of ,Saratoga planning Department • Attachment 9 • '. amt~r(i0r) ~~~~u~~~ spcc/s-sotdeo>). a~NOwa i,~i+o~as QLt156 V3'~0-9oi1.~11/$ iNV'~]f1V~S3~1 a ~~ : ~ gauw)r~u~ uB~a isuw~aam 11~N3AV Xo~ 1-0~81~ o~x a~so~otia ~ ~ : o ~ . 1NfiV-153~ t+11/3iX~iN S1f"f~t~Zi'/3 ~ ~ ; nr - , I 4 • {~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~ . ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ . ' z ~ ~ ~~ s = ; r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q tl ~ i,~ w i w¢ s ~ a ~ ~ ~ °o pi ~c° ur ~ ~ 8 S ~ qb~ ~ ~ ~ i 7 ~ ~ 1 W aj LL b ~ ~ !g4 ; S U ~ ~j . ~ ~ ~ ' . Z ~ m ~ ~ S a z , j I pY' ~ ~ ~~ (z 4~ czi 'o i5 z o ~ ° ~ o d ~ Q$ v ~ 1 y ~ . s O ~ ~~~ ~ pmp ~. W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . .. W Z O m ~ ~ d O C. 6 G ~ J .~ ~ ~j ~ ~' ~ u ~ ~ O as G 9 W Ib >q O Y u W y , IM A p Q Q 'C Z u W - 0 O 0 W N ~ F s h- O O F 0 u F u 6 j >> ~ X o C ~ ~ G .Q 0 ~ = W 6 C 6 ~ q N O J f t 2 ~ O _, h t W O m d ~ w d m it u o3 r +; z ~ d. ,J 8 ~ a • 5 rso ~tL~BOZ (SOV) =BNOMd „~,,.76L1~,, ,. tlINZ1Oa1'1'IVJ ` 1rDO1VSlVS d X oad aw aaso n ~ v ~ s 5 ae s n~u ~ o~ ~088~ i 311t~t3A a r~nc aa r iNVan t ~ w~u o ~vantlLSaa Nv~u~w svn~nzv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~z~xo~ ~ ago ~ g ~ ~' ~~~~ .. Z'AL ~ ~ - dO6 tl9W WOH _. .Pl dA d1 '!mV M .OS dS de s,RAt ». . A V ~ 6 dA dA ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ $ a C ~' 5 3 ~ ~ ~. .. ~~ l ~ f , ., U W f t ~~ n ~ ~ q ~ '~ ~1 ~~ I N pe ~~ i o~ ®~ . yfl~ ~ ~99 8 ~~ ~ gg ~.~ 8 ~ ~ k ~1: .~ ~3 ,.: 3:i'; ~~.nn inn ~~ ~c~ '~'" V t, W 0 ~coR , i C ~I' 3~~ ~; ~^ a. a' d S~ P SM~. ~ ~`a~~:,r~c ~~~ ~~ x 5 q`v~ ~ ~~7 ~ fig? - .~l F.- ~ F+ fv J°n J..i .a l+. , ~~~~2° _I I~~ X~r m~~ Q ~ Qz a W ~ vi S J _ PG f~ ~ ~ ~ b m ~ S a ~ s ,~$f d a m~a ~ ~„~~ '.j T ~ N O J O .. ~. ~ ~ 3,. $ ~ d7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ < o ~ ~J 1' ~ w ~ a o O¢O¢ w U R Q tWj~WC = ~ O W W gl- ~ m o' a ° L , a ~ ~ o q { K. ~a a r A ~ '^ a m' u ° '~ ^~ ?' ri r b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n s SV B, '. ~ yV 6 ~ ~ ~ ~. a ~ i pp ' B ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.. i, .c gE 2 yy 2 .C }.~ X gg 2 ~ x _ gggg D _ ~ S ~. _ _ ~ ~ g x 8 ~ x _. - ~ x x n x ~ ~~ M q ~ r ° R y ' 74 0 o p ~ v ~ . ^. R c ~ a h ° k ~ . , g ~ g o F n ~~ " " ~' ' ~ s s s ~ 3 k `a s a k x i n 3. x ^ x g . - . Q ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ 2 m a R ~ f ~' ~ ~ $ Q a $ x 0. ~ d tS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `i E f ~ ~ yf~~' W .~ W ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ c9 . `~ 3 ^ O b y ~ ~ ~ ~ i n g a ~ ti g 3. ~'9, ~ Fi ~ ~~ .~ d + n ~ * ~ ~ fi ~ e Q s ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ,~ ~ S S # S $ m ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ a os .. ~ u s e ~ s r - N w i N ~ ~ L6 m ~ ~ }3 .+ . Q ~ O b F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tl ppp ° ~ a ~ a ~ ~ 9 ~s ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ r ~ ~ a ' °' ~ }~ gg gg$$ ~ ~ ~ :> -yI 555 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 . .iS .-. .c3 ~ ~i :3, 4 . . , ' . ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ I ~ p w ~ ® . D II gg 8 44 .S • N C4I Min V Q O N. SI R ~. "s ~ fix ~! ~ e t ~ : ~ ~ &, 3 ~. r+ 3 H ~~ F _g y h 1 ~~ 3~ 3.z 5~ f~ j XS ~O O YS ~$ Y ~$ ID ~ EW., 3 ~N ~ g ~~ ~ ym . ~7a. z m F~ a 2a < EQ .~3 ~ r ~ ' r l~ r 3 .c 3 =c 3 4 Q' ! {jj u I f- F ~ W u`~x,x~ _ ~xy ~ r~ z °,x z$x zd~ ~ ~ U p UNOW ~~= 8 U6~,m W '~ 8 UO'Hm d 'i' ; °ra :3 z~~,`2 ~~a'' a zmoQ <~^u3 Q aN;.~ ~ ?`njw0 ffjj ~ <y;~. Z°~~O OOw°S< W dO~~a4 O ~~ Ox -~ ~Y FU~~uOi ': > a 0' ~> a~S~~a~~ c4~ Q ~> 6~pp=<~~ 0 a~~~33v m bBFz ~'~_, w a w ~ z g ~o Ua~o 09 -- ' ~ 1 ~ p i ' iaH~J ~ N O ' I ~ . Q F i ~ '$ ~ ~ I ° 19t $ 8 i~ m ~ . ~. _ `~ ~ > o i U ~$ ~,~~,§ ~ ~ ~a$3 ~ ~ ,~~ F o~t~ ~ ~~d ~'f gg ~ ea a.ga •' ~ '~ ~ F ! ~'~' ~ m ~ ~~z E ~ ~ U wJ L~~^ .. _ .~ g ~I ~ Q a ~~~ ~ ~ . .~ ~ ., s~ :h~f~~~ YI~~ ~ ° ~'s w u . ~ ~ ~. ~ I ~ t' ~ ~ i ~ x. ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~I J ~ ~ T . ~ Q.: ~i,y p~ ~~ a 0 ~ I ~~~ ~ ~ ~s~ p~ U ~ a ~o; ~ z m ~s O W _ .. { ~ yy~! }~oz , m ~ ~ ~ qq ~~= 5 8~1F zz~' ~~ ~ N< ~'~ cmic~ o,<,a b N~ .U fej ~ ~ z OOp F~F ~' ~m~ ro oaF~ ~ >~ ~sl~ ~ ~ ~~~ Z ~ ~~5 m d ~~a F ~ ' ~~~o~o~ ~ y~ ~~ dW a ~ 3:~ a<~ € F4 ~ ~ $ ao~ oF~ 8 su ~ ~ Q g~ y~I ~~~ a ~ ne~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~sw ~~ ~~ 9~ h z ~ ~ ~ W ~~~ ° ~~ y o ~ ~<s 3 ~~S < O ~~q i 3g< . qy y u "~' E~~~ ~~ ~~E ~ z3 ~ k~ a U „<, ~~ F < '' ~ U W> ~<,s to ~ ~ O v y~ K 2 G f~,~ x xN ~' `~ pp -FF- < a `QS ~S~ 3~ 3 3 <> 3 O~G "~ C S 0~ _ a '~°~ 3 fz ~ rs GU6x f3 ~~°~ ~~a . ,L ~j. Z g~ _~g . y • SfiiS-80Z X804) ~3NONd Z ~-,~ ~~-, v~Nao~rnr~ ' v~oivavs 4 o ~~~~•°~°°~~•°^~+~ 1 ~f1N3A1'I Xo~ t+'O88E ~aaowaa aoiaaN~ aasoaoaa ~ ~ tN ~ Rp~l4suffJ u61sa0 Ieucl~J?~d . i iNVanvis~a Nvotxaw sv~anzvo a o , ~ z ~ ~: ~ c Z~.L2I0~'II~. ~13NM0 -T- m ~ _.~ F- »~ \/ O ~ ga y~y ~ V ~ s~ ~ ~y a~~ -~ ~~~. ~. > '~;' a ~~ ~:t~ -1 . I LLK'///'c`' ~ ~~/' ------ ~ ~ 3~/ \ D ~ ~°y , ~ e G. ~ ' ,~ \ ~ ~ / N ~ as b.- u y ~ ° ~ ~ / `~ - ^•-y' mot-' - - ~ u ,~= ~ ~ a . r 3 /~ ~» r.a ~' ~ ~ ~, /. ` ~ / ~ "-J • lilt U. ~ / a x ~ _ ~ '~ a ~ " s_ - ~ ~' Q ti 3 K - ..P C P C y ~N J A t£.~Op ip C•.y .1jM N D D T UG N J N] N i . d UO nOA jv ~ C G GV U3N 7.3 b L] u N m~wAV C P_y ry ~~0 - ~ ~L a~ ~ ~ ~ r- m D C o L 0 N'O A N L Nu au7c3 v o U] Ow a o~ c ~ ~ ~^ ~ ?~ 3$~t ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~~E ' ~' 0~~ C . v~i otigA o u -=iV N U w ~ y ~U .~-~~~uOi L.~ ~ ~P~ °__ ~~-` m~ c v `0 0 3 g m - N ~ e ~ .G, o o ~ O ~p 0 'S c ~ ~' g ~ 8 ~°y 0.. - b I N wN "' ~°'t oau 'c cnp>>ou ~ ~ c E 9 a 3 i , ~ . A ` y ~$ $ ' m ' qq 4m U ~ S 0, vo ~.i+ti ~ NS ]NVO •d wNa]i esro cm b > u ~ V :~ •co ~ ~a ~v„a. ~ u V ~ ~ ° ~ ~ E A M~ ~' ~~ q A ~' _' ~ ~U ~ t x' :: 'a~> xa . i ~ .a ov>.~~: o•NC~~vn .yv . i xcam~~•~ 0JSWOd 0 v A o d Q ~ N a ~- ~~~~~ e~ ~G © ~v 4UVF'OVU^~U^~D> 1 ~ ~ ~c , t u q~ 3 E~+ " ~ ~ ~ p m v .. ~ v .n ~ ~- J L ~ ~ . ' ; $ 7e R ~ m .S a i 0 ~ 5 I W~ ~ g~, oS~ aY E3 0~ ~ ' V~ I W ~~ o L LH d cN ~ .I U pA yN ~ ~ ° ~~~ ~ q~} s p ~ .O ~Q ~s ~ ~~ a :;ri ~ ~ er'' hL~ ' s~~ 3 c~ $'.S E °'m E y~~x o~ $ co - ~ 0 0 07 ~. ~ .9 2 . ~ yr To _~ ~ I . ~ .m `e~~ ~~.~ ~~ EA ~E aA.~c N D ~ ~ %j a g~_ aE EQ ~g 3 F= Y E `' A N d m ~. ~? 2 0` to ~ E `PS ..oi O 2 ~ ~ E ~~ ~ c Q 'm8 .S Tn ~ $ ~ oa~a°°~ m° W ~ tl i t i ~ ° o , • 4NV o _ _ I~ P c, t.. Q r I ~ i, ~ ~. I d.. > c~ 1 ~I _ 'a rc z.., 0 ~' Y- ; O q O o W o G ~ O b ~ £ 91SVM„ AdM11VH .YV ~ ~j ~i ~ ~ ~ - a Q J a 9~ ~~ ~ _ 1 F ~, ~ w z: I Q ~ \: ~ a, ~ $ ~' ~ W ; ~ a' w' t 1J yy SSx _ ~: s S r' 3 ` ~ 9 ~ v ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~`, ~,r ,S I, li a. ~: ~ ~. w , Y ~I J • _ • • ~, i ~. ,,t seta~soz lsov) ranoNa :. ~ ' ~,~cao~, VIMlO~#7V~ ` V'~OSVaVS -OiBel 11 XO~ A i~aaw~a ao~a~~ a~soaoaa :: s ~ ' ~ o .n%n~~~~~ f ~ N~A ~ ~ ~ ' ~'~"~"°' "~° ~ ' ~vanvis~a ~#v~#x~w sv#~nzrr~ - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ z a i z~.txo~ ~u~ ~rww . .~- . _ . ~~ °• ~ ~, ~ ':,.. 3 Z [a v. _ - T .. ~ ~-' I 6~ ---a OM I9~ Atl 17 II $ W l ~ d ~~ ~ ~~. ..Iy _ ~. 1 ~ - ~ - w~ ~ y W ~ ~ ~~ ~ -^ ~ ;I ~ r ~ i 2 ~ ~i I ~ ~ i ~" ~ ti .a. ~, ~ ~ ~. i.~ . ~ ~ i ~ . I Q , • n i ~ ! ~ d _§ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I - _ ! I -~- • w ~~ V - ©~ u°i d~ayy 5 O iC s µ~t~ ~ ~~~ ~ti~ ,~ ~ [-i ' O r z GO z F U wW - -- - - - ~ ~a ~ <~ a e=< ~ m3~ ____ ~ pNU ~ ~ ~ ~N dab 5~z ~~y ¢ ~ io~ I ~.gV i I °yo I f ~ L I I I1 r f _ >I'~ __._{' ~ ~ D per. I i W v ~. j ~$) u I I o- 1{~ .., 9 ,~, I' BA% H ~9.~. A 4 ses N .~ C ~ I ~ _99P4~ ~ . . ~ ~, .e u u -,~--r--... ....__._...-_, ~~~~ ~ ,~ Fa h 1 u o w _... u ~ vWY BS ~j'~l ~~,~° i ~~. I_.._--- _.-. ~_:_-...-JL_-~ ~ _ --.. ~~-, • • . ,. {_..... v) maw le o osts~ § `~ uo-~ ' ' 9 c+ 1/INZ#O~I'IVJ ` V'~?O1V~lVS; ut~w a~soaoad l ~ ~ o o a ~,~~,~~..~„~~ ~~'~"°, ~°~°,~''" ~hN3y-V XO~ ti0~8.1< saa ~~w ~s°rn~nzv~ v rva S~a en-a iNn~nv ~ i .u n ~ ~ >~ ~ Z~.L't10~ ZIP ~~o . _. .~. .- _~~-. _- ~~ st1-,~n lay :- -. -- - __ I ® i ' I < Q W /~ W ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~' .~J ~ I '~ __ ' I ! ~ ''. ~ y _ ~ i,; n,O1 3F r L ~ ~ ~ ~ I 5 ~ ~Qy ~ yy3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q,$ $ ~ ~ 4 E3- L 6 ~ ~ to . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ O I ~ ~ Y N' ~ g ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ' ~ a II • `~" '! ~ ' ,~; i„ `~ "~~ ..;' . 1.,: I I i i i 'noe'l ~~~ffi~ ~.Wx~ ~ ~ .$mmc g t .ma. ~ 39 g o o~ffi~. ' ~ $~ $.3ffi~~ ~mtq mca+~ ~ ~~ Ec mp 3v m m aE m~ ~~~ I .~~~- t.`sm mm q'6 mm ~ o E~v~~.m `~ w_ ~ rs s~~ ~S mmO$ .$' m v~ m o"''u° ~ £~ m y ffi4~~ffi'5 ~~. m~%"fn~ ~ fi~ '~i~mata 'Y ~ E ra°w ~' E c.5~5:8 ;V ~5 m ~i~~c. gS~.EI _~~s~, ~'ffi cd ~~ ~ ~~~~' ~ m~ ~~U co ~m ~ O. z,c~~ ~ g' ~ ~ ~fi ~'EBa m m m E°~ s¢ o ffi' sc•Q wa ~ 2 m~ ~ y.E ~~ . z ~~~mi F~~~gm 3~~~ dm ° g^.~E~ ~ 6~ g~~pr ~- _g ~ wM 5~ ~ w ~ ~~~I `~£4a"3~ m~ ~ ~ $ '~-cm°' ~m m~ ~ ~~ mO wv a o~ ~,~oa~ r o- x~ o~: $~8msi~ g-j~ffii~n ~p m g9 cc~ `3 v, ~ffi c ~'vE o,w m rim °`5 'ffi 2. ~a.~' ~ffi ~~ °d c$~ S, ~ E _~ m ap _°C m~ ~ ~L c~ ~ y ~o~'-i-3~ ~ ~""~~ c.$GZ~c~i $ ~8~ cs a om~`° ~` ~ ~~~~ 3~ ~~ m u~¢.? _°o~ama 4 v m~$~~ mgm@ 0~~{54~ m c ..° m .uLL $'m Tumom o 5~ 5y ~' ~ a9~ ~~ r c -g'~ F~ ~ HAS m.~>.~K = 3m mE ~,~ ° g ¢~ ~coLL is r q~$QI ~pp£ ~~~, ~~ o~ ms ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ N~ ~~~~~ ~ g ~ __ ~~~a Zg, ml ie ~~~m~~~~m 2'n wc$mCm ~S ~~m.f°~ m °~~m 'Z' pm ~"" F ~E`.el yEy^. ffiv~c ~mi,c>m 3Ec awm~ ~~ m$ y38',°ec o w ~ 5= m m @o ~ g3E~~~ o-m~~ °m E <=gLYL ~~ 5 ocoa.-E C ¢c° ~~~a` W: $~~~rn .f. 'E o0~21 3m~'~nwm ~n5w ¢°~c' i[ ~3>33°i m~' 8o a`mcm 3.a > V o SL o~ g LLy~~„ N ~ ~ a m o W~ V 3 ~ O N b U r fV Hi kl ~ J ~'~~ F § M~ OWC. 1 ~- -- _ ° 1' - - ` ~ii „;. - ~ 1 ~; N~ a~ ~" P ~ r ~ E g~~. I. 1 ~~~ _~ _ ~ _ ___________ ° --. g 6 m 1 0 m, s _ 2 ~; ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 8 ~~ ~' q e~N~E ~$ o E ~ ~~a ~~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ _ ~g ~ r is ~.~ ~ $~~I ~ e~n ~ ! - ~ S. _ ;a ~r `, l ~ .. .. .. ____ _._ . _ , ~ ~ r t m ~ ~~ a a ~ ~ .1\ 8 ~ - V 4.~1 '*T ` \ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ` $ r `~ ~$ - . c~ ~ ~ ~ Cii ~ ~ .. ~ OLQS6 ~' `il~SO1~S ' ~~ ~~ g~Y]'rmI !RS [.~.MN6S« '. . ~ '~f1N~%!~l a(09 ~'0~8L ~ 1N1f?~A1~18~~1 - ' . 'Quellnsu~~u618s01?uolssaJwd~ ~ . ... 1NVZIf11/1S3Z1:N1/~i~C3W Stl"I3A~IJ NV~IX~W G3SOd0Zld .. , ,. .. _--- ~~ ~~ fi~ `8 ~ 7 ' S O~ 66 U ;W o OQ O UUUUUU - _ - = _II \ K tl F N Oh q S t L f s _Z Z ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ' g, ., ate- ~ ~ gsg ~~~ ~ §~ ~ ~ . W~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~. l7 E o 0 o Zw ~ F- ~~ ~ N 4 'n 3N Qw ~~ ~ ~ W-i ~ S3 l1 ~ ~~ ~ & 6 ~~ pp ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~~& ~ ~ ~ ~ $ st 4 ~ Qs Q~$~ g ~ i ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ ~~ ~r~~~~ ~~~9 b ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~'" ~4 ~ Si ~~ a'a4 ~5 ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ iii i~ ~e~ ~~~ y s g ~ $ g ~ ~ - T' ~ ~ § ;~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ 1) W '~ ~ ~ ~~{~ ~~LJ 6~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,., ~. ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ p O ~I ~a ~ _ U a ~ '~ x ° w ~ ~ ~ z 3 . ~ a a' ¢~ 6 W ON . Oa Q y I I a g was 3 ? ~ ~ _ y ~ ..m .o oa W W a s C U Q. N N ~ K ~ q tiF a ~o x ~ O ~ o ~° x w~ 0 X00 ~000~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~d< u~ ~ s o ( ( ~O~O~OOU J~oo O u. ~. LJ~ ww~ ~F+ ~ Jz A n n o~o~o~~~ 0000 ~ q~ O~ ~Y ~~ U \ ~ _ - d ~ ~~ I i ~ ill 'I - - ~ d w - Il~jlll i . W N C c ~ W (J III Il ~ G£ N y~ <~ J o u e } N A l:J= w£ K ~'^^^^^ ~ 1 Fi u ~ ~ A = ~ OOQ~~OD00fl~~~ " ~ y 'a nn oO~~~~oO~~~O S ' ^ F O x f o ~~~ V ~j ~ I ( ~ : ~ N . . I I ' I I I ~~O~oooUOOOVU pp 3 ~ ~ ~q W.% r ~,-. L' '- ~ ~ 4 ~' l ¢~, a r w w t p --.--- Q ~ ~~ ~ r N ~wW ~w I Od O UN ) C y wj ~ Q G ~G ~> W W ~ J V ~ ~~ g~ ~ ~ ~~ n ~ ' LL~ (~ ;~C U ~~ xW~~. 3Q Q~~~ ~ ~' d ~ 4 O v `yN a ~ ~ v 4 a °~ s ' Z L ' W ~ ~ o -$ ~ ~. i ~ o N31SAS NOISS38ddf1S 381! ~N1NIV1N03 13NIfltlJ AlllIlft - H~1~~ x o w H ~~ ~ v , . ~~"U~ ~ W Wy r~-Q-~+ ly r'+~p ~~zw > ~~~Q ~44 a Uj"~' WQ o ~w ~ o~ a e P Q CJ Q ~ J Z~ o J p W ~ U ~4 ~ ~ u a ° ' i o i.: ~~ ~ I JJ ~.P.. W G ~ 6 Q _ ~O ~ ~ J v d ~ _ - ~ 6 L.~ Uq z Cl O ' ;. 0 ~ ~, 1 5 1 1 1~ ~~bl D ~z ~ ~d~~( ~~~~ ~ `J ~~ of 1 ~ w ~ o ~ 4 a z N ° sx ,aA6~ ? B m lS b' S ~~" ~ R ~ Z °~ °m ~ ~j p3 :y" S~ ^ o ~ H~~. a lL.g ~~~ `t Q ~ 'd S ° ~ ~4 Yttl C~ U ~ ~<'. ..T ~6. z SCLfi60Z (S00) =3NONd so • 090 "`~cBO•„ VlNaodl'IV~ ` VJO1V~lVS. ~ ~56~ .~ ,,, ~~ ~~,~5~~, ~a,~,e,~,~,a, ~ ~ni~~inv xo~ ss~ iMVanvisaa ~maixaw aasoaoaa ~ ~ ~-.~ ~ ~ tNVanvis~a ~ancaw sv~~nzv~ I iZ~.L2i0~'II~ °~tuAO ~ ~ ~: o ~ - .. ... . ~. =. I,....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~'~~ ~ ~ nl - .. .. I J ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~+ . F ~ ~ ~4 ~~ ~ I ~ p • 36 ~ . ~ O .~ i A . L d 1l ` ' i " v ~ ~~~ a. i ' U ~ o e~ as~~ ~E~s ~ ~j ~ o v a o ~ E ~ ~~~ 8F ~8r ~~Ea ~ ~y ~ m~ ~ 8 ~~~ ~0~0~~ .~ m ~~ m~ ~9U° m ~~~~~~~ ~~8 ~~ ~ 8~~~ ~€g~ A~ ' ~ = ~ ~ nr~E~ ~ m ~~~ ~~~ ~~ '~a ~~a 8~ ~a s a .g z t ~~ m~ ~, ~ ~.~A~~~~ ,~8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8' ~ J d ~~gr~E'~ ~.~~ ~~ b a ~ @ ~~ ~ $8 dd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~y £ ~$ ~s~ g ~~~~~8~~ ~ aa~~ o,8 ~ ~ ~ W ~ {g ~~P6~~Fm~ ~ G ~ q ~C~ 'W' ~ ~ .g _ V ~ ' ~ ~ m p q ~ ~~~~~ O'~ LLL~G® ~~ _ `e~~~°~ m~` d~ g~ ~g j J CO~~ a ~r~~ CA~d Q ~ raj .. U' _ R ul F W ~~~ ~~ s:m~ g~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ W ~ . ~ ~ ~ n 61m a _ i --..._ i ~~ 1j ITS' 7 ~ ~ N o ~ I ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yy W T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a o p~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~oo^ ^a ~" S ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ p ~ $p ~ ~ . ~ ° ~~= o ~ d ps~e a 4 .~ ~, E s i ~ ~ o~ ~ al ~ ~j p m ~ o ® ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~£ s ¢a ~ ~g ~ ~ s~sg ~~# gg y$ ~~ C E ~~ ; ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ °~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ - ~~~ ~ ~~ ~® ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a g 1s ~ aaa bs3 . ~ ~ N ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~~ F F ~ "¢~"g ~~ a as ~ g %~ $~ _ ~ ~a~~9 3 sat; C d ~2 r ®® 0 ~~. .S C~ , 9 ~ $ ~ g ~ ~ g ~y jf ~4 g ~ E ~ 3 $ ~ I ``ii f_ ~ .. w` ~ - ~' ~ ~ e gg m. ~ ,~,~.@@S ~ ~~ $ 5 ~~~ 5 ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ $~~ ~a~ I S ~ a c ~~ p ~ 9 ~ ~~~oo^ ^ o ^ ~ ~'~d~~,dc~3dtl~c~~5~ l . a®®®®oo~a I F ~ LL ~ Z i F Y I 0 t m ~ ~ i i ,I a ~~ ~. ' •~ a N -~ '~H m j o a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~g°~ g~ ss~ ~~ss~ $ 9 sa o ~ a m ~ 05 ~m m oz ~ 0 m m ~~ s~~aK 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~a~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _. _ . 4£LS6OZ18O4)~3NOHdI;ZS.LNO~~Pi a ~~q,~~~~~ OiD56 d3 `p~JO1VtlVS' ' ~i qu¢~neuoj u6~ap ~ua~saw+a 3t1N~AV X03 .b088t ~' ~ - NV3Jf1V1S~! NV31X3W SV73AZV3 .~~ ~ ... -° ~~w g~u SL ~~ ~3m~~s m° ~ mg ~ ~ ~~ um ~ _$ ~~ ~~`. m m~ w_ O~, W y@ppE ~ m m8 m U ~ 6a a E g g$ $ ~ d~ ~$ oy o ~ m~G D w m ~m -Z O~ H n.1_ ii C nmL o=b 6L N m~ y0y F °~~mE 8 .E''"`~F ~ °w a~ R pp W- ~~ ~~ $~w ~ ;S~ m~ ~ ° m B~ F m _ ¢ ~ g~ ga 4 ~c° ~~ °~ .~, . q fig u~ ~.~ 0 4 i o ~ c$ m mr o ~~ ng8 ~m€ 3 s g''o mEQ ~ ~~c. ~ ~° $np.s^o` ~'6. ~ ~~~ Eq ° ,$ ~ °w ~ ~ LL w B$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ n~ $ $g 0°Y# ~ti$ ~ Y m N, ~tlo> ~ ~ ~ gg~ ~ ~t ~~n~5 ~~ .Q ~ ~ ~~~ g :~~ bm ~ ~ E , F g8 a~~ ~ ~~gg,~a~ v~~~~y a5 ~+~~ ~ omm 8 ~m'~ ~ - 'o'pp ~ p. ~d ~{sp NEB yU ~ 9g ~¢S S. q~o'-.~ g Gi C C9 ~$LL 'O !Y p? C ~ m « OO aW @-.- w %~ St d ~ CC '~~p G tVR. y Y= gS Gm }Xb~ mN a ~ ~~ -~ lm ~ mg CO ~m ~ p ~ O m.m m ~ m ~ ~A m$u~ v c~ .~.. om m vm o m m ~ Fem.- ~~N Q.Sp m o ~- ..~~$tiuG7 H 5$aEN@ .- c L ~ ~ '~ ¢sar~ g o2 5= ~._ -J a t S i ' G~ Eg' g~'~^m ~° m n mac ;s j ~ ~~ LLg ~ w~ u >ma W ~m~ O $~m ~ ^~' Q ~ ~ a ° Z .y Q ~? ~~m a A ~~ a ~ gg m ~-. ci o; ~ W a E g 4 ~ ~ .. j w .- ~ N c~ v. a £m 22 sToLL aLL ` ~ y1q$ O ~ g b t ~c '3rtt W¢ 'b' ~~ `o '~Cm ~.t_ ,~ ° g ni U L ~ ~ C13U DU ~ ~ ~ ~. N~~U ~ m m ~ g 2 m `a ~ 3 ~ °.t .~ E V €~~. o~ g, r'~~ EE.6 ~' a ~ ~ ~cy @ u- p_U L ,SaK cmi ~m O p 'mSo 'S ~a w dB~ 6 6~5p~ .G u m~ . 9~ moj ~ ~ `~'3p p ~ .y°.~ p 0y.°~ ~ ~ ~d m~ c~ $° r ~~o g ~ 8~gw 8'- Es~g s ~~ ~t° ow ~$$ mU ~'€ ~l ~ Tp~ L ~Or Ptm w ~ l6 ~ ~ O m a ~ 9 19 ~~ ~ `~ 9 @~ 3q WgO~ c gm ~.a ~E £EI~ f='1 d ~66~ ~ ~p.. g ~' ~ mTe m o H m ~, ~o g5 'E ~ St g-N g^ A~ ~~.W ~,$ x g~F3a 3$ m E,~ ~Ea C E8`m° yxm' m.7 m Z ~g E ~ `o c7 r~ TF ~8 r ~ i ¢014'.LLV`~ <<? ~ a°~3 ~w ~ 3033 y cif 8~ ~m m g (yq a ~ 4f ~ ~- ci J ~ M ~Y ~ Ni LL ~- U' x ~J f i O ~8 ~ffffipp @ 8~°~ S u~ o ~m ~S ~ _ .& ~ ~$ O ` ~ t y ~ ~c ®° c m U E'~ ®m ~'c~'i 5 a ' nc $~ ° ~° p ~ c k F;r ~ £~ obi @~ ~g cµ. ~m° c~~ Nmc $~`o ' ~~ 'eo ~ E ~ ~ E ~ £~ ~_ .3 ~ py~~'~ ~ ~ y~^~f «~y ~~.~~CLL m 5- ~ ~~ m~ 3 7 wu.~g -4 •• mo t ~gj ~o< ~'~ ~~~ `~$mU ~K g.-,coo @ m g °' d °' ° } }po ~3 ~8R ~ 8 ; z ~ u ~€° ~aR ~ ~ j $ ~ 8 r ~ ~ z`~ > gm~ aU 8 ~ $v my ' .E.ffi ~ s55 ' wE ~ ~o J. , n ~' o'- Iz~U ow oLL Wm ~p~S y ~ Y ~$ q ~i ~ ~3~ n O. rv >a'U .85N ~' -~ @Yi~+~N Sag m~ m~~ m~ n ~ gF'~ Q ~ ~-~-. as ~ ~y ~~ ~~ rd ~j g ~U a3m S S 8~~ war $~m o ~~~g~;l ~$ ~~ $~~ tg,~ 9~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~~.~ 8" m~~~z ~~ ~ .~ y ~qg ~ ~~~ ~ " ~ ~~~° ~ = ~ ~ ms ° ' € . vg ffi r Z v° 'g `° E °~ 0 S~ $ 'Sa Yq ' m~^ ~8 m~c $P m_ o. ~3 LL~o`r' ~o = `e_ ~. ~F °zQ _~ 0 8 ? = r E.-. o~- °g$ gg, ~ ~o o ~ g=° avg~ mm~ w K r NI t~ C ~[) ID O 1~ m Vi U r ~ ~ lV M P x ~ $ ~ b iNVandiSaa, NV~IX~WV a3$Od0?!d ~ .~ . ~ .. _ -~ gg g mx $ E Sm c~ ~ a g8° ~_.. m ~'Sv~ ~ r ~ ~ o $ a ~ ~. m~~t ~ R V c mC~ _ oA .P m¢0 ~fv p LO ~. .~o~E D r~ `9~$'m p1 r~~ .3a qq ~w g~ ~ E ~ _L g @mt. dw ~' ~Eo m -. u~ 4i $ $~`o "'~ ~ ~ . '03i o ~ oo ~ ;g a c3 G p g0 OI YC ~ 'C a mq ~ pp ~ o- m~ w m '- 0 F '--.Q ~ ~ a a a ~ -Oq Y, c $D 2S 6. q, oy ~LL m ~ @ .S 'S m° E m~o ~ _ ~ _ '° mmo _ To 3 o y E.4 e mg ~~ `c ° ~ ~ = J 5 m LL ~ m d :g Yoe gam c U @@ --pp w+.. ym`c~ 054 {{ ~mC ~ _ ~.m$ ~m 3 ` ~$m . ~T ~~~~ ' ~ . O .g ~ ~~ ~~ E e~8 =q m G $ o ~m E .~ E 'Sw . $ ~ 3 W ~ ~' ~g; cN o ° '~ ~m¢~m ~ ° ' E'%~ ` 3 8'~9 ~~ ~~ ~ ~'o ~E ~ a~ ° ''5p .. EmEm ¢a ~ d ¢ ' ~ p ~ ~ ¢ we C y H t ~ _ ~ ~ m 3 m m~ 9 ` ~ 5 a .- ~ S o o .- . v m m °P~m ~ ._ a°° ~ m - ~ s s x 49 .- ~ ~ ~ .. 15, - fi o f ~ m~ g °m ° o w LL ° C c~ - m m D 3 o Tfi ~ m m ~ ~ m- c w .~ ~ ~ " ~a= ~ ~ c~ °m o U L C ° u O m v~ C ~ a W a O .' ' ~E ~ y~y-~ c~ ~ ~ - E "o g ~ c ~~ ~ m m n E 2° $L ~ '2 E'~~c ~+- d- `- m 2 p~LL 5. $ i $^ p o. ~ ~a U a r ~, mLL m y~ ~ U a;LL N~NfD 3 ~vmi .°C'~ Co $ $ ~ ~ U a ~' ~ ~ $$ ~ o c -a 3~' ~ g ~ m E~ a? ° c~ v~~ .. °m~ O _n~ rn ' ~ w g E~ Z RR ~ Ems ~m u =$~ a~ z e.dy` 2 $€ ra ~_m w g 8~ ~ , y ~ a ES ¢ Sw Y °~'~9 ~v p ~ m as m $' y 5 °~^ m~~ N ~ ~, ~~ -'6 ~ S° ~ ~ Q .9 '- z ~~u Ea . . r ~m° ~m ~ y „ p$~ Nmc Y o~U3 z ~ ~ ~ a ,gi.O ~~°G'@ a = E ~ ao;°m~~mx W m ° c f°-~ ogg d 3 -`n ` ° ~cE ~S3' $ -.- a ~o W "Q c7 ~.~ 53~ F~a _ c a ¢ms rc r'~+y ¢ o ~ v~ ~ ~ icy i~3 0 ¢~~E !^ ¢°mo~E 'nm y4m 2 W O ~ ~ 2 ¢ w F m fJ r .- LL r N S - i .- . N M - N .. > > T+ X } ' ~ °~ a~~s~ m g gw' ~ o wg 8' r m mg ~38BE ~ ~~$~ ~ ~~ ~~ m mtg.-, =~~`oE ~ ~ ~ m~rog' ~ ~ Z~ ~ m~ ~. _ ,~-. d ~ ~Ev $ w~ @ `o n ~ ,m q ~ S g - ~ _k .~ $'~ ' ~ m ~ Lg m n "d E ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ gam ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~,~~~^ ~ ~~ ~ 8 ~$~ ~ a ~ ~ ~5m~m 8~ ~ S^~ <g ~. cE mTmi ~~ m vQ ~pi0 .E `~~ ~Em ~C ~g3g wi~i. ~ ~ r[ ~ E- JL°E#°rm ~ g Sa ' ~~LL raa ,o .c4 ~' m~° c@ ~EE E r ~ ~{Wo -pd ~~~ ~po T.~ 'fie ~ 5~ . +j~ q d8 $58 cn4 S4 ~c~7ii.m .a Qn° G9m°E ~ d~tS ~~ F-O X~ x~m O ~» - W LL ~ ` + • m~ ~ F,~ o~~ m gJ ~~ n .@ ~ c' off, °< om °'~ °'~~° ~o x.~~~ ~o L`. v ~y mLL° ~~ E wm ~~ g c w~ ~~ ~v . 'off ~mc gg ~ o J m~'= ~ ~~ $m mLL ~r o o m F-tt ~~ c. ~c mo m am .'wt ° ~. 5 r3 ~om c c.:c ~~ aLL $9 E ~omi ~ of ~^,~' co ok ~V m- °~ '~ j ~ @ mvr "c_,3 ° bo w c~ `8 ~v cn a ~~~ m~. °~w ~ 6 ~y o o . ~ . m ~ £~m+v. @s 5 tip ~ Q°!d m f d ~m '9~ U '~m~ Q$'O `o w. ~~~ g`~~~ w ~a ~~ m ~ S ~ ~~~ -~ w E c gg a w ~ye ~~gg^ Qg. ' n~~ E~~~= ,L_°s 8~ ~ m~•P'- ~'s o'~ ~$ ' LE o _ V~ ~'~c m16~ ~y. Imo t~,~ c_ ~ '~cLL @ ~~e6 3 mA •_ % F SamiU f/ ~mqm< m ' yC°" E ~ LL o ~~ Z 'LC&m qmy c4 gv @ 1~ E:2~ ~ ~o W~ m ? ~u O u, E oai n° i E°~o ii W W - + Y x C'N ~ l p1 ~ y ry ~ ~ ~. .- N ~ ~ s~ m r .) ' C - ~.~ ..__ _~ / ' REPORT TO THE PLANNING COM Application No./Location: 06-367;14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) Type of Application: Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Mr. Gin Lee i Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP Senior Planner ~~ Meeting Date: August 23, 2006 APN: 503-24-064 Department Head: ~~ • ~ W y z J #: +i ~ ~~'qo.~ 4j/~'~r' fir.. ~ y~ `•4. \-• ~ • ~~ .~ ,y----- a •.c- •, ''.-''"a S P ~4r ~ ~ ~ d i i v ~ /~'~ ~hL /! / / 4 7J ~ l - • / / CI ~ kr ! ~~~~ w ~ ' C .° '1 aP ` it ~- 9~ •. f Via. ~ .~iir r+~.'~ A~~ .-~~.-tl- ~` ~'~•~ 4 ' ~ ~- C .y ~ '~' i 4 ~i 1. ''yt~ !/ ~~y,~,,~,- ~~\ y .~ ~ y t,i'_ -~,• , ~ ,. tiQDJECT: r ~ H i~ \ - ~ ~ ~ q f ~ • 1419) BIC BAS1N WAY 1 ~ ~ /~ :*~ - APN: 503-?+O(d ~ ~ ~ /j+' ~~ nl .p'~:1• ~° ~'•+~ 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) ------~ -- ~ f i, i~ ~ # I • 4 _ . -i Application 06-367; 14993-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) ~.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 5/30/06 Application complete: 7/23/06 Notice published: 8/09/06 Mailing completed: 8/03/06 Posting completed: 8/18/06 Public Hearing: 8/23/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant and property owner, Mr. Gin Lee, is proposing atwo-story addition to his existing building which presently has the Saratoga Cleaners business establishment at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor level. A carport structure is attached to this building and is situated at the rear portion of the lot. The proposed two-story addition would include a new street level 1,020 square foot retail space, an attached 620 square foot garage, and a new 1,250 square foot three-bedroom apartment unit above this space. The new garage would replace the existing carport. With this project, the total square footage of the building would be 6,270 square feet. Pursuant to Ciry Code Section 15-46.020, approval of this project requires that all of the findings for Design Review be made in the affirmative. Also, this project proposes amixed-use development of commercial and living spaces. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-19.050(b)(4), a mixed-use development in the CH-1 zoning district is a conditionally permitted use and is subject to the provisions stated in City Code Section 15-58. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals for Application No. 06-367 subject to conditions as stated in the attached resolution. • Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1 (Historic Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: CR (Retail Commercial) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 4,277 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level site GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED The proposed materials and colors include sandy beige-colored fine-grained stucco to match the existing facade texture, dark anodized. aluminum framed windows accentuated with dark brown canvas awnings on the front and side (facing Turkey Track Lane) facades. Wood molding, painted the same beige color, is also proposed around the windows. The original limestone, with its distinctive pattern, and the `S' brackets will remain-along the west facade. The existing beige paint will be removed to expose the natural limestone and the dark colored `S' brackets. The garage doors at the rear are proposed to be wooden with a pattern shown on the elevation drawing of Exhibit A, painted to match the existing beige color. The front doors will remain as they currently exist, and the applicant is proposing to match the dark colored aluminum for the new storefront door. The proposal also shows a window on the east side elevation of the new commercial tenant space, which would enhance the visual transparency of the new storefront.-The cornice and the trim separating the two floor levels will also be in the beige-colored stucco. The applicant will bring a color and material board to the public hearing,' and the applicant will also provide more information at the public hearing regarding the pavers that are indicated on the landscape plan in attached Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project, which includes a building addition of less than 10,000 square feet, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301(e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet and if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) This categorical exemption holds true for this project proposal. GENERAL PLAN/AREA PLAN CONFORMITY The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies and objectives: Housi~ Element Goal 1: To accommodate the City's Fair Share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Need ForAll Income Groups -Program 1.2 of the Housing Element specifies the establishment of a mixed-use overlay zone to enable the City to accommodate the Ciry's fair share of regional housing needs. The proposed project is consistent with this Housing Element goal in that it will provide one additional rental unit that could be counted towards the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Most importantly, as this project is conditioned in the attached resolution; the proposed deed restrictions requiring that the two existing units be rented at below market rate furthers the goal of meeting the City's fair share of regional needs for low income housing. Land Use Element Policy~5.0: The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. • Mixed Use Development Standaz~ds City Code Article 15-58 was adopted by the Ciry to implement Program 1.2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan. The goal is to implement this Housing Program in a consistent manner throughout the various commercial and office-zoned districts of the City. It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development. City Code Section 15-58.020 includes specific standards for mixed-use development. The following is a discussion of how this project meets each of these requirements stated in Ciry Code Section 15-58.020: (a) The maximum density is twenty dwellings per net acre. This project is not consistent with this requirement. This project proposes three dwelling units on a 4,277 square foot lot. However, pursuant to this City Code section, this project can only have a maximum of two dwelling units based on the lot size of 4,277 square feet. As discussed below, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant a Variation from standards in terms of density pursuant to City Code Section 15-SS.030. In exchange for granting this Variation from standards, the applicant is willing to place a deed restriction requiring that the two existing units are rented at below market rates. The applicant does not wish to provide this deed restriction for the new unit. Nevertheless, the proposed deed restrictions for the two existing units furthers the goal of providing additional low income rental housing units pursuant to the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan. t Application 06-367; 14493-19495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) (b) The dwelling unit(s) shall be located either on the second floor or at the rear of the parcel. This is the case with this project. (c) The dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten percent for projects providing below market rate rental housing. This is the case with this project as shown in Exhibit A, in that the proportion of square footage of housing versus the total square footage of the building is approximately 41%. The applicant's initial submittal proposed a larger than 1,250 square foot dwelling unit. The applicant has informed Staff (subsequent to submittal of Exhibit A) that he would like to add this 10% bonus toward the floor area of the new dwelling unit .since he will be providing below market rate units. Staff has added a condition of approval that the Community Development Director review and approve this 10%-bonus to the new apartment square footage prior to issuance of City Permits. (d) Parking for both the non-residential and the dwelling unit(s) shall be as specified in the ~'oning Ordinance, provided that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. This requirement is met as discussed below in the section titled, `Parking.' (e) Perimeter fencing shall be required to the maximum height allowed in the ~'oning Ordinance. No perimeter fencing is proposed. • i.e. decks balconies ards or atios. As (fl Each dwelling shall haveprivate,usable outdoor space, , y p conditioned in the attached resolution, the new dwelling unit and one existing dwelling unit will have a private balcony area at the roof deck. The other dwelling unit facing Big Basin Way will not have a private outdoor area. However, this portion of the building is not being modified and will not be required to have private usable space. (g) The maximum height of amixed-use structure shall betwenty-six feet. Structures that are solely non- residential on asite that has mixed-use, the maximum height is as is it is stated in the underlyingzoning. This project meets this requirement in the subject building is approximately 21 feet in height. (h) The design ofmixed-use projects will be required to conform to thepolicies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook and any other design standards inplace for the area of application This is the case for this project as discussed below. (i) Overall site coverage may be increased up to ten percent for projects containing deed restricted below market rate housing units. The owner is proposing below market rate rental units. However, the applicant is not incorporating this bonus in the project. • Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) (i) Mixed-use projects shall have sound walls and landscape screening in order to protect theprivacy and duality of life of abutting single family residential lands uses. There are no single-family residential uses surrounding this subject site. (h) The residential component of amixed-useproject shall be rental. The individual dwelling units shall range in size from eight hundred fif ry sduare feet for one bedroom units to one thousand two hundred fifty sduare feet for three bedroom units seduentmixed-use development. This project as proposed meets this requirement. (1) Projects with multiple stories shall be reviewed to ensure that design features such as setbacks and window placement provide adeduate privacy protection. The architect has designed the side facade windows to stagger in relation to the adjacent building to the north. (m) Non-residential structures or parcels created or developed as part of a previous Mixed-Lase Development or multi family development may not beredeveloped as aMixed-Lase Development at a greater density or intensity of use. This does not apply to the project. (n) Smaller Mixed-Else projects (twenty or fewer dwelling units) mustpay an in lieu fee for parh construction. As conditioned in the attached resolution, the owner will be required to pay this fee prior to issuance of Ciry Permits. This fee is currently $20,700. (o) In larger Mixed-Else projects (more that twenty dwelling units) either the developer mustpay an in lieu fee for parh construction or construct common, useable open space on site at the discretion of the Planning Commission based on the vicinity of existingpublic parks. This requirement is not applicable to this project. Saratoga Village Speck Plan The Saratoga Village Specific Plan was adopted by the City on May 18, 1988, and states the following objectives with respect to the Village: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small-scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and (4) Conservation of historic structures. Staff finds that this project proposal is consistent with the four objectives stated above in that the proposed design respects the remaining historical elements of the existing building, and contributes towards the vitality of the Village by providing more commercial and living • Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) spaces. The proposal includes a landscaped area in front of the new commercial space which would provide visual interest and further enhance the ambiance of the Village. Furthermore, the proposed addition of this storefront would provide visual continuity of store frontage. That is, the proposed design satisfies an important goal stated in the Village Specific Plan by avoiding extensive distances between doors and display windows so that visual and functional interests from pedestrians remain uninterrupted. • PROJECT DATA Existing Proposed Code Requirements ° Total Total Coverage by MaximumAllowable Structures: 58% 80 % 80% Floor Area: MaximumAllowable 1St Floor 2,080 sq. ft. 3,100 sq. ft. No floor area limits in all C (Commercial) Zoning Districts. 2nd Floor 1,300 sq. ft. 2,550 sq. ft. (Residential).. Garage (3 car) n/a 620 sq. ft. Total 3,380 s . ft. 6,270 s . ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement n/a None required in the CH-1 Zonin District Height: Maximum Allowable (addition matching ex. Height) 21 ft. 26 ft. (for mixed-use development) • Application 06-367; 14993-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) . PROJECT HISTORY The Planning Commission approved this project on February 26, 2003 ,after a continuance from the January 22, 2003 public hearing and a February 12, 2003 Study Session. The original continuance was based primarily on the Planning Commission's request for design revisions in compliance with the `Saratoga Village Design Guidelines.' In accordance with Ciry Code Section 15-46.050, Planning Commission approval of this proposal expired two years from the approval date because the applicant did not obtain a building permit and commence construction within this time frame. The applicant is still interested in implementing this project proposal. and has therefore resubmitted the application for approval at tonight's meeting. The Planning Commission approval in 2003 was preceded by review by the Heritage Preservation Commission because this structure is included in the City Heritage Resources Inventory. This structure has had subsequent remodels since it was originally built in 1884. However, the original limestone from Saratoga's quarries can still be seen on the building. The Heritage Preservation Commission [HPC] made specific recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding the exposed limestone along the western facade facing Turkey Track Lane, maintenance of the `S' brackets, and the installation of a plaque marking the historic significance of the building. On July 11, 2006, Mr. Warren Heid, who is representing the applicant, provided written and oral communications to the HPC to inform them of the. re= submittal of this proposal to the Planning Commission. The original HPC recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval and no further comments were provided at last month's HPC meeting. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant proposes an addition of a 1,020 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,250 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. The proposed attached 3-car garage will eliminate approximately 208 square feet of commercial floor space of the existing Saratoga Cleaners. However, the applicant also proposes to add 52 square feet to the commercial floor space of the Cleaners by extending the rear laundry/utility area. With this addition, the total floor area of the building would be 6,270 square feet. The existing building was extensively remodeled in the early 1950's and very little has been done to change its appearance since then. The ,building has several elements of 1950's style architecture, with the existing glass blocks, scuppers and simple aluminum frame windows, with no other architectural embellishments such as molding. The existing building, as viewed from Big Basin Way, is very rectangular and box-like in shape. As shown on the attached plans, Exhibit A, the front facade of the new addition will be set back 7 and ~`i feet from the facade of the existing Cleaners, with a low planter area and pavers in front. This configuration would provide more facade articulation than the existing box-like appearance of the structure. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan included in Exhibit A. The proposed plantings include flowering species -bellflower and David viburnum -which are very consistent with Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) • the suggestions stated in the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. These Guidelines encourage the planting of fresh flowering plants in various colors to signify that the Village is alive and cared for. Asix-foot high wrought iron entrance gate and fence along the interior east facade is set farther back from the front property line, thereby lengthening the paver area along the side property line. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the landscaping be properly maintained at all times. It also appears that new colorful plantings (in containers) have- been added in the dirt area adjacent to the building along Turkey Track Lane. This narrow planting strip is on City property and Staff will coordinate with the City's Public Works Department to ensure its proper maintenance. RequestforDesign Revisions Staff requested the applicant to replace the existing front doors with wood (or wood-like) doors and also propose a wood door for the new storefront and doors along the western facade. Staff finds that awell-designed front door in a warm and rich wood, or wood-like, material would enhance the character of the building and contribute. towards the historic character of the Village. There are several examples in the Village of wooden entry doors used in combination with aluminum window frames, and therefore Staff has not requested that the proposed window frame material be changed. Staff also requested the applicant to propose a wood roll-up fire door at the western facade and wood carriage-style roll-up garage doors with exterior hardware that could match the style of the `S' brackets on the building. However, the proposed wood garage doors will be painted beige to match the building and are in a style that does not enhance the character of the building. The applicant prefers not to incorporate Staff's suggestions regarding the doors 1 However, Staff finds that its .suggestions would result in a more visually appealing structure in the Village. Apart from the importance of having a warm and inviting storefront door, Staff feels that the garage doors are an important element of the building since it will be facing the Historic Sam Cloud Barn that is undergoing a complete remodel and the Saratoga Inn. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approvethis project with the condition that all doors and garage doors, including the side rollup door, be wooden with their design specifications approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. Staff has also added a condition of approval that the doors to the trash enclosure shall be replaced with solid wood self-closing (gravity) doors. Staff has reviewed the condition of recently installed canvas awnings on other storefronts in the Village and is concerned that many of them are not properly maintained and are akeady showing signs of age. In turn, Staff is concerned about the potential deterioration of the proposed brown canvas awnings. z Staff has conveyed this to the applicant who still wishes to pursue the canvas awning style, shown in the drawings. Staff suggests using more durable awning materials such as wood or metal and would like the Planning Commission to discuss whether the proposed canvas awnings are the preferable choice for the subject building. 1 A letter from the architect, Warren Heid, is included as an attachment. 2 The stripes shown on the proposed awnings in Exhibit A are hidden awning framework; the awnings are proposed to be solid brown in color. Application 06-367; 19493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) Parking The project site is located in the City's Parking District No. 3, which was established in 1988. The City imposed an assessment on each property within this district based on the gross floor area of structures on the site at the time the assessment district was created. The current City Code formerly specified that parking requirements be assessed for additional gross floor area (excluding garages) that is proposed in properties within Parking District No. 3. However, a new ordinance in effect since February 18, 2006 stipulates that all parking requirements in the . Village be relaxed. The new ordinance - as stated in City Code 15-35.020 specifies that no off- street parking shall be required for applications that are deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009. The newly implemented parking ordinance identifies a parking surplus that would accommodate either construction of 41,850 square feet of new floor area or intensification of uses. So far one new Planning Commission-approved project (proposed use of a tenant space in Corinthian Corners for the Planet Juice business establishment) has taken advantage of the relaxed parking requirements and has `consumed' 960 square feet based on its tenant space. Therefore, 40,890 square feet of additional development remains for future applications including this subject application. As described above, parking requirements for the existing structure have already been assessed as part of the requirements of Parking District No.3. The applicant is proposing additional commercial and residential living space, which would simply mean deducting this additional square footage from. the current parking surplus of 40,890 square feet. The additional gross floor area does not include the new 620 square foot garage space pursuant to City Code Section 15-35.020(e). Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves this application, 2,270 square feet proposed for the new commercial and residential spaces would be deducted from the surplus floor area, leaving 38,620 square feet. The three on-site parking spaces for the apartment units that the applicant is proposing would further enhance the availability of parking for this project. Construction vehicles may have impacts on the street surface and parking stripes of Parking District No. 3 in the immediate vicinity of the subject building. Staff has added a condition of approval that may require the applicant to cover the cost of repairs and/or re-striping the affected areas of Parking District No. 3 prior to final building inspection if the Public Works Director determines that its condition has declined due to construction activity. Public Works Review As shown on the attached Exhibit A, the applicant proposes to re-stripe the parking spaces to accommodate access to the proposed three-car garage. The City's Public Works Dept. has reviewed and approved this proposal and has provided conditions of approval which have been incorporated into the attached resolution. It is important to note that this project does not propose to reduce the number of parking spaces in Parking District No. 3. • Application.06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) • Neighbor Review The applicant has made attempts to contact the. surrounding neighbors. However, to date none of these neighbors have responded. A letter documenting the applicant's attempt to contact adjacent property owners is attached. Arborist Review There are no protected trees that would be impacted by this proposal. Design Review Criteria Pursuant to City Code 15-46.040, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria in granting Design Review approval for this application: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, .elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. This criteria does not apply to this project because only one building is involved. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The applicant does not propose any new signage at this time. No revised sigriage for the Saratoga Cleaners is proposed in this application. However, the applicant will be required to submit a new application for any signage for the proposed storefront. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearinggroups, as opposed to beingplaced in rows or regularly spaced The proposed landscaping in front of the new storefront meets this criterion. The existing landscaping on the un-built portion of the lot does not have any existing significant plants-that could be integrated into the proposed design. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. This criterion is met in that the applicant has proposed beige colored stucco for the facades with brown canvas awnings and earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the rear portion of the first floor level. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shahes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened As seen in Exhibit A, the building has a flat roof with a low parapet wall. The applicant has proposed earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the first floor level. The proposed a/c mechanical units will be situated in the middle of the rooftop area and will be screened- with a 2 foot high enclosure. Otherwise, no other unscreened rooftop . mechanical equipment is proposed. Application 06-367; 14493-14995 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) (~ The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulb and design with other structures in - theimmediate area. The proposed addition will not overshadow the buildings in the vicinity that are also primarily two-story. The addition will provide for better street continuity of storefronts, where currently there is a wide gap between the existing Saratoga Cleaners building establishment and the adjacent structure. As conditioned, wood used for both storefront doors and the rear garage doors would complement the historic character of the Village. Conditional Use Permit Flndsngs and Uarlation from standards The following is a discussion of each of the four Conditional Use Permit findings and a discussion a Variation from standards pursuant to City Code Article 15-55: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the honing Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. One of the purposes of the CH zoning district is to provide a mixture of types of uses that would be conveniently located in proximity. Such proximity of uses encourages pedestrian activity, which is a primary objective for the Village. The proposed commercial space with a new apartment unit above is a type of development that would contribute to the small-scale environment of the Village, where one can envision future residents of the apartment unit frequenting by foot the surrounding business establishments. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that conditions have been incorporated as part of the project approval that would ensure that the proposal is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. In addition to the standard regulations presented in the City Code Article 15-19, the project is required to be in compliance with the mixed-use standards specified in Article 15-58 of the City Code. City Code Section 15-58.020(a) specifies a maximum density of twenty units per net acre. This project proposes three dwelling units on a 4,277 square foot lot. Therefore, pursuant to City Code Section 15-58.020(a) this project can only have a maximum of two dwelling units based on the lot size of this site of 4,277 square feet. This finding can be made in the affirmative for this proposed project, provided that the Planning Commission grants an approval to a Variation from standards in terms of density, pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.030, with the added condition that the existing two dwelling units be deed restricted as below market rate housing. The proposed deed restrictions requiring that the two existing units be rented at below market rate furthers the goal of meeting the City's fair share of regional needs for low income housing. (d) The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely of fect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can Application 06-367; 14493-14495 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) be made in the affirmative in that it is not anticipated that the proposed mixed-use development would have any negative impact on surrounding uses. Conclusion This project is in compliance with both the Design Review Criteria and the Conditional Use Permit findings described above and subject to the granting of a Variation from standards in terms of density pursuant to 15-55.030. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this project with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Notice, and Copy of Mailing Labels 3. Letter from Public Works Department 4. Letter from applicant regarding Neighbor Review 5. Letter from Warren Heid received on August 16, 2006 6. Plans, Exhibit A • • ~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Gin Lee; 14493 -.14495 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an approximately 1,020 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,250 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. Total square footage of the building is proposed to be 6,270 square feet. Pursuant to the provisions of City Code Section 15-35.020, the building addition will result in a remaining 38,620 square feet of surplus floor area or change of use that can be used by future projects in the CH zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes a building addition of less than 10,000 square feet, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301(e) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 1 exemption applies to additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet and if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. This exemption holds true for this project proposal; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies and objectives; and Housing Element Goal 1: To accommodate the City's Fair Share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Need ForAll Income Groups -Program 1.2 of the Housing Element specifies the establishment of a mixed-use overlay zone to enable the City to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. The proposed project is consistent with this Housing Element goal in that it will provide one additional rental unit that could be counted towards the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Most importantly, as this project is conditioned in the attached resolution, the proposed deed restrictions requiring that the two existing units be rented at below market rate furthers the goal of meeting the City's fair share of regional needs for low income housing. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval in that the proposal is consistent with the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines, and the following criteria specified in Municipal Code Section 15- 46.040have been determined: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. This criteria does not apply to this project because only one building is involved. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The applicant does not propose any new signage at this time. No revised signage for the Saratoga Cleaners is proposed in this application. However, the applicant will be required .to submit a new application for any signage for the proposed storefront. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall mahe use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible; it shall be clustered in natural appearinggroups, as opposed to beingplaced in rows or regularly spaced. The proposed landscaping in front of the new storefront meets this criterion. The existing landscaping on the un-built portion of the lot does not have any existing significant plants that could be integrated into the proposed design. d Colors o wall and roo in materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. This () f f g criterion is met in that the. applicant has proposed beige colored stucco for the facades with brown canvas awnings and earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the rear portion of the first floor level. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless. it is appropriately screened. As seen in Exhibit A, the building has a flat roof with a low parapet wall. The applicant has proposed earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the first floor level. No unscreened rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed. (~ The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed addition will not overshadow the buildings in the vicinity that are also primarily two-story. The addition will provide for better street continuity of storefronts, where currently there is a wide- gap between the existing Saratoga Cleaners building establishment and the adjacent structure. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative, with the exception that a Variation from standards pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.030 is hereby granted. The following is a discussion of each of the four findings required for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Variation from standards pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.030: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the honing Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. One: of the purposes of the CH zoning district is to provide a mixture of types of uses that would be conveniently located in proximity. Such proximity of uses encourages pedestrian activity, which is a primary objective for the Village. The proposed commercial space with a new apartment unit above is a type of development that would contribute to the small-scale environment of the Village, where one can envision future residents of the apartment unit frequenting by foot the surrounding business establishments. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This. finding can be made in the affirmative in that. conditions have been incorporated as part of the project approval that would ensure that the proposal is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicableprovisions of this Chapter. In addition to the standard regulations presented in the City Code Article 15-19, the project is required to be in compliance with the mixed-use standards specified in Article 15-58 of the City Code. City Code Section 15-58.020(a) specifies a maximum density of twenty units per net acre. This project proposes three dwelling units on a 4,277 square foot lot. Therefore, pursuant to Ciry Code Section 15-58.020(a) this project can only have a maximum of two dwelling units based on the lot size of this site of 4,277 square feet. This finding can be made in the affirmative for this proposed project, provided that the Planning Commission grants an approval to a Variation from standards in terms of density, pursuant to Ciry Code Section 15-55.030, with the added condition that the existing two dwelling units be deed restricted as below market rate housing. The proposed deed restrictions requiring that the two existing units be rented at below market rate furthers the goal of meeting the City's fair share of regional needs for low income housing. (d) The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated. uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that it is not anticipated that the proposed mixed-use development would have any negative impact on surrounding uses. NOW,. THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application #06-367 for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Approvals are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, with the exception that all doors and garage doors, including the side rollup door, be wooden with their design specifications approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. The doors to the existing trash enclosure shall also be replaced with wood self-closing (gravity) doors with its design specifications approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The Community Development Director shall review and approve (if requested) a 10% bonus to the square footage of the new dwelling unit prior to issuance of Ciry Permits. 3. The two existing dwelling units shall be deed restricted as below market rate rental units prior to the issuance of Ciry Permits. 4. A wall shall be included in the roof deck area to provide separate private patio spaces for each of the two units that have access to the roof top. S. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 6. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 7. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans:' 8. , All residential units shall be rental units. 9. All proposed landscaping shall be properly maintained at all times. 10. The proposed awnings shall be maintained in good condition: 11. The applicant shall cover the cost of repairs and/or re-striping the affected areas of Parking District No. 3 prior to final building inspection if the Public Works Director determines that its condition has declined due to construction activity. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12. Prior to final building inspection, the existing stucco on the west facade shall be removed to expose the original limestone walls: The `s' brackets shall remain and be exposed 13. Prior to final building inspection, a plaque shall be installed indicating the historic significance of the structure. The design, location and written content of the plaque shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. • I• ii ' Attachment 2 '! AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 3rd day of August , 2006, that I deposited 91 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING; a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15=45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described. as: APN: 503-24-064; 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. -~ Denise Kaspar ~ Advanced Listing Services • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-367 -14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) APPLICANT: LEE APN: 503-24-064 DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 879 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in. the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishrr~ent at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, August 14, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced. by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Senior Planner 408-868-1235 July 31, 2006 500' Owership Listing Prepared for: 503-24-064 SARATOGA CLEANERS 14493 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 503-24-029 503-24-064 517-34-001 GLEN A & BRADFORD YOUNG SOO G LEE TRUDY GRABLE 1027 LUCOT WAY 1139 S DE ANZA BLVD 1238 CORDELIA AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008-6408 SAN JOSE CA 95129-3660 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4212 517-09-045 517-09-053 517-09-056 BONREALTY COMPANY INC JACQUELYN GLASS TONY & SHARON CHANG 12591 SARATOGA CREEK DR 14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN 1416 JOHNSON AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070-3538 SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4115 503-24-061 517-09-020 503-24-067, 080, 081 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP ANTHONY J & GEORGIA JAMES I & ARLENE ROSENFELD OR CURRENT OWNER ELLENIKIOTIS 14219 OKANOGAN DR 14415 BIG BASIN WAY 14451 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5549 SARATOGA CA 95070-6171 SARATOGA CA 95070-5624 517-09-066 517-09-065 517-09-064 . ROBERT K & LISA BUSSE TED A & PEGGY MCKIBBEN STEVEN L MICHELI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14461 OAK ST 14463 OAK ST 14465 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 503-24-066 517-09-063 517-09-012 JOSEPH C & MICHELLE MASEK PETER J & PAT DALTON MARTE FORMICO OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14480 BIG BASIN WAY . 14467 BIG BASIN WAY 14467 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-6093 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 517-09-024. 517-09-069 503-24-027 DAVID L SORENSEN POLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC MITCH & TRACY CUTLER OR CURRENT OWNER 14500 BIG BASIN WAY 14480 OAK PL 14493 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6076 SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 517-10-008 517-09-025 517-09-026 JOHN N ALLEN JAVID J SALEHIEH RICKY & RUBINA RATRA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14500 OAK ST 14501 OAK ST 14505 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 SARATOGA CA 95070-6187 517-10-007 517-09-027 517-09-068 GARY H & DIANAGAY ESPINOSA THANH LUONG CALI INVESTMENTS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 14510 OAK ST 14515 OAK ST 3ARATOGA CA 95070-6090 SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 • • • 517-10-006 503-24-030 517-10-004 RONNIE L HELM MAHNAZ KHAZEN SALIM SAGARCHI CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 6 OAK ST 14519 BIG BASIN WAY 14524 OAK ST 1 TOGA CA 95070-6087 SARATOGA CA 95070-6011 SARATOGA CA 95070-6085 517-34-008 517-34-007 517-10-003 DAVID J SPLAWN TAMARA J SIMPSON FITZSIMMONS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14525 OAK ST H 14527 OAK ST 14534 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 517-34-005 517-34-006 517-34-004 JAMES A ELLS GARY D ALFORD BRIDGET M ROMAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14537 OAK ST .14543 OAK ST 14545 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 SARATOGA CA _95070-6074 .503-25-032 517-09-032 503-25-036 KLAUS W & YVONNE PACHE RICHARD J & LAUREL HESS K & Y LIMITED OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14555 BIG BASIN WAY 14555 BIG BASIN WAY 14563 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6013 SARATOGA CA 95070-6013 SARATOGA CA 95070-6027 517=09-072 517-09-073 517-09-074 JAMES B SCHREMPP RAY D REDMON WALTER MILLER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14587 OAK ST 14589 OAK ST 14591 OAK ST TOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 517-09-075 517-09-077 517-09-055 GARY D ALFORD PATRICK MCGILL JOSEPH A FITZPATRICK OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 OAK ST 14597 OAK ST 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 517-09-054 517-09-052 517-09-051 MAGDALENE CANINE LEXIE A SMITH MIHAI T & MIHAE POPESCU- OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER STANESTI 14607 OAK ST 14611 OAK ST OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 517-09-011 503-25-039. 503-25-040,041 RICHARD SERMONE ANKUSH K BAHL KENNETH S & SWARAN BAHL 14620 BIG BASIN WAY OR CURRENT OWNER 14645 BIG BASIN WAY 14645 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-2446 SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 503-24-009 517-09-060 503-24-049,050 ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI PATRICK KIRK GEORGE PAYNE 14860 CODY LN 1546 MONTALBAN DR 15940 ROCHIN TR SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 SAN JOSE CA 95120-4829 LOS GATOS CA 95032 L~ ~j4-002 503-24-008 517-09-017 PRASENJIT BARDHAN RLJ LLC ELIZABETH KLEAR 1648 MARIPOSA AVE 19510 GLEN UNA DR 20387 THELMA AVE PALO ALTO CA 94306-1026 SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 SARATOGA CA 95070-4946 517-09-031 517-09-080 503-24-059 GIOVANNA R SCHENII~TI RICHARD & ANGELA JOHNSON LOUELLA M SULLIVAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20570 CANYON VIEW DR 20576 3RD ST 20578 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5876 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 517-09-081 503-23-053 503-23-052 TIONG C & CANDICE ONG ~ DAVID S JOHNSTON PATRICK BROCKETT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20582 3RD ST 20616 BROOKWOOD LN 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 503-23-049 503-24-046 503-25-034 NANCY E KESSLER 1NN AT SARATOGA INC DETLEF ALBRECHT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20626 BROOKWOOD LN 20645 4TH ST 20650 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 SARATOGA CA 95070-5867 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 503-25-035 503-25-037 503-25-038 RONALD VERDOORN KLAUS W & YVONNE PACHE ALLEN W & SAUNDRA HILL OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 2 20650 4TH ST 4 20650 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 517-09-076 503-24-070,072 503-24-054 LAMES P LALLY JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA TONY A & JULIET JARRAMI 21764 CONGRESS HALL LN 235 LINDEN ST 30 OAK GROVE AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070-9714 SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 LOS GATOS CA 95030-7021 503-25-003 503-24-058 517-09-018517-09-043517-09-044 3AN JOSE WATER WORKS BLOXHAM FAMILY LP ATOG.A LLC ACCOUNTING 4010 MOORPARK AVE 111 4367 CLEAR VALLEY DR 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95117-1804 ENCINO CA 91436-3317 3AN JOSE CA 95113-1502 517-09-014,015 517-09-046,047 503-24-073 517-10-002 FRANK BURRELL JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA H O & M ZAKERANI 170 VANDELL WY STE A 475 W SAN.CARLOS ST 10101 5911 VISTA LOOP ~AMPBELL CA 95008 SAN JOSE CA 95110-2633 SAN JOSE CA 95124-6528 i17-09-042 503-24-071- 517-34-003 fOUNG S & Y KIM SAM CLOUD BARN SCOTT TRUST 7221 SILVER LODE LN 85 SARATOGA AVE 100 922 BICKNELL RD 3AN JOSE CA 95120-3356 SANTA CLARA CA 95051-7300 LOS GATOS CA 95030-2112 i03-24-062 503-24-023 503-24-020 3ERNARD A WALLACE CHARLES J & ELSBETH STAUSS RUTH LONG ?O BOX 1060 PO BOX 1848 PO BOX 2095 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514-7060 LOS GATOS CA 95031-1848 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 i03-24-063 503-24-051 517-09-061 A :NY PROPERTIES INC YVES G & ANNETTE CASABONNE PETER LA BARBER 'O BOX 2099 PO BOX 247 PO BOX 26190 3ARATOGA CA 95070 EL VERANO CA 95433-0247 SAN JOSE CA 95159-6190 517-09-071 503-23-025 503-25-026 ZAMBETTI TRUST EVELYN JOHNSTON 1NGER L PIERCE OX 34 PO BOX 53 PO BOX 5496 ~ATOGA CA 95071-0034 SARATOGA CA 95071-0053 AUBURN CA 95604-5496 503-26-044 517-09-078, 083 503-24-016,018,026,035,036,047,074,076 SARATOGA CITY OF 503-25-031 SARATOGA UNIONS D 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CITY OF 17421 FARLEY ROAD SARATOGA CA 95070 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE LOS GATOS, CA 95030 SARATOGA CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN:LATA.VASUDEVAN 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • r~ ~i Attachment .5 • • City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1239 Memo Toe Lata Vasudevan, Senior Planner From: Morgan Kessler CC: Date: 8/14/2006 Re: Project in Saratoga Village Hi Lata, I have reviewed the proposed project located at the dry cleaners in the Saratoga Village. Per our office discussions and subsequent field-review with the Applicant, I am satisfied that there will be no loss of parking facilities with this project. It is my understanding that the project will involve the following changes to the parking stall arrangement at the project site, and the following conditions: 1. One parking stall will be removed from its present location, and one new stall will be installed nearby; 2. The current signage for parking hours will be preserved and shifted to match the new parking stall alignment; 3. The net number of nearby parking stalls will remain at seven; 4. Applicant will be responsible for cost of parking stall changes, which includes labor and materials charges of City Street Maintenance crews to perform the work. If you have any questions or comments regarding this determination, please contact me at 868-1209. Thanks. Morgan Kessler Assistant Engineer City of Saratoga Public Works Department 1 • Attachment 4 • Gin Lee 1138 Norval Way San Jose, CA. 95125 August 8, 2006 City of Sazatoga Project: Mix Use Building Addition 14495 Big Basin Way, Sazatoga, CA Re: Neighbor Notification Deaz Lata, On June 20, I sent and hand delivered the Neighbor Notification Statement to following property owners. * 14450 Big Basin Way (Harmony Spa) * The Inn at Saratoga * 14485 Big Basin Way (Chamber of Commerce) As of August 8, we have not received any response back from the above property owners. Meantime, If you have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at 408 892-5575. Sincerely, Gin Lee • • Attachment 5 • C WARREN B. HEID AIA AND ASSOCIATES WARREN B. HEID AIA-E ARCHITECT EMERITUS 14630 BIG BASIN WAY PHONE 408-867-9365 SARATOGA, CA 95070 FAX 408-867-3750 August 16, 2006 ~ C~C~[~0 d~ . Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission A~~ ~ s 2006 City of Saratoga ~~CITYOFSAItATp~,~ 14777 Fruitvale Avenue MUNITypEVEi,p~~.•~- Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Addition/Alterations to Building 19493/19495, Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA Dear Chairperson and Members, This is the first time since I opened my architectural firm in 1958 in Saratoga that I do not agree with-the recommendation of. the Planning Director for the exterior appearance of a building. I do not like to disagree with a Director, however I support the building owner's wish that the existing bronze aluminum entrance doors with large transom remain as installed years ago and not be changed to painted wood doors. The reason is that wood doors are not practical for the amount of use each day as a retail store and that the existing doors fit the appearance of this "modern" style building. Similar type of doors are also shown for the Addition. This building might only be considered a "historic" building because of the first floor limestone walls installed when it was built. This existing limestone will be sandblasted to expose this material to match the limestone on the building across 3ra Street. The existing building was remodeled years ago to its present appearance as the original 2"d floor had a gable roof. The previous Planning Commission approved this front appearance as is now again presented. I do not believe that it was considered by the Historical Preservation Commission when I , served on it when it started because it did not meet the criteria. I do not believe that it-has ever been considered as a "historic"building as it has been remodeled. The Owner wants the replace the existing painted metal awnings with solid brown canvas awnings similar in style to all canvas awnings in the Village. The previous approval of the Planning Honorable Chairperson and Page 2. Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission Addition/Alterations to Building 19493/19495 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA April 16, 2006 Commission for this same addition and remodeling conditioned that a canvas awning be "kept in good repair". This condition would be accepted today by the Owner. Another concern by the Owner is that the new garage doors be approved as shown on the exterior elevations, The design of the doors is a wood panel overhead door and will be painted to match the color of the cement plaster, giving a monochromatic appear- ance to the building. The Director suggests that they be a "carriage house" design .which is what they might have been years ago. These doors face Parking District 3 and will only be seen as someone passes by or parks and probably would not be noticed by the untrained eye. They do not .face Big Basin Way or 3rd Street, which the Owner feels that this suggestion might be more reasonable. The Planning Staff has suggested that I provide information on the changes made to the original building for your review. The major changes are as follows: 1. Paint sandblasted off of the limestone to expose the stone. 2. Glass block window is removed at the Big Basin Way elevation and replaced with a matching window. 3. New cement plaster cornice added at the top of the walls per detail. 4. New redwood watertable on all elevations per detail. 6. Change one window at existing apartment to sliding door for access to rear flat roof patio. 7. Build cement plaster covered wall extension at the flat rear roof as a protective railing. 8. Change awnings from painted metal to all solid brown canvas awnings.. 9. Install new and required sash to match existing in size and color. 10. Install 1x4" redwood trim at all 2nd floor windows. The similar items for the Addition follows the design details as given, above to provide a harmonious appearing building. There was one (1) major change requested by the Planning . Commission with the previous approval from the original submittal several years ago. It was to set back the Addition to lessen. the long and flat front. This change was accepted by the Owner and this submittal meets that request. Honorable Chairperson and Page 3. Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission Addition/Alterations to Building 19493/19495. Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA April 16, 2006 To provide one (1} item for your review and information I have, through the years, been asked if there is a "design theme" in the Village. My reply, having been an architect with my office in the Village for nearly 50 years, has always been that there is no "theme" such as in old Santa Barbara. Most of the original buildings are gone and very few new buildings are of a traditional and historic theme. I am attaching a copy of the buildings in the Village that I have either remodeled or designed as new buildings for your review. This letter is written for you to review the reasons why I have designed the Addition and remodel the existing building as shown and why I support the owner on these few items. Hopefully this letter will provide some information to you that will assist in shortening the time at the hearing. Thank you for your assistance with this application. I sincerely hope that you understand the owner's position with this letter and why I support him. If you have any questions I will be most happy to respond to them at the site visit or at the Planning Commission hearing on August 23rd. Very truly yo rs, V 1 Wa n Heid AI -E Architect Emeritus Project Consulting Architect WBH:hw Encl: cc: C. Gin Lee, Owner Bruce Johnson, Project Architect LIST OF PROJECTS IN VILLAGE BUILDINGS NEW OR REMODELD BY WARREN B. HEID AIA-E, ARCHITECT EMERTUS 14630 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA North Side Saratoga Avenue Whiteside Office Building (new) Office Building (new) Big Basin Way Cunningham Office Building (new) Commerica Bank Building (remodel from bar building) Art Gallery and Mirror Shop (remodel) Casabone Building - Shops (remodel) Rosenfeld Building - Coffee House and Offices (new) The Inn at Saratoga (new) Harmonie Spa (remodel) Previous Patrick James Store (remodel) Plaza del Robles - Offices and Shops (new) Ann Valk Building - Shop (remodel) Herring Building - restaurant/offices/shops (new) South-Side Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Fire District Firehouse/Office (remodel) - gone Big Basin Way Fitzsimmons Flower Shop (remodel) Wells Fargo Bank -(new) Kraule Building - Shops (remodel) Tyler Building - Shops (remodel) Pollock Building at corner at 3ra Shops at 5th Street at Big Basin Yoga Center/Condos (new) Saratoga Oaks Motel (lst remodel - gone St. - Shops/Offices (new) Way (remodel) and new) • • • • • Attachment 6 • s • I~ oe i fa+0~~lYmm ~ r mmf~mtim f.,.~0[<tYm I ,l. \~ 1 *. .. ~ .. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ (qjS4~EJ6/-yL~9B 18004(11 (~+(tl t(N`~tlOd l ltl(~D(?"} tl~JD1V2(p11Y(3~ (~ p ~ ~~:. Di . I ~ I '~. .OibB 6Lt 800. 80056 Y~ '11784 V~ . 30N]Atl 3 I7V 08 ` ~ ': : ' /N V llUll ~~ 11~ bU ~V CJ ~11~C:1~ O (4' ~'U W' V °z ~ ' ~„ ~ ~r_ $ ~~, m l a 31! H ~'8 Y/ NosMH~~ •~ ~~nag ~ If '.I' d `` a-t 9 H ' ' 8 N ~ Y ll tl M . ; a ~ ~ ,%1~3~IH~ad, ~JNI,l~(15N~~.r Y :a. a ~ ~ ~`~~: ,. t i W W r W W J \ N aC+II ~- ~ N ~ < N O ~ ~ ~ I Q 9p¢G W W < ~ ` ~' '. LL .- .... u ~}i, ~ r o z ~yv W~ , Qa ry dig y~~'°~~~~ '~irw <4i3 ~ ,,, ~ t~ ~~~ < `~, }°.JJ~ ,~ "off ~~ 1~~ ~.y~ } ~,.' ,g y„ NNV.~ .p 'tla ~~ W } W W r < <.. a h S < } 0.,~ y ~ y~ ~ ~ W.~ ~ < ¢¢~y p~j U K Q$ pW UF-I-4 '_ YY QZ pZ 2 ~2~ O ~ yQ' ~Gy ~W ~ i r IW«¢i - 1t~y"< ~ ,.~h (L~,~J yC2 ~ ~ ~a~ y)~~ }p.d U~ I ZO WW ~ 68~ Z~S~~m`j ~~ ~¢<Ztsq¢ ~ z4c =C Y.J' ~:. OCZ"y. J' ~ ~= J Y9 LL~~3~~J W VIO ROO 2 ga 1LL:~~0-~~~ ; Y SHIN.. W ~ ~ ~ £` D ~ G 6 . ~ ~~~NyOj{ ~pJ(J Z ~ y Q.0 ~Qj 8u W ~ p¢ ~ W ~ I ~ W ~ ~ . < ~ N N'S C ; ~i ~ 8 Y~~SW.~O OJOS1-F O aNK 2y0 6 }W c33 Q Q C UI F)))~ 2 I' «~~ Y - yS EF paf = S 1 b n 6N2 nLL fLL NN 2 W<=;Or OfS O b LL ~ < ,U 0. ~.. ~I~I~l~l~l~l ~~ >~ i ww ww~y w ~ ~~'" _ , '~ m umi d' a ~P a 11 `~ i ' t N y N 1 ~j ~ O M O ~ NIN /~1 i(1 N } , N .r .y N N b ~ ` t II S I ~~, ''I ~~ 3 vv w v v ! ,; '°~ ~ ~~ v 3 '° 3 ~ ~ c v .. i,~ ~ ~'~ ~ , ~ - t 4 0 0 H p rS 0 7 ~ H q 9 I ~ _~. ~ ~~oo<o c°1 mom l~,~l;. c . +z^ o w w o w A w~ m ~$ Itm t O yV Oi Nc O Y O NCO „~ -T \~ W.r W.r l7N O ~0 NQ W ~~ ~._ t``l J ~ „Kj N N N i N/ W C. y p Y I Y I~1~i N F H u F F F N ~ U H H ?= "~ rt2y ~~.,~~ } 411 ~ - t~, en ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ F k+ I i '~ ~ r~ ~~, I~, ;~- ` ai hll' J +1 F~ ~~ r j ~t ~~ ~~ ' { .H E ~ v, I ,t ., ~ - F ~'~ti i ~ ~Il~-:~ I. I - f h~~ ~ I - ..1 ~.~ 4 S ; I. 4 ~ II i. I __ i t I i, ~ I~ I ~~ ~:. 5 F I ~~I I;' tl~f1~, . ~~~ ~,~.. ~. ~:,~ ~~, >~~y ~' I tl ~: f Q I d E M r «~ r~' ~ tl,' ~ ~ d ~ ~ ,~ ~ f. +, _ ~ ~ ~~o~~~~~aLL ~~ o~ g t~~~~.s ~~~~~~~~ Y 5 ..... - r _. I ,OL = „l ~TVOS 4002-1f-f sei~dx3 as ~,.a adaoatn WH ae r~raa ozgof ao '~WOBa~, ,a,sa-, ova p ~ osei-ua (ao.> ~ rasa ro 'asor ms >w w."~3 ~„M.~ ~,-,„,? ~„Y wei ANrdwo~ n '.,~.,MS JNltl33 VINao~rnio vaolvavs AVM NISVB 'JI8 X8441 ~ I ~ ~ M N 8 I ~ "N n `~' - - a1v0 r+o~saaa 3tva ue a~oaddv aroa smmw, ocu' Q ~ N19N3 am'~i,+„°"„~ 03/77Y . NV'ld 3115 5,2133NION3 ~ ~'"' ~ .I ~` O Q ` a ~.~ vn/~ s~, ~ vnl~ a ~ ~Z,Cf 'oN ~ Fyf//,$ ~i . ~, ` ' ~~ i a3i i /iss' ' `~ '' i / ! r ~«~x~oaa. _ - _. - - - - - ,• /• s ~ ~ \ ~ ~° ~• ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ F~ ~ ~~ ~ ~tl 3 ~ S O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ K i _~~I~~I I~. _~ = a ~ --~ 'i i I I I ~¢° D~ o~®~m~~~ 5 _. - ~~-~..,..f. . . f•C =r';: ~~ . -- ~• . ,~ I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ .gf g I t ---~ 6uipiing 6uI}slx~ ~ N I ~ ~ .~'o ------~- - ~ I I ~ ,4S'S8 3 „OS ,00 :L4 S ~ v I a I I __ - I. ~~ ~ ^ I 1 ~'------- I II I 7uMd X673 ~ ~ X '~ Iay, I I p E. II y, I - .~ I I ~ ~O I p, I lucww~ed 5Y a ~ a' . C ul X ! V ~ I U I 7uMd s6p3 W 3 I ~ I y a a II J ouop eao~S ~ ouo0 I -3 '~ ~ I ~ - I o ~ 'z_^ ~ N oW .._.V7 ~ Q I .. t~7 .~ W ~ I I 0- ~. e~Ipu~a e~I~glx3 ,~-: I I O 4 - ~ I ~~~~ I N m U ~' 1 ~ ~ ; w I la a 1 ~ ~ y I I~ F D o ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o. a ~ a 2 ~ I ~ y, uiwupu3 v~ou tynp o 00 ,9 q~n0 ?u ~g ~' a Z Q ^J^ W ~~ N ~!n _ C ~ Y./ ~~ w wa W ~ ~. Z . W I d ~ ~~ .60'99 M ,. S .00 . 4 N I N I g~ i ~ ~ . vnm cn.a,~nc sr ncu ani nwn~t.-r~cm~ewml7nuns~F2\cmanr-ro ~ ~ I' '~ ~. ..A ~ ~~ ,. "~ ~ ~.: '.~ -~ :,$I ~ ~ ~ ~ SLSS-Z6B (8041 tlIN2i0d[ly~ 'Y'JOl4?Jtl5 - jjj!!l 0468-6L[1964 BOOS6 tl7 '1138eWtlJ 3RN3AV 3~IlY 09 ~~~ ~ nll Q ~ 1~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ^ ~ ~ ~ n M Q _ ~~ ~ 1 ~ 311 H ~ 21 t/ NOSNHO~ •~ a~nag W vY~ ~I a ~ ~ ~ Ao iNao~ ~~Ia1 I eHo35o~ad ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ a ~ ~_~ ~ o a y W ~ ..... j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N• ~ ~ ii p3 ~~V `~ ~~ ...~ ` O ~~~~g6 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ a - S ~ ~ db ~ ~ ~ 3 g~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~° ~ ~ 3 st ~ ~ m ~ 1~ ~ g ~N `g'~ a M ~ .o •. ~ ~ R w M ~ M~ M ~' ~ {p~~ ~ 11 ~ h ~ 0. ~ -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~9 . p ~ g~~~~~~ S~~ S~~ p A ~ ~e z W V ~ F t ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ g n^n ~ L =1 ~ e N y p a p 1 d 9 M N G ~I LJ ~ =~ LI/_J C~Q~ P.B ~ _.~....--.---•~ ~~ Y ~ Hu~ ~~ ©Et ~ ~ ~ vl~~q W~ ~i ~~F.~tlGI ~~F ~~ ~ ~ ~C e~ 5~ 7 H Q oWd 1 [ Q ~ ~ '~ o~6u-I g ~~ ~ ~ Q.; Q G~ _~ ~~~Q ° R MI ~ q ~ 0~ CS^~'C i O d $3$g n ~ ___..__..__.___...L._.__. ~kr~~..<t ~ tS , _ \ ~ \ \ 8~ ~~ aid .. dal ~:~i~.~a CSR d ~ 4~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~e~'~~~~~ ..... .. - ~ i I ~\\\ In \\ ~~ M \' st I ~\ ~~ I ~~w~a F- I ~ \ d J~mJ J H d l..) 4 ~ ., ~' 'ww¢w~ ~ ~ j \ \ ~ W6=32 _ oz~¢JO ~ Y a f ~ ~ ~\ I z `~ < w a a ~ K ~vnotldar •J•a v3e ': z z m o a d 4 3avara 3aISN[ of '~ ~\ M J O O j Q¢ 0 ~ <~ Y U3naa 3Jrd5 SINl - al-ao>=m ~ ; ~ ; ^ ~iyF _ ............. ....... ....... __ w¢aa~a Z `' .~. ~ ~ J O W '.'.' W .. .........: ''~. V10WJ~+K Y v ~~Fi I . LLO¢k-¢ ~. aA{ ~o~~n=1yVn d ~ ¢ m V ~ ti G ~• 00 OF-m ~ziwN°7w ~~~~~ ~ ~ / •\ AI-CV V1 ~ 1 Q ~._ 1 ~ \ _. ._ I ~a .Q. -- ~ , ~ ~. N ~I- j \ ~' I~~~1 _a Ll .. W a ~ v ~ ~ M tt F V Z Y d. a ~ a w ~I .. (+> II 1 LS I 1 I w 1 O J - ~ Q 6 ~ V N i e^iy Mp N~Ff< ~J 'sg a~~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~~ ~~ f~~ e ~p ~~ ~~~; ~~d l3 3~yy~g <I ag Y~ $3:° ~~ ~~~~~ a f,~~ ~1~~ o J~~ o a d a ry^~ry~~ l_J 9 OO @~ _.._.ttg+al l ~.. ~ ~` r o~ ^~i ~~ ~~~ o~ ~ W .l AvXNT'X 313tlJNW 131 ~ Qp '~ ------- I..- O 1 \ \ \ •~ I ~~ ~o ~~~ I~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~= ~~~ I~ IJ I ca LJlalsla Nt DN IXtlrd aN115IX3 •J fr~ 3Nd~ Nadal ,l3Yiaf11 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ( ~ C J to o ~ K tn. Q O U1fi m ~ 00 J ~ ~ ~Z<~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~~~ ~ C1 °di ~ '..V I 131 .. I P _~ ' AYMXIr~ 313tlJNOJ 131 • L---------g- - . I v °a ~~ \~ m ~ ° 91\~I I ~I ~ ~ J W U' K I~ o J W> e I ~ ¢¢I rVl-i0 I • WOK ~ i \~~ ~I\`\ II fZ• W W ~ /• ~`\\ Y 3 0 N z N x r~ ~ 4 r u u u u __...... __ a,_ ,....a ~s~ ~~~ '..t I 131 -' Q ao ~~ ~~ o- ~I. ~ _> ~FOi ~1 •'~ o~y~2~i IfLlun=u~111' J NuJ ¢ ~~~~ o ~~ ° ~. g. ff~ g ~1 Lp, Q d ~ d n~ qV^ ^u^ t'/( L~ n~ nQn~ V V Q ~3 `J ~ °[ SLSS-Z68 (BOCI tllNa0dl ltl~ 'tl001tlatl5 ; .. • `i a ,~. O[N•u[•HO- 80016 Y9.'1738dWY7 301J3AV )OIIY OB p d ~ ~ ~ ~ n fl ~ ~ ~ f7 ~. ~ p fl f~.6 a. ; \I y ~¢ y Y 1 ~ 311 H ~ 8 d NOSN{~O('~ 35r1~8 "`- _. A11Wd~ , _ , ..._ _.. ~0~ ~~3 3H1 1. ' s „ NO I l I d4d ~N I4~ I f18 435OdON d = A ~ ~ "'~ o ~ o Q C2~- ww ~ I J2W ON a~r~ i / ~ Ly ~ ~i u~ix°aw QVNLL2 K K2• r O >> a aOO O w ~ -. =C~~ OO ZZ w V.~.rKWO ~ W=OW 4Z J WV1V V~~O tJJZW ~ ' ~ ' ~ WVW K~<=63 aw ~i~hg l~n u Y<KaO~ (~ avo>-in a ~ ~w~zw .0-,9Z l3I .0-,Bl ~ zo¢wiz~ oz~>-~~ ~ vr•o-o•o °-- --- c~ ZOVHJ 2 .. a ~ Q Oo~iaLL . o 2....... Z ... ri~i~ h 3 N d 0 1 1 W I l 0 11 1 0 0 tl N o . rwmww~ _ _._~.____.. _ I" I /1 ~~ 2OJO2V1 ~ ~ I 00 Lwl ~ ~ I , ~ ~ I / I I ~7 \ / I I I ~G ., \ . I i C~ w / ~ I I W-x J ~ \ ~ /, ~ I ( I ~ ~ W w \ O i 1n ` w (L s ~ } / I F- a K \ ~ o l '^ • N a ~ ~ / \ Q i / \ w I , \ i I / 1 \ I I I I a 1 i I w I . ~ n a i i a 0 I ^ O 1 I ~ ~1 ~ 0 1 s .~ ~ I w 6 I I z ~7. I I J - -- ~~ ~ I 1 > I ~, I I I ~ z w O I ( a) o ~ B i 1 ¢I a .~ o a ~ I ,~ m ~ i ~I ~ M ~ O I a w vi I ~ ~I ~' I o . to z l w (~ I I = I r o I o I V, . J S3 1 I Imo V I J o m tttl I o o i I awo W I a~V = 1 °' '^ way to .. j 1 wzz ' Z I oa r.J»v °z mw lL I I I I I I I i i ~ I I I I I I i i 1 I I w ~ I > i - w I ~ I 1 I I I I I i • • • • 3NI7 Al a 3d 0ad(3l d0 1IW[~ - N ~ d M 3 4 I 5 J N I l 5 I X 3 - - 3NIl ean~ ~ ~. • a ~ e it m r m ~/ ll,yy,SLSS~r-?,~~Z68(l({ByOb~I tl(l~NanOd t~VJ(~l'/~V'JOl(tl~1a(tl~S(!~(~n y~ Oi{!•{Li•tOt t00S6 Y7 ~'I1)BdWYJ 3IIN3AY 3~IlV OB ~~~ ~' NN W O ~ V (:J ..~ Cl Il ~~ ~ `c'J V ~ C%.l°1 V' V'.~I} ~~ v.. 0 1~311H~21d aosNgof •~ aona8 _.- 1 N A11WVd i31 3H1 Y0~ -/,, `i~' I NO I l I44V `JN I d-l I (18 435OdO2id H a~ ~ i; ° D 2 r LL W W~+V •OV1 JSWVI QtrZW3 ' tVl11~112oaW 6 V N LL = »QZOO °ivor°w wr-a zr V.+rKWO 23ZQYZ O W V1V VrO V(~JZW W3J~K2 .0-.bb .~-.BI Q /~/~ L. L/!I dOSJQO n^n WV1J1A= LJ sa¢ao~ H VIrLLVI V1 © VIA-¢KWJ oz°=>o~ 2 0 V r J c~ S.. d'Q11~ Q ~O_•-Z <li WV1J(~FV ry~~ 1-Z•+Z LJ rwmwwo ..a< ~~o~ nn^~^n 3OJOZN n~J v •+ 0 rk 0 0 w ,~ ~ S Alaadoaa ~o ltwt~ I _r.-._._._._._..._._._. ._.~._.-._..._.-._...L_ I I I I I I I I ______________________71 ~i \ / 1 I I ,\ /, 1 I ~\ /~ I Ww I I r• J \ / ~ n- 3 I J `~' ~ o I `~ i QIrJ I J d W I J ~ / \ L~V~.1 I ~ LL I ° /• ~\ I ~ ~ I w ~ . .\ I a I o o ----------------------~ ~ I I I I 1 I I _ _ I I I I I I I I z ~' > w I J \ I I .~. i Y W I V I i 0 n. I iv vi a 1 to I 1 I ° Z I w I ~ ~ 1 o I ~ 0 ~ I i m I w O ~ I o Z I d .. I I o ~ I aO4I2iLiO~ '1X3 (3! ~ I o r, I I r x I N w I ° O I I ~ 1 o ~ °w I m ~~ I o I ' I I I Q I I I I I I z I Z ~ I a I > LL' 1 i ~ ~ I .. n, I Y ~ I I I - ---------'------`-------J .._._._._._._._._.A 1 a~a d o a d d o l t w t ~ .~.~.~._._._..__ • r~ LaS o ti ~ ii q~ e ~: / ~ I ~ .~ n~n~ w -~- Vl/ J v I ~N • e a E i s r .. m p• Z Ji pp 2P W MW Z 3 •O Km0 O Jr W rr m< •mWrJ Wo ¢vM p ~ m 6••• 2 I~I22 2 x~ MOm2W V•0 Ul W KO'_ O a 23 V1 W WO EO N O WO 21 W X O OW map V1 LL Ul J W•+•+r II~~ OV122W W••• •-•r C y•-• V1: SO M~•-• II-- ~ VVVVWIIII K r3 W =~ Z trll 4 NO V'~ < ~O•Z••O Iri. »Ix- >•-•Caa N sVrIV 3r ~W 3MVr101A KW J O VN1W I Y Z W \ JW r '- I O p ~ a••. mr nasJaO ZJ r K~Orr m•-~ Vr0\ OZM Y•~•V W~V O Q2Wmr WtWJ x 31Y-d2 3W Ym Or ~Za m W aN M~ Wm Wi 60LL0 ~ WKN3 ..ZV1 aOarJ aaW LLOV1W•+a •••Wa 01-Nr.-•a Wm VOV ~IZti Jawui mr mr Vaa 1- p o pew I Inx a•. w m z p ao x• o sw wxm In. V~In ulzzV~ rpz VJVxzo:z wx ol.. ~voi -r•ovw rz»rW-:'~ m o r~ Ja In1~ w o ~z°• z°w s~ aF a o ~ w° r~-a °ao `zw N ~i a°o oar= o°wv • x z~ zvio sl=~a°ww~wo Plrwi=vwi=o NO `Zr ~"mF N Vi x•-.a V1 V•+o Z•+ a O Nx a0 3 ZJ O >~ W Y• N r >> ar w ax VIJ r mV oln •.r aKw V VKOw owz wm Zm~JYf- -P K VO~-•r a~ Yo: avlnLL-• F w xwa LL rsan. 3mOK oa I z 1- o x w w a r ¢In • a aam mw3o In ~ wn-ozm mx o3•-~ acroz Inww axV pz vl~~ >7a20W SWVf>¢KO 7 %mQr Q~Ix- r02 V < K J ma OuD rJ~ m ~ F- QJ WIWN.°>p•Z-~ VW~OW ,r•. Op H6JW mZd; %~~¢ W2m Ws20m VdNIZ• VmVSV°arH1-J~a aVz °ivorlx-• ¢~~Iap~p..ma~ ~ NNrw ~aQO ~_g° I!z!~; 1= ~ a wa V I •a\oma ~ "~> z I/m~¢ uNii ~•r. °m QiQ~ w<e, vxi 3m m~~o mow ~zuaY viO° Iri~w=a~wowa ~wNww °wzwaowp iao V.r.Hm WO aVZWAOVWl7 J ~ j LLZV' W ..laQ .,. ~ O V 2W °~O N2 3 p W m1.0. KK Z1 KX OZ-Oa WJ KO:Kd a• Fx-la-OOJxm X00 I ~Mr OOS p0a6 Wa0~1~-Y~V OZIY--wow>6 z3z•gq'yyso xam ¢ oli l9o Iroizr •. ¢ r V x Jo w o p z ~ a ra `~COa LLw moma as o.-ra aw InxInVY Vex In Inrr In ~ alnpw•-¢o ¢•-•-•m•-waN VoJZwz oJm- o ~ x. z"dt ain raln < o p zm w r3x w ~ ~viov~o Ix-zY~z~z ~ 'O~am °oNN x~w ~ a x mo ao xa ors- m a m vii oo p22 s¢ z°owga °wo zrl"w ~~w °zawoa sow ~ a°~~iz°°°"z om=~oawo'atoaoaN~o n~.~ W3J.J 0: x~a OxV Y .( ~r p0. O •-•m•+Kr r• oSV W aWV=IJUIO mV aW w3•N+ ~ N~CW x•Z-•OJ N•Z+W O I ~ SV HW ~~ pp3 W ~ O NO m=pI~illLL3>am22 Wm ~Q2223K a3\r0 UV12r--•~ ¢K SN~•¢OWx Z2 LL\ YmW UI>U1r •ra NrOZ -• m p O.+W W Jr mp JW 40 O O WO ¢w -•--x O Z~0 xrO WmO~ •-• a•-• Naa>Zr 02 O:N Y4Ka03 0LL2AVYF2^ 6 OamO~ O.N•N O.O.Z.,a Z K > 'm tW/14 mUil KVI2 ~ fC K NIJi ~Iayyp SW~20 ¢WpZ J> <JN VV3 pZ30J• pWR W FZr iZQ¢N3~3Wr¢Glw/1Z OOHWI~r~K a VOY•~.O r•+aW WJ J 4 •r YJ \~ H (0 r W W \ Wa 6 OJZ F~x36 JO rWr JZW >•-•OOV' •xa K N•-•Or-•a•+W PW W•-•V~•-•• WWIIIZ OaVW G-r-^~v ~~zv -wwa vrV~•aii---°' x_ir'~ < ~ ..~~i~_ x'13"~-z-i-y--v w^-ov rn ~ ~w-x 3 r .. w o: o p opZ ar~Jara ms In~x= w-x_v-~a~W~~aJv-~ s °z v z_I~ ~ - n'¢~' Ts .v''~'g~a'-od~~i'~'wt'i'~d'~Z.~'m•_~ n°- ~ ors Zr KWSVI w°Vi6aaV3 l0 3Qy ZpZ '^rma .N..~N O LL r OW JVI K62 LL N 3 ~•-VI WNQIp~ 6V1~..Qa~NQ JOZJ ZaLL a23~a •V+2H d mJ>WWJOWMMNJU=IN Z~VI~VI CEO}OWZ3 OOI/IIOOOOJ ¢ Ja>ON~ 1 Zl~i~< WS>IY- W~a S W I OJ I I I ~~ sK3 ~W J~~O ZU1 a>OJ X00 JaJ3~ IJip2 p ~amO ZSHJV 02W<JY =21fY11W-V•Z-•W ¢O:~VOp 2pVrJ Oa1IlaK0•+ O•• ¢ a Nat W J Olll aON Ox =mVr LLa O~m4 pVFY- =K¢• a 06S W K2a~LLSV2s~Y ZamrOd~a d2¢~a LLZ< W J~ rK2SLLZ> Jr O Y Z O m N J I rV 01rl1>rl-V11mJyyW Vi a 32WW VI0 •O VOr K aOWK• 2 V~xp ZpW 2_aa OJYK .Z.N •Wa m1'-~VIOmK OW .Zr r O Vr 7 O 3 CQ 12-•ss K3 mLLiQ Ir/1W 3J~LL aWQ a'O VI~Ixf1 Y5 ly arm OJ W3S VOm WW •NO'o Vw1Ym~ rV>rJVW1 Q OOhY-Z<J O~/VFMOa LL7 > 1- ma O OVr IO1.~ O rLL 7a OJ OmaaJ IAO 2J• Z I1//~1 YVJV W2F-¢ V10pKW OJ2_ rY OVa2 Z•+ 26 VmOarV Wm r Z ~ =Z a O O .OZ. VW •N••J~V(Z'! V~• ~ =412/1SSm diW V~~~W aYV (a0 Kr QaZWpIW-JU1WOZmIW(10m Jr¢1~a WV ~n~ WU1JZUz'r3 41-~Z^aJ 2a V a 0: I I Z '+ ~~ W~~KJ III NVI Wp WU16~ OOF ~ZaW~ I J1 ~ W~~?ZH Q?3mV WK0<mKVa13 <WZaaF=-l=-J LJ Ir-WmW Wp mNVriW2~~ ~VI 7 O N 1~0 G W W S > LLW ra rJ-•LL WmVl V1J~ rZ>m> W N nnn K~•a+m 01=- ~20J20Q Nx K V O ~O O ~ M J OK JW200 Op\O J> 2<QW W020JJ OK OSO: L/~~J 3p J02V1 VaVa•-Va Or a o V N p a Va amo Vl- Vmoz aF-31L lJV pt..a VaWra zro In a m V p w w cD i•- V .+ N a N O I^ m P .. .. .N-. .. .- .m-. Q a a a a Q a 1 ZOOr2 W=2 6Vrj0 mr Ym 12-rY2WWOZ< VI JW I ~WJUI .•my1 S¢r 3J •oO ZYZO:OZ Jmr Wspp0:231-ZWaF-W LL 6 2ZW W•+• d..V V1 O m ¢JJ a¢..• a 1 r IIM •Z-•d~Z WO WUalJr mO V rm•-~ VIOL-•V p 6Z2 am II C W p K d J W W s Y W OV N - JM Ina•-rc •~•ma o: MLL11 J•+W ra•+LL •W I OW !a•-6GW OOVw WJa WC KmV Ina aN Y a r0 6 MLL WO•-•Mrr'-W VIS II ••lan Zaaorv zv~i vYlp J [N'Jp mavaiw ii wo r~ma aaz J cv~a~r~mr~w 3x0 J •yVtJV1 a V1YN dr. ¢• 2LL OJrOZZ •Wr SWY•~• JrJVISi-•W r>~ Nmm •J a~ 0'V xop aaoxa• rxra- W 2 vlmarrxln vl VVIJ •O ma ON2ZY•- V WOm •O O•+JO_WVf V1V J• WV-ZK•+ ariV1 rz.e s a~lnoroalnrw z•. Mp o ~ar~~-. z w •-w wlnYaVJ V1p LL•+ s c~ o:ipa aim oul mra aVaJWm VOmW J ro: Inaw >rJ-•wzzm ~aa rxza amr..o omca sa N~xzd~VaawrF saw LLpxa~zz°aps~~w ~6as ~IW-.r•~ioao~r aaa V3¢VIN UIKO r ~ V rWW r~ K V10a mKmW•+ a>m ao:zalwylwza°oza~ a Zrwco ¢.-amr.•~ ~2J OU1r a43 WV Or zo< ~oiwao~o°z¢=°vw •+r3 aVVI Vt V'NpLL ~rraV a a 0 N .' 0 Z m H Y .LL, w p w LL •I •°o .0-.44 .0-,£t .9-.9 .0-.bt .b-.0t cp N .Bbx Lf .BY* LI 1N3n nOl 1N3A nOl H3n nog i~vlsYCl Is 3 ~ _______ Ilsltr3n nog nvlsNtl ___ _, - -- O ~AS p ~' M 1 , tl000 Or3Htl3A0 ,L K .B tl000 Or3Ntl3A0 .L * .9I 3AO6Y 3NIl •IlYl1 ~ .O-.f O~- a I _- - _-_ - =_ __ ____===-= ==--~ ~~~i ~ ga~ i~ ~'~¢~o ~~ ~i~ gg 8 _ ~ t o f ~ d 113 ~ a .~:~~ ~~ Q IW ~ I<~s~ ~~ _ Y*~ g w Cs . 114 ~d_w~` .~ Ig~~ m „p~ ~ b 'I b- 9 Z- 9- £ ~ &~~ ~ I b 0- ~~~ ~~ ~ aw>n~~yy~ I . ~ a ~ ~rar° i ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . , ~ I tl3Atl0 Sr0 tl3H9Yn ~ vl G .0-.f .b-.f - ¢~ -~tr~tl3rao~vv~tl3NNO~ ~ /~ '^ I ~ 'tlH L 3B O1 71Yn SIHl ~ \ ] ~~ ~ I •au L ae of ~~vn stul / ~ \ M ~ I N G ~m - ~IY130 O1 tl3d3tl 1 tlH L 3B O1 tlrn 9tH1 1 ! I i ~j~5~0/f I N ~-.6~ 11 L1 _L1~ ~ ~~E ~,~. ~ ~~~ < h3~ ~~~ a ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~J ~Q~ .8-,ZI --_ c I uF~. I ~ Q..~ i- ~ x` fm e \ T`_. I a ti~s~ ~~~ 3~°~ `~ ~ ~~~~ o ~~_~§ n^n r W lJ LL a h 3~~~ ~ ° 4~3~ N ..a Q o m o `~ 1 N M ~ „ ~~N ~ a D ` ~~~ ~ ~;~ u c~ „ aN x •O ~~~ I w ;~ ~ NI ~-~k I 4 ~?~= .0-.9Z l~ C/ ~ G~ ~ ~ CI fl ~~°~ J% a 'x" I ~~~~ ~~ 4 Y J^ ww ~5~~ ~~ ~Nn ~ ~S':4"< usr~a ~ - O ~~~ c~ 2 b~ v a J ~ I ~ zm~~~~` i ~~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~d~ ~~.~_ /~ at~~ v o ~~LS ~'s ~b~. \4a _ ~i u~~ a a V c I ~<~ ylb[~• ~X~~i• i M N `" d ~~o i ~ I .0-.0 ~ ~e~ gg ~a~ia~ v iu no~ !pp!NN~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~g~€ IIQ^^n • Y~~ ~01 ~ $~ I aQi ~ LJ ~~~ ~LL~ ~~ ~~~d ~~~i 9g~ ~~ ~t~,lY~~~ Q ~~' ~ .~< .0-.9 a . Q ~~~~ b S ~ ~~IX~I N e S N 1 N ~ b ~ P ~~^^n ~•~"•, N ~ i V 1~J ~ ~ ~~a ~ 3~ ~ ~~~ ~~~F :~ ~ F~~ dvz 1 •~ ow~• ~~~ ~~ Q ~~~ I. ~°m "3g~ ~~~ _ ss~ a a 1 0~> 03tl3 O 31 03%Id O90t ~2~1~S3IXYN - TI90~Jn19 G I Y 03X[d 0901 „I9 UJN115 _- 3}A^yOBY O1N/~Y V V _ tl Ntl3n~0~p/ V __ -- OpV~~y/!0 1I~(INLI~ V V - ' .0-.b .0-.8t ~ ~ fl c N 0 P N Q a d [~ O 1 II 9 W 0 J ~ a O V C6 I -~- Q d Qo ox:` Z .- w a a ~ awY mmr ~ oom o2N 3OW I V IIt~~ W ~ - I>-' Z 2 ~ or aVV~ CSR = b 2 Irl1 a z aro aV C~ • SLSS-Z68 (8041 tlIN!lOdlltl~ 'tl001tltltl5 q Of6B•6[I~@0- @0056 YJ •113~dWYJ 3I1N3AY 3JIlV 0@ o ~ ~ 1~311H~lld NOSNl10('~a~na8 Q17G,~ a~ffiC/fl ~~fl ~a/~Q{7{71~ ^~ 4 ~ ° '~ A11Wlld 331 3H1 YOd ~ ,~ ¢ a ~ - NO I l I OOt/ JN I0~ I f18 0350d0bd ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ g x r Km0 O Jlx- W rr ZP and MKnJ rJ WoW aC~~ oo6OZ O K m Q.+ x WIZZI~~Zp 2 2W ~ MOKZW VLV1 X < 02 m~J N r OLL Uxl~ J n~ Mr r W pIWfISKW W~ .rrH K .JJio .•VILLZO ~~~ KD.ZO r Vf~x W rLLV Wrr Z•+ OK Mr0 W2 4. N J ul K r1 W Z 7 2 N. ¢ NO COW ¢ O~•O QLLQ O r >..~ ¢ al KV1V r •rW ~ NoVt KW J O NW ~ t' O ~y ~ 'W N ~ ¢6W.W0 JQ C¢O NO r IIJ VIE M v Q Mr 2~ 3 • LLSLLS K a2Vl aWl JVt~ ¢OdKaal p¢W LLIYl1K WKZWa VOJm¢J~?K Sp V r=a /n1 LL WZ••V O Qx WmrWO x »0' ¢~ .. I> Z K~ •~ \K JW rr. rIt00 ~ ¢-mr 1Ja0 ZJ~-• r •KWOrr m•-~ Vr0\ 02M 2•-+V .=-I r 0.2 >M Ym Or OZd K W QN O Wm Wx 60' p I WK 3.•SN d0 rJ QO.M ~mUI W•-~0_•+W- Oral l-~-•aw V O: IAA JIWVI Kr Kr Vh¢ '- ? pj JOKV~ • LL ~ 2 p QtxO dK S m S KO 7K OK Q~ ~ N¢ V~ YdVW ZOr QV2N< ya~lWr Q~Z•020a Q0~ hW QWW0~0 ~VH dm~ ~ O 401-2W O V1 WIllY rY Ja0•~• W•+ O ~W Y.. r 4 O W•~ rK SO KW N-•-•F ¢O rx OWV x`Zr Ka10 3r VaW WJW PUI ~-•a1=1-111.+ Z~• r V N.+OVW F-2~Or. V 0: Nx <O ~ ZJ O > W Y. VI r 6F~ W ax VIJ mV Oat •-•r p,KW VVKJW OWZ W0: 2m0:0Yr P K VQ~-•r Q2 •>0: N Vl N x .-• a M V ~- 2 -• V o x IJ aVUIW•-• w w xwa W mrwY sm:oW o= I a r N Y° x r~ > In a vl~ v Kz o. ~~°°r x KW13rl° w. o ~ao~K ¢rw asow6°iaz] -m o r=-" Wz Inr~ ~ K KZ• 3 r_00_OVr ~~ ~I/nI ~ZO ~• a, O W F-aW K W WK42 O %m¢r pQ-~ V10Z V ~ J m6a. Om J7 m r r ¢J°' WH ti~>p•+ VW•OW ~~I=-QJ1yO~ KQO: ..SO~~ WZm WQ~Om V~Mr mVSVO6 ~r JiCd aVZ ~ ~ OOr•Z•~~= ~~QO<Q~ W \r UUyl13rO 14fJ1 O Z r r 0_ a1Q V I mKJ W W m UI xF-O¢Wr Ipp~r x 3J 6x<> WSa10• J J 00 F- JZW~ 0: 00_ IA ONVQOW 3<O I" xVp r KJ KKO.r O NN ~ KS¢O J~r ~ W 2 ~K O.0 Nia Q > W NO jV rOa aN ;~Ni VI Om mV V~Qp=<3p¢J WZ~ I >Iw-~(¢OJp Oda KOw.~KW •itio7111>°iWWr O M V•r+/<-K~° a~Wd°Vw1~ J ~ p31y]OW. ¢ W f O V ZW 3 O 0. mLL KK 1020.KX0 '06. WJ KtYKfL rr0 xm O N•+ 03~a-•~VY6 W O•~+r> V02rW0 >Q O W ~OW<W W Fx-<W W9K- J °VJ° d?O V~ ~ V LL xH O~ mx~ K 6 O K2 i ¢ ZOQLLW 1ZmV dV ~<V¢ 022 ZI=I1~rW 2rN W SN~6• WOrW aZKLL `Z WOdWVLLhQ-NSW ~ `O • O WVIVVrO rOZNZ»2Fx-2 m° '0O¢W ~~aZ ~Jywa11' ~ p<, ~ jW Ob Vl Oral i M V OJ OI°- ~V' QOIYi. 6l..WJ OJ WNJV1 Vr0 `VIr2VN1 12r W QILLiS¢K ~Z ¢xr a10NQ~0~ Jm0 Ja1r0_ - W3J~¢Z xod mOx°V Y k~02d <OIR~ rO. VI ~ a = WO <~ Yd r3F b ¢ m a1a O O.Z..Z.3K ZO~C~WY ~rwW Klx-W Z¢WO< KOW W ¢°~IyNnIIS20J_r2_ OKSKOJWOi O¢~F`~O I II 10SJ<O O<¢O W•~Vf N N^2W k~pJ NSW V V •~ VV Vl• HH SW3 VI O O U10 ~(N'J WVr1LL» aKZZ Wm ¢SZ 23K Q3\r0 aVIZ•r-~ ~ 6KxN¢7W2 ZZ~ LL\V>mKWrVI>aIOSV nnn WViJVI ~mM W 3-~. ¢~ NI.. Z,., ~ I SV W pO W r ~O m3 O.+WW Jr m0 JW600 O.WO KLL O Z xrOW mOY ~-•<•-~ V1¢0.>Sr02 KN < ~J WJ aZ2 r x 2 p000 N~O ZQ p ~ O^ WO x g~-•r K . J ap 4 >Z••JyW1 •S W JJVI VW3 OpVl0 O`~ O WOr OV -3fl JW W2 OWZK•-~ •O- LS II W Y6K 03 OLLgaG>r Q OmX ZXNJ Z6 6 • > ~' Ma ~~ HNC 1'- W W ~LL W0. <~4'JZ F22<JO <r Wr J2W »OOm •=6 K Ir/IHph ~d~ry=PW W•r-~V~«Wr`Sa O~.VW +~-~u°.-u an`.°x=`a~.i.~ k-- _ ~~ x„•s_r ~ -~o~.d a.s.o.uz_In l- ., a_IS o.r.w..cs ~ ~_ ~ alr arcw~ woW.z<°K ~b r- N•-•~r= I- ir_ii rw= z a aw oV ~li-Gi7~w`•- w ~ w ax ro~z ~ J~''~'M~'I¢n~~ ~'¢ z w vi¢psx ¢ o_¢vlmwaww•-rul¢r o¢¢ O ZOKWSN WV16 AV2 O 3640 ~ti Kd .N+KN O II. F OW JV1 -• K¢x LL VIA ~ -a1 WN QOQIrl1~`6a1=-yzQ J02J ZdLL a23F=--~ G21x- d OJ>WW•J-•t°iW~MVVIJ V=IH Z2 N~FO»OW23 O ¢ ~Z2>OW !r• pJ.ySrW ~ 21~i. (.~Q WS>r W~a 6 I I OJ I 1 1 J~~OW `W Qmw1 V~<a ZO WJ mV>6VIJ3p ZKW ° Z¢h Q~WQWW_OW¢Jm HOMW6ZKddLL VZ ~ "' ' V1000 JZ JaIni ONO ~ 2 W Q r n WOVr J7 ~a2i LLF> °Jr O Y Z NO K V1 J I ~V Olrn>fr Vxlm W lLN °dm3 2WW NOa~•O VOH ~ QOWKi KV2KrV•Z-•SO ZOW OEQ <O JYKa ln1nn In1 0. CJ S•• Ka ~O O JV W r O ¢ ~ Q J2WW _ •-•YV rK2 O arLL O Ox W •~ 3•+m0 3WOWV2 Vl•OWJW~3NV¢raW u " -V1 •W Kr•••VI tOKK OW Z Vr 3 O 2 ~V rKKO OLLf IQi. ~10Jr0 KJV¢10pZJON ZK LL >VJV WZVx-K mIW/1 (WLpKW ~~Zmr Yh YOV QZ ~' W ¢ Q mZYWrJ OVI-WZOO. LL7 .+ Y F- m¢ O /~~ i~nnnn 2~•r-•-•?_< VC~6`V WK Z j 'Z ¢ O O y VW ~M•J~VV V~• 7 ¢Q~=KC>2YW V~°NW ¢YV V G~Q¢2WOW Ja1W 02KN O:J`K4¢6~.WWV \y/ 4 = I_l 1~-WmW WO ~~VriW 3~~ rM 7 a azp~~ h0 K W W S FO WLL~~6 FJNIr_WnaOnaII CNNJ WOr ~Y>m~ WJlafl6 wrVl •+YFx-«imwzoama~la113 <W Z¢4FHJ ~y V W //n ^GG~n 30 J02Vrl VQ°V Q?VS ~Ix- d O V PN D .Z. ~ d Vd 6m0 V°O UmO °d•6~31¢i 1¢iV a71°ig OV aw°r ~o_ Zlx-O 1¢lt ¢ m V p W LL O x-~ ~ V7 Z lL/ .-. N m < N d h m P .. .. .N+M.. rW. a a a a a a a I .0-.9Z •0-.9I 200x2 W S Z 4 p Vp r? O Kr >K 9x-rY2~WIJIOZ¢ Oar 3J I •tOOYYZK02 Jmr wYOKZarzwarw LL a zz~lw~. K-V Qa .. f°Om MK.-•yyJwlCdd JMC~ r I M O. ~ Z W O W VI r V rK- vlo.-v p saz muK ww°m¢aJww¢>w°~ JM Ina-•¢-•mD_ 0.' MwII J•-•W r6~-•LL W •+O 6 KK20LL J• ZY IOW rQ¢WOV WJ6WK KKV vl o. alv Yxa o n^~ ~z~°KaM.r.rvri~>s Qn.orV zln vlm ~z°w mavai~rmwxow~wa Vat J tO~6~rrmrJW 3x0 J •NVIJa1 Q NYN K•. ¢. 2LL OJr~22 •Wr xWY•+ Jr JM S.+W xoo ~aaox a. rQ--zra= W 2 VIK flrrxlnN VVIJ O KQ OV1Z2>•-• ••JV WOK •O O•+JKWVI V1V J• WrEK~-• 4.rxa1 rZM Y d~NOr ORIIIrW z- z° o rarer-• z W-W WNYaVJ aIOLL- S O KxCa 6~K OU1 bra o.vaJwKVOKw o rK V76W >I-J•+WK2m ~aa rxz¢zaKr-~o omu wr axoVaaLL•-Y W KaNJ V 2 rr KPW LLOxaJZ2<02JV zlw wrwaoa>zrJ oKS Mr-•cfx~- o~ as r Vsaln In lnKO •r r-wW r~ K utoaKKlnw ¢>m aKaawwzo_c~ozK J¢ Sr WOOK•~•6Kr~-••+ ~xJ OVIr QO_3 WV ~ N J r2NWK0_aK G¢WO zoa aoYwa~KOZKxv r3 VV1Mf~V10LL~rr< a a 3NIl 36tl3 MOl 113N 531tlJ I0Nf 031100 r- _ _ ` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I ~- MO138 3NIl lltlM M3N 531tl~1ON] 3NIl 031100 I I ------ - ----------------- -~- 1 I I O lltl/1 13dtli]Yd M3N S31tl~IONI I ~ 1 I ~ In 'n ~ ~ o ~ I I 'I~ I ~1 I I - ~ I ~I I .o-.. I o ~ w ~~~ f I < ¢ ~I ~ ~I X11 n. W ~ ~ LL~ U a 3do7s ~4 1 4 tL ~ g ~~ v 1 I a ~ I o & P I ^ I ~ _.5 I I I I z _1 a I I I L I I I , O I P I 131 u)1vN of ~ n00Nln 113N ~~ ..'0015 0909 YJcoo L'+» .rr~'~ ran Z (•j rr Z H > W J II \ Y .9-•i ~' -'~ s ~~~~~ ~ ~ r W Q ~~(~(55 m ~~` S ~~~~~ O O W m Ir~r ... z ~~~~ a ~~~3 ~~~~ $<~~ 2 J '.OI-.6 I .2-.B .6-.S •BVIS otot I I I a a l a anus / eru o I •I I I < it F ~ 'N~B~ ~ •~ i a ~ ~ ~ o= - ! r, 17 °o ~' I _ I u x~ I~ w ~` m~ O I ~'~' ~, 0•~ I ~^ .. d ~ m I m ~I .6 1 ~ 0 ( I '00'15 B9/OB ~F• I •° Nvln •rN I ~ si-a s/a I ~ I I ~Ba ~ 1 .a I - BvlouS _ J I .0-.OI ° Ir = r2 0 ~ o ~~I~ ~ < N`Z O a~ , ( I~ m ~y '~ ~I„ ~ m y 0 9~ •oaa i .@~ a o - s B a 1zNrbens 5 4 a aNr 9EI yi '0015189/Ot ~N 9/Z . 1 IR o ~I ry O a I a •I -~ ~ ~ s' ~ ~ N3N71 i~ I ~ ~- O I O I~ m o •N[W .L I~ 1 0 a 1R 3 At I ...- J Q N _ = 1 d ~ m lIANIA) ~ v I ~.aoNnv~ d~d M 1'Yi a __. ~~ WK~ ~\Q/~ a ~ --~ iV N i N e P o ' . _ _ .~~ , I L 0 ~I ~38~ ~° I " fib ~3 d -- o~ < Z O . $~~¢ v~ ~ $ w o O ~ r _ I \ .~. ~-~i ®I Y y I J V "'^ © - Q ~ I I a / r~a ~.a a ~ rob,. ~ '~~~ w ~3: ~< • ~ O ~,j Q W Y (31 HJ1rN O1 I 'OO1s In090 I I I I n0~3@ d00a ONINnr !0 llNil ______ J L .................. .0- r4f .OS-.9 a'd ~Ki ~i I 0:~ 2~~ ao 'i, ~ e ~a W ~ m ~~ ~~ ~ d ~ ~ 3 € °~ > ~~ p JF ~eie S • S c I . --. aalslhaa ~ ' ~o 1IN - - -- -- - --~ - - ^B1 Y ~ 6 E 1 •~ - • ~ !••~ 1 '0015 0909 '0015 0901 I ~ ~ ~ i ;~ L--_ ... 110138 .ONiNnr. d0 11NI1 ___J \ • w w zo J LL SWQ ~ ~ m V W > LLOO_ Y J r a I w a~ = ~ 4 1 V O war w m p~j O ZZ~ r " rOat < V ZO 3V O I 02K iv n ~ ~ _ m ¢ Ib • ~, _.._. ... m m ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ICJ 'Y~JOSYitYS 'xYM 4IISY8 JIH 5664I/E664L 0 ~~ M o- ~ OLD56 CJ 'Y90SY2M9 'SKM PIISitH ~Jx8~..0E94T ~ 1MIDiK8 3H'I SgS fi0,3 1" ~~ 'S ~!~ ~~ ~ ~ 50056 Y'J "I'I3HaY71CJ '8[lN9AY 3'JI'IK 08 ' z - -++~ :~ ~ 9 IC18 Q3 8tt0ISY~I7S'M/NOIZIQOY - R xiaz 'IKI~i8f~0 it ~ - O ~' Z~3,LiHJW ONI,L'IC1SNdJ 8-ttllt Q23H 'S H ': •: ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ -~ ,LJ3SIHJiiK so~roxa rIOSLQ[iOt . '9 3OL1~28 , : _ 3SYA3'I3 xoxxas 8 03SZA31i v q q a ~_ a ne ... o w 6 ~ `~, 'o ~I i _ ~~ _ _ ~ E ~a~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ iii ;; _ ,~ ~: ~fi r -- t ~. ~._~ 2 Ii- --... , . I . -_ ~ _ ~ -- ~ ~ -- ~'~ ~' i :; __ , ~ i ~ _1 _--- - ; j r- t~- i _ ~°; - ~--. di ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~; a~,i -__ ;. ~; ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~' GIB ~ ,~_~~' ' ~_ _.~ i ~ ; "~ -- - v, -- __ i , , ~ f ±~ l -~ x ~ _ _ f ~ ~' ~, ,~ ,~ ~ - ~ ~~ ,~ . ` - -- ti` ~~ -- f a' ~- . ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~_: i J 1~ ~. y z -0 - F ~! -- ~ ~ d: -- - ,, `ter-~L- ...lS--!-~ ._~`7~ - -~~ ~~= _ u _ _ ~ „~~ ;. I --_- -- ~ ~ ~~ --- ,. ,, ;, ;,. ~___ _ ; __~ ~ !~ __.-- ~ --_ i 1 ~ ~ .( j ~~.~_ i ~ o ~ ..~ ~ ;,. ~~,~ , i ~! °' ~ ~ I M ~ ~ I ~ I ~ z ~ i' a{! ~ -~ -- r~ - 0 - -- _ ~~ ~ .. -- ~ - ~ - ~ y ! ~ .---------- -1' I ~~I -4.- ~' - r. ~ - t k t F t s • _ _ . .._ _ _. Y m SLSS-ZCB fBObl YIN210dl1Y~ 'Y'JOlYaYS ~~+-, y ~.,, ~ O[68'LLL~BOb BOOS6 Y~'I138dWV7 3fIN3AY 3711Y OB f~ M m -~ ~ ~ `vp' ~ ' ~ ~ a ~ ~p / ~ ~q {y {y Il ' V u° ~ ' •° 1 ~ 311 H ~ tl d NOSM110( '~ 3~(la8 IN v wu v v v i} H ~ ~ A11Wtld X31 3H1 _ tlOd A m e i ~ , s a ~ ~ ~ NOIlIaQV `JNIa1I(18 0350d0a y~ io oz~ Wl.i .. W~V OVI JSWYI QJ~2W3 VYI ~+ O VK /_I~~ I O:aKZ:LH »x200 °€Go~w W F- < Z I- F-KWO V~ _ W OW 6$ ~ ' u ~ ~ , d WY; W2J~2 - nr1 . lJJ dO=J a ~1 IY/ IUIR WJN¢Z ' QVVaO~O f NHLL~ O K W S Z O ~ ~~ ~ `I - .-.~~ Q ~~ - Z - 0 0 0 '_ - O """ g ~~~h < ~] V ~~¢ ~9 ~~a'~~w ~ . sN w ~ ~ LJ 1-W CIW W, Sp~ € Na ~ ~.~ P5 pp O 3 gg ~ 9 ~ Z .. 0J J ~ ~u 5'j ~~~~ s //nfl ~ ~ ~ ~6 a 'l ..^~Nm~~ .. .'^ tie iT 5$ ' a~:n; ~aF ~a. ~i a~ ^ i 9 i vJ' .. •~~ ~ a ge B.a s . a YS t~.G"l ~ ~ 9~ J B' ~d F~ .e •r ~ • ~z. <Ei axis is „ ~ " 8 ~' ~~•~•~ ~ 3~i ~~ e" . fi ~ , " L.. ~~ t:'., ~ 8~P 7i gi1= '~%~ fr3 E~ y f.ii ;. " r'~ ~ f " ~ g~ B§ E: e~ ^ ~ .~-~! g£E y • I`. -~ - ~ 40lNI 1]Vx3 n0! IIVId tlVOtl~335) l_ m i iI ~ ~ ~ M ~, 1 WIIH1NlW ~ I{ .0 '~5 ~ 1 _.. <<~ e~i< q N1ININIIi ~ .B -~9 II l ~ ~ u6 a~ ~ •~ ~~ ~I ~~ ~W z~s ~~~ ~_~ ~ ~~VL~ ~~~ ~$~ ~ ~~ ~~g 15~ hb~: (`r' rye i$ 3o x ; ~~ n~ ~ L>ry 1 ?~ ~ I - Y- ,G~yy O O ~y 1 ~ ~ ! CC ~ ~ _ ~F r ~ II ' g9~ ~~1 ~ ~ a W ~ <~ II g$ ~ :8v uM1-,- J .~~w ~~ ~~~ ~¢~~ vii ~~ ^N~ I ~N%7d v~v~ - ~. $~~~~ o -o ~~~ ~. a 1 ~: i .~ ~ ~~ W _.. ~~ t. (~ o ~ u d m M /J P W ~J J o V ~. (~ uc"'- F f x z • m E88b ~a p e S b>t`1 Nz ' ~ ~ n O OLOS6 H'J 'YUOS1fliYS ' xrrn xISKS Y)IH ~£9~CS T i . s e xvte Y~ •r~oyvx r~ ~ ~ xRIYM3 Sat ~t xoa ~ : 0 ' ~+ J: ~~ m ~xiazina ~nrx~n~wo~ xos sxoza~rx~smr/~roozsxarnr ~ ~ -, ,LJ3SIH~2M BdYJSaMCI Y'ISK QI"dH ]C32133~P ~M. - ~ a a NY'Sd 3dYJ3ONY'I = o° ~ A o Y n 0 H C U ~ b .+ a i ~~ ~ 0 U 0 v N m 0 d G m ry: .-p ~'J M W yOK~ N W O ~~~o "~ ~Py .e ~ . (GAG ~ I y N E ^ m Q ~ D ~ ~ tl b S O M ry W 0 C C G O ~ `yip ;MQ~ h ',E ' " E tll M a N 1~1 V ~~ . ~1 ~! ' i ~i I I~ i !1% `' I ~ Q WPM ~I dl . v'l' ~~. - - - " ~~I i ,~,= :,. ~. ~` 4 . ,, 9 yd x z ,t 6 Item 4 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant/Owner: Sprint Nextel /Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP Senior PlannerG~'~ Applicant No./Location: 04-177;19550 Prospect Avenue (Church of the Ascension) Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility Meeting Date: August 23, 2006 (continued from August 24, 2005) APN: 386-35-069 Department Head: ~i= ~ }-'- __ .a I~ # }Ik `St _o~___¢~S '_~_i'__p-S ~" •A¢•:b ~:¢ b~k~ @ib :~:¢ I~--,~"-: ~'S4V ` ~BIS[L `~ `-~.~SV F.~.~ __ S ¢ _ ~'1 _`_ ._N_ _M_i13 ¢_ ~. •• ': _ ~ ! ~ ~ •. "' -•~ _- ~SOVISEOELL ~~'~ ~~-ORIVF-'- Y ~ I_ a - • r ' ., S a 5 ., ,.j ~ n~ ~~ V '/ Y y V L I Il i O t 1 ~ S _ .., d i _ - _YS__ ,__ u n a i, :.'' '^kF."+l-~ •' T,~ i_ _ y3 E!. R r D - J j• ... r I S ~~ rf _ .. _ 1 ~ n. ' • , Z. ,I I ' .... ,"\' .' R ~ i V S V ~ ° [ SVVt.. `r _ - - - _ -•-t'--- n.l .• U i C Z'. Y~fi=y ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .. I .. S A E x.3 ~ .,... . ~- I la .. 1` u + dc[~ ` 1 E`a.~°2a•i ..^~a.,:r~'u ina; u;~L9_~ti~j"^ L t_Fa-~$ ==_4:+--rc-_ ~ ~~ ,~ '.v-}+.xY;x:r ~.;_.,~ II . ~ w ~ 5 d~ b `4 s i . I¢ a-~ m E. is ,~ I . < ti a,q} i,, o. ~~I n ;• e ~ s ~ '~ 0¢ @a eC ~ .- Er V -i ~V " ' .'. ' ~ IS I i~ M ~ ti ~! ~ - may- V S V V t• V f V V! ', S V L t ~ °•, ... ~ ... .... a. • wx 1 I I S ¢ .d ` .....' .. 1+: ... ~f a'SY- _-. =~.Nasa¢l ..1 e11oaYEt14-.=1#-L--_..oerECi-.-..-_._ _.__. _.._ ~. '~ .~ a~~.~' a coral ' • , I n 6 I n ~ .~ ... ... ~'~ 0.V --i ..,. a a aad ~-' Win. ~_ \ ~ ¢ S { S a: ;+ c 4 ~ OR V['ll._~SCENSIVN ~ u Vm~ OPIVC -' __• ^I v - air--~Y -yy- - e .-: __ ' i u= _ ra.. ......_..-w ..! k w ~ p ~, t .~~} S { `.' .¢ * C F` aaIVE •'. ' 6 6 • p~a~'eMb 4 S "Va.r • _ i ~--c-`a~--~a3- ..... __ .....Ka 11 .,._ ,~, 8= a.KN^JE~ 4 q ~f n. _`'." ~'S a S£, w ..J! 4.E~ .~,x bN CVVa1 ~¢: 'x~•.'1. a~ ~.'. w.. ~'`.. q.~.i; u~~a S .. .. i <. '' :.+ .^ t i i 11p ~~r~ Y... _. ~.. . 1 r ' . 19550 Prospect Avenue i' = ' ~- ~'"" ° ~ ~., R ~ ¢ 5 ¢ ~r'' +~. cl - ..°--. E -m - --- ---` f. `c d e k (12033 Miller Avenue) e : r.-,y~ > '. ~~ `- =I ° ° ~ t'-'~"' _ 1 APN: 386-35-069 T"-' ~ d `, •\ ~ '' '~, " 500' 12ediuS ~ a ~d .as'' 'e . ^ ~~ •'" R¢ ¢ .R ' .M~ , • s ¢ • i 5 ...,~. .. a S i* ...~ .... \ . ~ I 19550 Prospect Avenue (Church of the Ascension) ,~ - ,. Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: First Public Hearing: Study Session: Mailing completed: Posting completed: Second Public Hearing PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6/03/04 8/01/05 8/24/05 (application continued to date uncertain) 4/12/06 8/02/06 8/18/06 8/23/06 The applicant, Sprint Nextel, requests Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a cellular wireless facility adjacent to amulti-purpose building located at the Church of the Ascension. The proposal is to conceal three personal communication system antennas within three flagpoles that would each be 14" in diameter and approximately 40' to 43' in height. The flags on top of the flagpoles will be the United States, State, and the County flags. Also proposed is an 8' high enclosure to encompass a 20' - 6" by 14' lease area which will house equipment cabinets and related equipment. This equipment cabinet will be attached to the western facade of the multi-purpose (Worner Hall) building. The site is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. In 1996 the Ciry Council adopted an ordinance which established communication antenna facilities as conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts within the Ciry of Saratoga. The proposed use is conditionally permitted as stated in Municipal Code Section 15-12.030(m). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis of each of the four Conditional Use Permit findings discussed in this report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for this application. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission can make all four Conditional Use Permit findings in the affirmative and approve the proposed design as shown in attached Exhibit A. 2. The Planning Commission can make all four Conditional Use Permit findings in the affirmative by approving one flagpole concealing cellular antennas that would be no taller than 50 feet and no greater than 11 inches in diameter at the base, tapering to 7 inches at the top. • Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN: QPF (Quasi-Public Facility) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 7 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed flagpoles will be off-white colored metal poles. The 8' tall enclosure will match the split face masonry of the exterior of the existing attached structure (multi-purpose building). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes installation of equipment cabinets and antennas concealed within three flagpoles is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: Land Use Element Policy 4.2 Non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non- residentialuses. The General Plan designates this parcel as Quasi-Public Facility, which is consistent with the nature of the proposed PUC regulated use. p Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Sprint Nextell requests Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension site on Prospect Avenue. This project was submitted on June 3, 2004 and has undergone several design revisions. At the August 24, 2005 public hearing, the applicant proposed cellular antennas concealed within an artificial tree - monopine - at another location within the subject site. At the end of this public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to a date uncertain. The primary concerns centered on the appearance of the. monopine and its location near the eastern side of this site. On April 12, 2006, a Study Session was held with the applicant and the Planning Commission to discuss the current three flagpole proposal. In summary, the Commissioners asked for information on the feasibility of providing a less visually intrusive distributed network system rather than the three flagpole proposal, and the possibility of using other sites: The Commission also encouraged the applicant to examine co-location possibilities at an existing site. The applicant's response to the issues raised at the Study Session is included in an attachment to this Staff Report. The attachments to this report include explanations from the applicant as to why the flagpoles can not be thinner in diameter. There is also considerable input from neighbors who claim that the flagpoles can indeed be thinner by using specially designed cellular antennas: Because the application shall be reviewed in terms of the Conditional Use Permit findings, Staff's concerns on this application focus only on the proposed design of the flagpoles and equipment enclosure as submitted by the applicant. As indicated to Staff, the applicant feels that the proposal as shown in Exhibit A is the final and best proposal and has specifically requested that this item be presented to the Planning Commission with no further revisions to the design. Typical flagpoles are approximately 8 inches in diameter near the base and taper towards the top. In 2005, the Planning Commission approved a single flagpole concealing a cellular antenna at the Saratoga Library that is more realistic in appearance. This flagpole at the Library is operated by another wireless carrier and is 48 feet in height and 11 inches in diameter at the base and tapers gradually to 7 inches at the top. Using this approved flagpole as a reference, Staff requested the applicant to propose a more realistic design and reduce the number of proposed flagpoles. The applicant has explained that the proposed flagpoles can taper but it would still need to be 14 inches in diameter and taper another 20 feet above the 42 feet level where the antennas would be concealed. The applicant also expressed the need for concealing no less than three antennas, one antenna each in a pole, to provide adequate coverage. The applicant has explained to Staff that concealing two antennas in one pole would result in a wider than 14 inch flagpole. Staff finds that the proposed 14 inch diameter flagpoles are too wide in diameter and unrealistic in appearance. 1 The original applicant for this project is Nextel. However, in September 2005, Nextel merged with Sprint. Sprint Nextel has formally reinstated to Staff their application and need for a wireless facility at the subject site. Parsons is the company that is representing Sprint Nextel in this application. Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue . Moreover, the placement of three of these wide flagpoles, with the United States, State and the County flags would not complement the religious use of the existing site. Neighborhood Review A substantial number of neighborhood comments have been submitted since the Apri112, 2006 Study Session. The applicant has circulated neighborhood notification forms to nearby residents. The completed forms submitted by the applicant are attached and show no concerns about the proposed project. Comments have also been submitted by other neighbors who are in opposition to this project, and many of their comments refute the justifications provided by the applicant. All comments are included in this report for Planning Commission review. FCCRequzrements Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report, which concludes that the RF energy is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC. Since the applicant has documented compliance with federal exposure limits, under the Telecommunication Act, the Ciry can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods in San Jose to the north, another religious institution to the west and residential neighborhoods in Saratoga to the south and east. Arborist Review The Ciry Arborist has reviewed the proposed project and revisions have been made to the proposed plans according to the recommendations stated in the May 29, 2005 report. Conditional Use Permit Findings In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for this application, the Planning Commission must make all of the following four findings in the affirmative. The following is Staff's discussion of each of the findings in relation to the proposed project. Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The proposed project, involving the installation of cellular antennas and associated equipment, is conditionally permitted in the residential single family R-1-10,000 Application No.. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue zoning district. City Code Section 15-12.010 provides specific objectives for single family . residential districts. One of the objectives of this single family district is to provide space for community facilities and institutions needed to complement residential areas, and which require a residential environment. The emphasis on this and other objectives of this zoning district is to preserve the single family environment of the zoning district. Other conditionally permitted uses include community facilities, religious institutions, police facilities and so forth, as stated in City Code Section 15-12.030. Such uses are conditionally permitted in the R-1 residential districts because of their unusual characteristics. As City Code Section 15-55.010 states, "...conditional uses require special consideration so that they maybe located properly with respect to their effects on surrounding properties." The surrounding land uses around the subject site are single family residential. The proposed design to install cellular antennas concealed within three 14 inch diameter flagpoles is not harmonious with the aesthetics and nature of the existing church facility and the surrounding residential properties. The proposed flagpoles with the United States, State, and County flags are not normally associated with a religious institution. As such, Staff feels that. this finding can not be made in the affirmative. Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The wireless carrier has submitted a report which concludes that the proposed site will comply with the FCC's current standard for limiting exposure to RF energy. Since the FCC has jurisdiction on the health aspects of wireless sites that are demonstrated to comply with FCC guidelines for emissions, the proposal is assumed to not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The proposal complies with all provisions of the City Code. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #4: The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The proposed project will adversely affect the surrounding properties in that the proposed design of the three flagpoles does not appropriately integrate aesthetically with the primary use of the site as a church facility and the residential character of surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can not be made in the affirmative. Conclusion As discussed above, two of the four findings can not be made in the affirmative. The two negative findings are based on the review of the proposed design of the cellular facility and its negative impacts on the aesthetic character of the project 'site and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission concur with Staff's discussion of each of the Conditional Use Permit findings and deny this application 04-177. A resolution of denial is attached for adoption. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission can make all four Conditional Use Permit findings in the affirmative and approve the proposed design as shown in attached Exhibit A. 2. The Planning Commission can make all four Conditional Use Permit findings in the affirmative by approving one flagpole concealing cellular antennas that would be no taller than 50 feet and no greater than 11 inches in diameter at the base, tapering to 7 inches at the top. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Denial for application #04-177 2. City Arborist Report of March 29, 2005 3. Radio Frequency Analysis 4. Maps of Existing and Proposed Site Coverage for Nextel and Sprint 5. Photo simulations 6. Comments and other submittals from applicant 7. Comments from neighbors 8. Affidavit of Mailing, Public Hearing Notice and mailing list 9. Exhibit A • • Attachment 1 • • Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue . RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-177 Resolution of Denial CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nexte1;19550 Prospect Avenue (Church of the Ascension) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit -approval to-construct a cellular wireless facility at the above noted address. The proposal is to conceal three personal communication system antennas within three flagpoles that would each be 14" in diameter and approximately 40' to 43' in height. The flags on top of the flagpoles will be the United States, State, and the County flags. The site would also contain an eight foot high enclosure attached to the multi- purpose structure to encompass a 262 square foot lease area which will house equipment cabinets and other related equipment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for conditional use permit approval in that all of the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070 can not be made in the affirmative as discussed below: Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The proposed project, involving the installation of cellular antennas and associated equipment, is conditionally permitted in the residential single family R-1-10,000 zoning district. City Code Section.l5-12.010 provides specific objectives for single family residential districts. One of the objectives of this single family district is to provide space for community facilities and institutions needed to complement residential areas, and which require a residential environment. The emphasis on this and other objectives of this .zoning district is to preserve the single family environment of the zoning district. Other conditionally permitted uses include community facilities, religious institutions, police facilities and so forth, as stated in City Code Section 15-12.030. Such uses are conditionally permitted in the R-1 residential districts because of their unusual characteristics. As City Code Section 15-55.010 states, "...conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to their effects on surrounding properties." Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue The surrounding land uses around the subject site are single family residential. The proposed design to install cellular antennas concealed within three 14 inch diameter flagpoles is not harmonious with the aesthetics and nature of the existing church facility and the surrounding residential properties. The proposed flagpoles with the United States, State, and County flags are not normally associated with a religious institution. As such, Staff feels that this finding can not be made in the affirmative. Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The wireless carrier has submitted a report which concludes that the proposed site will comply with the FCC's current standard for limiting exposure to RF energy. Since the FCC has jurisdiction on the health aspects of wireless sites that are demonstrated to comply with FCC guidelines for emissions, the proposal is assumed to not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The proposal complies with all provisions of the City Code. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #4: The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The proposed project will adversely affect the surrounding properties in that the proposed design of the three flagpoles does not appropriately integrate aesthetically with the primary use of the site as a church facility and the residential character of surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can not be made in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-052 for Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of August 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning.Commission • ,~ • Attachment 2 • • - Y~ ~'~ ARB~R RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEXTEL RADIO FACILITY AT 19550 PROSPECT AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose APPLICATION #: 04-177 SITE #: CA2146-G Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 _ Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A March 29, 2005 ~ ~, 9,0~ ~'~~ 0 ~, P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ®~`~~~~ -David L. Babby, Registered ~ulting Arborist • March 29, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the installation of a new radio facility by Nextel at 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet LS-1 (Initial Point, Inc., dated 9/10/04) and Sheets A-1 thru A-3 (by MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc., dated 11/15/04). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet LS- 1 (Site Plan). FINDINGS There are seven trees of Ordinance-size located in close proximity to the proposed project components. They include one Camphor (#1), .one Sweet Bay (#2) three Southern Magnolias (#3-5) and two Eucalyptus trees (#8 and 9). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. The proposed location of the tree pole (monopole) is within tree #1's canopy and would adversely impact its structural form. To avoid this from occurring, I recommend the pole be designed at least 25 feet from its trunk. I also advise the route of the Power/Telco trench be established beyond the tree's canopy. The location of the underground power line will significantly impact tree #4 and require the removal of #5. Both trees should be protected and as such, the proposed route should be revised to be at least 10 feet from the trunks of trees #4 and 5, and 17 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7. Additionally, the anticipated depth and width of all trenches should be shown on the plans. There are two, small Coast Live Oaks in proximity to the project. Both were planted as mitigation in connection with the construction project completed over one year ago. The one located near tree #2 has died and should be replaced.l The other between trees #6 and 7 should be protected. I recommend each is shown on the project plans. Trees #2 thru 5 are not shown on the project plans but must be added. Their approximate locations are presented on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. Neither Sheets LS-1 nor A-1 accurately reflect the location of the westernmost utility pole along Prospect Avenue. In addition, Sheet LS-1 is not to scale. Plans should be revised accordingly. I The new tree should not be installed within the lawn. Irrigation supplied to the tree should be in the form of a drip-type system connected to the automatic irrigation system. Property of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0~0®~~ David L. Babby, Registered ~ulting Arborist ~ March 29, 2005 The existing utility pole that the power line will connect with is located on the west side of the parking lot entrance off Prospect Avenue. The plans should be revised to accurately show the utility pole and all existing features within 20 feet of its location, such as the parking lot entrance and curb, adjacent sidewalk and tree,2 and the light poles on each side of the entrance. The tree protection bond amount for this project is determined to be $14,820.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are intended to mitigate any foreseeable impacts to the trees on site. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into project plans. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed tree pole should be redesigned to be at least 25 feet from tree #1's trunk. The route of the underground Power/Telco trench should be beyond tree # 1's canopy. 2. The proposed route of the underground power line should be established at least 10 feet from the trunks of trees #4 and 5, and 17 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7. In addition, the route of the underground power line must be revised on Sheets LS-1 and A-1 to reflect actual site conditions. 3. The depth and width of the proposed trenches should be shown on the plans. 4. The surveyed locations of trees #2-5 and the two small Oaks -must be added to the project plans. In addition, the canopy sizes of trees should reflect the canopy sizes (`canopy spreads') presented on the attached table. 5. Plans should accurately show the westernmost utility pole and all existing features within 20 feet of its location. 6. Sheet LS-1 is not to scale and should be revised accordingly. Protection Measures during Construction/Installation 7. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any trenching, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Z The tree adjacent to the utility pole is smaller than Ordinance-size. s This amount represents the combined, appraised tree values shown on the attached table. The values are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Property of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 00®0~.~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2005 8. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: trenching, surface scraping, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 9. Any approved trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed. All roots encountered during the process with diameters of one-and-a-half inch and greater should remain and tunneled beneath. 10. All staging activities should be performed on the existing pavement. 11. The removal of any juniper shrubs beneath the trees' canopies along Prospect Road must be manually performed. They must be cut to grade and the roots left below ground. The stumps can either be axed away or ground below grade. 12. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 50 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the parking lot). 13. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees: Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 14.'Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: //www. isa-arbor. com. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet LS-1) • Property of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~'®~~~ ` _ f'~--`~~~ ARBG~ RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree ~e TREE INVENTORY TABLE r ,-. ~ ,-, ~ ~ ~ .. o ~3 . o 3 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a' ~ ~ ~~° ~ ° ~'O 0 o ~ ~a r~ ~ -, b a, a~ ~ y o 0 . ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 ~ TREE '~ C7 ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ °° v' ~ NO. TREE NAME F, a x U x C v~ .., O ~ ~ .~ .. .~ A a E~ Camphor 1 (Cinnamomum camphora) 14.5 25 40 100% 75% Good High 3 - $4,380 Sweet Bay ~ 2 (Laurus nobilis) 10, 9(3) 30 35 75% 25% Fair High 4 - Southern Magnolia 3 (Magnolia grandiflora) 13 25 20 100% 75% Good High 3 - $2,040 Southern Magnolia 4 (Magnolia grandiflora) 11 25 20 100% 75% Good High 1 - $1,480 Southern Magnolia 5 (Magnolia grandiflora) 12 25 20 100% 75% Good High - X $1,750 i i ~ 6 • Red Ironbark iyptus sideroxylon) 21 . 40 40 50% 25% Poor Low 4 - Red Ironbark lvntus sideroxvlon) 24.5 55 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Site: 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA $490 il_130 March 29, 2005 ~ ®O®O~~ ~~ ` xm.~a ~~ ~~... ++ ~~ ~, x~ ~ ~ 1 /' CING ~~ r r~ .~ 2. o~~~ aa_ K O a ~~ ~i.." a~.''s~` x~ N IIII +~.•---- + .Prepared By: ARBOR RESOURCES ~,~~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care x P.O. Box 25295 • San Mateo, CA • 94402 mar ~. Phone: (650) 654-3351 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net m~.a .~ r ~~ • •i ~000~9 PROSPECT ROAD ~ ~~ 6 . ~~ ~,~,~~~~ ~~ - 5 4~ _. .~ _,,~, it 1~~~ S` j ~`~~~ .w:. ~~ ~.. ~. .. ...r ~...~~. .~ ,- oaa~air.e~r,r 3 '~ I 1s+`~ `----- ~ ____ _ ~ ~~ ' \ / ~ / I Olt1O~ I PROTECTIVE F~ ai . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ • a,rsur w ~es'ea°"~'~r~ / //~ ~ I n~+ I x~ ~ _ .~ ~`~. •~ .~+.. e~,,.~. ~ °"~( X~ Site Address: 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga %~' ~ ~~/ ~ / Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department / ~m Notes:. Map identifies seven trees of Ordinance size. Canopy perimeters are approximate. ~ ~- Map has been reduced in size and is not to scale. I Date: March 29, 2005 ~° I // i ~ . / ~ `~ ~ I ~.~. i I ~ \ •~- !L __ '~ 1 m • Attachment 3 •i • Sprint Nextel • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Sprint Nextel, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CA-2146G) proposed to be located at 19550 Prospect Road in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone ' 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward t' ~~ - ' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ ~ CONSULTII~IG ENGINEERS NX2146596 _, _ SAN FRANCISCO Page 1 of 3 • • Sprint Nextel • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road • Saratoga, California the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Sprint Nextel, including zoning drawings by L.D. Strobel Co., Inc., dated November 28, 2005, it is proposed to mount three Antel Model BXA80090/8CF directional panel SMR antennas inside three new flagpoles, two at 40 feet tall and one at 42 feet tall, to be located on the grounds of the Ascension Catholic Church at 19550 Prospect Road in Saratoga. The antennas would be mounted at effective heights of at least 371/2 feet above ground and would be oriented toward 90°T, 180°T, and 270°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 2,000 watts, representing the simultaneous operation of four channels. at 500 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint Nextel operation is calculated to be 0.0046 mW/cm2, which is 0.81% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level on the roof of the nearby church building' is 25% of the public exposure limit; the maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residences is 0.66% of the public limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Located at least 45 feet away from the antennas, based on the drawings. s Located at least 160 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Terraserver. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. NX2146596 CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~.~ _ snN Fa,aNCisco Page 2 of 3 • Sprint Nextel • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road ~ Saratoga, California • Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the Sprint Nextel antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 10 feet directly in front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the flagpoles, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection--requirements_are_met._Posting explanatory warning signs at the antennas and/or on the poles below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Sprint Nextel at 19550 Prospect Road in Saratoga, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Posting of explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations. Authorship ~~~' The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2007. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. F: June 29, 2006 ~ 3v E-13026 '~~ v ~ M-20676 C E>~. 8.30.07 ~ * c~~ A~+G P~dl,`~ ~.~' William F. Hamr~tt. P.E. ~ Warning signs should comply with AN color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of.language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO NX2146596 Page 3 of 3 • FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (]996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that. its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency! Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 1000 100 ,-. ~N 3 ~ ~ 10 a° Q ~ 1 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/j~ 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ fz 180/f 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54~f 1.59ff 'ff/106 ff/238 f/300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 I.0 ~ FM •` f ~~ Public E/xposure Cell --~~~ i 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. / Occupational Exposure f PCS • • • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. FCC Guidelines ~~ ~Q. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Flgure 1 • • RFR.CALCTM Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 1) D>~ 2) D>Sh 3) D> 1.6~, where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~. =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 0.1 x P power density S = 1~ X ,~ x D xn h ~ in mW/cm2, where 6Bw =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S - 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP ~ in mW/~2~ . 4x ~[x D2 where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. _~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. y~f£ ' coNSUL~rn~cENCINSExs Methodology "s. SAN FRANCISCO Flgllre 2 • Attachment 4 t • ~~. • ^ 7 o. m h 3~ ~' ~ ~ d~,~ ~ H ~y~1n i l 7 'O tIa O N ~ ~ " 'o ! k ''~ k: ~.,, ~- k - .-' ,...:v,.~ ~-' ems.. ~= ....;. m' CA ~ ~ ,{ _ t _R o,. n ,, r .~ ~ r ~ ~'.~. ., ~~ ~ti637) ~ -~ ~ , m is ' i ~I ~:... ~ ~ $ "° N; rly./' _ ~ ~ `~~-, ~,~~ ~ ~I..~,~ ~i~~~t _ 9 _.. r ~ ~~ ~1 •: i i~ Ir I I# ~ ~~ ~ I .t~: tt~ - ~" t ~~ " ~ ~.. ~" ~ ~,. ~ ,j. ~I a 'ii~. t~ ~;. ~ _ <! i~;;~:_~~~ T~° n~,~ ~b . ,f `~ ~ C'am' t =ji--' 1~ ~py ~1: ~: - l emu! i'~j f`TJ.'CJIS-4 t l~,r`- ,, -, ~ ~- ' 9a -_~ -~~ ~'n$ ~ e ~ , ~tr S 'q .~ ~ I ~ ~! -,~..~~ r m. 11~ R ~~-'aa ~r~ ~ ~ ~i +~j( 1~~~ - ..\~, ~L~~lr -~ ~~ ~ 9t _- ~'4.~~ L~..J! ". ~~ ~ ~~ =J~ ~!{~.. ~+'.r.l',~ ,,~+ ij ~~'~~ ~~'"~ r- -: 4~ it I~~t~-~!~yl -- i'}~ a ( '~ SSA ~~ 3~ p~i~ ~j','~~ ~ ~ ~ v' e. 'S ~ ~'~ Y- 11 ~ i ~1 w '9 . r/ ~ ~b~ ~C-~~~~ ~• rill 'il .~. ~ "S: I~ t-- - J( _,.{p ;.._ 1 I! ~/~ i i --~, ~~~~ Imo, -~ ~: ~ y~~~h.~ - .~,`~ ~ ~ ~ = ~, ;~_ }f a ~' ~ ~ , ~ G ,~~ ~ ,~ F +tt~i m ! =~ "-' ~ r"'i~ ""ate ~'F, :..a ~'~"~'~ ,, „ , J~--l_ +~r~ t'~ ~-1-a J ~ ~~` `. `1~~ f -~ I I ~ ~ ¢f ~ t a"'i ' 1 r~ L 1I " _ ti '~T ~ - {~--~~' ~ " 13-1 r ~(~j{{r #p~1f 'I Y~j J I~~_ f!t 'r - ~" 3~.. '(~ ~9~ ., ~ ' 1. ~{ ~1 ~yJ~ i~( ILJLII :II I i`: -~~$? '~~~ ' ~~. ~ -'1'., :a ;~' ~ ~ _,.-t ~~~~r Ems'-- ~ L..~ t~_SL_ ,4 ill" ~" ~~ 'r ... ~, - _ ~ r. ~~.~,.~EI~ • -` ~ ~-~Fb'~F = ~;, 1 "~if3 `l t~~ r ~I ~ ~-1`fUI~V~.o--- - ,~ dfi~f-2~eArt__=~ r-~--~ ~ 7r~Cp''~ ~ i ~ ( r J~__. r 1 , r,. ~ ~ i C 7C 1 -'7 ~i r t=~c ~~ ~1 `--.-r'4 ~ I{ il. - *1c. ~~ 1~--~.y ~~~''{p ~.C~_ 1) ~ O r Tj hl$-_;~~ 1~ ~1 ~~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~'Y tT"~i. ~ !1 r y 'T J``- ~ ~ F ~~ ,, F , ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ k _- ~~ ~g ~ ~ II ~_~Iv ~ r isi 1) ; T ~ ~ 1'- ar ~L -,~ 7 I) ~~~..~ ('~ ~ a 'y1~'~} r_."4 r~ `.~ ~t~, N ~ ~ ~-~-~( ~ a~; r. - -r -~- i~ {>; s 7~ «99 .., r, ='t='-~ ~ ~ 'L.-_ `a) .. ,~i ~f` y II~± A "` ,-~„ ate, ?r*~'`r ° ` ..` ~ Al !J>` ,,ice,-- 1 ~°~ w .~'--' ~ _ It ~ t I r v3 ~e _ tl ev ~ ~ jrQ~ ~~-~~~ F m ~ ~ r ~~.~L~ ~~ s-j ~ ~ri ~~'. ~ r - r- .~;I ~`~ M .~~- . , _ ~ 1 i1 U,. rui~~ , i I ! 'F~ ~.;-Su'i i ytv~.,~_ '~l 1~rbt r 1 ~_o t cg~3 ~ I " ~~ .~'~f -~-~`'~©~~~.x--",I ~ ir, ~ ~~.} ~ ~wd k7 1`~ y .i ~~ a ~i ~_ r'S ti - }`_' I~~ ~' _ ~ {~+~ ~ (. '" t,~~ I ~~ 4 ~'7 - g ~'r ~ti'( _ ~t ~r ~ It~~ ~ B=-_ - - ' ~ - ~ f ~ r~ _~--r'r r F fig' ~~ ~!/l~ ~.- "~ . ~ ~~ ~t ii f ~ r ~3~ty.~ 4._.~y ^t t ~ ~~ r t ~" ~ ' ~ 3~!~ ~ fib= ~s ~ ~ . ~/`I 1 ~. ~'il~~li ! ~ i~f ~) I~r `"[.i,~~r ' ~' ~ - ?•'~ ~ ~T ~~ j r ~ -~~ ~ r ~ fir' ~ +~St ~ a -~ CD~~~~ ~ ~d ii ~~ i~ ~ ~t~i ~ '\~~d .ttl! 7i ~ ~(( i ~~(•_._r~J~ ~`~ n .v ,~ ,x 4 , r ~ a~ ~- ~ ~~ m Ir ii 9'J ` ~.~ F ~~ " . "; 1 t ~ } 'i r `- ~'_ T _ _ a o o -'0~' ~ ~ ~ ~t- 1 -"-ice ; I it ~lU,- r ~r--_ i r: , /ib ~~ ~ ' f ., „~ ~ y,d' it ~~ ~ ~ ~ -i~~~ ~ ;, ~i ~I I~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1~,' =~~vf-~. `~.~ 1~ ~ f ~ G "~ r ~1! r ~~ - ,~ .yam ~r,~ i '} t ~ ~~ ~ I ~! ~ C .,~ ? I C>"= i ~ ~' J t~o-3 °.1, ,t:'~ r~ ,rv! ,~ a 11 ! ~ i=~ -~ ~i,~ ~,. ~ a' r t :>+~.. .u ~ ~ ~ e ~A#=#~4 y ~f~p~ ~, ~ 4 ;'~~~ IC 1~~~~3~'~I 41~~'~= !I ~~~8" ~i~~~ J ~~ }rs~ tJ 7 ~ +t ,, - .. Q =- ,~.. n~~JL ii6. {~-C'-~ _ -~ - ~ ~~ ~~'y.-~.,E ~ i, 1{ o o ' -- -.1 p .:~ t9 i/ „ s---'-i ~~- jj j I~ - }`~'('-~_~-'i ,~_..-, 4~ --I( ~`t-1 -! 3f3~Y2 q . '7~•-~I 7 - ._ ~~ ~~ - ~ { 2r -~ % i ~._il1 ~ Ii ~_ I~' C ~I~ ~~;~f ~~ '~' ,~-~ L ~ -i3- m iii ` v' ~ ~ ~ f ~ .r; ~ 1 I ~~ , _ "-':Ii it "71 cr ~~L~' i ~--„__~- ~ i it3 ~ ~ .~~ s !: . {~j U +} ~ ~~ ~. {~. =~ ~~ - /~ ~ i~ ti -~1f_,.t -= ~ ILL! ~~ ~ ~ rr-'~~ ~~i~j- >~' _,-~ L;L,`~'.`< -~4 I ~aS t' r .b?~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i [ _ ~' I~ °~ r~~ _ r ~I Y=r i-ii ~I I (i ii f.~ 7~ ! ~ ~f j C~' '?_~; ~ ~-!. ;fir ~ ~•. n ~,~~ ~ r,`r >t~~ ~~'~ i ~ II ~ j 3I I~ °j ~ ! !~i li ~ ' ~ r !~1 ~ ~~ -.~ ! ~ _~~~ ~ ~~1 ~ ~? I! i ~~ ~ ~ ~~L,~~ ~ u ai t~ ~ ~11~L~ uL' !ir 1 j~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~i ~~ V] '~ (D rn n O W ~~ i .;.~ _,..._a f - ~v,~ '~ _ _ ~~ o ,, ~ m m O_ ~. ~~_ - - ~i ~ - o - -- -. °- ~ , ~~ p` r^"3n;- m _ - O Qi) ~ ~ ~ _ 3 I 7 -Qi;.. ti~ v-x _ - - N -_. _ i ~H ~~ ~~. - .. to _ i m. ^ _ ~p,~ N..- ~ ~ J °~ " ~ t ~p' ~y`_ _ ~~ ~ _ ~ - YI pyy' n ~iy~ ~ _= n,,t._-._ ~~ - e" 7~ ' J ":, ,mayy .. "v,. ~~ ~_~ y~ y.,~-.- ~ { ~ I ~ '~ ; ~ - ~r _~ it -.0 ,_: '' ~ ~ x ~` w ~ Y ~ ~ ,a" l' ,r" =~~. r ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., ~ ~ ~s t r ~ s~i,.-_.~_.>_~ , 'y~ ~i ~ f~ ` ,~,1 ~ aq ~' 1. :iSl~. )' ~~ ~~ ~' i ~~ ~~ >t _ ~ :(t II }tom.. ~i ~~ 't~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~~ ~~;j, .~ ~`?~ ~ ~~ n'so ,'P~~~ t. j ~ .~ F °' `~ ~, ~=`~ ~ 1J ice- ' ~,' ~ -~' _ ~ ^t' fi,~p~, t f• } ~ i .. ~ A _ ._f_ ~1 _ -'~ c' 1~ jf' ~l ' 7f~ i ~~ji~; ~, a 1~ ~, ~' ~ \ f! 3 Ii I~ !) I~~~L~ }' ~ ti ,I ro ; I~ ~ y( I °~{~1 a 5 ./~ P ~ t~l ~. ~ j J -'. _ 1 i _ ~' ~ m ~ ~. ~ f t y ~ t ,~~ ~' .J ' ~ - ~r _ ~~ `may ~" ~ i ~i-~.~ -, ~ ~`~~ (- fir , i ~~ ~,. '`ti a ~ ;~ ~ , ~a~.titi _~ _ .y. t_~ r ~ ~r 'k~~p }~, `3~ 1. sL I i~ti `i =~:; t,~"t. ii ~ UUU ~ '') - ~ I -' ~+A~f=-2~-A}1R}~~T s-`_- `~' ./ Df,~ ~ , p~ i. :. ~„--1 ~)' `t fr.. ,~ ~ 3. fi f 4 n ~ ~ dfa t x \' _(~ t J, ~ i I~ i~ f('-! { ~t$ ~i'y ~~ .,~' 71~ ~ !! 1 ~~ I~- ~ i~v' `t ~~.1 ,1_J t~~. ~J~l~-~~ ~ '~,f~t7S dq=y~'f ~ ~ ( _ ~- r ,,. y W~!-~ . << ~ n i _s , a J7 1 ~~,t 1. ~ ___- ~.. i~ ~ <._ ~ f ~ f, ~i ~~ , F ~~ ~ t_ }a ~d.~tytr ~Y r - h r 4 i ~C ,f~~'-..`_ i '~ ~ ~ .f ~ ~ 1~~ ~ 4y ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~tfj~ ~i ~~ i i~~ t~: ' Ii~~~~y.Ji.~~ L t ~i~ ~. ,~^")i~~ ~ .'~.~ ~ _~, ( ir- it~ ~ --h SlA-~ ~; ~ Y~:,oMiQ `~~r f~. e.l) ~; r'~.. I~:l~~ }i ~t~ ~;/ a ;, '~~jj' f; ~ i .~i. n 1„'" ~s~' (j~-~-, , t it , , ~ ~4 Q` ~' cs D __ -~f r yy' .. W yJ ~ ~ ~Ir' ~ l`~irr ~~` ~j ~f i~. ' ~r~'-=~ ~ ,i .~ 1.= ~ ~ j;~. ~.~-` ~ ~, qtr ~ti4 y ~>~ ) ~ ~ IF N ~~~ ~ ~,`~ ~ ~~ u - _~ is ~a ,_ _ 1~ `~ '~ ~: ~. `,r '~S ~~t ` f ,. 1 't ~`I~ ~~'il ;~ _ }`=- '~i--Y? , ~ ~?.f- . ft ~ t ~ ~.:~ ~ , d r ~` ~~ =" f, 7 U ~ _~ 1 ~¢ ~j {U 7~ ~ii~ f1~ ~~ .''` ~ ~~ `',~ lief ~t~. ~, ~~~ J ~j j >~ ~:y f ^~~ ~~~~ ~"Y-~~~4~ X44/ t • • I ~~ v~ ~~ s~~ ~ ,~-~ ~~~~~ ~~ • ~~ O ,-t 0 N c O~ 0 N .t 0 O cfl c~ cfl n 0 c>~ ~~ O n N N c~ O O ~~ Oro; cD N rt --~. O 3 (D .a -t O • 0 O N c o~ O rt fD '~ O N fD Q rr N fD n O C n~ O n --r N N (~ CD O O ~_ ~~ U0. N rr O ~Ol O N ~D C9 .-r O O. • • I~ ~~` ~ ice, ,_,r .,_ tit ~' ~~~ 1, ~ y _!r .4~ y~ .. ~° N " CA-2146G ter. tt ?cr '~"~ ~' ~`~=~D ~ 'S ' rK '~ R ~ ~ ; ;. , ~,, ~ , ~tiK n ~ 'h j p {~~ '~'", j ~' d " t u ~ Propos ~ , fl ~ ~ z ~ r ~ r ~ L ~ t ' . , i. ~ t -, fi ~ ; ~- _. ~--~ a,:~''~,- rt. ten' ,,, .~3`. North Hwy 85 J: 1Lh~'+ ~ ~ ' T ,~~~ > 3 ~ i<<.: _ ~ A _ N ~ _' _ ,~ ~ ~ 0 - ,,, f .,, f ~ - ~ N ' C ~ . _ ~ ._ tD J- r ~ ~~ _ C ;~ ~.` 3 3 A 19550 Prospect Rd. ~ Saratoga CA 95070 ~ , A ~„ ~ ~ r+ r u ~ a ~ . ~ NF ~f N f~ ` - N P O L .: O ~ ~ S //~ v~ , I O _ rf 3 :. O s ~ D ~A n ~D ;~ N O s.~' _, ~ ~~ . 3 __ ~. _ :-~" • 3 O .~+ O N C fl1 O O ~r 3 N .0 O O N <D ~. ~D <D n O 7 O A rr N N <D ~D 7 O O ~D N O m A Q ~D • Attachment 6 ti~,; Checklist answers Page 1 of 1 . Lata Vasudevan From: Aron, Elizabeth [Elizabeth.Aron@parsons.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:27 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Checklist answers Lata, I have attached a brief answer to the list you sent. _ FYI: I have already received some of the coverage maps_ from our RF, but_I will wait until I get them all before I send them along. You should get them by the end of June. In addition, you should get the new EMF report by the second week in July, at the latest.. It will probably be here earlier, but I like to be conservative in my estimates. If you need things quicker, I will see what I can do. Give me a call if you have any questions. One last thing, I wanted to thank you for setting the meeting for July. I also appreciate you keeping us abreast of the information from Ray and Paul. It is very helpful. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron «2146 checklist reply.doc» PAP.SONS 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 San Francisco, CA 94107 elizabeth.aron@parsons.com Office Phone: 415-962-1630 Cellular Phone: 415-264-3183 Fax: 415-495-6277 ~, :~; 8/10/2006 • • MEMORANDUM ANALYSIS: NORTH CAMPUS SITE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA TO: Lata Vasudevan, City of Saratoga Community Development Department FROM: Elizabeth Aron, Parsons, representing Nextel RE: North Campus Site DATE: July 18, 2006 Background: In response to a request made by city planner Lata Vasudevan, Nextel has agreed to analyze a final alternative, called the North Campus. The North Campus Site is inferior to the proposed site at 19550 Prospect Avenue for the following reasons: Future of the Site/City Plans: The most important reason Nextel prefers the site at the Church of the Ascension is because the future of the site is certain. The North Campus is a site in flux and the temporary nature of the site impacts many of the other factors Nextel considered in this evaluation. The buildings on the site are all empty, with the exception of one building which houses a temporary Sheriffls office. The buildings are beginning to deteriorate and/or show signs of neglect. The campus was once slated for demolition and replacement. The exact future of these buildings is still uncertain. Since the process for this site has taken an extended amount of time, and a new site would take additional time, it does not make sense to invest money into a deteriorating site that could be unavailable by the time we reach approval and/or is taken over by a use that is incompatible with Nextel's facility. Proximity to neighbors: Nextel prefers the site at the Church of the Ascension because it is farther from residents. The North Campus site would be closer to more Saratoga residents. Homes North Campus Site 275 ft. (approx) U ^ ^ ^ 137.5 ft. 137.5 ft. ^ Church of the Ascension Closest home ~ 300 + feet Proposed Site While the antennas and equipment shelter on the preferred site are more than 300 feet from the closest residence, the North Campus site is only 275 feet wide and surrounded by residences. In fact, some of the homes on the East side of the North Campus site have eaves that are less than five feet from the property line. • • Coverage: To achieve the coverage goals for this site, any antennas would need to be placed on the site at a height of 50 feet. Since the buildings on the site cannot accommodate this height, the antennas would need to be on a new structure with a new design. Since the future of this site has not been finalized, it would be imprudent to design or site a new facility to match the existing buildings and tress when these things could be changed. Heigbt/Visual Impact: Nextel prefers the site at the Church of the Ascension because it has a stealth design that is placed in a manner that hides the facility from the view of neighbors. Between the low height of the buildings on the site and the fact that all the buildings have pitched roofs, means that any antenna site would need to be on a freestanding structure. Although a pole on this site might be stealthed in a similar manner, as stated above, a stealth design chosen today may not fit into the ultimate use for the site. Lease Terms: Nextel prefers the site at the Church of the Ascension because Nextel has a lease agreement in place. The Church of the Ascension has been a good faith partner is this process and Nextel does not feel it is appropriate to abandon the Church for property with an uncertain future. There is also no indication that the City is willing to lease on this site or what the terms of such a lease would be. Finally, since the future of the site is undetermined, it may be impossible to get a lease for the period required by Nextel. Public Process: Nextel prefers the site at the Church of the Ascension because we have spent time responding to the community and the design is a reflection of that dialog. Public hearings and information sessions have been held, neighbors have.walked the site with our representatives as well as city planners, questions have been answered and alternatives have been analyzed. Changing to another site would mean beginning the process anew. Nextel does not believe it makes sense to begin this process again and feels it is inappropriate to suggest a completely new site, which will face equal difficulties, at this stage in the process. -Conclusion: There are several reasons to reject the North Campus site, including the unstable condition of the site, the proximity to neighbors, the existence of a lease on another site, and timeliness. In light of these facts, we feel the proposed site at the Church of the Ascension continues to be the best site for this facility. ~,~~~~ Elizabeth Aron, Planning Specialist 0 Mail 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300: San Francisco, California, 94107.• Email elizabeth.aron@parsons.com Phone 415-962-1630: Cell 451-264-3183: Fax 415-495-6277 June 21, 2006 Lata Vasudevan City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Submittal Requirements Dear Lata, I just ran through the basic requirements you sent me and tried to respond to them. 1. Coverage maps: I believe we have submitted some of this information. I will talk to our RF engineers, look through our files and get as many maps acid as much information as I can. 2. EMF report: We have submitted an EMF report for the original monopine design. I have ordered a new EMF report for the three flagpoles. I will forward it to you as soon as I receive it. 3. Visual Representations: We have submitted several photosimulations that show the proposed facilities from a variety of angles. In addition we have presented zoning drawings with sections and elevations 4. Alternative Sites: We have presented extensive information about the alternatives sites we originally considered, as well as additional sites which were presented to the Planning Commission during the recent study session. . 5. Enclosure of equipment: All of the proposed equipment will be enclosed, either within the three flagpoles or within an equipment shelter that will be made of material that will match the building on the site. All utilities needed for the site will be brought in underground. 6. Statement of Purpose: Nextel has provided information showing that this site is necessary to complete our network in order to compete in the wireless market. A statement of justification was sent on 10/04/05 from Kevin Curry, our RF engineer. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron • Checklist answers Lata Vasudevan From: Aron, Elizabeth [Elizabeth.Aron@parsons.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:27 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Checklist answers Lata, I have attached a brief answer to the list you sent. Page 1 o>Y' 1 __ FYI: I have already received some of the coverage maps_ from our RF, but I will wait until I get them all before I send them along. You should get them by the end of June. In addition, you should get the new EMF report by the second week in July, at the latest. It will probably be here earlier, but I like to be conservative in my estimates. If you need things quicker, I will see what I can do. Give me a call if you have any questions. One last thing, I wanted to thank you for setting the meeting for July. I also appreciate you keeping us abreast of the information from Ray and Paul. It is very helpful. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron «2146 checklist reply.doc» PARSONS 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 San Francisco, CA 94107 elizabeth. aron@parsons. com Office Phone: 415-962-1630 Cellular Phone: 415-264-3183 Fax: 415-495-6277 • • 8/10/2006 ;~ • Elizabeth Aron, Planning Specialist o Mai1185 Berry Street, Suite 5300: San Francisco, California, 94107: Email elizabeth.aron@parsons.com Phone 415-962-1630: Cell 451-264-3183: Fax 415-495-6277 June 21, 2006 Lata Vasudevan City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Submittal Requirements Dear Lata, I just ran through the basic requirements you sent me and tried to respond to them. 1. Coverage maps: I believe we have submitted some of this information. I will talk to our RF engineers, look through our files and get as many maps and as much information as I can. 2. EMF report: We have submitted an EMF report for the original monopine design., I have ordered a new EMF report for the three flagpoles. I will forward it to you as soon as I receive rt. 3. Visual Representations: We have submitted several photosimulations that show the proposed facilities from a variety of angles. In addition we have presented zoning drawings with sections and elevations 4. Alternative Sites: We have presented extensive information about the alternatives sites we originally considered, as well as additional sites which were presented to the Planning Commission during the recent study session. 5. Enclosure of equipment: All of the proposed equipment will be enclosed, either. within the three flagpoles or within an equipment shelter that will be made of material that will match the building on the site. All utilities needed for the site will be brought in underground. 6. Statement of Purpose: Nextel has provided information showing that this site is necessary to complete our network in order to compete in the wireless market. A statement of justification was sent on 10/04/05 from Kevin Curry, our RF engineer. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron • New EMF report for Church of the Ascension Page 1 of 1 • • Lata Vasudevan From: Aron, Elizabeth [Elizabeth.Aron@parsons.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:11 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: RE: New EMF report for Church of the Ascension I will prepare something on the North Campus when I return next week. Do you need it before the meeting, or can I just present it? Thanks for the heads up. Elizabeth Aron From: Lata Vasudevan [mailto:Iasudevan@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 11:58 AM To: Aron, Elizabeth Subject: RE: New EMF report for Church of the Ascension Elizabeth, I suggest you really look into North Campus(City Property and provide an explanation as to why/why not it would work. Due to scheduling conflicts I am aiming to schedule this item for August 9th PC meeting. Lata ' -----Original Message----- From: Aron, Elizabeth [mailto:Elizabeth.Aron@parsons.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29,' 2006 4:11 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: New EMF report for Church of the Ascension ' Lata, I have attached a new EMF report for the Church of the Ascension application. I have some maps, but I am waiting fox a little more information before I send those along. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron «CA-2146G RF Exposure Study.pdf» I'~RSONS _,__-- 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 San Francisco, CA 94107 elizabeth.aron@parsons.com Office Phone: 415-962-1630 Cellular Phone: 415-264-3183 Fax: 415-495-6277 @ ~i~i~nn~ • • • Elizabeth Aron, Planning Specialist 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 San Francisco, California, 94107 Phone: 415-962-1630/Fax: 415-495-6277 elizabeth.aron@parsons.com Lata Vasudevan - City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Community Hearing Reply June 2, 2006 D ~~ ~D~~ c Jv~ ~ ~ Zp46 -,~MMU~`TY p~V~ ~~GA 6Lpp~ENT Dear Ms. Vasudevan; At the Community Study Session held, Wednesday, April 12, members of the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the proposed Nextel antenna site to be located at 19550 Prospect Avenue, the site of the Church of the Ascension. With the submission of this information, Nextel asks the City of Saratoga Planning Department to take this application to the full Planning Commission for a hearing as soon as possible. During the Study Session, commissioners asked for information on the feasibility of providing service through a distributive network rather than the proposed three-flagpole antenna site. The commissioners also wanted to know if the pole could be tapered like the one at the library. Finally, there- were questions about the alternatives analysis that was done and the possibility of using other sites. Each of these requests will be addressed below. • DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORK Members of the commission requested information regarding a distributive system. A distributive network is one that uses a series of small connected antennas in place of a larger single site. In response to the request by the Commissioners, the engineers at Nextel researched and designed amock-up of a distributive system so they could analyze such a system. (A copy of the basic distributive network is attached.) The following is an analysis of the efficacy, impacts and cost of a distributive system based on the information they gathered. Coverage The biggest problem with this type of system is that it could not duplicate the coverage of the proposed system. According to our engineer the distributive network would provide 85% of the coverage of the proposed system. 19550 Prospect Avenue Page I of 12 • • Loss of covera eg in objective area: The biggest detrimental change is that there is less coverage in the residential area south of Prospect Avenue. This is problematic because, as will be explained later, increasing coverage to the neighborhood south of Prospect is one of two major objectives for this site. On the north, there is an increase in coverage. This is nice, but it is irrelevant. The area with enhanced coverage is not part of the coverage goals and objectives for this facility and does not offset a decrease of coverage in an area that is part of the coverage objective. No Place to Go: Looking at the design drawings for the distributive system, it looks like the coverage would work if antennas on the North/South axis were moved south of Prospect. This would fill in the gap. The problem is that there is no place to put an antenna south of Prospect. As written in Wikipedial "Saratoga emphasizes its rural appearance by foregoing street lights and sidewalks on most residential streets." This is the case in the area along Miller where there are no existing street lights and the sidewalks are sporadic, at best. To add antennas along this route would require the addition of street lights in an area without lights and where there does not seem to be any place for them. Without antennas on this side of the road Nextel will never meet the coverage objectives with a distributive system. Impact A distributive system would also have a larger impact on the residential area near it. Closer Proximityto Residences: The additional antennas required for the Distributive system would be placed on light poles located along Miller and Prospect. These antennas will be located within feet of the front lawn of several residences. As shown by the drawing, the antennas on the proposed location will be significantly further away from the closest residential property line. Disruptions to Community: The distribution of the system would result in much higher impacts to the community during construction. The Distributive system consists of 6 separate antennas and approximately five miles of fiber optic cable. The network would be connected from an existing site that is located about one mile away and across Highway 85. Since all utilities must be placed underground, the fiber optics as well as the individual connections to electricity and phone would need to be buried. The fiber optics connecting the antennas to each other would require at least one crossing each of Miller, Provincetown Drive and Johnson Ave. To reach the closest connection site may require up to a dozen road crossings including crossings of Highway 85 and Prospect Ave. Cost Although this is not the most important reason for rejecting the distributive system, cost must be considered by Nextel in order to compete with other carriers. A distributive system will cost at least five times more than the proposed location.2 This number does not include the cost of running the utilities underground, which will be required and is hard to estimate without filing an application to determine whether there is any conduit to share. To give an idea of what the cost ~ Wikipedia is a free, web-based encyclopedia, this quote comes from the Saratoga, CA entry, accessed May 23, 2006 2 The cost estimates are based on previous distributive projects and are only a conservative estimate of the costs involved in a distributive system on this site. 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 2 of 12 • application to determine whether there is any conduit to share. To give an idea of what the cost might be, the Nextel project manager wrote "If we need to go underground the sky is the limit, it is possible to lease SBC ducting if it is there but it would cost about $35,000 to find out, if there are no ducts available we would need to trench the entire run and install our own." Based on this information from the project manager, and depending on the level of underground infrastructure available to use for the project, as well as the addition of any unexpected costs (higher than average pole lease rate, unavailable power) the total cost of a distributive network could increase exponentially. Nextel does not believe it is reasonable to require a new network design that will cost exponentially more and does not meet the objectives and goals of the project engineers. TAPERED DESIGN Members of the Commission also requested an analysis of a tapered flagpole design. A tapered flagpole would be possible, but it would need to be significantly higher than anon-tapered one. • The RF engineer on the project approached Mr. Tony Lan, who designed the flagpole at the Saratoga Library. Mr. Lan provided a rough design for a tapered flagpole that would provide the height required for the site while tapering at the top. The orie issue with tapering is that the antenna size and the height at which the antenna must be placed, limit the point where tapering can begin. In this case the top of the pole would be approximately 15 to 20 feet above the top of the antenna, depending on the required top diameter. The current proposed antennas top out at 42 feet. With the additional height, the top of the highest flagpole could reach 62 feet. In comparison, the top of the flagpole at the Library is at 48 feet. u ~p 0~ ,4,1' .,...v iop o~ Poi i~,:~.t AGI. ~ Top of A+~t h~ AGI. a~~+.b doi4o~ aJ . CorrYC{e'~D . ~4'-b'k~ Tapes Poles <f rbex9lass~ //X.~- Decreasing the size of the antennas: A member of the public suggested that Nextel could custom-build smaller antennas for the site. In making this suggestion, he indicated that companies, which Nextel had business relationships with, were ready to fill such an order. Further investigation confirmed that the companies responded in the affirmative because they were under the misapprehension that the order for these new antennas would be larger than this single project. This is not the case. The suggestion that Nextel build custom antennas for this site, for the purpose of diminishing the size of the flagpole by mere inches is unreasonable. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Finally, at the study session, members of the Planning Commission and the Community presented questions regarding the analysis of alternatives that Nextel had done in determining the best site for the project. Nextel carefully considered all the options available and based on that analysis determined that the Church of the Ascension is the best site possible to provide the coverage required while limiting the impact on the community and the traveling public. Please 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 3 of 12 • • note, the original alternative analysis was considered acceptable by the city planning department at the time of original submittal. The following is a general overview of the Nextel site selection process, followed by a review of the original alternative analysis and a discussion of the alternatives presented by a member of the public. General Overview Cellular antenna systems are aline-of--sight technology with power that diminishes with distance. For this reason, a site will not provide coverage to areas that are blocked by objects or are beyond a certain distance. To determine whether a site will meet the needs of the network, Nextel relies upon RF engineers. The site selection process is driven by engineering needs. A hole is found in the network and the hole is mapped. This map shows the area where antennas must be placed to meet the needs of the network. The best candidates have the following characteristics Good Coveras?e: The primary goal of the engineers is to find sites that will provide excellent service within the coverage objective. New sites fill coverage gaps. In this case the coverage goals and objectives are the intersection of Prospect and Miller and the residential area to the south of Prospect. If a location does not work for the network, it must be rejected. After the engineers determine if a site meets the coverage criteria, Nextel considers other factors in choosing the best site among the possible alternatives. Low Visual Impact: The best sites will have the lowest visual impact by utilizing existing structures or stealth technology. FriendlxLandlords: Unlike public utilities, cellular technology does not have power to place cell sites wherever it wants. Nextel relies on interested and willing landlords. Collocation: Nextel always looks for sites where other carriers already have facilities. Many times these sites match the needs of the Nextel network in a way that is more acceptable to members of the surrounding community. Please note in the following short discussions, the main reason that alternative sites were rejected is they do not meet the coverage goals and objectives. It would not be reasonable to place an antenna site in a location where it would not meet the goals and objectives of the network. Original Alternative Analysis sceh~; In addition to the preferred location at the Church of the A -~, the following sites were considered as alternatives in our original analysis (photos were provided when they were available): Miller Middle School Lynbrook High School _ Sharon Drive Monopole Calabezas Park • 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 4 of 12 • • Preferred Alternative• Church of the Assn This site is proposed as athree-flagpole design with equipment stored in a new architecturally similar area adjacent to an existing building. This site was chosen for the following reasons; a. Good Coveraf;e: The primary goal of the engineers is to find sites that will provide excellent service within the coverage objective. This site best meets the goals and objectives of providing coverage at the intersection of Prospect and Miller as well as within the residential area to the south of Prospect. • b. Low Visual Impact: The three-flagpole design on the large church property will blend seamlessly into the community. Existing trees will shield site from the driving public, while residents in the area surrounding the church will only see glimpses of the site, if they see the site at all, from their homes. c. Friendly Landlords: The Church of the Ascension is a gracious landlord firmly entrenched in the community. d. Collocation: Nextel always looks for sites where other carriers already have facilities. The Church is not a collocation site, however this detriment does not outweigh the positives of the site as Nextel could not find any suitable collocation sites that would meet the coverage goals of the engineers. • Alternative No. 1: Miller Middle Schoo16151 Rainbow Drive This site would place the antennas on a middle school multi-use room. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located to the northeast of the search area, more than '/Z mile s from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. The site is too far away and would not provide the height required to meet the coverage objectives without significant and obtrusive additions to the roof. s All distances cited in the analysis are based upon information found on the Mapquest website. The distance cited is an estimate of the direct line distances as calculated by the applicant using this information. 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 5 of 12 • ~ Alternative No 2• Lynbrook High School 1280 Johnson Ave This site has roof mounted antennas hidden in a false brick structure. It was rejected for the following reasons; a. Poor covera>e: The site is located on the northeast edge of the search area, more than'/: mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, and would not meet coverage goals _ and objectives. b. No room: Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing antennas and equipment area are set in a manner which makes it difficult to allow for the necessary separation between carriers. • Alternative No 3 • Sharon Drive Monopole 7246 Sharon Drive This is an existing cellular phone site located northwest of the search area. This site was rejected by the engineering team during the initial site visit. a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. b. Pole Condition: Although this would be a collocation, the existing pole was not engineered to support more than one carrier. Therefore the entire pole and existing site on the property would need to be replaced. Alternative No 4• Calabezas Park at Blanev Avenue and Rainbow Drive a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than a'/: mile north and west of the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. b. Impact: This site would be in a park where a new pole structure and associated equipment shelter would be a higher impact than a set of three flagpoles associated with an existing building. Additional Alternative Analysis A member of the community (Paul Fontenot) presented a map of existing cellular antenna sites within the City of Saratoga, as well as sites that he felt would be appropriate for our purposes. The following is an analysis of the suggested sites beginning with those that have existing antennas followed by those which have no antennas at this time. Sites previously considered are discussed above. Please note, that although Mr. Fontenot asserts in his writings that certain coverage objectives can be obtained from the sites he promotes, there is no engineering provided to support these assertions which are inconsistent with the findings of the Nextel RF engineers. 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 6 of 12 • ~• • Alternative No 4• Hobby World at the corner of Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road This site carries roof mounted antennas. It was ~ ~ ~ rejected for the following reasons; a. Low coverage: The site is beyond search - area and more than one mile from the - , intersection of and would not meet the - _ ~ ~ -~V coverage objectives at the current height. ~ r ;~ ~, _ _ __ _ b. _No ro_om: Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing antennas are set in a manner which makes it difficult to allow for the necessary separation between carriers. Alternative No. 5: Christa McAuliffe Alternative Education School This site has roof mounted antennas hidden by a ~ false roof. It was rejected for the following reasons; a. b Low coverage: The building is below the height required to meet the coverage objectives. No room: Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing antennas are set in a manner which makes it difficult to allow for the necessary separation between carriers. Alternative No 6• Monopole at Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway This site consists of antennas mounted on a simple monopole. It was rejected for the following reasons ~ ~~. s , ~~- .... a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. b. No Room: Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing pole has no room for another carrier. • 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 7 of 12 • :7 Alternative No. 7: Prince of Peace Church This site consists of antennas mounted on a monopine. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and almost one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet .the coverage goals and objectives._ Alternative No 8• Mall NW corner of Saratoga and Campbell Avenues This site consists of antennas mounted on the side of a building. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The .site is located beyond the edge of the search area and almost one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. -- ~- f" _ _-~- ~ s _ ~~ ~~'` ~ .~ ,'~ Alternative No 9• Southwest intersection of Cox Avenue and Hi~hwav 85 This site consists of antennas mounted on a fence located along the west side of Highway 85. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and approximately one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. • 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 8 of 12 • • • • • Alternative No 10: PG&E Tower West of RR tracks, South of Cox. This site consists of antennas placed on an existing PG&E tower. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals arid- --- - objectives. This site consists of antennas located on top of an existing PG&E tower. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and approximately one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. Alternative No.12: 1340 de Anza Boulevard This site consists of antennas mounted on a rooftop. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and approximately one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 9 of 12 • • Alternative No 13 • Mall on de Anza Boulevard North of Prospect The site consists of antennas on a slimline pole. It was rejected for the following reasons; ~,~ ~,~; ; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than one - ~~ mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals ~ -- and objectives. b. No Room: Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing pole has no room for another carrier _ at a reasonable height. Alternative No 14• Medical building de Anza Boulevard North of Highway 85 Currently there are no antennas on this building. It was rejected for the following reason; a. Poor coverage: The site is located beyond the edge of the search area and more than one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. It would not meet the coverage goals and objectives. • • • 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 10 of 12 r~ -s • • Alternative No. 16: Highway 85 and Prospect intersection Facing SE Corner -. -- ''~ • Facing NE Corner ~,I .: ,~ ~~~ ---__ _ Facing SW Corner Currently there are no carriers located on the site. This-site would be rejected for the following reasons; a. Inadequate Covera>;e: The site lies on the western fringe of the search area and at least %2 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller. b. High Impact: To provide coverage beyond the highway corridor would require the creation of a freestanding pole. Unlike the proposal with the church, there would be no opportunity for meaningful stealthing. In addition, any site at the location would need to be placed on the top of the hill next to Prospect to accommodate the extensive requirements of CalTrans for access roads. Under these conditions, the facility would have a much higher visual impact on drivers along Prospect and Highway 85 as well as nearby residents on all corners of the intersection. Alternative No. 17 PG&E Towers In addition to the two towers which were already discussed, none of the other PG & E towers located on the western side of Highway 40 could meet the coverage objectives of the proposed site as they are all too far from the objectives. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Nextel's choice of the single site over a distributive network is based on a combination of factors including coverage, impact and cost. The decision on the size and tapering of the pole was made to result in the shortest and thinnest pole possible using the existing antenna specifications. Finally, the decision to choose the Church of the Ascension over 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 11 of 12 Facing NW Corner • • other sites was based primarily upon the engineering requirements generated to meet the coverage goals and objectives of providing enhances service to the intersection of Prospect and Miller and the residential areas to the south of Prospect. Nextel appreciates the opportunity to present additional information for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. We appreciate your prompt consideration of this submission and a speedy hearing for this application. Sincerely, Elizabeth Aron • • 19550 Prospect Avenue Page 12 of 12 ~'+~~, ~ ~~ 4 ~ my ~ A G ,~~ ^~~ +x~sTB~M~-,~ ~ ~ _ ?. ti ~ ~ ; ~ T j /~` - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ti~ ~1 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ l - 1 ~~~ -_ ---~I ~ ~ _ I~D~ L ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ is ~~- ~ ~ _ i> _ `r~ ~ ~.. ~ ~~ ,i - ~ ~~, ~, ~~ '+ fir' ~+, _ 1~ ~, ~ I ~ ~,r~~ ' 1~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~, Ali l r _ r I ~,~ _~• ~~~ ~~~ ~~ _~~ ;>~ iii ~ I~ ': ~ r ~~I ~ ; i ~' ~ -o ~ ~',• ~i,< ;~' ~-- }' f ~'~ U l l ~ i ~~ a Q. q i A7 it ~I ,~ ~ ~ ~, rJi; ~. `~;~f7~~lE'n Df I~ir~tTiv,Ciii~l~7f ~-`*I t; l ~ef~h ~e~l l ~ , ~~n~ j~-~ -,. ~t ~~ 1'~, ~ .,,~' _' I~ - ' ~ ~~ aid a~_}i~!~e~ ~ _-~+ ~ ~ , C~u~i f m, =-~- cam'. ;.~ ,J , /.~~ ~ ;~ ~ „~ - --- ~ ~ _ ~ I ~^ ~' ~.r5.5~- _. ~ S ~' Cox` ~ 0. ~ ~ "' ~ _ ~ L~- .fi ~ .1 ~~ ~ . t r., ~i' , N .~ ;,,. ~,~,', ~all~ ~~~ __.J~J _ I~ ~ .r ~~~ ~ n~-~11~~ ~`=_ L ~r u~ aos a ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~~ ~ "'~ i ~ ; ~ rJ ~ ~ d .P-' ~ . U _, ~;r / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, y ,, ~ II a~ ' ~ f:~}f~f - -=-~'..~~ ~ I~~III~ `_"~ ~~~~inrnrri ~~-~~'r'=1 a~ - ~ - +--~~ a,~~~ig~~/%. ~9~th~i~L---~ q ~ i` ~~ I I ~ I r..I ~~ ~ -~ I ,~ , 1 ~ ~ if ~~ 1 ~t311'j ~~ ~ ~~~anJ;r=LP?=-~~ ~ ,-~~~~~~ ~ ~~~7~~euFi~i'v~y~ I f ~ I . ~Tt11~2-=Q!`-~~~ ~ , ~j ~ rte'' ` " ~ ~ 1 f°' ~ 1~ lCl,, ~ f ~; 1~ ~~5i3{+=~~T~ I `%~ r'' y----~ 31 ~~~f i 11 ,,~{ ~+-7~taF_Utr ~~.,,~~'~` r"h --° } ,~j, ~--.,"~--~ ~~~f'~~ r^- ` --. ~~' f ~ fl ~ 1~1'~I I ~~T ~ t4 ~~ _- -. _ `,Lj ~ I - "y~ ~~ }r§~'" ~ I `~ ,' -_~ ~rl ~ ~,I, ~ll. ~ ~ ~ ~~-' it-- -_ m~: ,,I~ ~ ~~ _s _ _ _ ~ _ I ~= -~- ( - n - ~ x_ d 1 -. I Cl ~ I 1 -_ ~~.. --~!~ ~ X5,3 { ~ I L ~. _ _ _ j ' `~' y ~l ~~~! .. "`.~ . -.~~-~ ( ~`~ ~ ~~-_ ~ ~, ~ 4 ~ Ir S r " ! r ~ f 11 ~ ~j -'^t~iiin}=II~~~I~~----~ Y-~ ~ r ~ r '- _ ; .~ _ ~: ~ ~ ~ i - - ~ ~r ` "`- -~-- '~-,.- '~- - t,~- ~a~ •~ ~ :, ~; 1 1 ~i~ ,.~ 7, \, _, ~, C ~ - -~ - ~ ~ ~-_ , ~~ ___ ~ f, , I ~ ~ - _ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~;~f = Spa` ~ ,,, ~~~I~r ~Ly~e- ~ C~~ ~cz ibl~~~ #~d~,+'_~71~~F-~'?~ r~ / , ~;, I I i ~, I~ j ~ ! ,r'<~~''' ~~`~~~~ *' ~C~ ~v9` ~~ _ i i' ` ~~~ , ~j`~; tl iii ~ ~~r yr ,~ ~ cfi ~ ~ ~n _ 11 ~c ~'.- .~ ~ r "~~~' ~ II ~~ ate -~3 F,t~~, c? _ ~, t. ~~ m ~'~5 - ~ ~ '-ri ~` mot! ~~'_; ~~ "C~ r.+ ~ rt,nra ~ r ~;.;? .`~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~-i ~I ~ ~.~~~" ,~I ~~~E}ds Ur__--. ~ ~ fwd ~~_ ~~- ~~~- ,~ m ~~~ ~ ~ `~ ~1 ~ -~ t ~_ a r ~ I I ~ ~ F ~, ~jf.' ~ i Tire=L~ i ~~ I~~ ~ =y\ j` ~ '~ ~Er ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ q} I , y=~" '~ r S~"1r.~F,1 ut^ fa ~ ~fnJ.~- ~ i~ ii ~~ _ ~r _~ f PARSOE~ ~ 185 Berry Street, Suite 5300 • San Francisco, California 94107 • Fax: (415) 495-6277 • www.parsons.com • Response to Continuance Decision at Public Hearing August 24, 2005 October 11, 2005 Lata Vasudevan Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 1ZE: 19550 Prospect Ave Application No.: 04-177 -Use Permit for Nextel Antennas and equipment cabinets Dear Lata: Please find the attached letters of need and concerns from the newly merged Sprint together with Nextel (Sprint Nextel). I am hoping that these letters will formally "reactivate" the planning process for this proposal. I understand that we are in a difficult spot between the City's position on the location of the site and that of the neighbors. Please let me know what the next steps are to move forward with this application. I appreciate all your and attention to this project. Please call me at (415)'495-4082 to discuss further. Again, thank you for your patience with this application. Sincerely, Christian Svensk Parsons 185 Bevy St #5300 SF, CA 94107 J ~~~Q~.~ U OCT ~ 3 2005 CITY OF SAKATOGA ~, ~~ irnTV nF.~./F.' r... • Letter of Need post Sprint/Nextel Merger Response to Continuance Decision at Public Hearing on August 24, 2005 September 26, 2005 ~~ ~~ GS Lata Vasudevan O Q ~ r Associate Planner CT 1 3 City of Saratoga ~~~Y 2Q 13777 Fruitvale Ave ''~~~„ CF"S. ~s ~!-' Saratoga, CA 95070 T~~~q~wC, ~'~ ~.. ~t RE: 19550 Prospect Ave Application No.: 04-177 -Use Permit for Nextel Antennas and Equipment Cabinets Dear Ms. Vasudevan: In order to proceed with the above application Nextel (now Sprint Nexte/) is formally re-stating its need for the proposed site located at the Church of Ascension, 19550 Prospect Avenue. Per the Commission's request, Nextel submitted maps showing the locations of the nearest Nextel and Sprint antenna facilities. The RF Engineer responsible for situating this proposed facility, Kevin Curry, verbally explained at the hearing that none of these existing sites (neither Nextel's or Sprint's) was located close enough to ameliorate the existing gap. Thus, even though Sprint and Nextel have merged this site is still needed. To elaborate, Sprint Nexte/ will still provide "Nextel Legacy" handsets with their inherent "direct-connect" service as well as continue to service its existing customer base on the "Nextel Legacy" network which operates. at a different frequency than Sprint's. Thus, the Sprint/Nextel merger provides customers with an array of products depending on their needs and for the foreseeable future will continue to operate separate networks on different frequencies requiring separate and distinct equipment. Sprint Nextel will seek to locate ("synergize") on each other's existing towers and locations where feasible and needed. Unfortunately, at the"proposed location there is no existing Sprint facility on which to co-locate upon. The submitted alternative site analysis illustrates that in this particular area of Saratoga -where Nextel's coverage gap exists along Prospect Avenue -there are no viable alternative locations that could provide both proximity to Prospect and the necessary height needed to cover Prospect. Since the proposed location lies directly in the center of the gap (please refer to the previously submitted color coverage maps) it would not make sense to move out of this gap in order to then cover it. Please refer to Mr. Curry's attached letter. These are Nextel's concerns going forward: • the City Attorney was not present at the hearing • clear direction was not given to the Commission by City Staff in regards to the Commission's obligation to rule either for or against this proposal based upon on the findings that were deemed complete by Staff • Commissioner Shallop (a lawyer & engineer) did attempt to direct the Commission to an "up/down decision" but was unable to do so because he was not supported by Staff or a City Attorney there is no clear, definitive reason for the continuance • per procedure Nextel solicited neighborhood feedback and went with the preferred mono-pine • per neighborhood feedback, Nextel generated alternative location mock-ups (on the west side of the church, but were directed by staff not to submit these as this was not the preferred location by the Commission or Staff) per the Commission we are to work closely with the neighbors -Nextel has already determined that the neighbors are amenable to a location on the west side of the church -the Commission is aware of their preferred location -why then the continuance? the Staff Report did not adequately illustrate to the Commission that the findings were met Thank you for your help with this application, Nextel hopes to move forward with the application for a use permit at 19550 Prospect Avenue within the context of the Municipal Code. ager • • • k Together with tVEXTEI DATE: 10/04/05 TO: Saratoga Planning Department FROM: Kevin Curry - RF Engineer RE: Justification for 2146 North Highway 85 site selection. 2146 North Highway 85 is a site designed to provide in-building portable coverage and improve in-car portable coverage to Prospect Avenue and the surrounding area in the City of Saratoga. • To ensure there is adequate coverage and capacity for our existing customers and to meet the anticipated customer demand, we must add quality sites and make changes to our network. In order to reuse our frequencies efficiently, we are unable to add a sector to either of the surrounding sites. Furthermore, there is no site close enough to modify to improve the in-building and in-car portable coverage to the required levels. With the increased elevation adding a sector would propagate RF to over 50 sectors limiting the reuse of our channels and causing interference. This is very critical now during our re- binding and reduced channel capacity. The existing Nextel cell sites use iDEN technology and do not provide in-building coverage in this area and in-car coverage sub optimal. The existing Sprint sites are not close enough to meet the iDEN systems coverage objectives in this area. CDMA -code division multiple access is a different technology and use a different frequency band than iDEN -integrated dispatch enhanced network. These two systems operate independently. Sprint still sells both Sprint (CDMA) and Nextel (iDEN) phones, again these are different technologies and different frequencies. Sprint does not currently offer a phone that operates on both frequency bands. ,,, Kevin Curry RF Engineer Sprint -Together with Nextel ~~~D o~ ~~ cry c~/~yoF `~ 2005 ~'`' ~4~rT~, SA1~q Tp ~lpl/Ar ,,,~~~ • • Attachment 7 • • • ~, J/-~. w~ ~C ~ r~ ~~z v~°~ ~j~-~. J'~ ~1~a- 7~iJ /~~- Ga,~wk~fll u,~rs , • ~ -~ o,-~ i~ ~~ v, ~~~~ cz~ v(~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ AEG 1 6 ZDD6 ~~ Cll'YpFS ~MUNITy pE~ 0 nAr . Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao August 14, 2006 Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on August 23`a but we want you to know, as neighbors of the Church of the Ascension, we are opposed to the proposed Nextel antennas being located on the Church property (Application 04-177). We believe it impacts the entire residential atmosphere of the residences that live close to proposed location. Many of the properties face the church property and residents drive by the church property every day. An overwhelming number of our neighbors are opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. It is also clear there are other options which Nextel should pursue that would meet their needs but they have not shown any serious desire to do so. Now they need to understand they have no choice since the Church of the Ascension site is not acceptable. Parsons now needs to do a complete analyze of the most viable alternate sites and not hide behind general statements like "does not meet coverage objectives". They need to provide a complete set of data including separate coverage maps and give this information to the city so a sound decision can be make by the planning commission. The three viable alternate sites aze: • North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. • Highway 85 at Prospect Avenue. • PG&E Tower on Coz Avenue across from the Coz Avenue Fire Station. We also believe that Parsons did not seriously address a viable Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) solution as suggested by the planning commissioners in the April 12~', 2006 Study Session. A DAS system can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation which is extremely important to our residential community. Although Parsons stated "...the City of Sazatoga has all the information it needs...and has no additional information to provide the City" we believe they have not seriously looked at these viable options. We believe the Planning Commission should now deny Nextel Application 04-177 and let us enjoy our residential community. ~~ AUG 1 6 2006 L • • v (/ /`may-~~ ~ ~ DOnna ,Muzzy ~ ~"~MUNIOTY DEVELOPn 19518 Eric Drive • • Ms. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Vasudevan: 1307 Regency Dr. San Jose, CA 95129 February 1, 2006 As you had requested, I, on behalf of Church of the Ascension, have reviewed the revised plans, for the concealed cellular antenna to be located at the Church of the Ascension, with the most immediate neighbors in Saratoga. This is in regard to Application 04-177 Use Permit. The revised plans call for the antennas to be located on the west side of Worner Halt and to consist of three 14" diameter flag poles. Enclosed are 6 signed statements, on your Planning Department form, certifying that those persons have reviewed the project plans, they understand the scope of work and do NOT have any concerns or issues to be addressed by the applicant prior to the public hearing on the revised location. There are 4 statements from neighbors who are most immediately adjacent to the east of the project -1 on Eric Drive, 1 on Miller Ave. and 2 on Ardmore Ct. There are 2 statements from Beth David Congregation, our most immediate neighbor on the west side of the project. One is on behalf of the congregation and one is the personal statement from Rabbi Daniel Pressman. His residence, in San Jose, was one of those that received the initial notification you sent to those within 500 feet of the project. In addition, I reviewed the revised plans on the telephone with Audrey Hildebrand who lives at 19519 Eric Dr. She indicated that, since we were moving the antennas to the west side of Womer Hall and using the flagpoles, she has no objection to the project but she prefers to not sign a statement. I have also spent considerable time reviewing and discussing the new location with Janet Fontenot and Bill Ness who live at 19537 Eric Dr. Although, after the initial hearing on August 24, 2005, Bill had told me he would support the project if we moved the location to the west side of Womer Hall, he and Janet are now saying that they will still not support it. `~ ~~~d~ Sincerely, ~ t ~ 0 3 2006 u /~V "'-" C1Ty OF S~q iv; i v~~; erry Streb for '"''"NiTV nF~UF,,,;,. Church of the Ascension cc: Fr. Paul Duong, Pastor, Church of the Ascension Christian Svensk, Alaris/Parsons Neighbor Notification Template • Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna 1 ocati on & des i gn :. West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name:NextelWireless 14" dia. flag poles. Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~~ 2 ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ `r ~ . 5~ ~~~~~ ~~~T~ ~ ~ l~%'~ ~ ~ ~~~Nei bor Phone #: `~~ ~ ~~ Si afore: ~ Printed: ._ ~ ,~~~ C ~~ ~ c ~ ~~ ~J City of Saratoga Planning Department 1W'eighbor Notification Template f • Development Applications Dater August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna 1 ocati on & des i gn :. West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless 14" di a . flag poles . Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer thaf neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. C`'~1My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~^ > Neighbor Name: ~~ .gig /Ll` ._ __ ~ r '--'~' ~ Neighbor Address: .4~-~-/~'~~}~~ Neighbor phone #: _ ~~ ~t j~'~j 2~~C. Signature: Printed: ~0_ ~ t~~ t City of Saratoga Planning Department I~Teighbor Notification Template f Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna 1 ocati on & des i gn :. West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless 14" di a . f 1 ag poles . Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not took favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly_ to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: Y have reviewed the projec# plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name; ~~, ~ ~ c~.7.;~~`~ ~ ~ ~\`~`QzS Neighbor Address: ~~5~~ ~~~C ~~~~ 5C\'`P~c~~~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ~-J~ ~~~ ~j Signature: Printed: • • • City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template f Development Applications Date: August 2, 20Q5 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna. 1 ocati on & des i gn :. . West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless 14" di a . flag poles . Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by _ _ applicants prior to the public hearing._ Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: _ ~~-{ (ij L (_ , ,~ (,~ 1 N~ Neighbor Address: 1U2G~ 7~ ~i~~/ ~i! o ~Y -~~ G~- `LU~~ Neighbor Phone #: y~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ J~~- 3 ~ Signature: Printed: I • City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template f Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna 1 ocati on & des i gn :. West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless 14" d i a . flag po 1 es . Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that _ _ neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. UM si afore below certifies the followin : Ihave-reviewed the ro'ect Tans; I Y~ g P J p understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional'sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~,~ ~ (~,~~~ (~ ~/1° S `S ~~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ r~5 ~~~,, ~~~~~~ 1 4' ~aa ~~~~U'~. ~~~eighbor Phone #: `~t~ -~~ 7 3 ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: • C] • City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road New antenna 1 oca ti on & des i gn :. West side of Worner Hall; three Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless 14 " d i a . flag poles . Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. fine Planning Comrrrission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when,solicited by _ _ applicants prior to the public hearing. _Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. L=1M si afore below certifies the followin : I hav re 'ewe th y gn g e yr d e project plans; I understand the scope ofwork; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope ofwork; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: _ 2 ~ ~i ~~v ~ ~ ~ 2~ ssm ~-~J Neighbor Address: 1l~6 ~ 17t}lU 2oMt~-s ~1~;~ _ ~'lJ J ~~. ~~~~~/ ~ Neighbor Phone#: ~~8 -.3~G^~~ Signature: Printed: 2~~a31 ~~1 c~. r~"~'M~9-~ City of Saratoga Planning Department August 14, 2006 Lata Here are #~ more signed forms to add to the 49 you akeady have in Thursdays (8/8/2006) package. The total is now 51 Although we could yet more as people return from vacations this will be our final submittal for your report. I-have also included a revised summary letter dated 8/14/2006 which includes the revised attached summary map. You can assemble the revised 8/14/2006 package for your records by using this revised letter and summary map along with all 51 signed forms (49 previous ones and the 2 new ones). Ray '~~~ 4 ~~ ,y~YY..~~l~i;r;y~. Q.tJA7Wli~i.9v ,` ~ ~~~~Y AUG 14 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~ • • August l4, 2006 Lata, The Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas (Application Number: 04-177) and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas are opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Sazatoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is akeady being used in other Sazatoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. The Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas have residential addresses on Eric Drive, Candy Lane, Miller Avenue, Ascension Drive, Ardmore Court, Arden Court, Ashton Court, Ladera Court and Terrence Avenue. This represents 62 residences. As indicated in the attached signed forms, 51 of these residences are. opposed to the proposed antennas for the reasons stated above. Their specific addresses are: • 19481, 19499, 19519, 19537, 19518 Eric Drive • 12058, 12073, 12074, 12092, 12111, 12123, 12141, 12153, 12175 .Candy Lane • 12124, 12148, 12176, 12198, 12200, Miller Avenue • 19604, 19620, 19642, 19666, 19686 Ascension Drive • 19555, 19567 Ardmore Court • 19557, 19566, -19569 Arden Court • 19602, 19603, 19617, 19618, 19655, 19668, 19671, 19684 Ashton Court • 19601, 19619, 19645, 19661 Ladera Court • 12111, 12122, 12137, 12138, 12141, 12146, 12154, 12167, 12168, 12176 Terrence Avenue The residences for the Church of Ascension Pastor at 12072 Miller Avenue and the St. Patrick's Fathers at 19536 Eric Drive as well as members of the parish, including an employee of the church, in residences at 19560 and 19572 Ardmore Court continue to have no problems with any of the Nextel proposals. These results indicate, by an overwhelming ratio of 51 to 4 (more than 10 to 1), the Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas are opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. Most of the remaining residences, including many that previously signed other forms opposing the antennas on the church property, were on vacation and could not be contacted. Although Parsons, who represents Nextel, stated "the City of Sazatoga has all the information it i needs...and has no additional information to provide the City". We and many others in our community believe they have not seriously looked at alternative sites, alternate antenna systems or a "realistic flagpole design" for antenna concealment. Paul Fontenot, Hui Lui and Ray Muzzy • • •~' "Z~ ~ ~ O p ~ ~ t~ O 'O V ~1 •~ O /~M • 1~1 lil ~l ~ U O vi ~'" ~ ~ V ~ -~ "~ ~ ""'' C ~ S~• ~ ~ b~4 ~ O ~ ~~•+ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~y ~y~ i~l ~ ~.y _~ ~~ V ~1 ~y1 ~ •il ~1 •~ O Z f a' __ z Y ~F _..._ ._._ %O a z U C O .~ C N U Q O U L U N O m N O O C L ~, :~ .__.._ a a ~. W' J i ~' Q -- -~ Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas. to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag _ _ _ --near the top the-pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: v d ~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ,S ~ 1-~~ ~~'~ _~ v ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Print: ~ ` - , 6 i4/1/O~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. _f Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~.~5 ~~` V ~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ `~"~` ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ • Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~~`' ~i3 / 1%~~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ Signature: ~ iii <~~~ ~ t~-~,~ Print: J f %1/ .S ~-~ ~ ~ n / Signature: Print: • • • August 9, 2006 Lata Here are three more signed forms to add to the 46 you already have in Tuesdays (8/8/2006) package. The total is now 49. I have also included a revised summary letter dated 8/9/2006 which includes the revised attached summary map. You can assemble the revised 8/9/2006 package for your records by using this revised letter and summary map along with all 49 signed forms (46 previous ones and the 3 new ones). Ray ~ ~~~o~~ ~ AUG 1 0 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C~ Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848: . Prospect Avenue. Sazatoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~~ ~ 1-R TJ~ A ~~ Neighbor Address: ) a. ~~_ / c ~, b - ~ ~ ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ () ~ ' ~~ (~___ C~~ p r Signature: //"~'. ~ Print: s ~7/ S ~'1 ,~~~~ ~,~ Signature: Print: • • Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Application Number: 04-17? Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has akeady allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate. antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ..~i1 'n ~'S ~ ~ /~ T'0/t~ Neighbor Address: 6 ~ / ~!~ ~/ ~~~s,Q ~y~• ~ ~~11 ~~ ~!4 Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: /C• Signature: Print: ~/~/'r~ /l` ~~y~~~ Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~Q,~ 'rt1~- ! I i `~" 1~ Neighbor Address: 1 °I 6 Neighbor Phone Number: 4~ ~ ` Z' S 3 ~~ Z p ~O Saratoga Signature: Print: ~'~~~' l t' "~~~ -~ Signature: Print: • • August 9, 2006 Lata, The Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas (Application Number: 04-177) and aze also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas aze opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to stazt the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Sazatoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. The Sazatoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas have residential addresses on Eric Drive, Candy Lane, Miller Avenue, Ascension Drive, Ardmore Court, Arden Court, Ashton Court, Ladera Court and Terrence Avenue. This represents 62 residences. As indicated in the attached signed forms, 49 of these residences are opposed to the proposed antennas for the reasons stated above. Their specific addresses aze: • 19481, 19499, 19537, 19518 Eric Drive • 12058, 12073, 12074, 12092, 12111, 12123, 12141, 12153, 12175 Candy Lane • 12124,12148, 12176, 12198, 12200, Miller Avenue • 19604; 19620, 19642, 19666, 19686 Ascension Drive • 19567 Ardmore Court • 19557, 19566, 19569 Arden Court • 19602, 19603, 19617, 19618, 19655, 19668, 19671, 19684 Ashton Court • 19601, 19619, 19645, 19661 Ladera Court • 12111, 12122, 12137, 12138, 12141, 12146, 12154, 12167, 12168, 12176 Terrence Avenue The residences for the Church of Ascension Pastor at 12072 Miller Avenue and the St. Patrick's Fathers at 19536 Eric Drive as well as members of the parish, including an employee of the church, in residences at 19560 and 19572 Ardmore Court continue to have no problems with any of the Nextel proposals. These results indicate, by an overwhelming ratio of 49 to 4 (more than 10 to 1), the Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas are opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. Most of the remaining residences, including many that previously signed other forms opposing the antennas on the church property, were on vacation and could not be contacted. Although Parsons, who represents Nextel, stated "the City of Saratoga has all the information it needs...and has no additional information to provide the City". We and many others in our community believe they have not seriously looked at alternative sites, alternate antenna systems or a "realistic flagpole design" for antenna concealment. Paul Fontenot, Hui Lui and Ray Muzzy • • • ;, ------ --__ <~ ~.~ ~ m v 0 = ~ ~ ,_-c n~ ~ r- - C _ _ (7 r _ ~ D < ~ D ~ { ~ ~ ~ < ~ m n i -~ ~ ~~ ~r m ~; o ~ _ _ .. ~~ m z ®- _ n • ® ~o z ~~ ~' ~ r m D __ J~ <` ,. 'm -o ~: o' ~~ v; m; ~' v ~` O ~; m n 1 ~. v, z _-z - --- z r m z ~; D' n m r, ~' i ~' i ~ O '~ ~D ~r ~- ~ n ~. ~ ~. vi ~ !"' ~ ~ i..1 O !~~P ~ ~ ~ 0 cD A~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ^~ ~+ ~ h~ ~ ~• I.0• I~+ ~ 0 0 ~ .~ ~' ~ ~ m --. ~ -_ ---.. < ~ '+ / ~~~ ~~ i ` ,3, ,~ r Lata Vasudevan From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:19 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: FW: Letter for 8/9/06 Saratoa P.C. meeting For your project file. -----Original Message----- From: Linda Rodgers (mailto:LindaRodgersc~msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:10 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: RE: Letter for 8/9/06 Saratoa P.C. meeting Thank you. Please let me know if it did not come through the immediately preceding email. Linda R. Rodgers -----Original Message----- From: John Livingstone [mailto:johnl@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, August O8, 2006 11:12 AM To: Linda Rodgers Subject: RE: Letter for 8/9/06 Saratoa P.C. meeting Hi Linda Very nice reply. I did not get the attached letter. Would you please forward it to me. Thanks JL -----Original Message----- From: Linda Rodgers [mailto:LindaRodgersc~msn.com] Q.. Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:07 AM To: 'pjfontenot' Cc: Dave Anderson; Cathleen Boyer; John Livingstone; 'Cappello, Manny'; 'Hlava, Joyce'; Hunter, Jill; 'Kundtz, Robert'; Susie_VedanthamC~URSCorp.com; 'Zhao, Yan' Subject: RE: Letter for 8/9/06 Saratoa P.C. meeting Dear Mr. Fontnot, Thank you for your continued interest in this matter. It is because of thoughtful public comments on issues of communitywide concern that we are able to consider the many aspects of our decisions intelligently. Every letter we receive is part of the public record. We will receive and consider your letter whether or not it is read into the .record. Be assured it will be part of the official record. Personally, I prefer not to have Commissioners read the letters we receive into the record because we receive many letters on issues of high impact. Also, it seems to me that having the Commissioners read letters from the public may place undue emphasis on the point of view of the author. I suggest that if your want the letter to be read into the record that you contact another member of the public to read it on your behalf. However, if I may suggest, it is often more effective to summarize the major points than to try to read a long letter in 3 minutes. Thank you again for your letter. And thank you for sending it in advance so that the Commissioners will have time to read it in advance of the meeting. Linda R. Rodgers 1 -----Original Message----- From: pjfontenot [mailto:pjfontenot~yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:37 AM o: lindarodgers@msn.com c: daveac~saratoga.ca.us; 'pjfontenotc~yahoo.com'; Cathleen Boyer Subject: Letter for 8/9/06 Saratoa P.C. meeting Linda, Because of personnel reasons I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. I would like to ask that my attached letter be read into the open input section at the start of the P.C. meeting this Wednesday August 9th. Regards, Paul Fontnot Eric Drive Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best Spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com • • 2 Dave Anderson, City Manager, Saratoga Lata Vasudevan From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:19 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: FW: 8 9 2006 Letter.doc For the project file. From: Linda Rodgers [mailto:CindaRodgers@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:10 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: 8 9 2006 Letter.doc Letter from Paul Fontenot August 9, 2006 Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao John Livingstone, Community Development Director Page 1 0~`2 I would like to request that the City of Saratoga review its Use Permit process for applications of cellular site in Saratoga. Many of the details provide (or not provided but should be provided) by the applicants are technical in nature where an independent third party consultant would be extremely useful to review requests, applications and plans. I will reference specific examples regarding application #04-177 Sprint Nextel's request to place a site at the Church of Ascension located at 19550 Prospect Avenue. They concern the Alternate Antenna Technology like the Distributed Antenna System (DAS), Alternate Site Locations and Realistic Tapered Flagpole Designs for Concealed Antenna Panels. My concern is that the City does not currently posse the oversight to point out critical technical issues. If a concerned citizen does not come forward I am afraid the service providers will continue to hoodwink the municipality. Technical support for the city staff is required. Some facts about personal wireless service facilities that the wireless carriers may not be telling you are summarized in the attachment . provided by a wireless planning consultant. Currently I see two possible solutions for this oversight issue. The first would be for the City to seek out and contract an independent third party for review. However, I realize this would require use of City resources that currently may not be available. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that the permit costs be revised so that a carrier would assume this cost of review by an independent third party. It would ensure that the first proposal is more accurate when submitted by a carrier because of pending review. The second benefit is that there is another set of independent eyes reviewing the plans and • • • QiQi~nn~ D ve Anderson, City Manager, Saratoga Page 2 of 2 process. This would help reduce the tension that is generated each and every time this comes before a part of the community that will be affected. The failure to act will only leave a system without any oversight in place thus opening. Saratoga up to the issues described above. Also, the solution can no longer be citizen review on a case-by-case basis. This is completely unacceptable. This is both a need and concern that has to be addressed by the City of Saratoga. I you have any comments, feedback, questions or would like a place to start this process please let me know as I am willing to assist the City anyway I may. Paul Fontenot Eric Drive Facts About Personal Wireless Service Facilities The following are some facts about personal wireless service facilities that the wireless carriers may not be telling you. ~ Personal wireless service facilities can be provided in your community without the use of "towers." Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can tell you how personal wireless service facilities can be deployed in your community without "towers." • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has licensed hundreds of carriers to provide personal wireless service facilities in the U.S. through an auction process that raised billions of dollars for the federal government. The FCC has plans for many more auctions. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can estimate how many of these carriers may want to install personal wireless service facilities in your community. • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserved local zoning authority for cities and counties throughout the U.S. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will show. you how your city or county can plan for (and profit from) the coming revolution in personal wireless service facilities. • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to prepare guidelines for radio frequency radiation (RFR). Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will show you how your community can ensure that the personal wireless service facilities in your community will meet these guidelines. • Cities and counties can deal with health and safety issues resulting from personal wireless service facilities. The FCC does not pre-empt you from obtaining data and Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can show you how. • Your city or county can enact a moratorium on the approval of personal wireless service facilities to give your community time to plan. Call Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to find out about moratoria. • Your city or county can deny an application for personal wireless service facilities. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can show you what is required for a denial. Most successful carrier lawsuits are over improper denials. • Your city or county can generate revenue from personal wireless service facilities and recover all of the money it spends on planning for and permitting personal wireless service facilities (including the cost of consultants). Kreines & Kreines, Inc. prepares revenue generation and cost recovery plans that show your jurisdiction how it can be generate revenue and be reimbursed. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can provide your jurisdiction or agency with the information necessary to start planning (and stop reacting). • 8/8/2006 August 8, 2006 Lata, The Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas (Application Number: 04177) and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas are opposed to the proposed antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. The Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas_have residential addresses on Eric Drive, Candy Lane, Miller Avenue, Ascension Drive, Ardmore Court, Arden Court, Ashton Court, Ladera Court and Terrence Avenue. This represents 62 residences. As indicated in the attached signed forms, 46 of these residences are opposed to the proposed antennas for the reasons stated above. Their specific addresses are: • 19481, 19499, 19537, 19518 Eric Drive • 12058, 12073, 12074, 12092, 12111, 12123, 12141, 12153, 12175 Candy Lane • 12124, 12198, 12200, Miller Avenue • 19604, 19620, 19642, 19666, 19686 Ascension Drive • 19567 Ardmore Court • 19557, 19566, 19569 Arden Court • 19602, 19603, 19617, 19618, 19655, 19668, 19684 Ashton Court • 19601, 19619, 19645, 19661 Ladera Court • 12111, 12122, 12137, 12138, 12141, 12146, 12154, 12167, 12168, 12176 Terrence Avenue The residences for the Church of Ascension Pastor at 12072 Miller Avenue and the St. Pafirick's Fathers at 19536 Eric Drive as well as members of the parish, including an employee of the church, in residences at 19560 and 19572 Ardmore Court continue to have no problems with any of the Nextel proposals. These results indicate, by an overwhelming ratio of 46 to 4 (more than 10 to 1), the Saratoga residents within 500 feet of the site and are also in the closest proximity to the proposed location of the Nextel Antennas are opposed to the proposed antennas being locate n~~ l5 ~~ Ascension property. U AUG 0 8 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ti Most of the remaining residences, including many that previously signed other forms opposing the antennas on the church property, were on vacation and could not be contacted. Although Parsons, who represents Nextel, stated "the City of Saratoga has all the information it needs...and has no additional information to provide the City". We and many others in our. community believe they have not seriously looked at alternative sites, alternate antenna systems or a "realistic flagpole design" for antenna concealment. Paul Fontenot, Hui Lui and Ray Muzzy • • ~ ~~..1 ~~ v ~ ~ ~ Q 4~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~yy ~ ~1 •~ V 0 iA ~ V 4~ ~ O '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C •"' ,L~i ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~I i~l • ^I ~. ~~yy~yy I~1 ~I .~ FBI O ~ Q w w - -~ a 'O ~~ a ~ ~ ;~ w is a ~ O ' ~ ~ ~. a o w ..,._ ,.,'- ~ \o W { ~ a' o J ~ O 'b y o .~ c ~ N U ~ _ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ¢ N ~ ~ ~ y ;~ ,~ •-. to U C U 3 ~ w O O c7 ~ 0 ... " ; -_- _ . > , • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. . I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. ~ ~i, t '` ~(J Neighbor Name: (~ Neighbor Address: G ~ ~" ~ f ~p~ ~ C ~~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: G ~ ~ / ~~ ~L~~J Signature: Print: ` ~"~ ~ _ Signature: ~ Print: ~J ~' ~~~~ ~G~ { Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. , I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. From: "Roger Chu" <rogerchu168@s6cglobal.net> To: "'Lata Vasudevan"' <Ivasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: RE; App No: 04-177 (Nextel Antenna) Date: Monday, July 24, 2006 5`.23:56. PM Tue, 25 Jui 2006'00:23.:56 +0000 Lata, Mr. Muzzy sent me an email that includes the following: "At this point in time (voters desire for the city to keep the property) the North Campus and last night committed $500,000 to start the renovation of the buildings. It is a better site than within our surrounding residential community. 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and residential community, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining North Campus.", which I agree. Could you please include these points in your report so that the option of locating the antenna at North Campus is considered? Thanks, Roger Chu 19499 Eric Drive (408) 255-6853 ti Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with. a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~/¢~ ~ VZ Z~ Neighbor Address: ~ / ~~c7 ~G ~~~(~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Z ~ 7' 3 707 Signature: Print• ~~'y /S/t V 2 Zy Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community.' ~--~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Neighbor Name: ~ ~~ Neighbor Address: 11537 G~r~ ~~~ Neighbor Phone Nu ber: ~~ `~ ~~ _ ~~~ Si ature: ~~G'~`'"(~~' Pnnt: _ Saratoga 1~"a,u//o/l~~la~ Signature: Print: ti Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal • ate: Au st 2006 D gu Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to 6e located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag -near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Sazatoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to oi~set costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: W {S ~~ Neighbor Address: ~G~D C~9'~l ~,~ Sazatoga Neighbor Phone Number: C"1 ~ ~J a~~ ~ G~~ Signature: ~ Print: ~ 15 ~~ ~l f Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. ~'! Nei hbor Name: ~~ V ~ ~ ~~ r' 1 ~~-,-~, ~ ~ .. f Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ 1~ ~~ ~ Saratoga ~,~ Neighbor Phone umber: j ~~~~" /`~ r ~` Signature: % A Print:=~~l/}~ ~~~7~ UIr-~- Signature: ~ ~~ Print: ~~ a • • • ti r • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Sazatoga locations. The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~~~ ;Y~~ S~ ~(~`~'I Neighbor Address: ~Zo~~ ~N,~~ ~-~~ ?~z4/zr~o6 Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~a8 ~~~ ~~ Signature: Print: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J~l' ~~ ~ ~~ ,, . Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Sazatoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has akeady allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3= Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: 7 ~~a~o~ Neighbor Address: l Z ~ ~( ~- ~- ~~ T`I ~ ~ ~-~~ ~°` Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ s~ -~ y ~ ~- ~~ Signature: ~~ ~,. _ ' ~' Print: .:,. % ~- ;;,~ r--- ~.': .'.. ___ ~ r \. Signature: Print: .~ ~i • • \~ • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available .and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has .located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. ~W lam' V" ~ J ~~ Neighbor Name: . ~~~ ~ 7 • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Address: ~ ?il < ~ ~y~~ ~'~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~~~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~~~ signature: Signature: Print: ~V~J`~~ ~" Print: 0 Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a nag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e._ Saratoga Library, 3- -Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is akeady being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~ ` ~ ~ ~ Neighbor Address: Date:~_ ~l ~-©o Neighbor Phone Number: ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ - o ~ 3 ~ Saratoga ,~ ` ' Print: ~ , u ` ~_ Signature: Signature: Print: • s • • • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall- consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Neztel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. ' • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Neztel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is akeady being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~' ~/ ~~ / 7~ ~ l~/ ~~ Neighbor Address: ~. ~~ ~/ Neighbor Phone Number: ~~~ ~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ .3 ~/ Saratoga Signature: ~5,~~~- `~~ .~o~'%/f ~/~°~~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: . 1'- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: SliS~ n T o~~ S o~ Neighbor Address: ~ Z ~ s 3 `~ ~ c/ t ~ ~~ h ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: (H U~) Z ~ 7 _ 9 y Z ~v Signature• ~~-.-, ~ ~~~:-,_„ Print: .SceS~ ~'~ ~ - T~ ~`~--sc~~, Signature: ~._.~.` 9 Print• ~` ~f~~/~~ • • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. . I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is akeady being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: s ~L l~l~~-. l~tfi~ s H~ ~4S ~,a pr~^-,a_ Neighbor Address: ~ 2 ~ 7 f C ~~7 ~'~ ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Print: ~ ~ 2fM~ 1~ 21St-rL ~+s~, a w.T Signature: Print: c Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: 'L~~" ~''' G' ~0 t ~ Neighbor Address: ~~ Z y ~ ~ ~l ~" ~V ~n ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~~g~ ~~ ~ 444Jr Si afore: Print: ~U.~~~G. Noon Signature: Print• ~~ Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, - - 2- -It is-owned by the city who has_located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and Iimited residential community who have backyards not front- yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: `/ c. ~ ~ ~j U ~ O(F, Neighbor Address: Jot / % ~ !~ ~~ (~ ~~- ~~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~ ._ ~(, 21 '---1 0 ? I Print: ~ ~ L L. Signature: Signature: Print: ~4 L Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-17? Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top.-the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue.. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already. allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3= -Flagpoles would blend-with the existing-buildings, - - - 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: 'C~Y~ ~t 11'k SA~~ Neighbor Address: ~ZL~ ~~~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: l ~U' ~ ~~ Signature• ,[.liN Print: ~ VI }~! ~ Pz Signature: Print: • • • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Sazatoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- _It is owned by the. city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: _ L' ai C/ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~y Saratoga L Neighbor rhone Number: ~~° ~ ~~~- ~ ~ Signature: Signature: Print: / ~L/ Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North' Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to stazt the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend-with-the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate. antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is akeady being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: %~~1/i~ ~//J/~Dl"rv~ i/0~J l~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~o~ U ,~-I ~ ~ ~. G~~~ J l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Saratoga Neighbor Signature: Signature: ~:~~ ~sf~~ • • Print: t~ ` ~A J 17 ~I ~ ~J ~ ~ ~M r o/4 ~D Print: ~~''~ • Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on _ the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, _2-- It is owned by_the, city who has located. antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: V ~ G ~y r (~~~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ L ~ Z l SCQ~I S ~ ~ /~ U ~ '~'~- Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ` ~ Signature: .o%.~~-~ ~ ,/ Print: v, Gfi7~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, ~ 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. ~ ', • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~-'~`y~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- Neighbor Address: `~~ 6~ ~~c~n~~~..~ -~ Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~~ 2 ~~-`( ~3 Signature: Print: Saratoga .lA~; d ~/~. Signature: Print: I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, - -2-- It is owned -by the. city__who_has located antennas on city sites, i.e.. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, S- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. -Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. ~~ • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: G~.tn ~ ~ ~ Gt, N~f $o ~/ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal /~L86 SGLN Sig a ~ ~ Sazatoga Neighbor Phone Number: yyp ` 71S ' ~ ~~~ • r-LeSoN Signature: Print: / ~ v Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3-~-Flagpoles would-blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna~Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~ 1q H~~ ~~~L Neighbor Address: ~~156 ~' i912~ Cr1~ ~ E ~. ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Signatwe: Print• T~19~~'~ GC~C Signature: Print• . Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. ~ ~~ ~ Neighbor Name: ~T /~ -~- ]~G~ y ~°; ~ ~30 Neighbor Address: ~ ~1j' 7 ~Y~~1/1... G-f -, Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~ g `-' 02.7 `3 ~/ Jr,,..~ Signature: Print: ~~~~/,Q, ~` ~'G{~~~~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, -3= Flagpoles would blend-with the existing buildings, - - 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. ~- Neighbor Name: ~~ f jy~ ~ p .~ ~Ct ~ i~ cal.. c~ ~ Ct t Neighbor Address: 1g5E~ ~-1 r~ ~ C, I Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number:( O ~) ci 73 - ~Sll ~ --~~ Signature: ~ vt/l ~ ~~uc/~-- ~~ , Signature: Print: ~g~Y'i~e~lc~ l ~u ~~ca Print: C~ '~1~- ~~~'~-~1 • • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. • • I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than l/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~ C%~ ~' y~~ ~~ Neighbor Address: Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~~ b ~~ ~ ~ ~ `- ~ ~-- ~ ~ !~ ~ Signature: Print• Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near- the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with ari unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: "`Y ~'t~~.~.?,. ~-h~~-^^--~- 5~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~t,~_--.. ~ , Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ y~8> ~ ~ 7 - ~ ~ti ~ Signature: ~c~,~~I~~.v Print: ~~ca,~y o ~' h ~ Signature: Print: • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: Au ust 2006 g Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag - --- -- -near-the top-the-pole. C7 • I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It isnow-available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. '~ ~~(~ ~' Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~;~ Y ~ ~; ~~ ~ ~ (; Neighbor Address: Saratoga Q Nei hbor Phone Number: ~ ~~ g Signature: Signature ~~ Print: Print: ~~~ ~~'v. Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Aall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the_pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already-allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings.. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. (~, ~`~ Neighbor Name: ll~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~`~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~ ,' Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: `~~ ~ P ~ ~~ ~ ~ Signature: `_ Print: ~ tA~ l,--I y1 Signature: Print: ~ ~~ ~ • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag -near the-top-the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller,. 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Jo`y fie- ~ i ~ ~ a S ~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~~~ ('~ Neighbor Phone Number: ~-0 8 - ~ ~-s-~ s~3 Saratoga Signature: ~UL I.J; ut~!-~~ Print: ~ ~~ rt e D i ~ i ~t S ~ Signature: Print: • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile ,from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the.North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSAj that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. T'he proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: C'~~ ~ I C ~ ~ "~ C~ Neighbor Address: ~ R 65,x" ,/~S H Tod C o (•~ PzT Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~{-o ~ - 43 3 -- 1 6 ~~ Signature: C~~ Print: e¢f~ C~If- I C.ki f~a~~_ C1Qnat17rP' / D~~ ! /J ~+ 1 /L- .~C/`~/1 1 rlnt: ~ ~ CSt- y . _ ~./1/~ e~ • • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • .There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~, ~~~/ ~ ~~l ~ 1 Neighbor Address: ~ Q 6 ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ CT Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: C'~~~ '~ s3 ~ g ~ S~ - ~~~~ Print: .~ /~ 2 ~ ~ ~< U r~ 1 Signature: Print: ~r-~P~Au ~ i Ku-o Signature: • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-17'7 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. i Neighbor Name: ~ E~1 ~/ ~ s r~ R,~ q~,J~S k.~ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ S ~ "~'6~ ~D ~~ ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ` ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ' Signature: Signature: Print: ~~.~/~i S ~~ ~/4'ilf l7 j~~ Print: r~ u • • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the w est side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in dune they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: (~1 ~ ~ ~ 0.-- Neighbor Address: ~ 9 6 ° ~ ~ d ~f'a- ~ ' Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: C~° ~ ~ y~~ / ~ 6 ~ Signature: Print: ~~~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue.. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: 4 D ~ "- ~ ~ b '- Signature: ` -- ~ Print: - ~~_~ ~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has akeady allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, -2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ 9l0 ~-~ ~llle~e~ (~ Saratoga ~s~ .~.~ Neighbor Phone Number: ~~ ~-~~ ~.~.~,~ Signatwe: Print: ~~ ~//1 ~ ~ • C~l •Jf Y' / Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag _near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city iri June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~ PiVV ~! Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: (`t'om ~J ~~ - ~ ~ b 3 Signature Print: _ l (~ -J ~/ ~ AI G Saratoga Signature: Print: • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters. told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned. by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~'~/~,~~~~i~ --r `~ Neighbor Address: 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~~ l~ N G~ ~ ~ Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: Z ~~' ' ~ J -J~ Signature: Print• ~~y ~~~`~~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Neztel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ 7 ~Z~ ~z~ ~ ~__ r \~} Saratoga Neighbor one Number: ~`~-'~`e l ~ "'r Signature: ~1.~ Print: Print: Signature: • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start. the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, - -2- -It is owned-by-the-city who-has-located antennas on city sites, i.e._Sazatoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yazds that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~l l(~ VI f'l . Q f ~I Neighbor Address: /~-/ ~ 7 ~ 2 /~P~11 C.E°_ G • Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~~~ ~ oZ-J ~7 Signature: ,~ Gl • ~~~ Print: ~i~i~e-Fl !~-. ~Ll Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The,city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DSA) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provides by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~~ t ~ ~ ~ A '"^' I 1 ~ ~ ~ Date: ~" ~d - O C~ Neighbor Address: /Z ~ 3 ~ ~~lri'' e a~r,~ ~-1/~ °L Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: '~d ~" ~ '-7 3- / 2 Signature: Print: llU~ / ~~ ~ ~" .~~,~ T,- Signature: Print: • • • • Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus,. 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design aze obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~u ~ ~ S T r ~~ ~ ~ A Neighbor Address: Neighbo Signatun Signature: Print: ~v Sazatoga U J~ Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near ,the top the pole. _ I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property, and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, - - - - -- 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the .wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ~J Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: ~~~~ ~/b ~ /~Z~ ~y ~ Saratoga Signature: r Print: O~ Q ilia, Signature• Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Nextel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on ~ the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively imj~act the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: /.S'~~~ ~~z~~er--- Neighbor Address: /~/S y 7er~ e h c e /9 ye Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~y0 ~.53 " ~ 731n Si afore: ~ Print: /SM/~/L Ok iEiQ l~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant'Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag _ near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Cl.. Neighbor Address: ~ 2~ 6 ~ ~~ ~~~h ~-- ~~- Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number:~~ ~'~~ - s Signature: ~ Print: • • Signature:. Print: • • Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Wormer Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag near the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: l- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There are alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can. meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~U~'J ~~- 47~ D Signature: Print: O~D U/'ti/9Cy~-~ Signature: Print: Neighbor Input Concerning Neztel Proposal Date: August 2006 Project Address: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Neztel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The plans for the concealed cellular antennas to be located at the Church of the Ascension on the west side of Worner Hall consist of three 14 inch diameter straight poles each with a flag _ _ _ near_the top the pole. I am opposed to any antennas being located on the Church of Ascension property. • There is an alternation location for the Nextel antenna at the North Campus location at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga voters told the city in June they want to keep the property and the City Council has already allocated $500,000 to start the renovation process on the existing buildings. It is now available and is the best location because: 1- The site is less than 1 /4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Librazy, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyards not front yards that surround the North Campus, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • There aze alternate antenna systems like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that can meet the wireless coverage needs of Nextel with an unobtrusive installation. OptiNet provided by Crown Castle is already being used in other Saratoga locations. • The proposed antennas and their design are obtrusive and will negatively impact the adjacent residential community. Neighbor Name: ,~rh psf ~?~ yo~oh Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ ~(~ / G ~~~ ~ C ~2 .~-F 1/-r2 Saratoga Neighbor Phone Number: ~ J ~ 1 ~~~ Signature: ~_ Print• d~ -, Signature: Print: Page 1 of 1 Lata Vasudevan From: Roger Chu [rogerchu168@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:24 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Cc: 'Roger Chu' Subject: RE: App No: 04-177 (Nextel Antenna) Lata, Mr. Muzzy sent me an email that includes the following: "At this point in time (voters desire for the city to keep the property) the North Campus and last night committed $500,000 to start the renovation of the buildings. It is a better site than within our surrounding residential community. 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and residential community, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining North .Campus.", which I agree: '; a Could you please include these points in your report so that the option of locating the antenna at North Campus is considered? Thanks, Roger Chu 19499 Eric Drive (408) 255-6853 8/7/2006 ,~ Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao Lata Vasudevan, City Planner Lata, • July 28, 2006 The site coverage map provided by Parsons in their July 18, 20061etter did not include the proposed three alternate sites. It only included existing Nextel and Sprint sites. However the amount of coverage provided at Nextel and Sprint sites provides some indication of what could be done at the alternate sites if any of those sites were a re wired alternative to their Nextel proposed location at 19550 Prospect Avenue. All three would work 1- Highway 85 at Prospect Avenue Several of the existing Nextel and Sprint antennas have coverage azeas that are lazge enough to include the proposed coverage at the Nextel proposed site. An example would be the existing Nextel antennas that provide the lazge coverage area at the PG&E Tower on Cox Avenue. 2- PG&E Tower on Coz Avenue across from the Coz Avenue Fire Station The PG&E Tower located on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station is an existing Sprint Nextel cell site in Saratoga but it is not being fully utilized by Nextel. Another set of higher gain antennas could be installed at the top of the tower and directed towazd the Nextel proposed location at 19550 Prospect Avenue. The coverage area, based on the existing coverage area of the existing antennas on the PG&E Tower, would provide even greater coverage than the proposed antennas at the Prospect Avenue location. 3- Saratoga North Campus, 19848 Prospect Avenue Since the site is only '/4 mile from the Nextel propose site the same type of coverage, utilizing a similar concealed antenna/flagpole concept, could be provided at the Saratoga North Campus site. It is now available and is the best location because: • The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, • It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Sazatoga Library and flagpoles like the one at the Saratoga Library would blend with the existing buildings, • Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and limited residential community who have backyazds, not front yazds, that surround the North Campus, • The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining the North Campus. • r~ ~J ~ • • Parsons specific concerns about the "unstable condition of the site" aze probably based on old information since the city is now moving forwazd on a funded plan to upgrade the existing buildings (Saratoga News- Wednesday, July 26, 2006). Although Parsons stated "the City of Saratoga has all the information it needs...and has - no additional information to provide the City" I believe they have not seriously looked at these alternative sites. Please attempt to get the information from them and consider these three alternate locations as viable options in your staff report. Ray Muzzy 19518 Eric Drive Saratoga News- Wednesday, July 26, 2006 _ .... _ At the July 19 city council meeting, members voted unanimously to allocate $500,000 to the make repairs and improvements to the facility to get it up and running for Saratoga residents to finally enjoy. Under the level 3 improvement plan, both the administration building and fellowship hall would have major work done to allow for an increased use of both buildings. Included would be the installation of wood flooring and acoustic enhancements in the fellowship hall, and the education building would be converted to a dry storage area with minimal on-site staffing. Additional improvements would include all new appliances in the kitchen, an electrical system upgrade for the entire campus, landscape maintenance and restoration of the picnic areas. With the possibly of having the buildings in use soon, many people showed up to the meeting to voice their preferences for the building. Council members hope to fast-track. the project and said that it could be ready in as little as six months. • • • • • _ ~~ ~ ~ L~ U U~ ~ , July 26, 2006 Commissioner Cappello ~±~~ Jl) ~ :, 20 ~~; I 06 Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter ~II~v of s~~,4T~~., Commissioner Kundtz ~' Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao Lata Vasudevan, City Planner Lata, The site coverage map provided by Parsons in their July 18, 20061etter did not include the proposed three alternate sites. It only included existing Nextel and Sprint sites. However the amount of coverage provided at Nextel and Sprint sites provides some indication of what could be done at the alternate sites if any of those sites were a required alternative to their Nextel proposed location at 19550 Prospect Avenue. All three would work 1- Highway 85 at Prospect Avenue Several of the existing Nextel and Sprint antennas have coverage areas that are large enough to include the proposed coverage at the Nextel proposed site. 2- PG&E Tower on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station The PG&E Tower located on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station is an existing Sprint Nextel cell site in Sazatoga but it is-not being fully utilized by Nextel. Higher gain antennas could be used and they can be placed at the top of the tower for greater coverage. The results would be similar to the large coverage areas provided by existing antennas at other Nextel and Sprint sites. 3- Saratoga North Campus, 19848 Prospect Road. Since the site is only'/4 mile from the Nextel propose site the same type of coverage, utilizing a similar concealed antenna/flagpole concept, could be provided at the Saratoga North Campus site. Pazsons specific concerns about the "unstable condition of the site" are probably based on old information since the city is now moving forward on a funded plan to upgrade the existing buildings (07/26/2006 Saratoga News). Although Parsons stated "the City of Saratoga has all the information it needs...and has no additional information to provide the City" I believe they have not seriously looked at these alternative sites. Please attempt to get the information from them and consider these three alternate locations as viable options in your staff report. Ra Muzzy y h f t • • Saratoga News- Wednesday, July 26, 2006 NEWS Council allocates $500,000 to renovate North Campus By Shannon Burkey Four years after the dty of Saratoga purchased the North Campus facility that has sparked numerous heated debates in the community, the city has finally made a decision on its fate. At the July 19 city council meeting, members voted unanimously to allocate $500,000 to the make repairs __ _ . and improvements_to the facility_to get_it_u_p_and running for Saratoga residents to finally enjoy. Nearly two months after the Measure J vote, in which 75 percent of the voters supported taking North Campus off the market and saving it for the people of Saratoga, renovations may soon begin. The recreation department presented council members with four levels of improvements ranging from $80,000 for the low end of level 1, all the way up to $1,448,000 for the highest level 4 improvements. In the end, the council leaded on an amount in between levels 3 and 4 but will be working off of the level 3 improvement recommendations. Since the full amount of level 3, which ranges from $556,000 to $656,000, was not all allocated, Mayor Norman Kline said that they will have to prioritize the needs but that level 3 is what they are going for. The council members are also hoping to receive support from the community. "On a project this big, we're hoping some citizens may help out with some of the amenities so that we might be able to do more with the money, or maybe they will come out for painting parties," Councilwoman Ann. Waltonsmith said. Under the level 3 improvement plan, both the administration building and fellowship hall would have major work done to allow for an increased use of both buildings. Induded would be the installation of wood flouring and acoustic enhancements in the fellowship hall, and the education building would be converted to a dry storage area with minimal on-site staffing. Additional improvements would indude all new appliances in the kitchen, an electrical system upgrade for the entire campus, landscape maintenance and restoration of the picnic areas. '" With the possibty of having the buildings in use soon, many people showed up to the meeting to voice their preferences for the building. 'The seniors need a place where they can hang out," said Jo Trimball, a Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council board member. 'The senior center is .not big enough for us anymore and we would love to use North Campus for our classes." Trimball said most of the senior lasses are in the morning or early afternoon, and that would leave plenty of time for other groups, such as teens, to use the campus. She said it would be the "perfect match." Several members of the Saratoga Youth Commission also expressed an interest in the faciFities for a teen center. In the past two years, the teens have used the Warren Hutton House as a teen center, but when renovations began on the house, the teens had to begin looking for an alternate space for the many events they host. "North Campus is like a golden egg that came at the right time," said Adam Henig, city liaison for the Saratoga Youth Commission. "We are not looking to have it seven days a week, even one day a week would be OK." Council members hope to fast-track the project and said that it could be ready in as little as six months. e, ' ~ • Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:16:05 -0700 {PDT) From: pjfontenot <pjfontenot@yahoo.com> Subject: North Campus adhoc committee proposal To: akao@saratoga.ca.us CC: lvasudevan@saratoga.ca.us, davea@saratoga.ca.us Aileen, I would like to submit the following attached proposal for review by the Adhoc committee regarding the North Campus. Regards, Paul Fontenot Eric Drive, Saratoga • • c • Aileen Kao, Vice Mayor July 26"', 2006 City of Saratoga Aileen, I am contacting you in regards to your recent motion to form and lead an ad-hoc committee for improvements and uses for the North Campus. We have all seen the over-whelming support and desire by the community to keep this site as a valuable asset for Saratoga and I am glad to see you in this leadership role. But as I watched the recent City Council meeting discussing the needs and improvements for the site I was struck by the fact that while there are many groups with needs voicing excitement over utilizing the __ _site_that there was almost no mention of how.the North Campus might actually generate income to help off-set its costs to the city. In order for the successful re-vitalization and subsequent community use this issue should be addressed early on in the process of formulating a Master or General Use Plan for the North Campus. An example of a potential, viable and feasible solution for the North Campus to attract income would be the placement of a cellular phone site. It does not require use of the existing facilities, requires little space and is maintained by provider. They pay a monthly fee of $2,000/month to rent the limited space they use. In fact such an opportunity currently exists for the North Campus. Sprint Nextel is working with City Planner Lata Vasudevan on application #04-177 scheduled to go before the Planning Commission at the end of August 2006. Sprint Nextel wishes to locate their cellular site at the Church of Ascension, at the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues. The Prides Crossing residents around the Church of Ascension are over-whelming opposed to the proposed antenna at that site. The North Campus at 19848 Prospect Road is less than a quarter of a mile from proposed- site at 19950 Prospect Ave. and the existing tall trees would buffer the concealed antenna flagpoles from driving public and residential community. Lata has aUeady requested that Sprint Nextel review North Campus as an alternate site for locating their antenna. In Sprint Nextel's July l 8~', 2006 response back to the City of Saratoga the main concern expressed by them was the future state of the North Campus. This `issue' represents an opportunity. It would seem by addressing this opportunity now it could mitigate both the concerns of the community and of the cellular phone service provider wishing to conduct business in Saratoga. It would also provide a source of revenue to help support the many proposed activities at the North Campus and lead to enormous future benefits and gains for the City of Saratoga in re-vitalizing and sustaining the use of the North Campus. There is much to be gained by exploring this possibility for the North Campus. I request that this issue be considered by your ad-hoc committee working in conjunction with City Manager and staff to investigate this opportunity for the City and community of Saratoga. I look forward to the North Campus quickly becoming a useable asset for Saratoga. If you have further feedback, questions or comments please contact me and I would be happy to assist in anyway possible. Regards, Paul Fontenot Eric Drive Page 1 of '1 Lata Vasudevan ~. From: _., ra muzz @comcast.net ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~-- ~~ Y Y Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:35 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Re: Parson's June 21st Letter Lata Any new updates? Has Nextel completed any more of their actions and is there any new items in the folder? Any projections on when your report will be finalized and when it will go before the Planning Commission? Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net " Lata I stopped by this afternoon to look in the Nextel file folder and saw the Parson's June 21st letter. Could not help but to first notice they completely forgot to recognize, let alone respond, to one of the critical items in your request to them; Forecasts' that describe the 3- and 5-year plans for additional coverage and facilities for Nextel and Sprint in Saratoga. The rest of their responses were little more than we have done all we will do. They don't want to seriously consider any other antenna technology like DAS, any other antenna design except their 14 inch diameter poles, or any other alternate locations. At this point in time I believe the Sprint/Nextel Application #04-177 should be put on a continues hold until they finally realize that you are serious. Parsons' needs to do .all the work that is required to be be responsive to all the open issues as outlined in previous submittals by Paul Fontenot and myself to their June 2nd letter. To do otherwise would impact the quality of your staff report to the Planning Commissioners. Ray • • • ~n Qi~nn~ Page 1 of 1 • Lata Vasudevan From: ra muzz @comcast.net Y. Y Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:56 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Cc: pjfontenot@yahoo.com Subject: Parson's June 21st Letter Lata I stopped by this afternoon to look in the Nextel file folder and saw the Parson's June 21st letter. Could not help but to first notice they completely forgot to recognize, let alone respond, to one of the critical items in your request to them; Forecasts' that describe the 3- and 5-year plans for additional coverage and facilities for Nextel and Sprint in Saratoga. The rest of their responses were little more than we have done all we will do. They don't want to seriously consider any other antenna technology like DAS, any other antenna design except their 14 inch diameter poles, or any other alternate locations. At this point in time I believe the Sprint/Nextel Application #04-177 should be put on a continues hold until they finally realize that you are serious. Parsons' needs to do all the work that is required to be be responsive to all the open issues as outlined in previous submittals by Paul Fontenot and myself to their June 2nd letter. To do otherwise would impact the quality of your staff report to the Planning Commissioners. Ray • 7/11/2006 • • `~ • • -----Original Message----- From: Bui, Son X [WFI Contractor for Sprint] [mailto:Son.X.Bui@sprint.com] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:02 PM To: Cyndi Fischer Subject: RE: Sinclair Contact Dear Cyndi, There is no need for a conference call since Sprint/Nextel is not proceeding toward a special antenna design. Thank you, Son Bui -----Original Message----- From: Cyndi Fischer [mailto:cfischer@sinctech.com] Sent: Monday, Apri124, 2006 9:38 AM To: Bui, Son X [WFI Contractor for Sprint] Subject: Sinclair Contact. Importance: High Hi Son; Please a mail me your contact information. I would like to speak to you prior to setting up a conference -call with our engineering team. Thanks; Cyndi Fischer Western Regional Sales Manager Los Angeles, CA 310-796-1336 • • Comcast Message Center Yage 1 of 3 • • JUN 2 1 2006 CITY OF SARA"TOGA ,np^'!U?~!ITY DEVELOP","', From: "Lata Vasudevan" <Iasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> To: <raymuzzy@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Any Updates Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:10:07 +0000 Hello Ray, Thanks for your comments. I will try to keep you posted on any written updates provided by the applicant. I unfortunately will not be available on Monday or Tuesday. I will be available at the counter Wednesday morning from 7:30 to noon...) can gladly speak with you then. Good day and take care, Lata -----Original Message----- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto:raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:36 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: RE: Any Updates Lata I looked at the file and the only new thing was the June 6th letter from Parsons that basically said they do not plan to make any changes. I will resond to that in another e-mail. The thing that was missing was any response from Nextel or Sprint to the City's "Special Submittal Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities" document dated 12/01/2005 that was sent to Nextel on March 15, 2006? Those items included: • Statement of Purpose to justify why this additional coverage is required. • Under-ground or Enclosure of Equipment • Coverage Mans for all existing Nextel and Sprint sites in Saratoga and adjacent communities, all alternate facility locations in Saratoga and adjacent communities and the proposed location. • Forecasts' describing the 3-and 5-year plans for additional coverage and facilities for Nextel and Sprint. • Alternate Sites which include all possibilities within the area of the projected need and a detailed explanation, including coverage maps, of why each of these locations will not provide http://mailcenter. comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4498941100047A96000005D5220075 03 309796... 6/20/2006 • Comcast Message Center • • adequate coverage. • Radio Frequency Emissions Report • Visual Representations Have they told you weather they plan to respond to those specifice items or are they hoping to avoid doing anything else? Ray Are you available for about half an hour meeting on Monday or Tuesday ? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Lata Vasudevan" <lasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> Ray, Sure...our counter is open today...you may come in anytime to see the file. Lata -----Original Message----- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto: raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:37 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: RE: Any Updates Lata Can I come by early tomorrow moaning and see them? Ray -------------- Original message ------- From: "Lata Vasudevan" <lasudevan@saratoga. ca.us> Ray, Yes...l did receive a resubmittal. I have not had a chance to review it yet. Lata -Original Message----- Page 2 of.3 • • http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4498941100047A96000005D522007503309796... 6/20/2006 . ~ comcast Message Center • From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto: raymuzzy@comcast. netj Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:44 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Any Updates Lata Do you have any new information on the status of the Nextel application? Ray [ Back ] 2~C6 COf'CeSi Cagle Cum;rur:ications, irc. P•1i rigr:is re<_er/ea. • • Yage 3 of 3 http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4498941100047A96000005D522007503309796... 6/20/2006 ~,~ ~ `~~ ~ ~~~,~~ SPECIAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES In addition to the Use Permit submittal requirements, the application package for a wireless communications facility shall include the follotiving: `STATEMENT OF PURPOSE -- A statement from the wireless carrier or RF engineer explaining why this additional coverage is necessary. Please quantify the need for the proposed project. For example, this might be based on the existing dropped call rate in the area or on a comparison of existing cellulaz service compared to projected service with the inclusion of the new site. ~UNDERGROUNDING OR ENCLOSURE OF EQUIPMENT 2. Staff recommends that all proposed equipment facilities be placed underground unless the applicant can demonstrate why this is not an option. Aboveground facilities must be placed in apeak-roofed enclosure with adjacent landscaping and must blend with the surrounding environment. If equipment will not be placed underground, please include the following: a. A statement explaining justification for aboveground equipment. b. A color and materials board for the enclosure. c. A landscape and imgation plan for the site. COVERAGE MAPS 3. A colored master multi-year coverage plan map for all of the service provider's existing and planned sites in the City of Saratoga. The following items should be indicated on this plan: a. The location of each existing facility. b. The location of all proposed facilities. c. The service area covered by each site. d. The number and type of facilities at each site, including any areas of overlapping emissions. e. The location of alternative facility locations. *If the wireless carrier has any other applications pending with the City of Saratoga, please include the corresponding Use Permit application numbers in your documentation. FORECASTS 4. A statement describing the 3- and 5-year plans that your organization has for additional coverage and wireless facilities that will involve the City of Saratoga. • Rev. 12/ 1 /OS 5. A statement describing the technological advances that are currently under consideration by your organization that will either reduce the requirement for additional sites or reduce the number of existing sites in the City of Saratoga. ALTERNATIVE SITES 6. A map and written description of at least three alternative sites. Please consider all possibilities within the area of the project location and include an explanation of why the selected project site is superior to each of the alternative sites: RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS REPORT 7: A professional evaluation of the radio frequency (RF) emissions of the facility demonstrating that the radiation levels generated by the facility meet Federal standards in effect and pose no health risks to the public. a. The evaluation should be based upon the `worst case" operating conditions at maximum possible power levels and should address the following situations: o Persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and may or may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. o Persons are- exposed while being transient through a location where FCC occupationaUcontrolled limits apply. o The general population maybe exposed. b. The report should be prepared in a format and manner that is comprehensible to the average person. c. When an antenna is proposed to be co-located on a site or structure with an existing antenna, the R.F report shall evaluate the cumulative emissions of all existing .and proposed antennas. VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS 8. Visual representations sufficient to accurately show the appearance of the proposed facility (e.g., photo-simulations, sections, elevations). CHECKLIST 9. Wireless submittal requirements checklist (page 3). All items listed on the checklist must be included with your application package. Please check off each item and include the checklist with your application. • Rev. 12/ 1 /OS • • WIRELESS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST (Please place a checkmark next to all documents that are attached in this package) Statement of Purpose (1) Undergrounding or Enclosure of Equipment (2a) (2b) (2c) Coverage Maps (3 a) (3b) (3c) (3d) (3 e) Forecasts (4) (5) Alternative Sites (6) Radio Frequency Emissions (~a) (fib) (7c) Visual Representation (8) Applicant _ Project Address Representative _ Signature _ Date • .Rev. 12/ 1 /OS uu JUN 2 1 2006 CITY OF SARA"COGA .. ~~4j~rt-iN1TY T}Fl,IFI f?~,,:-° From: raymuzzy@comcast.net -. LAdd to Address: Bookl To: "Late Vasudevan" <lvasudevan@saratoga.ca:us> Subject: Alternate Site- North Campus Thursday, June 15; 2006 5:16:36 PM Fri, 16 Jun 2006 Date: - jView Sourcel 00:16:36 +0000 Leta At this point in time (voters desire for the city to keep the property) the North Campus should also be considered as an alternate site. 1- The site is less than 1/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller, 2- It is owned by the city who has located antennas on city sites, i.e. Saratoga Library, 3- Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, 4- Existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and residential community, 5- The city is looking for uses for North Campus and revenue to offset costs of maintaining North Campus. Nextel should be required to objectively evaluate the North Campus location as an alternate site. Ray Leta The Nextel response to realistically looking at a tapered design is non-responsive because they wanted to simply justify their existing design. In fact they told the antenna companies that they would not even consider a custom design. Ray • • • -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Lata Vasudevan" <lasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> Hello Ray, Thanks for your comments. I will try to keep you posted on any written updates provided by the applicant. I unfortunately will not be available on Monday or Tuesday. I will be available at the counter Wednesday morning from 7:30 to noon:..I can gladly speak with you then. Good day and take care, Lata -----Original Message----- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto:raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:36 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: RE: Any Updates Lata I looked at the file and the only new thing was the June 6th letter from Parsons that basically said they do not plan to make any changes. I will respond to that in another a-mail. The thing that was missing was any response from Nextel or Sprint to the City's "Special Submittal Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities" document dated 12/01/2005 that was sent to Nextel on March 15, 2006? Those items included: i~ Statement of Purpose to justify why this additional coverage is required. Under-ground or Enclosure of Equipment Covera eg Maps for all existing Nextel and Sprint sites in Saratoga and adjacent communities, all alternate facility locations in Saratoga and adjacent communities and the proposed location. Forecasts' describing the 3- and 5-year plans for additional coverage and facilities for Nextel and Sprint. Alternate Sites which include all possibilities within the area of the projected need and a detailed explanation, including coverage maps, of why each of these locations will not provide adequate coverage. Radio Fr~uencYEmissions Report Visual Representations Have they told you weather they plan to respond to those specific items or are they hoping to avoid doing anything else? Ray Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao Lata Vasudevan, City Planner • JUN 2 1 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA June 19~', 2006 I would like to submit some insights for review and feedback in regards to the Parsons June 2nd 2006 letter in response to the April 12~', 2006 Study Session regarding application #04-177; the request for Sprint/Nextel to locate an antenna upon the Church of Ascension located on the corner of Prospect Avenue and Miller Avenue. In this response I will only discuss Parsons Distributive Antenna System (DAS) analysis. The following general criteria cited by Parsons in evaluating the DAS solution were the following: Coverage Parsons indicates that coverage is the biggest problem with this type of solution. It is estimated they would obtain 85% of the coverage of the proposed system as they view it. A potential design map for additional analysis was included. It shows what potential antennas and coverage would look like placed along Prospect Road and Miller Avenue to the North of the Church of Ascension. They claim that "it looks like this coverage would work if antennas" could also be placed to the South of Prospect Avenue, but that Saratoga has no lampposts on which to place- the antennas. I would like to point out that the in November 2005 the Saratoga Planning Commission approved a Crown Castle DAS solution for the Village in Saratoga that utilized utility poles not lampposts. The Saratoga Planning Commission and staff are aware that utility poles are a viable, proven platform that a provider could locate an antenna. The presence of numerous utility poles located in the neighborhood to the South of the Church of Ascension shows this to be a narrow and short -sighted view, at best, for a potential DAS in our area. It suggests they were not really interested in looking at a DSA solution. Impact Parsons states the impact to the neighborhood would be a major disruption to the community. They stated a potential s miles of cabling could result along with trenching, crossing roads, running power, etc., to provide a DAS solution. But they also admit that it is possible to lease the wires or conduits that are already in the ground. • • So, the merit to which the level of disruption in the neighborhood is very questionable when they do not even know what is available to them that could substantially mitigate disruptive factors they claim they would encounter. This fact of not knowing what is in the ground already and not even trying to find out is very disturbing. It leads one to believe they really don't want to seriously consider a DAS solution. Cost Parsons stated that a DAS solution costs up to five times as much to build versus a monopole solution. A Crown Castle contact I have spoken with estimated it to be about three. A DAS solution will cost more than a monopole but it is a better endgame solution because it minimizes the impact on the residential community once a site is built. It is also an potential investment for Sprint Nextel since future technical trends and recent permit approval in Saratoga indicate DAS will be utilized for future cell phone and wireless services. Conclusion I believe that Parsons did, but not seriously, address a viable DAS solution because they saw no value in doing it. They now need to be told to do a complete and serious evaluation because it could be the alternative required by the city. They treated this as a go-through-the-motions exercise because they only wanted to pacify, not directly address, the recommendations of the planning commissioners and continue to press for the original plan. The request to also expedite the permitting matter before the City Planning Commission embodies a commitment to passage of the original plan, but not to seriously and objectively and professionally consider a DAS design alternative. I assume the Planning Commission will thoroughly review the DAS design proposal as it was their assigned action item to Parsons as stated in the April 12~', 2006 Study Session. Engineering background and data will be needed to work through and provide a solution once relevant information is obtained. This is the engineering role of Parsons whom were contracted by Sprint Nextel for this project. This necessary application information is required from Sprint Nextel and not incumbent upon the city planning staff nor a concerned citizen to provide. This or any level of information, planning, and design and review services are a required part of application process and Sprint Nextel are the ones requesting the permit. Nonetheless, it goes without saying there is additional room for information and understanding for a DAS solution. I believe it is in the interest of the community to continue to look at a DAS solution as an alternative to a monopole. I urge the Planning Commission to reject Parsons analysis of this proposed DAS solution as an alternative to a monopole and request further DAS evaluation. Regards, Paul Fontenot Eric Drive, Saratoga ' • • June 19, 2006 Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao Lata Vasudevan, City Planner Lata, I would like to submit some insights for review and feedback in regazds to the Pazsons June 2"a 2006 letter in response to the April 12~', 2006 Study Session regarding application #04-177; the request for Sprint/Nextel to locate an antenna upon the Church of Ascension located on the corner of Prospect Avenue and Miller Avenue. In this response I will only discuss Pazsons Tapered Design analysis. The Sprint/Nextel response said "a tapered flagpole would be possible, but it would need to be significantly higher than anon-tapered one". They then went on to state that a Mr. Tony Lan provided a rough design and, to add credibility, said he was the one who designed the flagpole at the Saratoga library. I am absolutely amazed at the extent Parsons has gone to avoid addressing this serious • issue. Metro PCS took their job seriously and that is why their system at the Saratoga Library looks like a flagpole. The actual Metro PCS Sr. RF Engineer Jon Schwartz, who doesn't even know who Mr. Tony Lan is, took great pride in their results as indicated in attachment. Feel free to contact him to personally get the views of the actual Metro PCS Sr. RF Engineer who actually did the work. Unfortunately, at this point in time, Parsons now needs to be told fiy the city they are serious about this issue. It can be resolved if Parsons was required to do it. A tapered design with an 11 inch top at 42 feet and 14 inches at the bottom is achievable even with their commercial 11 inch wide antenna if they required by the city to it. Pazsons seem to have taken a different approach which has put their credibility into question by trying to avoid doing anything and hoping to get away with it. The use of a custom antenna which could be provided by their existing antenna manufactures could reduce the top diameter even further and make the flagpoles more realistic and less offensive. But when given the contact points for the antenna manufactures Parsons instructed the Sprint contract engineer to not even consider a custom design as indicated in the attached Apri124~' a-mail from the Sprint contract RF Engineer to one of the antenna manufactures. This manufacturer, as well as another antenna manufacturer, was prepared to design and deliver a custom antenna for Nextel and has done it before at other Nextel sites. . • • Parsons add further insult to injury by stating "The suggestion that Nextel build custom antennas for this site, for the purpose of diminishing the size of the flagpole by mere inches is unreasonable". Its time to tell Parsons this type of attitude is not acceptable in our community. Ray Muzzy i • • • From: "Jon Schwartz" <jon@ewnetinc:com> IAdd o Address Bookl To: <raymuzzy@comcast.net> Subject:: RE: Metro PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Thursday, June 15, 200611:19:40 PM Fri, 16 Jun 2006 06:19:40 Date:. +0000 jView Sourcel Hi Again Ray, I do not know who that is? Any idea what company he is with (maybe a contractor)? Sorry. Best Regards, Jon From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto:raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:40 PM To: Jon Schwartz Subject: RE: Metro PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Jon I was told by someone that Mr. Tony Lan helped to design the flagpole at the Saratoga Library but I can't find him on any of the documentation. Could you tell me who Mr. Tony Lan is and his responsibilities on the flagpole design? Thank you for your help. Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Jon Schwartz" <jschwartz@metropcs.com> Hello, Thank you very much for your comments about our new site in Saratoga. It is quite refreshing to receive such comments out of the blue from a resident of the community. We did work very hard as a team on the conception of the flag pole at the library. It does look very nice and is a fitting addition to the landscape of the location. Our construction manager took special care in having the pole custom made to accommodate the virtually. seamless integration of the antenna structure to the top of the flag pole. We are all very pleased with the final product. I do enjoy being part of an organization that takes pride in our work. We certainly do not want to build things that are a visual blight on the community we work so hard to serve. Thank you once again. Best Regards, Jon Schwartz Senior RF Engineer metroPCS, Inc. • • Alameda California From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto:raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:56 PM To: Jon Schwartz Subject: Metro PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Jon Schwartz I ~~~ant to tell you how pleased I am about the flagpole you created for Metro PCS at the Saratoga Library. The design was very cleaver since it actually looks like a tapered flagpole. Too often designers just take a large diameter pole, put an antenna in it and then attach a flag near the top; it looks disgusting. They just don't take the time and pride in their work that you have taken in yours. I aln curious about how you were you able to support the antenna and make the joint at the bottom of the antenna and the top of the tapered pole look so seamless. Ray Muzzy • • • Comcast Message (;enter From: raymuzzy@comcast.net To: Ivasudevan@saratoga.ce.us Subject: An 11 inch diameter pole can be done and it is even better Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:34:25 +0000 Lata I should have sent you the information about the antenna as well so you will have the complete package. ` The RF Engineer recommended the Andrew antenna since it provides the smallest Outer Diameter (O.D.) dimension for enclosing cross polarized antennas at the cellular frequency bands. Manufacturer Gain Dimensions (L x Model Number O.D. Andrew 13.6 dBi only 58.5" x 11" O.D. 854DG70VTRSX The specific specification sheet with photos of the antenna is attached. You probaby can get some support from the city engineers as they review the Saratoga Library Metro PLC flagpole and this material. I hope you are able to convince Christian to do what can and needs to do. • Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Lata The antenna that was selected by their RF Engineer is designed with a bottom mounting bracket. The antenna unit can actually be attached to the top of an 11 inch diameter straight pole or a tapered pole that is 11 inches at the top where the antenna is attached. Christian does not want to do it . and is going to give a number of very emotional excuses about why it can't be done. The fact of the matter is it has been done by other companies. Metro PCS did it and you have an excellent example in front of the Saratoga Library. It does not "look shoddy" and the storms of the last several months have certainly put that flagpole to the test about its structural integrity. Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Lata I wanted to share an a-mail I sent to Christian to provide a constructive suggestion in response to his a-mail to me. The use of 12 inch diameter seamless poles is better than 14 inch diameter seamless poles. It is not the final answer but it can clearly be done and it is a move in the right direction. You will also note that I kept it constructive and avoided the obvious non-constructive responses like: Metro PCS did a tapered antenna pole at the Saratoga Library and it does not "look shoddy" rage I, of ~ r ~` e ~~g ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ :~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ :~ http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wme/v/wm/44157DF400030A6D0000002022073000339796... 3/ 13/2006 • r: -----Original Message----- i From: Bui, Son X [WFI Contractor for Sprint] [mailto:Son.X.Bui@sprint.com] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:02 PM To: Cyndi Fischer Subject: RE: Sinclair Contact Dear Cyndi, There is no need for a conference call since Sprint/Nextel is not proceeding toward a special antenna design. Thank you, Son Bui -----Original Message----- From: Cyndi Fischer [mailto:cfischer@sinctech.com] Sent: Monday, Apri124, 2006 9:38 AM To: Bui, Son X [WFI Contractor for Sprint] Subject: Sinclair Contact Importance: High Hi Son; Please a-mail me your contact information. I would like to speak to you prior to setting up a conference call with our engineering team. Thanks; Cyndi Fischer Western Regional Sales Manager Los Angeles, CA 310-796-1336 • • • June 20, 2006 Commissioner Cappello Commissioner Hlava Commissioner Hunter Commissioner Kundtz Commissioner Nagpal Commissioner Rodgers, Chairperson Commissioner Zhao Lata Vasudevan, City Planner Lata, I would like to submit my response for review and feedback in regards to the Alternative Site Analysis section of the Parsons June 2°a 20061etter that resulted from the outcome of the April 12~', 2006 Study Session regarding application #04-177. This is a request for Sprint to locate and antenna upon the Church of Ascension located on the corner of Prospect Avenue and Miller Avenue. Before I discuss Alternate Site locations I would like to touch upon two areas, which are critical to the analysis and conclusions. They are coverage goals and objectives and a search area. . Coverage Goals and Objectives The August 2005 report states a coverage objective from Lawrence Expressway down Prospect Avenue to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, coverage to the North and South of Prospect Avenue and some coverage along Highway 85. The new criteria for coverage goals and objectives as quoted from the June 2006 Parsons letter states their objective as "providing enhances services to the intersection of Prospect and Miller and the residential areas to the south of Prospect". These are two very different coverage objective scopes, in my opinion. It appears that the need for coverage to the North no longer exists for some unstated reason. Is this a subjective change, say based on the desire to justify what they have already decide and not do any more analysis of viable sites, or is it an objective change based on a reduced need for Sprint/Nextel service in the area. We need to request from Sprint/Nextel why and how this came about. Perhaps we should wait even longer until their "real future needs" are known. Future need information has been requested from the onset of this process by Saratoga Planning Commissioners and the planning staff, but never presented by Sprint Nextel. If coverage to the North of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenue were irrelevant then any alternate site North of Prospect, which will always be in the city of San Jose, would be rejected. Five of the six `originally' considered sites of the August 2005 report are located in San Jose and would then be rejected. • • Four of the five `originally' considered sites claimed in the June 2006 are also in . San Jose and thus would be rejected. Therefore they rationalize that the only remaining `choice' on either of these lists is the Church of Ascension in our area. An Additional Alternate site from the June 2006 report, Christa McAuliffe Alternative Education School in Saratoga, which Parsons claimed has existing antennas, in fact, does not have antennas. They stated "Although this would be a collocation which is generally favored, the existing antennas are set in a manner which makes it difficult to allow for the necessary separation between carriers". Gives one a good idea about the interest Parsons has taken in their study of alternate sites. Search Area The second important issue related to coverage goals and objectives is what is called a `search area'. This is a criteria is used by cellular providers in determine where `holes' or `gaps' in a network are located. But Sprint Nextel has never actually provided any data on how large or what determines a `search area' size or scope, they simply use the justification of this undefined `search area' as one of their main criteria in rejecting alternate sites. When subjectivity is used as the basis in any type of analysis the results are always open to question. This is why, in the course of any good analysis, objectivity is defined and assigned to subjects that make up the analysis criteria in the first~place. Analysis results and outcomes should also be easy to interrupt and understood by others in order review them as well. One would expect an established engineering firm would accomplish this efficiently by using their talents, expertise and professionalism to find the best location for Sprint Nextel and citizens of Saratoga. Parsons has even attempted to discredit "a member of the community" who suggested and identified viable sites along or South of Prospect because they are simply not interested in even considering it. It was best said at the end of their June 2006 letter where they requested a speedy hearing for this application, which implies they don't want to do anything more than what they did in their June 20061etter. Parsons now needs to do a completely analyze of the most viable alternate sites and not hide behind general statements like "does not meet coverage objectives". They need to provide a complete set of data including separate coverage maps and give this information to the city so a sound decision can be make by the planning commission General Criteria for Site Selection 1) Good Coverage Good Coverage which is a criteria when using an undefined search area as Parsons has done in their June 2006 document is subjective from their point of view at • • best. Detailed data and analysis needs to be provided so the final evaluation can be based on objective rather than subjective information. Coverage could be defined as being on a cell phone and either being outside on the street or within ahouse/building or while being mobile. No separate site(s) coverage map with one showing street coverage, one showing in-building coverage and one showing mobile coverage were provided and they need to be provided or the analysis is determined to be incomplete. 2) Low Visual Impact Visual Impact means you provide a realistic enclosure for the antenna or you don't. The determination of a realistic enclosure needs to be accepted by the surrounding community that is being impacted not Sprint/Nextel biased viewpoint. There is 100% residential community around the Church of the Ascension. All the houses around the perimeter face inward to the church property and an overwhelming number of Saratoga residences do not want anything like what is being proposed. This is one of the major issues with the proposed Church of Ascension site location. 3) Co-location at an existing site Co-location, a judgment to locate in a certain location, on the other hand is certainly an option that a cellular provider controls because they can choose to use this when they seek out a site location. Saratoga City staff has often stated they prefer a Co- location site as opposed to a new site Viable Alternate Sites Requiring Complete Analysis by Parsons 1-Highway 85 at Prospect Avenue Highway 85 at Prospect Avenue is within Sprint Nextel search area. This site is not considered as an original alternate site in either August 2005 or June 2006 report. It would provide a coverage area consistent to Sprint Nextel June 2006 statement of need for coverage the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South. Similar criteria to existing cell site locations in Saratoga (non-residential and on an existing thru-fare). Coverage to businesses around the "Gateway to Saratoga" the intersection of Prospect Road and De Anza Blvd. Existing telecom infrastructure located at this site that would minimize construction impact on surrounding residents. A line of trees runs along the sides of Highway 85 in Saratoga and could provide a concealment opportunity. Visual impact is low, as few residents would face in the direction of the overpass. 2- PG&E Tower on Cox Avenue across from the Coz Avenue Fire Station The PG&E Tower located on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station is an existing Sprint Nextel cell site in Saratoga. PG&E/CALTRANS access rights are already granted. There is no need for concealment as the current Sprint Nextel antenna is not concealed. Higher gain antenna could be used and they can be placed at the top of the tower for greater coverage. It would provide a coverage area consistent with Parsons June 2006 statement of need for coverage at the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South of Prospect Avenue, which is the neighborhood North of the PG&E tower. 3- Saratoga North Campus, 19848 Prospect Road. Sprint/Nextel needs to evaluate this very viable Saratoga North Campus site. It is within the Sprint Nextel search area and would provide a coverage area consistent with Parsons June 2006 statement of need for coverage the.intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South. Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, and existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and residential community. 4- Christa McAuliffe Elementary School, 12211 Titus Avenue, Saratoga, CA Christa McAuliffe Elementary School, which was identified by Parsons, is approximately '/4 mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and Church of Ascension. Concealment of antennas is possible using existing structure features or monopoles) located away from the structures. It is located within Sprint Nextel's seazch area. Conclusions In conclusion, the rejection data used by Sprint Nextel has no supporting engineering data merit. It is only subjective worded descriptions that are the base criteria for rejection of other alternate sites in our area. To support Sprint Nextel rejection claims data would have to be collected in the area as well as from all potential sites. It is incumbent on Pazsons to provide engineering data that they have already collected, analyzed and reviewed to support their rejection process. This is what a professional organization is required to do for its clients. I would like to formally ask the Saratoga Planning staff to request SprintlNextel that this data for all the alternate sites be supplied, reviewed and analysis, for the first time since it has never been presented, before any recommendation by staff can be made to the Planning Commission. Regards, Paul Fontenot • • • 1- Hic~hvmay 85 at Prospect Avenue The two subjective criteria for rejecting this site are not valid. A) Low Coverage was Parsons subjective viewpoint Sprint Nextel states this site is at least % mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and on the `western fringe' of the search area as the criteria for rejecting this alternate site. The '/z-mile distance from the intersection of Prospect and Miller is about the same as walking approximately 30 houses to the West of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenue. Shifting a cellular site 30 houses to the West of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues is minimal to an overall `coverage' area. This site would still meet the June 2006 coverage goals and objectives. Inadequate coverage is subjective at this time. Coverage could be defined as being on a cell phone and either outside on the street, within a building or while being mobile. No separate map with one showing street coverage, one showing in-building coverage and one showing mobile coverage provided. Therefore site cannot be rejected for Inadequate Coverage. B) High Impact was Parsons subjective viewpoint Sprint/Nextel claims this new sight does not offer `meaningful' concealment opportunities and would have a high visual impact on drivers and surroundings residents as well CalTrans requirements. While sites may or may not offer concealment opportunities the cellular industry offers many more options beyond a tree or flagpole disguise for a cellular antenna. However no concealment options, other than the site location itself, are listed as to what was considered. This site of Prospect Avenue and Highway 85 is not a hill, but an overpass that is unable to support placement of a monopole antenna on the overpass. However this intersection offers four corners with fairly expansive open land. Sprintl Nextel never stated they looked at a particular one or all the corner sections as a location site, but only on `top of the hill next to Prospect'. Trees in and around and along the corner sections in Saratoga and Saratoga could potentially provide a concealment opportunity. Highway 85 is entrenched 20 feet below ground level and passes under Prospect Avenue. So, being 20 feet lower and going under a bridge at 65MPH reduces the visual impact of any driver on Highway 85. An average driver going • • along on either coupled with or without any appropriate type of `meaningful' camouflage is more likely than to not to even see the antenna. Of the four corner sections of open land only the backside facing of a few of the residents of the NW corner section, which locates the open corner land section nearest them in San Jose, and in an apartment building somewhat face the overpass direction. Besides that they already are facing the `visual impact' of Highway 85, so a tower in this location is likely to have minimal impact in regards to the level of visual impact one would have living right next to a freeway. All other resident of the NE, SW and SE corner sections face away from - - - -the overpass. _ - CalTrans is not a visual impact criterion. No concealment considerations provided. No corner location identified as to where antenna even might be located. Residential impact is limited to one of four potential corner locations. This makes visual impact highly questionable for drivers and residents and therefore this site cannot be rejected on the basis of High Impact. giighway 85 at Prospect Avenue is within Sprint Nextel search area. This site is not considered as an original alternate site in either August 2005 or June 2006 report. It would provide coverage consistent to Sprint Nextel June 2006 statement of needs for coverage the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South. Similar criteria to existing cell site locations in Saratoga (non-residential and on an existing thru-fare). Coverage to businesses around the "Gateway to Saratoga" the intersection of Prospect Road and De Anza Blvd. Existing telecom infrastructure located at this site that would minimize construction impact on surrounding residents. A line of tall mature redwoods runs along one side of Highway 85 in Saratoga and could provide a concealment opportunity. Visual impact is low, as few residents would face in the direction of the Highway 85 overpass. • • • 111G 1Vr, GV111G1 ~Ja« .rwc~ u~ rr~spect at nignway a~ mtersecuon • i~ Ld ~~~ al; i• ~t' .vt 'F 1'6 - ~ ~ Tt' -.~ .~ ~' h. ~'. :7 the N W corner (fan Jose) of Prospect at Highway 85 intersection • .~~.~, k ~ r The SE corner (Saratoga) of Prospect at Highway x5 mtersection • _. _,,. .. _ P. . . `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F 1 rte: [.~~, :J-~=,NYw ~'c • /~',~ ~-`~•#''N -,~'~"v ~rS '` t 'Fti ~ ~° ~ t ~ \ `~`~S' ~-L '~ ,s`° ;~ ;~ z I icy, ..y ; ~. t ~~ ~ rte?'; ~ ~- .~, i ~ _ r •,t _ ~ ~ 1t ~~~ ,~_ ~ .~ ~~}.~ ~.. ~;z A `"~~„-.'ate" = ~.:~i~~4 :.: ~" The SW corner (Saratoga) of Prospect at Highway 85 intersection • • • 2- PG&E Tower on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station This is an existing Sprint Neztel site. The one subjective criterion for rejecting this site is not valid. A} Poor Coverage was Parsons subjective viewpoint Parsons states "The site is located beyond the search area and more than one mile from the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues." I estimate it is about 0.8miles from the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenue. The top of the PG&E tower is open and the current Sprint Neztel antenna is mounted only halfway up on this PG&E tower. This offers the ability of Sprint Nextel to move the antennas from the midpoint of the tower to the top of the tower, which would increase the overall coverage area because of the increase in height above the ground. Another PG&E tower, with provided picture in the June 20061etter, shows a similar PG&E tower with antenna array on top. There is also the opportunity to use higher gain antennas at this site to obtain additional coverage area. These options are not discussed at all by Sprint Nextel. . The Saratoga neighborhood to the North of this tower is the SAME neighborhood that is to the South of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues. With the addition of an antenna array pointing North, which at this time is not the case although space is available at the current height for an additional antenna array system, this tower would provide the coverage to the same neighborhood to the South of the Intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues. This would meet the Sprint Nextel's revised coverage objectives and goals as stated in June 2006. I also make the following personal observation regarding overall cellular network design: If a cellular service provider sets up a cell site with an antenna array that is `not able' to send/receive in a Northward direction then there will always be an artificially created coverage `gap' in that network. While I am not stating this is an intentional act the existence of coverage gaps is the reasoning service providers use to enter into an area and seek a location. It makes a very convenient argument/excuse for them to go `looking' in a certain area. However, once a service provider builds out the tower portion of the network, they can then go back (i.e., future plans) and add an antenna to send/receive in the direction. Northward on all their towers because they were originally built based on looking in a coverage `gap'. Coverage could be defined as being on a cell phone and either being outside on the street or within ahouse/building or while being mobile. No separate coverage map with one showing street coverage, one showing in- building coverage and one showing mobile coverage provided. No other potential • viable option was even considered even though it may define the southern boundary of Sprint Nextel's search area. Therefore site cannot be rejected for Poor Coverage. The PG&E Tower located on Cox Avenue across from the Cox Avenue Fire Station is an existing Sprint Nextel cell site in Saratoga. PG&E/CalTrans access rights are already granted. There is no need for concealment, as the current Sprint Nextel antenna is not concealed. Higher gain antenna could be used and they can be placed at the top of the tower for greater coverage. It would provide coverage consistent with Parsons June 2006 statement of need for coverage at the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South of Prospect Avenue. The neighborhood South of Prospect and Miller is the same neighborhood to the North of the PG&E tower. ~~ \~ ' - _a 5' ~ wry;;~~ i~ / 7~~ ~ ~ ~3 'R ~ r ~ 1 ~~~1 I1 ii~.' 5 .. I ' k ~~ '~' P~ _ `. i~ ?- ~~ ~• ,, ,.,_ ;'r ~ ~,,: ,_ ~ <,; ~,.,- ~. `'''~ ~`' : ~? .: „/ ~~ H ,. ~~. ,~.~ ~>' <..~ ~L ,~, / ` ~ ~ _ ~~.--a.:~T, ~- Space available for additional antenna array system - .~ ~~; i ' ~ '~ ~ :~~ ~ ~ , -~~ ,lr ~ ~.F , ~ ~.,~' ~ Close up. PG&E Tower at Cox Avenue across the street from Lox Hvenue rare aiauun. • • • ~ • i ,~ Open space for new high gain i'~~ -~' ~ ~ ~ ' antenna array s stem r ,~ , , r i ~ .,~ J`~>> ~ ~ ~~~ /, ~:~ 1 .~~ r - ,,~~ , ~ - ~; ,~ ,~ --'~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ' ~~ ~ _~~ Space available for ~` ~ _ . _ ' ,~ f , ~`- ~ ~ ~;; , / ~, ~~ additional antenna ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~~ array system PG&E Tower, -Cox Avenue across the street from Lox Avenue r ire atation. i ne pnoto was taken near Railroad tracks facing South. 3) saratoga North Campus, 19848 Prospect Road. As of June 3ra 2006 this site has become available and has the potential for a cellular site. The City of Saratoga owns this 2.6-acres parcel of land. It is located within Sprint Nextel's search area. It offers concealment opportunities for antenna placement. This site is located about'/4 -mile West of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues. It is about the equivalent of walking 15 houses to the West of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues. Shifting a cell site 15 houses to the West of the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues is minimal in terms of coverage for the overall coverage area. Sprint/Nextel needs to evaluate the very viable Saratoga North Campus site. It is within the Sprint Nextel search area and would be consistent with Parsons June 2006 statement of need for coverage the intersection of Prospect and Miller Avenues and the residential neighborhood to the South. Flagpoles would blend with the existing buildings, and existing tall trees would buffer it from driving public and residential community. r~ront view of Nonn campus • Page 1 of 2 • • Lata Vasudevan From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:07 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: FW: RE: Metro PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Lata You should expect more from Nextel since a 100% residential community surounds their proposed site. Ray -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Jon Schwartz" <jschwartz@metropcs.com> To: <raymuzzy@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Metro PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:56:34 +0000 Hello, Thank you very much for your comments about our new site in Saratoga. It is quite refreshing to receive such comments out of the blue from a resident of the community. We did work very hard as a team on the conception of the flag pole at the library. It does look very nice and is a fitting addition to the landscape of the location. Our construction manager took special care in having the pole custom made to accommodate the virtually seamless integration of the antenna structure to the top of the flag pole. We are all very pleased with the final product. I do enjoy being part of an organization that takes pride in our work. We certainly do not want to build things that are a visual blight on the community we work so hard to serve. Thank you once again. Best Regards, Jon Schwartz Senior RF Engineer metroPCS, Inc. Alameda California From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [mailto:raymuzzy@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:56 PM To: Jon Schwartz Subject: Metro .PCS Flagpole at Saratoga Library Jon Schwartz I want to tell you how pleased I am about the flagpole you created for Metro PCS at the Saratoga Library. The design was very cleaver since it actually looks like a tapered flagpole. Too often designers just take a large diameter pole, put an antenna in it and then attach a flag near the top; it looks disgusting. They just don't take the time and pride in their work that you have taken in yours. I am curious about how you were you able to support the antenna and make the joint at the bottom of the antenna and the top of the tapered pole look so seamless. Ray Muzzy 4/26/2006 Comcast Message (;enter From: raymuzzy@comcast.net To: Ivasudevan@sa ratoga. ca. us Subject: An 11 inch diameter pole can be done and it is even better Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:34:25 +0000 Lata I should have sent you the information about the antenna as well so you will have the complete package. The RF Engineer recommended the Andrew antenna since it provides the smallest Outer Diameter (O. D.) dimension for enclosing cross polarized antennas at the cellular frequency bands. Manufacturer Gain Dimensions (L x Model Number O.D. Andrew 13.6 dBi only 58.5" x 11" O.D. 854DG70VTRSX The specific specification sheet with photos of the antenna is attached. You probaby can get some support from the city engineers as they review the Saratoga Library Metro PLC flagpole and' this material. I hope you are able to convince Christian to do what can and needs to do. Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Lata The antenna that was selected by their RF Engineer is designed with a bottom mounting bracket. The antenna unit can actually be attached to the top of an 11 inch diameter straight pole or a tapered pole that is 11 inches at the top where the antenna is attached. Christian does not want to do it and is going to give a number of very emotional excuses about why it can't be done. The fact of the matter is it has been done by other companies. Metro PCS did it and you have an excellent example in front of the Saratoga Library. It does not "look shoddy" and the storms of the last several months have certainly put that flagpole to the test about its structural integrity. Ray -------------- Original message -------------- From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Lata I wanted to share an a-mail I sent~to Christian to provide a constructive suggestion in response to his a-mail to me. The use of 12 inch diameter seamless poles is better than 14 inch diameter seamless poles. It is not the final answer but it can clearly be done and it is a move in the right direction. You will also note that I kept it constructive and avoided the obvious non-constructive responses like: Metro PCS did a tapered antenna pole at the Saratoga Library and it does not "look shoddy" rage 1 of j ~~~g ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ z • ~~ http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wrn/44157DF400030A6D0000002022073000339796... 3/ 13/2006 t~ March 8, 2006 Commissioner Susie V. Nagpal, Chair Commissioner Manny Coppello Commissioner Jill Hunter Commissioner Robert A. Kundtz Commissioner Linda Rogers Commissioner Mike Uhl Commissioner Michael Schallop At the joint Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council meeting on October 19, 2005 I said, "Saratoga currently is exposed because it lacks formal guidance or an established ordinance for Wireless facilities". Concern was expressed but, because of budget constraints, no actions have taken place. Saratoga continues to place a heavy reliance on the Service Providers to be their guide throughout almost the entire planning process. It continues to be a system that takes a case-by-case random approach rather than an overall Master Plan approach. The budget issues remain so a new approach for a Saratoga Wireless Facility Master Plan is required. Why not adopt awell-developed plan from another city in Santa Clara County and use it as the basis for the Saratoga Plan? The Cupertino's Master Wireless Facilities Plan adopted 10/6/03 would be an excellent example and I have enclosed a copy in hardcopy form. It is also available for viewing on the following website: http://www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/ wmp.pdf I would like to request the Planning Commission to review and consider adopting Cupertino's plan now with updates unique to Saratoga being incorporated in the future. Just a quick review of the last three pages in the report (Cellular Site Survey Maps) provide enormous insight into cell tower proliferation within their city limits by examining existing facilities as well as candidate facilities encompassing both public and private locations. All stakeholders required by this type of technology have shown in the past amazing resolve and creativity in planning and implementing solutions. This has allowed Service Providers to maintain their honored commitment to provide a critical communications infrastructure along with high-quality service to their customers within a local community. The current Saratoga Planning Council and Staff have worked hard in accepting and reviewing applications. Cupertino has acknowledged this aspect of the process as well by developing a Telecommunications Commission and the use of independent outside resources such as consultants. This approach should be accepted and. favored by Saratoga as well: The desired outcome of such efforts should remove any ambiguity that can result in understanding the technical aspects of such issues and will also ensure than applications are being integrated into an overall City wide solution at a faster, more efficient pace of application approval. This can only result in a win-win for the community and the Service Provider. Paul Fontenot 19537 Eric Drive c.c. City Council Members via e-mail John Livingstone, Community Development Director via e-mail Commissioner Susie V. Nagpal, Chair Commissioner Manny Coppell Commissioner Jill Hunter Commissioner Robert A. Kundtz Commissioner Linda Rogers Commissioner Mike Uhl Commissioner Michael Schallop Kathleen King, Mayor and Member of City Council _Norman Kl_i_ne, Vice Mayor and Member of City Council Ann Waltonsmith, Member of City Council Aileen Kao, Member of City Council Nick Street, Member of City Council October 19, 2005 What Saratoga needs to do now for Antenna Applications Saratoga currently is exposed because it lacks formal guidance or an established ordinance for Wireless facilities. So far, all the information being presented and subsequent approval appears to be based on the request for. an antenna and where it will go and how it will look. Although these are important criteria to take into consideration, much more relevant information needs to be included and documented before such decisions are made final. We can and should benefit from the experience of others cities who have already found: • Anew tower should only be permitted as the last option; there are many types of alternatives. • If you do not have control of the situation, the industry will decide whether or not there will be towers and where they will be in your community. • In many instances a tower is not needed and even if a tower is needed, in almost all situations it does not need to be as tall as the company claims, and probably does not need to go where the company claims it does. • You can require that any tower be constructed to house multiple service providers, thereby eliminating the need for new towers for each company. • Communities without local guidelines or an ordinance in place before they receive applications will become'Magnet's for towers and facilities (often primarily to serve adjacent communities). The question becomes, "Why wouldn't the community want its city to do what's necessary to take control of this issue?" Almost all the other cities in Santa Clara County have Wireless facility or Antenna ordinances in place that can be accessed from their websites. Given the long-term, permanent effects of not controlling the matter Saratoga needs to get meaningful and effective regulations in place along with the needed independent expert assistance (supported by additional applicant fees) to support the city staff. Guidelines, based on Saratoga's strong residential community values and what other cities have done, must be established now before any new applications should be considered. Then these guidelines need to be converted to a formal Saratoga Antenna ordinance by the end of 2005. Paul Fontenot . 19537 Eric Drive pj fontenot@yahoo.com y Antenna Applications and Ordinance Considerations Significant information from public websites can be helpful in evaluating cellular antenna applications in Saratoga. I have been actively searching the web for information and would like to share my findings and.sources of information with you. Key issues include: Government Regulations Environmental Impact Technology Trends Government-Re~ulations - -- - - - -- -- -- - ----- ,- - - The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically leaves in place the authority that local zoning authorities have over the placement of personal wireless facilities. It does prohibit the denial of facilities siting based on RF emissions if the licensee has complied with the FCC's regulations concerning RF emissions. http://wireless.fcc.gov Due to the inherent nature of the telecommunications industry it is necessary to ensure all parties that strict adherence to all applicable rules and regulations are followed. This includes such items as adding to/expanding existing cell sites, environmental reports and authorization and general eligibility. http://www.access.gpo.gov Environmentallmpact "According to the Center for Municipal Solutions, there have been more than 150,000 communication tower facilities erected in the last 5 years and industry estimates are that more than 1 million more will be needed in the next few years. CMS suggests that as many as 50% of the towers erected in the last 5 years don't need to exist, an even greater percentage don't need to be as-tall as they are and many wireless facilities, including towers, don't need to be recognizable as such. As a result, communities need to take control of the siting of cell towers in their jurisdictions." http://www.newrules.org Environmental concerns need to be addressed. "The County of Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance presently regulates new cell facilities and additions or co-location on existing facilities. It classifies wireless telecommunication facilities in two categories: minor or major commercial antennas". • Minor Structures are 35 feet or less in height • Major Structures are over 35 feet in height. - Environmental review pursuant to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) is required and may result in a Categorical Exemption, a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) depending on the impacts associated with the project. Proactive inclusion of residential impact issues in an ordinance is important. "A conditional use permit for an antenna in an R-1 district shall not be considered when the residential property in the residential community within 500 feet of the site for the proposed antenna, as defined by the City in their legal requirements for notification of a public hearing, represents more than 70% of the land density excluding streets". 4 Technology Trends There are new technologies, new services and new service providers emerging that were never even contemplated when the 1996 Telecommunications Act was adopted and when most current local ordinances or regulations were adopted. These include, but are far from limited to, wireless high-speed broadband access provided by wireless Local Area Networks (LAN's) and Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN'S) operating at broadband speeds, and new services and technology known as Wi-Fi and VoIP. Technology and capabilities are changing and rapidly improving. Several local city ordinances within Santa Clara County require 5 year technology updates of existing Wireless facilities. If a community does-not have the expertise in-house (technically qualified experts) to analyze this information and make a determination it will have no means or hope of controlling the matter and protecting the nature and character of the community. It will simply have a "process" that doesn't do much more than create a "form over substance" situation and the community ends up simply going through the motions, but with no meaningful effect. "The FCC has formed a Wireless Facilities Siting Task Force to serve as a focal point for collection and dissemination of information relating to the efforts of state and local governments, as well as providers of personal wireless services, to address facilities siting concerns. The Task Force believes it can serve as a valuable information resource for state and local governments and for the industry as they carry out the responsibilities assigned them under the new law." http://wireless.fcc.gov • • t • + Date Resolution No. Action Taken 1 10/6/03 03-] 87 City Council adopts Wireless Facilities Master Plan, File No. CP-2000-09_ ~ The cover photograph depicts antennas from five d~erent personal service wireless facilities along State Highway 8S near Interstate Highway 280. In the foreground is a monopole with one set of antennas. There are two sets in the treepole. There is another antenna set in the background next to the lattice tower and the ~ final set is mounted on the ~ lattice tower. ~I • • . Tabte of Contents • • Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 3 Chapter 2. GOALS ...........................................................: 4 Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF POLICIES .................................... 5 Chapter 4. BACKGROUND ................................................ 7 Chapter 5. LOCATIONS &STRUCTURES ................................. 13 Chapter 6. SITING & DESIGN ............................................... 18 Chapter 7. HEALTH & SAFETY ............................................. 27 Chapter 8. MONITORING .................................................... 30 Chapter 9. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 32 Chapter 10. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................ 35 2 Chapter 1. Introduction Personal wireless services were first introduced in the region in the early 1980's. The first hand-held equipment or cell phones were very heavy, and service was unreliable and. expensive. Consumer demand was small, but continued to grow with continual technological innovation that reduced the size and weight of phones, and improved the reliability and coverage of communications. Increased competition from new companies entering the market have helped drive down prices, making the phones and the cost of service more affordable for the general public. Rapid consumer acceptance and pervasive use of this communications technology in the last decade have also meant a commensurate proliferation of the personal wireless service facilities throughout this community and the country that is often typified by the rectangular-shaped antennas mounted in clusters on buildings, poles and towers. The rapid proliferation of these facilities presents a unique challenge to Cupertino to protect community aesthetics and promote safety. Many communities throughout the United States have reacted to this proliferation of personal wireless service facility applications by amending their zoning ordinances to allow such facilities or creating new ordinances to regulate their siting and design. The City of Cupertino took the later approach in 1996 by adopting an ordinance that specifically regulated the siting and design of personal wireless service facilities. Since then new facility proposals have been reviewed on a case by case basis by the City's Planning Commission with technical expertise provided by the Telecommunications Commission. By 1999, it had become increasingly clear to these City decision makers that the long-term impact on the City's visual landscape through the growing accumulation of these facilities was not being addressed. While the community continues to embrace wireless communications, it will not do so at the cost of the community's appearance. The City Council has endorsed the preparation of a Wireless Facilities Master Plan and has provided funding for a consultant. The City has contracted with the consulting firm of I<reines and ICreines to provide technical expertise on the plan preparation. This plan, by its nature, must rely on a technical jargon that will not be easily understood by the layperson. Please refer to the glossary in the back of the document for an explanation of the terms. • Chapter 2. Goals • Protect community aesthetics and promote safety by planning for well- sited and well-designed personal wireless service facilities that fit unobtrusively in the Cupertino environment. . • Guide decision makers and City staff by providing a policy framework and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities. • Educate the general public about personal wireless service facilities and the community's design expectations in order to improve their involvement and participation in the decision making process. • Assist the wireless companies and their representatives with information that facilitates their facility deployment process. • Chapter 3. Summary of Policies Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the extent possible. Policy 5-1 : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. Policy 5-2 : Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. Policy 6-1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right~f--way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. Policy 7-1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2 : The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal wireless service facilities: • For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; • For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level; • For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and • For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. Policy 7-3: If a network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites. Policy 7-4: The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal wireless service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation of a RFR assessment or not. Policy 7-5: When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Policy 8-1: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. Policy 8-2: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal of a facility by the company and/or properly owner. ~J 6 Chapter 4. Background Federal Regulatory Authority Master planning for personal wireless service facilities must consider the Telecommunications Act of 1996-abroad revision of the 1934 federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. Section 704(a)(7)(A) states: Excepf as provided in this paragraph, nofhing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. This same section (704) also sets forth the limitations of that local authority: - Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. - Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. - Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, ox modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time .after the request is filed. - Shall put any decision to deny personal wireless service facilities into writing, supported, by substantial evidence contained in the written record. - Shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Conunission Guidelines for such emissions.. Technology Overview Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of various frequencies. Radiofrequency radiation is one of numerous types of electromagnetic radiation. Cellular and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio • (ESMR) operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz), and Personal Communications Systems (PCS) operate at the 1900 MHz band. These three technologies function similazly in that their communications systems consist of interconnected "cell sites" or geographic areas that cover a region. In general, cell sites tend to be smaller in size and more numerous in the cities and larger in size and less numerous in rural areas. This happens because cities have more people (customers) than rural and outlying areas. As more people demand wireless. communications services, wireless systems will require additional capacity to handle calls. Capacity is added when wireless companies: 1) Change technology from analog to digital, 2) Add more cell sites. Currently, the wireless companies are offering voice communications, paging and text messaging and aze aggressively working to improve their offerings of data and video communications and wireless Internet services over their wireless • networks. To develop the capacity to handle this large amount of information, companies must continue to develop new technologies and undoubtedly provide more cell sites. Each cell site within the system contains a set of transmitting and receiving antennas that aze mounted to the ground, building, monopole or lattice tower. All calls placed with a wireless phone are transmitted by the phone to a cell site antenna that is connected via aland-based line to a central computer switching system. The central switch completes the call by connecting it to a conventional phone through Aland-based line or to another wireless phone through the nearest antenna. When a wireless caller or receiver of a call is mobile, the call is handed off from one cell site to another cell site as the user travels through one cell site to another. Community Issues 1. Height. A determining factor in the location, siting and design of a personal wireless service facility is the height of the antennas. The dish and yagi antennas are used for line of sight transmission, and the panel antennas propagate their radio signals directionally. The height of the antennas is important for line of sight and coverage. Buildings, hills and trees tend to attenuate signal strength when they intervene into the signal path. At some point an attenuated signal becomes so faint it cannot be used. Wireless companies often seek approval for antenna heights that are above the obstructions. Other problems may occur when the coverage azea has varying topography, which makes line of sight transmission difficult. requiring significant private landscaping, and relating building design to the public realm. The height and continued proliferation of facilities will likely make them more apparent to residents in the future and potentially create more obtrusive visual impacts than ever before. One strategy to reduce the proliferation of facilities is to require the co-location of facilities on a single structure, such as, a lattice tower. There is, however, an inherent tradeoff. Accommodating many facilities on a single structure reduces proliferation, but often causes serious visual impacts. Many antennas and equipment concentrated on one lattice tower tend to draw more attention than the dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities. An example of this is the lattice tower on the De Anza College Campus. Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the extent possible. 4. Facility Installation in Residential Areas. Personal wireless services are increasingly moving toward home usage. If costs continue to decline, consumers will continue to use their "cell" phone instead of their land line phones while at home. A small, but growing number of subscribers have gone completely wireless, abandoning their land lines. The wireless companies follow their subscribers' phone usage. Ultimately, the facilities may serve every neighborhood in the City. The deployment of personal wireless service facilities in residential neighborhoods could have significant, obtrusive visual impacts if not properly planned. ~, ~ ,~ It appears in residential ~~ ~ yy ~ ' ~ ~ I neighborhoods, that the best places '~'~ -;~k P~ . T ~,, ~ ~, ~-~~~~ ~.. ~ for personal wireless service ~ ~uf~~ v ~_ r. k , x ~ ~~ '-~~~ "~ ~ ~ facilities will be on top of or C ` < . 4.y,~. \ h ~ { ,~..~ x yY,°{. r, ~ ~ attached to li ht oles, traffic si al ~ ~ :~ ~ g P ~ poles or other tall structures in the ` t ..i ~~ , ~, t~'r ~ 4 , `~ 1 ' t ~ ~ ; ='~~`x '° f; public right-of-way. - ~-~ ;~ R. 3~ r~,~, (Personal wireless facility on a light pole at Serra Boulevard and Stanford Avenue; i Stanford, CA.) r.~- p_ R- ~j y i ~~ In the past this was done with one company's ~~'`"~' antennas placed on street lights, which have met ,, - with no public objection. The company was a wireless Internet service. Even though the company is now out of business, their abandoned antennas continue to dot City streets. Another company has bought the technology and plans s~ ,~' ; - - on reusing the antenna network. • • .~- (Personal wireless facility at Swallow Drive and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA) Other possible sites for residential deployment include: stadium light poles at high schools, flag poles and light standards in parking lots at churches and other non-residential uses in the neighborhoods. 12 Chapter 5. Locations F~ Structures This section deals with the topic of the best locations and structures in the community for personal wireless service facilities. The continuing demand for personal wireless services throughout the community will escalate the proliferation of facilities, perhaps even into the residential neighborhoods. At risk are the visual qualities of this community: its natural vistas, the tree-lined streets, the well-tended and attractive commercial and industrial areas. The key challenge is to protect community aesthetics and promote safety, while facilitating the use of this technology throughout the community. It is not the purpose of this plan to encourage the location of every local personal wireless service facility within the City's boundaries. There are numerous nearby locations in the five cities and unincorporated areas that border Cupertino that could serve equally as well or better as potential locations. The best locations in the community for personal wireless facilities is a function of the land use and the presence or absence of taller structures that can accept antennas that will not be noticed. One of the overall goals is to locate facilities and to site and design them so they are as unobtrusive as possible. In general, non-residential locations are better than residential locations because such facilities are less noticeable and more accepted by the public. Also facilities with antennas mounted on existing structures are generally preferred to facilities with antennas mounted on new structures. Antennas mounted on existing taller structures are usually less noticeable because the structure is already part of the City's visual landscape. The City's preference order for locations of personal wireless service facilities is: Most Preferred Least Preferred Existing Structures in New Structures in Existing Structures in New Structures in Non-Residential Areas Non-Residential Areas Residential Areas .Residential Areas Policy 5-1 : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. 1. Existing Structures in Non-Residenfiial Locations. The following maps and list describe the structures that have been used or may be potentially used for personal wireless service facilities on non-residential lands. It is meant to be as inclusive as possible, but there may be other opportunities that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • 13 A. Privately-Owned Locations (Ma s #1 f~ #3) P There are numerous taller structures on private non-residential property that are candidate locations for personal wireless.service facilities. All privately- owned locations are depicted on Map #3, except for personal wireless service monopoles, which are depicted on Map #1. There are two inappropriate structures: 1) billboards--very large, off-site advertising signs, that are legal, nonconforming structures not permitted to expand their use, and 2) flag poles used for the display of the American and State flags. More appropriate taller structures are described below: • Taller Buildings: 2+ stories in height • Parking Lot Light Standards (not mapped) • Utility Structures: transmission towers, taller utility poles, private water tanks • P.G.& E. Service Center and Power Substations • Pylon Signs (not billboards) • Personal Wireless Service Monopoles • Religious Institutions • Historic Structures (e.g. wooden water tower) B. Publicly-Owned Locations .(Map #2) City-owned Locations The City of Cupertino owns numerous buildings, structures and properties throughout the community that could be potentially used for personal wireless service facilities. They include: One and two story buildings that have yet to be built: • Community Hall • Library Existing one story buildings: • City Hall • Sports Center • Quinlan Community Center • Park & Recreation Centers • Service Center (Corporation yard has three facilities.) • 14 Relatively undeveloped and vacant properties: • • Remnant properties along Mary Avenue and Highway 85 soundwall • Parks • Blackberry Farm Golf Course Lands, such as lots and public rights of way that have other structures: • Water tanks • Traffic Signal Poles - - - - - - •- Eleetroliers-(i.e., street lights) • Public rights of way (a.k.a. streets) Other Government-Owned Locations Other locations owned by other government agencies may be suitable sites for personal wireless service facilities. Each agency would decide whether its properties would be available for lease for personal wireless service facilities. Such facilities need permits from the City since these commercial personal wireless service facilities do no relate directly to the government agency's mission. • Santa Clara County Fire Department fire stations • Public School District properties (building mounts, parking lot light standards, stadium light poles) • De Anna College Campus • Caltrans Rights-of-Way and Service Center 2. New Structures in Non-Residential Locations. There are many non- residential locations that lack a suitable, mounting structure for a personal wireless service facility. And in those instances, carriers, sometimes propose a new lattice tower, monopole or other structure to elevate the antennas. Under these circumstances, the personal wireless service facility should be located in an area that has the least visual impact. In considering such a visible facility, all alternative locations should be reviewed and the best available camouflage techniques should be applied by the carrier to the facility. (See Siting and Design Section of Plan). Sometimes the most appropriate design solution may be "hiding the facility in plain sight." This is accomplished by camouflaging the personal wireless service facility with materials in colors, sizes, textures and proportions that blend into the environment, without creating visual contradictions. This is discussed in 15 • Poli 5-2 : Only unobtrusive personal urireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. 5. Non-Cupertino Locations. The City of Cupertino is bordered by the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose and Saratoga. In the west foothills, Cupertino is surrounded by the unincorporated lands of Santa Clara County. Each jurisdiction has buildings, taller structures and features, and property that could accommodate a personal wireless service facility. In many cases, these locations may be preferable to a Cupertino-based location if they are less obtrusive to the surrounding area. Examples of locations include: • Shopping centers in all surrounding cities, • The quarries and lattice towers in the unincorporated west foothills, • The Hewlett Packard campus, water tank, hotel, office buildings, hospital and lattice towers in Santa Clara along Highway 280, • Lattice towers, Caltrans right-of-way, water tanks along Highways 85 and 280 in Sunnyvale, • The Home Depot, office buildings, commercial buildings, high school, and taller utility poles in San Jose, • The taller utility poles along Prospect Road and hillside locations in Saratoga. Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. • 17 Chapter 6. Sating £~ Design • The previous plan section suggested the interdependence of location, siting and design in determ;n;ng appropriate places for personal wireless service facilities. Some locations will be validated through siting and design, while other locations, such as a substation, depend less on siting and design policies and guidelines. Siting is the relationship of the personal wireless service facility to its site and any structures on that site. Design is the arrangement of parts, details, form, color, etc. to achieve a desired functionality and appearance. Functionality has to do more with the adequacy of the cell site in the wireless company's grid of cell sites. The wireless company is best able to determine the functionality of its cell site. The City is more concerned with the appearance of the facility and how well it fits into the overall context of the built environment. Sometimes the objectives of functionality and appearance will conflict in the process of designing a personal wireless service facility. Policy 6-1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of--way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. SITING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Specific siting and design guidance is provided for personal wireless service facilities categorized by the type of equipment. ]n general the equipment should be sited to blend in with their surroundings. The environmental context will help dictate the best site and best camouflage technique(s) to use. This is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of siting and design guidance. Wireless companies are encouraged to provide creative solutions to facility siting and design that meet the plan's goals. is 1. Antennas • Antennas near the ground in hilly locations should be screened by existing vegetation. If vegetation is sparse; additional landscaping may be planted that is similar to the surrounding vegetation or native to the area. • Antennas should be painted and textured to match the background view or foreground view whichever will make the antennas less obtrusive. If the background is the sky, the preference is a flat gray -- - - color..- -- • Antennas may be screened with radio wave transparent materials that have been~designed and fabricated to match elements normally viewed in the immediate environment. • Typically the least obtrusive placement on a building is a flush mounting on some roof-top equipment, structure, penthouse or building wall. A secondary location is a central place on the roof where the roofline can cut off angles of view, making the antennas less visible. The least desirable roof mount is a vertical protrusion at or neaz the parapet where the antennas are likely to be the most visible. • For lattice towers, the most successful antennas siting/design solutions are:.1) the top hat design, where a short, rectangular framework of steel is erected on top of the tower and the antennas are mounted to this framework extension, and 2) the leg-mounted • design, where the antennas are mounted on the legs of the tower above the ground level. (Personal wireless service facility using a lattice tower at the extension of California Oak Way and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.) • 19 • Select antennas of a shape and size that are in proportion to the • mounting surface, and mount them flush against the structure. • On a monopole, antennas should be mounted flush to the shaft or in vertical alignment with the shaft. Some of the newer monopoles have been designed to accommodate more than one set of antennas and their city approvals conditioned with a co-location requirement. The antennas should be enclosed in a screening cylinder if this reduces the obtrusiveness of the facility. • Anew antennas rack configuration on an existing monopole should only be considered if the monopole can be adapted with adequate tree-type camouflage. • The antenna shape and mounting orientation guideline may be relaxed if the antenna is of such a small size that its presence would not be noticed by the general public. An example of this is the former wireless Internet antenna suspended from the cross arm of an electrolier. (Personal wireless . `- ~j, facility ai Swallow Drive ` and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA) • Antennas may be mounted on top of a pole-type structure (e.g., light pole, traffic signal pole, power/telephone pole, golf course net pole, etc.) if the pole is 30 feet or less in height. The antennas 20 • should be vertically aligned with the pole and shall not exceed 209'0 of the height of the pole. 2. Co-Located Antennas Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. • In general co-located antennas mounted on the same monopole, lattice tower or building roof should be less visually obtrusive than separate personal wireless service facilities. • All of the siting and design guidelines applicable to a single set of antennas apply to co-located antennas as well. • Building rooftops suitable for numerous co-located antennas should be retro-fitted with lazger equipment screens or extensions of the roof element that are architecturally compatible with the building. 3. Cables • Cable runs along the ground should generally be undergrounded unless such undergrounding would adversely affect the health of nearby mature trees. • If the cable runs are located above ground, they should be camouflaged from public view. Cables should not be routed along exterior surfaces unless they are camouflaged with materials that integrate with the design of the structure. • In lattice towers, cables should be bundled together and routed along the legs or cross members of the lattice tower. (Depicted are cables enclosed in a conduit that runs along the leg of a lattice tower located above the Monta Vista electrical substation in Cupertino, CA.) n 21 4. Equipment Cabinets & Enclosures • On developed sites, the best location for equipment cabinets is an interior building space or a pad in an underground parking garage if available. Secondary locations include the roof and ground level parking areas. Roof-mounted equipment should be adequately screened. Ground level equipment enclosures should not remove City-required parking spaces or landscaped areas. • Ground level enclosures should be tall enough to screen the ____ _ _equipment_and match the building materials of other onsite structures whenever possible. • Screening landscaping should also match existing, onsite landscaping if appropriate. • For lattice towers, siting the equipment beneath the lattice tower legs is one of the preferred locations. • For utility pole-type mounts, equipment cabinets may be mounted on the shaft if they are small enough in size to integrate with the appearance of the structure. • ._~u, ~} 1 ~ { i ~;~ 1 '' ~`I '~~ (Personal wireless service facility on a utility pole located on Foothill Blvd next to Monta Vista Parr Cupertino, CA.) 22 • Lar ere ui ment cabinets should be sited in under ound g q P Sr' vaults in the public right of way. The best locations are the street and the sidewalk areas. In general the vaults should avoid landscaped areas and street trees. . • Larger equipment cabinets should also be sited in the rear yards of adjacent residences. Equipment cabinets should not be visible above the fence line. Wireless companies will need to negotiate land leases and easements with affected property owners. 5. Lattice Towers & Monopoles. • New lattice towers are not allowed by the City because of their obtrusiveness and because monopoles satisfactorily serve the same purpose of elevating the antennas with fewer visual impacts. A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or elements to reduce its obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of substation. r~ m line monopole among the ars. Note the cable trays to right are above ground to er protect the tree roots. nopole is located near the nimis of Portal Avenue at hway 280, Cupertino, CA.) Monopoles should be approximately the same or smaller diameter as other vertical elements in the surrounding environment. The "slim line" monopoles have dramatically decreased the needed diameter of such poles, but co-location of additional antennas is problematic. C 23 • Monopoles should be colored to match their foreground or background elements. If the sky is the background or foreground element then the monopole should be painted a flat gray color. • Intrusive and obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement. • The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility. • The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.) (Treepole style antenna mount located on San Tomas Expressway near its intersection with Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA.) 24 Other Structure Mounts. There is a host of other types of structures that are not buildings, lattice towers or monopoles that may be suitable for elevating antennas and around which a satisfactory personal wireless service facility can be built. This category includes: power/ telephone poles, electroliers, taller pylon signs (except billboards), golf course net poles, etc. Some of these structures may not be structurally suitable to carry such wireless facilities, so the City will allow the wireless companies to fabricate suitable replacement structures. In other cases where a structure does not exist, the City may allow wireless companies to design and fabricate a custom-built facility that will fit into its surroundings. Additions or changes to city-owned utility structures will require the review and approval of the City Public Works Department. 6. Replacement Structures • If the wireless company needs to fabricate a new structure to replace one that is not suitable for antenna mounting, then the new structure shall approximate the size, height, shape, colors and dimensions of the existing structure in order to fit the new structure into the visual landscape. Replacement public structures will need the approval of the City Public Works Department. • Replacement structures should accommodate internalized cable runs. (Personal wireless service facility antenna/parking light standard pole in a shopping center off Highway 680, Pleasanton, CA.) • 25 Chapter 7. Health F~ Safety Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) Background. There is an ongoing debate among scientists and the general public as to the health risks associated with exposure to RFR from personal wireless service facilities. The City of Cupertino has commissioned its wireless facilities master plan technical consultant, ICreines and Kreines, to prepare a paper investigating the federal government's regulation of RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities and the City of Cupertino's scope of authority to review health and safety issues involving RFR. This paper, titled: "White Paper: City of Cupertino Scope of Authority to Review Health and Safety Issues Involving Radio Frequency Radiation (including Radiation of Co-located Facilities)" and dated October 31, 2001 is incorporated by reference into this Plan. A copy may be obtained from Cupertino Community Development staff. The white paper concludes that the City does not have the authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RFR, nor does the City have the authority to set exposure standards for RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities, which has been pre-empted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act is very clear that the City may not deny an application for a personal wireless service facility because of RFR if the facility meets the FCC Guidelines for RFR exposure. The prohibition applies only to personal wireless service facilities. The adopted federal RFR exposure standards aze embodied in FCC Guidelines published on August 1,1996 and titled: "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation." The FCC-adopted standards are the 1991 Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) standards that were subsequently adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and became known as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in combination with a stricter National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) standard that NCRP set in 1986. According to the white paper, if the City suspects that RFR standards are being exceeded, it is doubtful that the City has the police powers over a violatior of the FCC Guidelines by a personal wireless service facility. An FCC Guide titled: "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance," published in June 2000, suggests , that if a violation is suspected, the local government first contact the facility operator, and if it still has questions about compliance, the local government should contact the FCC. 26 While the City has no authority to regulate or enforce police powers on RFR, it appears the City may review and monitor RFR for compliance with FCC Guidelines. In fact the FCC Guide previously mentioned states: "... this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with FCC's limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, ..., with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2) at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees., Review of RFR Emissions for Compliance with Federal Standards. As a general rule, the applicant should bear the entire cost associated with measuring, recording, reporting and monitoring RFR emissions associated with personal wireless service facilities. Based on previous RFR reports, it is likely that most facilities will not exceed FCC RFR Guidelines; however, the City should establish some standards for assessment to ensure FCC Guidelines are meet. Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal wireless service facilities: • For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; • For antennas mounted Iess than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground Ievel; • For all co-located antennas; ('The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and • For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. 'The RFR reporting must consider potential exposure, as well as, actual exposure. For example, a report that measures ground level RFR exposure of residents in their homes may not take into account the potential of residents adding second. stories to their homes and possibly bringing themselves in closer proximity to the transmitting antennas. Policy 7-3 : If a network of residential-based personal wireless senvice facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites. • 27 Policy 7-4 : The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal wireless service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation of a RPR assessment or not. NOISE Some of the wireless communication companies require mechanical ventilation to keep their equipment operating within an acceptable temperature range and generators to provide power or backup power in the event of a power outage. _ _ All of this_ equipment are potential noise sources and must comply with the City's Community Noise Ordinance. Policy 7-5 : When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous materials that are typically used in personal wireless service facilities may include such materials as Gallium Arsenide (a carcinogen), sulfuric acid in batteries, diesel fuel for generators and compressed gases. The quantities found at these facilities are usually not large and do not present a serious threat to life or property. All such facilities require building permit review, which includes review by the Fire Department of Santa Clara County that administers the City's hazardous materials ordinance. That ordinance addresses the identification, containment, storage and monitoring of hazardous materials. Fire Department personnel also has specialized equipment, training and personnel to deal with hazardous material releases. FALLING MATERIALS Antennas mounted at taller heights and the artificial branches and foliage found on a treepole are subject to strong winds, which may cause breakage and a potential falling material hazard to persons and property at the ground level. The City requires a building permit for all mounted antennas and treepoles. Specific structural analysis for treepoles is also required. At the building permit stage, applicants should be prepared to provide for the artificial tree branches: 1) an analysis of wind resistance factors, testing for material strength and stiffness, and a description of the environmental effects related to solar degradation and fatigue. 28 i Chapter 8. Monitoring Wireless communications is a high growth industry subject to rapid innovation and technological change. The City should keep abreast of the growth and changes as wireless communications become even more pervasive and integrated into society and our community life. In the future; how the equipment functions, how it looks, and where it is located will probably change and the City must prepare itself to react to change; set standards and plan for the future infrastructure of wireless communication. Since many personal wireless service facilities have been approved by the City before the preparation of this master plan, many may not meet the City's current guidelines and standards. Periodic review, if legally possible, would benefit the City and the applicant if needed to update the installed equipment. Presently, any modifications to a facility require some type of City approval. Periodic reviews can be accomplished by placing an expiration date on the City's discretionary approvals. The City permit will then need to be "renewed" after a certain period of time by the applicant, which creates an opportunity for the City and the applicant to check maintenance, make beneficial modifications, not only because of advances in equipment technology, but also advances in camouflaging techniques. The City has been placing 5-year expiration dates on most facility approvals. Some of these will expire in the next few years. Carriers are responsible for monitoring the expiration dates of their City approvals and applying for time extensions in a timely manner. The City has the right to revoke permits that have expired and terminate the use. Staff should monitor its facility approvals to ensure that future approvals are likewise conditioned and that expirations are "caught" and re-permitted as necessary. Policy 8-1 : All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. In the event a company abandons its personal wireless service facility, the facility should be dismantled and removed by the company. and/or property owner. Such a condition should be placed in City approvals for private property and in City lease agreements for City-owned and leased properties. • 29 Chapter 9. Implementation BACKGROUND This section of the plan addresses how this wireless facilities master plan will be implemented by the City through its zoning ordinances, City lease agreements and development standards. While all personal wireless service facilities will require some sort of discretionary review and/or approval, the City will not be overly burdensome from a regulation standpoint for well-designed and sited facilities that meet the goals of this plan. Applicants can expect a "tiered permit system' where the level of staff and public review of a facility proposal will depend on how well a facility is camouflaged and how unobtrusive it is in appearance to the viewing public. The necessity for a RFR report is a separate issue. The RFR report's conclusions may affect the level of review. The Planning Division staff is the main contact for most City approvals of personal wireless service facilities. Facility Development Permits Simple Complex Building Permit Only Director's Approval ASA/Design Approval Use Permit (Staf~ (Planning Commission) . 1. Building Permit Only. Only a building permit is required for personal wireless service facilities that are totally screened from any public view. The facility is able to use existing structures to screen the equipment, or replace existing structures with ones composed of radio transparent materials that are identical in appearance. While Planning staff reviews these proposals for qualification, no separate planning permit is required. To date, very few facilities have qualified for this m;n;mum level of review. 2. Director's Approval. Also known as a Director s Minor Modification, this approval is executed by Planning staff and the Community Development Director. No public hearing or notice is required, but the decision is reviewed and may be appealed by anyone during a 14 calendar-day appeal period. Typically, well-screened, building- mounted or structured-mounted personal wireless facilities qualify for this level of planning approval. A separate building permit is also required. 31 3. ASA/Design Approval. Certain personal wireless service facility projects require design approval by the Design Review Committee, atwo-member subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The public meeting is less formal than a full Planning Commission hearing and requires 10-day advanced noticing of adjacent property owners. This type of planning application is required for more noticeable building and structure-mounted personal wireless service facilities. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Commission. A separate building permit is also required. 4. Use Permit. Typically, new tower- or monopole-mount personal wireless service facilities will require public review by the City's Planning Commission. Public hearing noticing consists of a notice published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed noticed to property owners within 500 feet. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Commission. A separate and sequential building permit is also required. The Community Development Director may refer a Director's Minor Modification to the Planning Commission for public hearing review. This is necessary when the Director believes there are significant design issues or potential public controversy about the project. Noticing may be just adjacent property owners or more if warranted by the Director. WIRELESS COA~!VILdNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE The wireless communications facilities ordinance was adopted and incorporated into the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 19.108) in 1997. It has been the City's main implementation tool and by default its policy document for the review of all personal wireless service facilities in the City. With the adoption of a wireless facilities master plan, this ordinance will need to be updated and broaden to implement the master plan. The ordinance shall specify maximum antenna height and provide for an exception process. This ordinance also regulates ham radio facilities intended for personal use. Implementor. Community Development Dept. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCES. The Location Section of this Plan identifies all types of locations and structures that may be appropriate for personal wireless service facilities. Since these locations and structures may be in any number of zoning districts, a review and probable amendments of the zoning code is required to ensure tha# it is • 32 internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Implementor: Community Development Dept. OTHER CITY ORDINANCES AND CITY POLICIES As this master plan proposes the potential lease of all types of City property for private purposes, a review of other City ordinances and policies regazding such lease to private concerns is necessary to ensure that they are internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and that appropriate levels of review are built into the leasing process. Implementors: Community Development Dept., Public Works Dept. £~ City Attorney LEASE AGREEMENTS A lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Depaztment staff and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing. -The level of Planning Division involvement and public review depends on the obtrusiveness of the facility. A building permit may also be required. An example of this type of entitlement is the lease of City light standards to a wireless company for its antenna boxes. Leases involving the construction of .new stand-alone facilities will probably require greater scrutiny. Model lease agreements should be developed by the City to facilitate lease of public property and structures for personal wireless service facilities and to protect City interests. Coordination with affected departments, such as the Parks and Recreation Dept. for City parklands, will be necessary to ensure their concerns are met. The City's consultant has prepared a survey of lease rates to ascertain market rental rates for such facilities. Implementor: Public Works Dept: CITY STANDARD DETAILS The City Public Works Department maintains standazd specifications for all public works structures. Some of the structures suggested in this plan, like traffic signal poles and light poles, may not be physically or structurally suited to accommodate a personal wireless service facility. These structures should be evaluated by the wireless companies and the Public Works Department to determine their suitability. An alternative design or standard may need to be adopted to accommodate a residential deployment of personal service wireless facilities. Implementors: Public Works Dept. £~ Wireless Companies. 33 • They are typically 4-5 feet in height, 6-12 inches in width and 6-8 inches in depth. - Whip Antenna. This is an omni-directional antenna that appears as a very thin, rod-like element, projecting up or down from its mount. They are typically 2-b inches in diameter and 1-18 feet in length. - Yagi Antenna. This is a directional antenna designed to "see" one site. It consists of a thin, rod-like element with half a dozen or more short cross members mounted at right angles. This antenna is mounted in a horizontal direction from its mount. • Antenna Mount or Mount. This term refers to the antenna mounting hardware and the structure, if any, that elevates the antennas above the surrounding landscape, for example, a building, monopole, lattice tower, etc. There are four (4) typical types of mounts: - Ground-mount. Each antenna is fastened to a separate, short, thin rod that is anchored to the ground. These installations would be typically seen on foothill properties where the height of the hill provides the elevation for the antennas. - Roof-mount. Antennas are mounted on the roof of a building. r. _.,,,. ~ _.~~: ~~~ - Side-mount. Antennas are mounted on the side of a building. • 35 Tower or Monopole-mount. Antennas are mounted on the top or side of a lattice tower, guyed tower or monopole, or a monopole. Sometimes a large and substantial framework is added so the antennas will protrude noticeably above or beyond the surface of the tower or monopole. This is referred to as a "top hat" or "rack" configuration, which is often used to accommodate more than three panel antennas at one mount. On monopoles, sometimes adual-polarized or cross- polarized panel antennas are used which allows the antennas to be mounted very closely, almost flush, to the surface of the monopole. - Structure-mount. Antennas are mounted to the top or side of a structure, other than a building, tower or monopole, such as a water tank or tall ground sign. • Applicant. A person or entity who submits a permit application for a personal wireless service facility before the City of Cupertino. • Base Transceiver Station. The personal wireless service facility equipment housed in cabinets or an enclosure or shelter. The term is usually used for a PGS-type cell site. • Camouflage. A palette of techniques used to disguise, hide and conceal a personal wireless service facility from public view by blending its appearance into elements of the visual background. The term connotes the use of paint, landscaping, building materials and artificial screens in patterns that merge with the elements in the background environment. • Carrier. An entity or company in the business of providing personal wireless services. • Cell Site. An informal term for a personal wireless service facility. • Cellular. A mobile telephone technology operating in the 800 MHz range of the electromagnetic spectrum. • Co-applicant. All other persons and/or entities joining with an applicant in permit application for a personal wireless service facility, including the owner(s) of the personal wireless service facility, the property owner(s), and any tenant(s) for the personal wireless service facility. • Co-location. The practice of installing antennas from more than one wireless communications company on a single antenna mount. • Co-location, Horizontal. The horizontal orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a building. • Co-location, Vertical. The generally vertical orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a vertical mount such as a monopole or lattice tower. 36 • • Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). As defined by Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, any of several technologies using radio signals at various frequencies to send and receive voice, video and data. These are considered "functionally equivalent services' by the Telecommunications Act. • Cross-polarized Antenna. Three panel antennas flush-mounted or attached very close to a shaft. • Design. The appeazance of a personal wireless service facility, which includes materials, colors and shape. • Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio {ESMR). Private land mobile radio with telephone services. The local purveyor of this communications technology is Nextel Communications. • Environmental Assessment. The document required by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Environmental Policy Act when a personal wireless service facility is proposed in an area that may be environmentally affected by the facility. The environmental assessment must show how negative environmental impacts can be mitigated. • Equipment Cabinets. Personal wireless service facilities also include one (1) or more small, enclosed structures, cabinets, boxes, sheds or underground vaults near the base of the antenna mount. These structures house power connections, emergency batteries, hazdwire telephone- connections and sometimes ventilation equipment needed for the operation of the facility. The equipment is connected to the antennas by cable(s). The equipment is usually secured by an enclosing structure, such • 37 as a fence, shed or vault. "Base transceiver station" is also used to describe the radio equipment in these structures used by PCS technology. • Facility. See Personal Wireless Service Facility. • Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is the United States govenunental agency responsible for regulating personal wireless services. This agency issues licenses and writes federal regulations and standards governing telecommunication companies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted this agency significant authority to regulate personal wireless services. • Functionally Equivalent Services. Cellular, PCS, ESMR, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging. According to the Telecommunications Act, these five services must receive the same treatment by local govenYunent. • Guyed Monopole or Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is anchored to the ground or other surface by diagonally-oriented cables. • Intrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that visually. contrasts with its surroundings to the point of conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings (See Obtrusive.) • Lattice Tower. Aself-supporting mount with multiple legs and cross bracing of structural steel. • Licensed Carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to construct and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. + Location. The area where a personal wireless service facility is located or proposed to be located. The term differs from "siting". • Mean Sea Level (MSL). A uniform reference point from which height can be measured. • Modification. The changing of any portion of a personal wireless service facility from what was approved in a previous City permit. • Monopole. Aself-supporting mount consisting of a single shaft of wood, steel or concrete specifically designed and constructed to carry more than one personal wireless service antenna. • Mount. See Antenna-Mount. • Obtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that is visually dominating to its surrounding environment. This term usually applies to a facility where a new monopole or lattice tower is erected to mount the antennas. It may also apply to building-mounted or structure-mounted facilities that lack adequate camouflage: • Omni-directional Antenna. A thin rod that transmits or receives a radio signal in all directions. Also called a "whip' antenna. • Paging. A service that provides tone, text and limited voice messaging. Commercial paging operates on several frequencies, including narrowband PCS. 38 • Panel Antenna. A flat surface antenna that is usually deployed in three directional sectors and used to transmit and receive signals from that sector only. • Personal Communications Services (PCS). A form of radiotelephone service capable of transmitting and receiving voice, data, text and video messaging and which operates in the 1850-1900 MHz range. • Personal Wireless Services. The Plan uses the definition found in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unlicensed Wireless Services, Common Carrier Wireless Exchange and Commercial Mobile Radio _ _ Services, which includes: Cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging. • Personal Wireless Service Facility. As defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a facility that is designed to provide personal wireless services. • Pylon Sign. A sign erected on a tall and substantial supporting structure, but is not a billboard sign. • Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer. Someone with a background in electrical engineering who specializes in the study of radio frequencies. RF engineers are licensed by the State as Professional Engineers. • Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). The emissions from personal wireless service facilities that in excessive amounts can be harmful to humans. • Search Ring. A generally circular geographic area of a specific radius that a carrier uses to focus his search for a personal wireless service facility location. • Separation. The distance between one carrier s antenna array and another carrief s antenna array. Separation may be horizontal or vertical. • Siting. The method of placing a personal wireless service facility on a specific site or property. The term differs from determ;ning "location" • Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). A group of services serving dispatch and data communication users, usually over a small geographic area. SMR operates over several frequencies in the 800 to 900 MHz range. • Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a broad revision of the 1934 federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. • Unobtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that is not visually dominating to its surroundings. These are usually facilities mounted on buildings or other structures that are well- camouflaged. This also describes facilities that are not as well camouflaged, but do not visually stand-out because of placement, shape • 39 and/or relative size of the facility compared to surrounding visual elemerits. • Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no FCC license for each personal wireless service facility. However, an unlicensed carrier needs a FCC license. Examples are Metricom and Wi-Fi. 40 • • • z 0 a u 0 am d:. Cw ~~ a a m ~VW ~1-.`~ i a~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~~ ~~~ ~~~ 0 ~ z E u ~~ ~~i i ®~. z O F ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ .~ V a ~ s ~~ g ~ ~~F ~ s F d a $~ ~~ o ~o am3'u5 ~ ~f~ ~ ~~° ~~0 ~ ~ ~ 0.z -,- ~v~ ~ {::'~ .~ ~ • • • ~ ~'o m x ~ ~ O ~ a . mmo ~. m ~ g, ~ '~~. ~ ~~~ V Q 'O V C v mro'L= ~ m d 6 a o :~~ ~~~ ~' S E ~ ~ _. 3 ,EE E z t n "" . E~Bo p ' qaa 557 yrme~om 'ni75 CY b ~ ~C~ Saa. • o ~~ nn L~l J . O ~ ~ ~qp ~ o •• ~( - ~ ~ . 0 • 0 ~ ~ f 4, \ e ~~ o • • • • Page 1 of 3 • Lata Vasudevan From: raymuzzy@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:50 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: RE: Meeting next week NEXTEL still needs to resolve two major issues Make poles with flags look like flagpole • Look at Flagpole in front of Saratoga library- It has already been done by another cell phone provider . Andrew, one of NEXTEL's antenna panel suppliers, said they can provide a smaller diameter unit than a standard antenna panel. This would enable NEXTEL to construct flagpoles like the one in front of Saratoga library • However, it would probably be more costly than using standard antenna panels and putting them into thick straight poles; NEXTEL prefers their low cost approach • NEXTEL needs to be told that their desire to locate their units in a 100% residential area requires their proposed units to at least look as good as the flagpole units in front of the Saratoga library Some of the antenna poles could be eliminated from the proposed location and put into existing PG&E tower locations in Saratoga . The NEXTEL site on the PG&E tower off of Cox looks like is not being used to cover any of NEXTEL's 800 to 900MHg antenna requirements. The manufactures you use to supply your antenna panels says their antenna panels have 2 to 3 mile coverage. Therefore, the 42 foot antenna pole at the proposed location is covering an area that could be covered with antenna panels at an even greater height on this PG&E tower. This would eliminate the need for the 42 foot antenna pole at the proposed location. . The PG&E tower at De Anza Blvd. has some existing panel antennas that may belong to another cell phone provider. Perhaps NEXTEL could add some of their NEXTEL low frequency antennas in the same or another PG&E tower and eliminate one of the 40 foot antenna poles at the proposed location. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Lata Vasudevan" <lvasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> Hi Ray, OK, it's going to be tight, but I will make myself available on Monday or Tuesday to answer questions during counter hours. I am not sure I can spare 30 minutes on Monday or Tuesday. I would like to let you know that I am scheduling this application for the April 12, 2006 public hearing. If you have any issues, please put them in writing. The applicants are proposing what they were originally proposing with the three flagpoles. The applicants have tried to get a thinner flag pole but have not been able to do so. I have additional photosimulations in the file for you to look at. Again, please put your concerns in writing and submit them to me so that I can include them in the 2/23/2006 ~~~~~ ~e5i~ ~n ~~I~. -14``~~«. ~~ ____- ~~al~ -~~~~t~. ®~ ~~ ~ ~ .~:,~, ~-tom ~~ ~~ • ...___.. ___... ~... .. `~ __~ . ., __ . ~?~ ~~ S _ ~ ~. ~ ~. 6 x io, ~~ ~- ,~ ~(~~~! ~~ ,, ~ ~~I fiJ C/~ '~ ~ ~~~~ ~~j, , ..,n,,,,, fi/~~~. • C, • • Some Initial Comments on the new 12/2005 NEXTEL Prod The Current Proposal and Some Recommendations Improvements from Previous 8/2005 Proposal 1- Best practical location on site is proposed location in front of Worner Hall 2- Flag pole(s) are better approach than artificial tree 3- Lower height (1@42.5 feet and 2@40.5 feet vs. 1@50 feet) and reduced diameter (3@14 inches vs. 1@24 inches) of pole(s) is a good initial approach to decrease the impact of the antenna structure on the surrounding neighborhood. Required Improvements to make Poles with Flags look like Flagpoles Realism is created by tapering the pole. Commercial flagpoles have the diameter at the top about half the diameter at the bottom. Therefore NEXTEL should first attempt to decrease the diameter at the bottom from 15 inches to 12 inches and then they must decrease the diameter at the top to 7 inches. They should also attempt to decrease the height of the flagpoles by about 2 feet each. Very Critical Items that must be Included and Accepted by SPRINT/NEXTEL 1- NO future expansion beyond the items in this proposal 2- NO other wireless providers can put any other equipment on this site. 3- SPRINT/NEXTEL must review every 3 years the impact of new technology to reduce the size of the structures or even eliminate some or all of the structures ( these conditions have been imposed by several cities in Santa Clara County) 4- SPRINT/NEXTEL must make the application and not NEXTEL since they no longer exist. • • • • C U ~ V .. ~ ~ ~ ~ O V •.r ~ ~ ~ ~ C. ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~a• .~ AA a a o ;A WO~ ~ ~w E E N ~ p O ~ .--i Q, O v~ ~ ~, ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O 0 ~ O ~ '"_' ~~ ~ ~ y cd a ~ „~ v N U ,~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ r-+ ~ N O N -b O s.r ~,,, O 'b U W~ wZ -v w ~ ~ ~ °~ H -o~ ~ ~~ . . f- • + ~.' pa,. '''fi ~~ 1+ ~ x `+~ 't, ~ ' ~ C~ 4 ~ ~ i w ~ ~, ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 , t ~ o ~ ~ ~ =~ a ., _ ~ ~a ~ , : w ~:.~ bA cc3 w •.,.~ 3 .._., o w t • • • • • • ~. ~, ; ;.~ , ~~r ~~ ~~ f -~:~ =t- ~ ~ ~s .~ ~ o ~, on O ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ '/~ O ~' ~' ~",rte ~ ~ '., ~~ ~:~ ~/ %, ~,,~, ~~v ~, r--~ ~, ~ ... i r f ~;Y `1 ~ ,,~,. ,,~~ rT~^~~• .;4 ~..~-.. ~ rte, ,,~ ~ ~ ~-~~.~ ~ °~ o o °~' - a a U o U ~ ~ N Yv ~ ~"~ l ~ Kai _.+.'---..-rr:•r _ _ ~ _`~ n -~ _ ( f r~``~~1~ ' ~ sZ s ~,.~~ `_ i ~ -.,~ ; 1~~ ~~.' }~ F • • Arborist Report "A Tree- Inventory and Review of the Proposed NEXTEL Radio Facility at 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga, California" prepared by David L. Babby, RCA dated March 29, 2005 Lata This report, which you should have in your NEXTEL files, had some important recommendations on existing Coast Live Oaks that have not been implemented by Church of the Ascension. We have patiently waited for it to happen but after 8 months it appears nothing is going to happen unless they are directed by the city to do something. Trees are very important to the Saratoga residential community. They need to hear directly from the city about the need to implement the recommendations. Here are some suggestions: 1- Require the Church of the Ascension to replace the small Coast Live Oak in front of the iron fence. Because the cause of the problem was identified as the installation in the lawn area they could consider another option like other forms of additional landscaping, i.e. shrubs or small trees in front of the iron fence and adjacent building. This landscaping should blend with similar landscaping along adjacent buildings on the church property. 2- The other recommendation in the Arborist report is to protect the other Coast Live Oaks which are .planted in lawn areas from a similar premature death. Appreciate your help. Ray Muzzy UUU / -~~,~1 c`rY~ 8 206 ~~1 • C Some Initial Comments on the new 12/2005 NEXTEL Prouosal The Current Proposal and Some Recommendations Improvements from Previous 8/2005 Proposal 1- Best practical location on site is proposed location in front of Worner Hall 2- Flag pole(s) are better approach than artificial tree 3- Lower height (1 @42,5 feet and 2@40.5 feet vs. 1 @50 feet) and reduced diameter (3@14 inches vs. 1 @24 inches) of pole(s) is a good initial approach to decrease the impact of the antenna structure on the surrounding neighborhood. Required Improvements to make Poles with Flags look like Flagpoles Realism is created by tapering the pole. Commercial flagpoles have the diameter at the top about half the diameter at the bottom. Therefore NEXTEL should first attempt to decrease the diameter at the bottom from 14 inches to 12 inches and then they must decrease the diameter at the top to 7 inches or less which is still twice the diameter of a commercia140 foot flagpole. They should also attempt to decrease the height of each of their poles by about 2 feet each. Very Critical Items that must be Included and Accepted by SPRINT/NEXTEL 1- NO future expansion beyond the items in this proposal 2- NO other wireless providers can put any other equipment on this site. 3- SPRINT/NEXTEL must review every 3 yeazs the impact of new technology to reduce the size of the structures or even eliminate some or all of the structures ( these conditions have been imposed by several cities in Santa Claza County) 4- SPRINT/NEXTEL must make the application and not NEXTEL since they no longer exist. ~ • ' 0 ~~ ~~ °M a~ ~ ~ .. ~, E~ c ~ ~~~~. ... an a, V Q„ ~,, ~ ~ ~ a -~~ ~a AA ~ a, o A o > a~ ~ ~ W O OA [-~ E~ W ,~ ~" F F; ~.. ~~ r ~~ t ~~ ;-~, ~~ ~~ ~. ~~ b ~t' f a taA c~ w .~ 3 O t~ ~~/ W ~z: r t' 4 . j 4' ~ ~ ~ . } ,f 3 ~ s T~~ a~ ` f~,:~ ~ i a _ `x . :,; ' ~ ~ _ ~ , • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ cA a~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Wl b ~ ~I ~ ~t~~ ~~ ~~a~~P~a ..~ a~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o v, o ~~ ~ ~:~b~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ a ,~WW~ a~ ~~o a~o~a~.~ • N ~, ~ O ~ C a. bA '~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ - E , ~ , ~ .~ i..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ' " „e as=~„ ~ ~ _ f~ ~ 0 rte,, ~ ~, ~ ~ cM ~ O x 4~ ~ ~ Q. ' ~, ' ~T~~ ~ ~ .~,.,' ~ W O ~ ~ y ~, R ~ ~+ ,~ l.. w' l li( ~ r~4 _ ~ ~ rTl r-1 ~ ,. t .. 34,t 'cif Y~ aZ 7~/f -1a qty ) ~ 0 ~1 ^~~1~71` ~~.~~'Y~/l Y!{i lei .l! 2 ~ 1Y~ ~M ~l'~~~,~ ~5 ~ O .~ J~ L:. ' * ~1 , f-., of -A~ i_ ~} $ ~ .1_11 O a7^ y 1. ~ ~ e J [ i~~•l f S.. _ _...o-Y .. .. 5. i.. ,t.. .~. .w.w .. ... y.-._. r s W • t~ 1 ,\y ~{, ~-. ,. _ s' 4 ".C .t~,_._ .~ ,~..: __ Comcast Message Center '~ 4 L ~. 4 A ~~ SET ~EMAtL Cr~MF QSE l!lCEr REFL`f REF~L'i`"-ALL FC~fi!!sARCy FRItJT REFv F. EMAIL MAIL n. bF-r SentMaii: raymuzzy MESSAGE CENTER INBOX i Draft Screened Mail [EMPTY] 'SentMail Trash [EMPTY] - My Folders[EDIT] CofA Consult Search Gradkell Investments i~ iSMART JE&CC&DM Items Other Items Scanis- Corporate Scanis-Medical SemiScan SGI Related Items Travel ~, Address Book -~ Mailbox Manager ® Preferences ? Help ~ Sign Out What Comes with Comcast High-Speed Internet? CUSTOMER BENEFITS Get a Free Month of High- speed Internet Service REFER A FRIEND SentMail: Email 42 of 346 Move to Folder From: raymuzzy@comcast.net [ADD TO ADDRESS BOOK] To: "Lata Vasudevan" <Ivasudevan@saratoga.ca.us> Yage I or s « Previous Subject: RE: Meeting next week __ " _ " Date: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:49:33 PM NEXTEL_still needs_to resolve two_major issues Make poles with flags look like flagpole . Look at Flagpole in front of Saratoga library- It has already been c another cell phone provider . Andrew, one of NEXTEL's antenna panel suppliers, said they can a smaller diameter unit than a standard antenna panel. This would NEXTEL to construct flagpoles like the orie in front of Saratoga li . However, it would probably be more costly than using standard ar panels and putting them into thick straight poles; NEXTEL prefer: low cost approach . NEXTEL needs to be told that their desire to locate their units in a residential area requires their proposed units to at least look as goc flagpole units in front of the Saratoga library Some of the antenna poles could be eliminated from the proposed log and put into existing PG&E tower locations in Saratoga . The NEXTEL site on the PG&E tower off of Cox looks like is not used to cover any of NEXTEL's 800 to 900MHg antenna requiren The manufactures you use to supply your antenna panels says thei panels have 2 to 3 mile coverage. Therefore, the 42 foot antenna 1 proposed location is covering an area that could be covered with a panels at an even greater height on this PG&E tower. This would the need for the 42 foot antenna pole at the proposed location. . The PG&E tower at De Anza Blvd. has some existing panel anten may belong to another cell phone provider. Perhaps NEXTEL cou some of their NEXTEL low frequency antennas in the same or anc PG&E tower and eliminate one of the 40 foot antenna poles at the location. • • http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4400A7740006FOCF00004CBA2206824693979... 2/25/2006 • • Attachment 8 t • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 2nd day of August , 2006, that I deposited 208 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: 'i APN: 386-35-069;19550 Prospect Ave (12033 Miller Avenue -Church of the Ascension) that on said day there. was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services ~, f 3 In _ ~; f' • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #04-177 - 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue -Church of the Ascension) APPLICANT: NEXTEL/SPRINT APN: 386-35-069 DESCRIPTION: NexteUSprint requests Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of cellular .antennas concealed within three poles. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. This application was initially presented at a public hearing on August 24, 2005. At this public hearing, the Planning Corrunission voted to continue this item to a date uncertain. The current proposal -antennas concealed within the three poles - is a revision to the originally proposed monopine that was presented at the August 24~ public hearing. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, August 14, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Senior Planner 408-868-1235 377-28-024 377-28-025 377-28-026 CHARLES R & DAVIDA ADELBERG RICHARD BROWNLIE CHANG TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 6268 TRACEL DR 6256 TRACEL DR 6244 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 377-28-027 377-28-028 377-28-062 GEORGE F & BETTY ARMES SYLVIA H HSIEH DEBORAH VANDERVEEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 17926 LARIAT DR 6232 TRACEL DR 6220 TRACEL DR CHINO HILLS CA 91709-3234 SAN JOSE CA 95 1 29-476 1 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 377-28-063 377-28-064 377-28-065 JOHN D & LYSBETH SANFORD DAVID & ROSEMARIE BOR-CHYANG & TAI-ING LIN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 7910 FALL CT 6223 PROSPECT RD 6235 PROSPECT RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-4114 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 377-28-066 377-28-067 377-28-068 ANDY & JULIE KANG CHENG C & JEAN HU CHENG H & TERESA MA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 6259 PROSPECT RD 6271 PROSPECT RD 6283 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 377-28-069 386-03-017 386-03-01.8 SARVESH & SWARNA ADDA ADELE SALLE ERNEST S & MARCIA GORDON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 6295 PROSPECT RD 12188 TERRENCE AVE 12176 TERRENCE AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 21 386-03-019 386-03-020 386-03-0 YOSHITARO & YOKO KUMAGAI ISMAIL & NAFIZE OKTER SHIN TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12168 TERRENCE AVE 12154 TERRENCE AVE 12146 TERRENCE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 386-03-022 386-03-023 386-03-024 WILLIAM A & LORI DEAL GERALD W & KAY YOUNG ROBERT J & ROSEMARY JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12138 TERRENCE AVE 12122 TERRENCE AVE 12111 TERRENCE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 386-03-025 386-03-026 386-03-027 LAWRENCE L & POLLY HSU KAREL TRUST YUNG-SHENG HOA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12129 TERRENCE AVE 12137 TERRENCE AVE 12141 TERRENCE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 386-03-028 386-03-029 386-03-030 ROBERT P & CECILIA ANDRIS RAMAMURTI & RANJANI CHARLES L & LORRAINE RADER OR CURRENT OWNER CHANDRAMOULI OR CURRENT OWNER 12155 TERRENCE AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 12171 TERRENCE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 12167 TERRENCE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 386-03-047 386-03-048 386-03-049 GLENN P GARRAHAN SHIH-TAY WANG GEORGE J & HUEY LEE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12164 SCULLY AVE 12150 SCULLY AVE 12142 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 386-03-050 VINCENZO & SANDRA SIGNORE OR.CURRENT OWNER SCULLY AVE TOGA CA 95070-3339 386-27-005 ALEX SANDRA OR CURRENT OWNER 19447 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 386-03-051 JOHN B & ELIZABETH HUTZ OR CURRENT OWNER 12130 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 386-27-006 DENNIS F & ANGELA WHITE OR CURRENT OWNER 19465 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 386-27-008 386-27-009 WEI-MING & ROGER CHU _ _ AUDREY HILDEBRAND OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19499 ERIC DR 19519 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 386-27-011 386-27-012 ST PATRICKS MISSIONA RY SOCIETY RAYMOND J & DONNA MUZZY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19536 ERIC DR 19518 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3354 SARATOGA CA 95070-3354 386-03-052 ANIL & SUMAN GUPTA OR CURRENT OWNER 12110 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 386-27-007 YONG TENG OR CURRENT OWNER 19481 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 386-27-010 FONTENOT OR CURRENT OWNER 19537 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 386-27-013 CHARLES & JILL BOSTIC OR CURRENT OWNER 12057 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 386-27-014 386-27-015 386-27-016 MARGARET M & DAVID BIRNBAUM APPLEGATE 1982 ANDREW PENG OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12073 CANDY LN 12091 CANDY LN 12111 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 ~ 27-017 386-27-018 386-27-019 PHILIP M & JULIA LIN SOFIA FILSHTINSKY TERRY T & SUSAN JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12123 CANDY LN 12141 CANDY LN 12153 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 386-27-020 386=27-021 386-27-029 SRIRAM KRISHNASWAMI JOHN D & JOLANDA OBRIEN GAYLAN E & KATHLEEN KESSEL 1632 NIGHTINGALE AVE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER SUNNYVALE CA 94087 12197 CANDY LN 12140 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 SARATOGA CA 95070-3308 386-27-030 386-27-031 386-27-032 JOHN C & SANDRA TROWBRIDGE RICHARD CAMPBELL JAMES A & REGINA LEE' OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12124 CANDY LN 12110 CANDY LN 12092 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3308 SARATOGA CA 95070-3308 SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 386-27-033 386-27-034 386-27-035 GURPREET RIHAL BRIAN T & LOIS BROUILLETTE MARTIN YANG OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12074 CANDY LN 12058 CANDY LN 12053 INGRID CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 SARATOGA CA 95070-3312 7-036 386-27-062 386-27-063 ARD S BURGESS YIHBAN JANG GALL TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 120671NGRID CT 12200 MILLER AVE .12198 MILLER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3312 SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 386-27-064 JAMES R & BONNIE HUPTON OR CURRENT OWNER 12176 MILLER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 386-27-067 EDWARD Y & PING YANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19569 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 386-27-070 WILLIAM C & NANCY DANIHER OR CURRENT OWNER 19572 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 3 86-27-073 ERGUN GENC OR CURRENT OWNER 19567 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 386-35-046 DAVID R & WEN-HWA LIU OR CURRENT OWNER 19666 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 386-35-049 ANAND S & RIE TOLANI OR CURRENT OWNER 19604 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 386-35-052 CHEN CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19655 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-055 DAREN KUO OR CURRENT OWNER 19668 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-058 MARY YOUNG OR CURRENT OWNER 19602 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-061 WILLIAM T & JACQUELINE CATHCART OR CURRENT OWNER 19645 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 386-27-065 CSABA & GABRIELLA TRUCKAI OR CURRENT OWNER 19566 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 386-27-068 ROBERT H & ELIZABETH THOMAS OR CURRENT OWNER 12148 MILLER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3357 386-27-071 ROBERT E & WANDA FLORA OR CURRENT OWNER 19560 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 386-27-066 STEVEN B & DONNA FRANKEL OR CURRENT OWNER 19557 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 386-27-069 AUGUST SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 12124 MILLER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3357 386-27-072 JINSHU & KEIBUN SON OR CURRENT OWNER 19555 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 386-27-074 386-35-069 386-35-045 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN DAVID W & TERRY BURLESON JOS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ~ 19686 ASCENSION DR 12072 MILLER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 SARATOGA CA 95070-3322 386-35-047 ZHI C LI OR CURRENT OWNER 19642 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 386-35-048 JEAN C CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19620 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 386-35-050 YEONG C SOONG OR CURRENT OWNER 19603 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-053 GEORGE P MIRTH OR CURRENT OWNER 19671 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-056 ELMER R & FRANCES KULM OR CURRENT OWNER 19644 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-059 BILL MA OR CURRENT OWNER 19601 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 386-35-062 STELLA & TIEN-PING~YING R & E OR CURRENT OWNER 19661 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 386-35-051 HUI LIU OR CURRENT OWNER 19617 ASHTON CT' SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-054 DENNIS J & CHERYL FERNANDEZ OR CURRENT OWNER 19684 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-057 RONALD J & JAYNE DIBIASE OR CURRENT OWNER 19618 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 386-35-060 DANIEL F & NANCY LI OR CURRENT OWNER 19619 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 386-35-063 ADRIAN & KATHERINE TANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19656 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 • • 386-35-067 SUNG-LIANG & CINDY CHOU OR CURRENT OWNER LADERA CT TOGA CA 95070-3329 3 86-37-002 JAMES H & MARSHA PATTERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19783 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-005 LUNG WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19819 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-008 ALTON & CARMEN ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19816 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-011 LINGXIONG SHAO OR CURRENT OWNER 19786 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 ~37-014 KAOKK&LH OR CURRENT OWNER 19785 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 386=37-017 CHUNG-HO &CHEN-HUII FAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19815 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 386-37-020 BRIAN SHING OR CURRENT OWNER 19816 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 386-37-023 NORMA MONTGOMERY-RAYL OR CURRENT OWNER 19784 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 37-026 RED J & MARLENE KASS OR CURRENT OWNER 19787 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 386-35-070 386-35-071 CONGREGATION BETH DAVID OR CURRENT OWNER 19700 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3352 386-37-003 JANICE HAYWARD OR CURRENT OWNER 19795 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-001 YAO H CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19771 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-004 SAM & PAMELA KHOO OR CURRENT OWNER 19807 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-006 386-37-007 DAVID A & BERNADETTE WYANDT ROGER & MARY PIAZZA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19827 COLBY CT 19828 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-009 386-37-010 LILY H & PASCAL CHEN NEIL A & JUDITH KEENER 3 LING YI LANE 8 ROC ST 4F OR CURRENT OWNER TAIPEI TAIWAN 19798 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 386-37-012 386-37-013 LOUIS P & BERNICE DEGIVE GRIFFITH M & LOIS BROWN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19774 COLBY CT 19773 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 386-37-015 386-37-016 DAVID & CHRISTINE EGGLESTON ROBERT A & BONNIE L1ND OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19797 VIEWRIDGE DR 19809 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 386-37-018 386-37-019 THOMAS K & DIANNA SAARI -HELEN LOTT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19823 VIEWRIDGE DR 19824 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 386-37-021 386-37-022 WARREN UCHIMOTO CHUNG LUAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19808. VIEWRIDGE DR 19796 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 386-37-024 386-37-025 KUANG-YU WANG WEN LIOU OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19772 VIEWRIDGE DR 19775 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 386-37-027 386-37-028 DEAN D & LUCII;LE ANTONELLI GUY M & NANCY ROBBY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19799 OAKHAVEN DR 19805 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 386=37-035 SUNIL & AARTI MEHTA OR CURRENT OWNER 19784 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3214 City of Saratoga Attn: Lata Vasudevan 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 386-37-036 CAN & JULIETTE LY OR CURRENT OWNER 19776 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3214 386-37-037 HONG-SHEH & SHEAU YU OR CURRENT OWNER 12153 SCULLY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-3338 • CJ `~ 1~ Attachment 9 f • • t-.~.n COO ~. 0 0 rl ~ N Q Q~ I I I I I I H J N ~ ~ C ~ Lrti1 ' g v~a~y ~ U C LGa ~ ~ ~ 0~ Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ ~ K N c ~ V 2 h ~ y W O~ O c ~ ~ F In W ~ 00 f~E ` ~ O 0 ~ O O g K ~ w Vim- ~ ~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~H ~~i~ Q 3 as ~ ~~ N ~ = ~ ~nn1 (~' I ~• ~ Z ~~ ~ O ~ m W N Oi U ~ C.~ O 5 IS ~ ~ a \ O\i ~ N O 1 (Y I I 11 .. Z p pp p l4 J • ~ O~ i-lo .`y $ au d~ U H LC N N ~ f N °~~E~zi~ Z v U° ~ 3 a~ =~~ d Q ~N~QIa- O Q~ Q Q Z ~..) ~~~ 'S ~* ZO ~vw S z b vii ~ ~i7 ~ N¢ V~ p ~ ^~ ¢ U m z ~ O } 0 r _ U ~ e m ~ ~ -- N n v v> H ~ w N 11 _ ~ 0] ~ z w ~ ~ m7 N N ¢ ~ m ~ (V O Y Z ~ O 0 C \/O\ V^_f• 1 1 U O ~ o~ ~ U I~ O - ~/_1/_.__. Y ~ LL r-~ O J m `/ O O N 1.. V~/ IL~LJI b ~ ~~^1 ~ ^~ W c~ 00 -w Q ~ N~ O 1__f__ I I 1 z V / ~ -- Q i , • • 5 a w 0 y~ \ Z O ¢ O 2 WW D: F 1 J N Q W ~ ~ r ~ a J D. O J ~ z z ¢ \/ /\ W' ~ J ~ Z w w S d O } ~ j z w } NN ~ N~ J J O W `~ `~ ~ a ~ I f N C ~ N W F N N O W y 2 F j N a N M / l1 V ~ ¢ ¢ N ~ Y (n ~' J ¢ N > ~ 1¢i ~ NO ZO ¢_ Fo ~ Z F ~ ¢o~ a ? o~ m W N a~~m= ~j ~ F m ~~° U~N} 0~00~ v ~ m W¢U njU~ p¢¢~~ wU~M QOm YCW7~ UU W¢a O ~ 2 Q O ¢ ¢J ~ liW¢d'Q~ W Z N O H¢ Z N H¢ WZ ~~ U N N ~~ O ¢ NKZ ~p0_ZQ ¢ ° X o~J Z^ f0 aW ~ Z U ~~N ~~f /1 U.~.. ZvN3:N~ M ~ ~ ' '^^ V /' H N N U w w } o Wi w a z Q] ~ z K o ¢ w H ¢ •• U O a o ~ ~~. 7 z ~ w ~. N u~ ~ O ¢ ¢ O M 0 ~m ~ a ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ N ~€ m U r` ~ ~ to ?~ ~n --p S UN~ .. ' Q 5~^v ~ .. ~oQZ~J]')[. ~N ~ Q H Vl li ~'. ' Oi W O X10 VI mZ Z 4j ul O M < NOi " I z -: Z~RI ~ ~hO ~iY OMO N H~ tn0 Q OKd'~'1 ~ a U>U~O~~I ONU1~~ Z n J JUQQ M fmO m~V~p~ppp~ N ~m Wr~~^ p~KN ~.~ V U O ^ ?2~^.~. aG> "~ '~'^^ V/ ~ LIO . ~NO .~ ~ rI`m W ~6 ~zl a ~ ~ z ~J ( O ~v W Q ~ ~JNOJ (( K O. ~ O~ Q UvW N O N Q Z~3V W N¢ Z< ~ UvW U W J a U Ul FO- 3AV NOSNHOf O z 1-' o 3AV Sf11LL S Q o m AVM V13d Y CC ` 3ntl a3niw o U a o. z D¢ AtlM o a z ~s SVWOaNtlO i w 3AV NINaVI W z y S Fz ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ U a° ~ 3nroa Q N3»tlatlS ~ ro z U ~'a' W~:~~ , _.~...,_r .w.»__..,~ ,~_~.. 0 ~ ? U a rc ~ o ZQa~~ ~ W Z ~ ~ U 2 Z S y~~ O ~ N O z a S 0 0 w ~ w N 3 H w zzgW p N ~~~~ • © i OD I'nl~~~EQII 4-- :. ~.1 1 1 J w .. ~~ N~~ ~~ N~~ ;v ~ ~ w ~ ~ o ~ ~~ V ~ ~~ ~ o o°e' Uo F-m qua ic` ~ a o a a a a a s o c c c c c m v ~ ~n , ww w wv i ~ww 3~o v~ ~_ v~ ~ f o < ~ oN¢ ~^v E J N .O°.a'Mm m°0aV X_~ s "~ a N v ~ za°a ~a~ ~a~~ o ~ ~ a v -• w W c <r a ~ ~ '~ ~ a ^ o ~ Z > no^ O~ S~ ~-`~ o mc~ f r U v N pd a O Uz ~ ~ o d ~ `~ o U a ui in o ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ w I v v N ff~ S~' o ~ o ~ Zx Q ~ VI OQ ~ ~ ~ ~ scav,~ ~ ~ Hjw... ~ga OfQ '- ~0de * a o W Z U m o w ~ ~ ~ O N ~ H ~ \ ~ ~ Z m ~ f- '~ ~ a d ~° o Na='~ Z ~ U _ 3 a v U S z ii ? ~ v .. 0 3 w ~ ~ N ~ ~ _ N N K i W INi~ U ~ WJ d ~ U N M sh N N N N ^Q `` v / o g _ °' y~ ~ N O N N ~M1 n W 0 ~ ~ ^ rr3un a aan~ ~ o~ ~ _ W 2 W ~< 3 _ a ~ ~ y 3~ ~ R ~ W ~ $ ~ N W N O 2 ~ ~ ~ F ~(~5 W ~ ~ Ii~' ~ ~ ~ 7 , j V Y ~j ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~` h R ' [," G1 C in ~n ~3 G 4'' r° ~ ~ ~ ~ Z W x ~ '~ v~ (~ W I I I I ~ ~ N ~ y~..(( J ~ W W `CY -O~ ri I I I I DG ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S N x ry X I r ~ 8~ a ^ "~ I h n a ~ -__ __-a ___ ` _ / / n \ _.- -7 \ / // \ x N N / \ ~ ^, ~ 8~ N O II w I r .^ !~ .~ h + ry \ / h \ U~ ~ ~/ J~ \ ~~ / ~ \\ ry \ 0 / \ / \ H N / \ / \ / \ / \ n / \ / ~ \ H o A / ~ \ / N \ (1 \ Q \ --------jE-------------~ ~ \ / \ ~ / \ / \ a / \ / \ / \ /~~~ \ / ~\ / w ~ \ // ~ \ / ~ ~ \ ao \ / ~~~---------- / ~' a \ / a~ o~ ~3~3 \ ro / \ / \ ,OS'OZ "~' \ \ / S \~ \ / / ~~ V \ ~~ N. b ~_____. e~ _ / / ~ \ ohi / .OS'OZ f---_____-____~._ ~ m.~rafsos -__ \ / \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~-. / \ \ ~ h >r \ / \ I + ~ h w \ / / ^ 2 y X \ \ / ,00'6 y H \ / \ ~ 3,61,00.ORN \ / \ 8 8 \ / \ \ m m / ~ ,00'6 ~ 6f 00A05 `' ~ M ~ $>$ \ °u / , ~ , W ~ Sc \N h 8W b~ W W 3 2 O 2 ~ W7 ~ ~_ N W n^n y J u y ~ r1 4 Q a ~ to ~` p p p W ^ O > ~ ~ n ~' ~ V ~ ryN & ° e H ~ yu ~z ~ ~s~~ h a3wvld Q 2 is • Obi n n N N N3[NY7d b n N -~N '~sar ,o~ v ,.~ 3ry.~S U2~~ ~2 • Z Q J o W H N ~~ _~ o W W W WJ .. l J ~~~ ~~N Wi~NN~$N ~O W W W W J W W W ~ O n ~ ~ C9 a ~ rn ~ o a a a a a a a so In I~ C b 119 .\OY. * /~ O O O C D D D < N UN JU J JU JJU.J ~ M \ rn n I O O O1 F- m `. ~ ~ o ~. ~ I o°d d^.~ c J °~S~ ~mav a y,_~ ' a a ccJi ~ ~z'aa° ~a~ ~a~~a~ ~ ~ ~ o U I~ N ;r c a r N q~ J .~ g~ R J v in ~~ ~ rn o-~. o 0 o i N a o p ~\ I O~-w Inn v o mW^a' ¢_~~ o a ,~ d~ > \ N rn o ~~ V w ~ a y=, ~' ~ ~~ U_zaO s c S~~ c .. Z Y o o ~ w ill W ~ V G \' ° ' oQ d Z ~ ~"v°I ~ ~ .r~epee * a o W U m °w ~ \ o N ~ ~ p p 'z m \ W C~ G W N d p U N M a N ~ N N N C V Z WJ a i~ W °~2 ~ W W YoU ~~~ ~ J ~ ti = W ~ 2 ~ v 1~ w C ti ti R W 0~.. W q._ O W W ti Q O O O ti ° O ¢ m ~ m ~ 2 W 22 2 2 C22~ ~ v~ "~yW~ ~OJ ~U_2W h U 2W2W ti ~ i SiQ~W UjO U W Z - 4 ~ -T _p_~-O: __--=W~_ _ ~__<_ ~-~-.~ -'_ ._ - - ¢ 2 ~ W W 4¢ W W m ¢ > m¢ cR ti U T W ti 4 _..-.~ -_-`_- t = ~`~ ' ._ W - ~-4.T W 4 ti ~W h O = >~my O ° ~ $,ti~VW~O2 ¢ 21-T~ W.Q~O W p W ¢O~ d 2 ZZ A h ~3 O Wh w W 2~ ° 3 h w p 2 e O ~ 3 ~ w~ p~~~ j 2 TUav~ ti~ti~ c ~ .. ~K4W W W W 2 y T ~ mW=pO°2oo~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 W ~ ~ W J ~ c ~ a > ~ wO m ? ~ ~ ~ >' U ~ O V- i~WO °oggg s N° $~~o m~~ ~ ti o~ z ~~00~20~ tiQ a ~ ~ TU of o+oi of O `O ti~ W U °j r.w W ~WOa yWmy w ~ ~Q ~u°,o,wL NWm o °a zm ~ ~mW2 Omu°, eN i~ J ~3 W~ ~'~ W ~ W 2Kti~ ~3~ y O~ ~~ ~ W W °~4<nm U W ~y W~ °'a'O'v pp~ W °~ tiv°,w~ MAN ~ W e ~ ~~ h ~o"'j~~O~ t7 V COv>2 y' H yC y 2U RQW2 ~nN 2 ~ W ~ ~~ ° >a~ V U2yO W ~ i>m~i ggg,,S~F$F,,~ ~w ~ sw i>g3 ~° ° ~ ~Q os W Q~~2Om'~Q D Q Uvl ° 8 S'4 p W ° Vy~O ono ~ ~ ~y 2W ~ 2~Q1`aO°v~ 4 2J~`I ~O v1 Oy 2J~~1 TT 2 >` ~ 2 J° k ~RO°Wcwi12~ eU' y g °j 3~ J O~ O ti~ V ~ U ~ S O 3~ 0 0 0 4 , S¢ m 4 ~ W p° y~ W R~ W Q cc W W O2Oy W V yi ~~ W cn22 Q ~ ~ ~ Q aW S W hQ; W W I J J °U aN~ yNInR ~~ Q Q~ °UON~ :~N~i ~ ~ Q ~ QD ° RQCJ W OU~~ ~ .; W ~iU ri v°ay~¢¢~m °w m W~• i a a~ 3l)N3~ d b377/iY ~ o W~~ a~ ~' i m M1 ~e .og a i Arye°e~ ~ o U~ ~ac~i WZ1'~~. 2 ,BY'LS! ~ AIOr,ZZ.s06 ~ ,.[ ~~S 2~ 2~ ~ d j O W V F W ~ O W ~ ~ O 4 Q U¢ C g 4g W W 2 UO \~ ~ ti C y¢q W J~ O~ W I ~~ by w~c~ ~iaW~° ~ww'' e `~,_ z~ tio~ ~aea~ ~~~~ i aB OO ~~~ 2ti~, W °~$0 20 O O,a R~ y ~ R+ N O~ ~ NgN ~r`A4~0''r O a~ a~p °Um2O ~yy~ mq I T- -~ o~$ szo I ~ ~o i2o ` w~~o~ ~33~ o0 / \ C m Q i // \ / hn I U a~ hew „ W e2p„WO Nm~m y~ \ __ - _. _a'oa__i-~.-,w___w_sa_~n~_m_o_~~~ _~ _ ° J~xp " W W J UQ.,t~i W :;ti~iv tim ~ ~ ~-~ I / \ / ~ ~ h I Z I W i Q /J^ °i .~~ Q I I..L ~ 4 i W H h I O 2 "' ~ W ? R ~ N _Q ti~ W Q ~ ~O ~ ~ ~+ i i J ~ QO h~ tQi ti¢ W W v ~ I Q ~ q O~ ¢ ~ W ti O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 COW tit W W W O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ Z ~ v 3 0 ~ I W O $ o tip ~ ~ h 2 4 2& ~ ~ ~ W ~ I~ O ° o W~ ti W O !may ~ W W 3 ~ ~ ~ ~o`~~~$~$ I > ~ Q ~ W~~ ti~ W ¢ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ W W ~ C v m ~ 3 ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ W 4 W ¢U W W ? ~ ` ~ ~ ti ° ~s ti ~+ U `~ z I 12 ~ g g°woQCO m~ ~~ ~w ~ a v;+ ~ H b~ w I I I I I y U a p~~~0 W n Mai ~,1 `+ eO a &h ~ ~ W au `o'~vkf~~~~~~m~~ ' w >' m Nx~g~ T~ ~g m~ °_ `'. 'a I I I I I I U ~ c~z4~m ~x2 ;N ~~ ~ >~ m ul h y Q ¢ O W ~ O .. WI ~ ~ U vJi ~ q >2 lii~ ti~~ W j0 U~ o f ,090[1 Q O Z W 4i ¢ °~ tii , C9 ~ m 0 j ¢¢ p ~I M.9oazzos I ¢ Q ~~4~ ~op~p do t2wo °~ xW °w cyI i •~ O hQ2~h ~•U4 ~~ K~ W O ti~ CAW h 3~1 ~q I ~~ S ~ ~ O W oQ'y +~.. A11 ~ l s $ e`~ I "~.. ,- m/,s~'~`f.' ; ~ C: Asa Srto ~ '~~ ~ aa,gJt ~. +a $ o Ov' a f•.-y~l) \` 1 ..~8 dY = ¢ y W I ~ ~ ~ ~ / Glen Havan~or ; , >~i ~~~ c a .mr ia_ ~`- I ,ro•zJZ _ / 4 0 ~ 1 ~~~ MallrnS~'~.(Or;~~ ` ee Moo.sraos \\~ ,~ a ~ 7~ Jaa ~I ~o `-~ ~ >,-. p, gP- a/y~ @i -i .~. `~ M Q a l` '' r ~c~: V1 _ C P { M i. M~I _/' \~~ ~ry .,,;: IlarAVe Jfle6pIJG ~!•n ~ n. I~ ~~~ We jm~,. r ~~47:. C7 ~ g ~~~ \~ ~~ ~. Glsnmoor ay an ~ mo. c m ~ } ~~ Y ..r' ~' 1. ~ ~ > ?:.> ~ `\; 1I.~ii ~ ~J~r~4^~ fl GOO .ry . m ~ t~--, V ~ ~~ v ~ i ~~\ Wayburn Ln ~m : <g~ d f ~ >< a o J ~ m ~I ~ ~;\ ioa i 1 e.d or ~ ;a'Co ~ m ~~E a ~ .~ Y P`B-~ _ ~ _ _- ~. 3.00,65 ON ~:~.~ IO~ /~~ ~~~,~rg m . ~ s _ - - -~ 3(iN3~ d .(77()~S F~ °Lz °- ~ ~,~~~ d~' ~3 a7Uryt°°y ~" a ~~s ~ m..~ a ~ '~' ~ ~`U ~, a al~'.~ i2~,., ~`~~~ ti(~'L ~ f~~..p • • • so/~o/z~ n ~ O N N ~ ~ A n V W Ol ~ O O~ lal lJ W ~ T[ N N N J O °t '~~° C W a ~ ~ O~ ~ Q¢ Q Q Q a ~ xx K ~ M UZ a ~' W O ~ t(') O ~ O O O O O o o S ZC • ~n O y n } U F O ~ ~ a W U': ~ ~~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N 2 fall U 4~ ~C spy, ~ \ \ \ \ \ (n Z KQ • '~~ U~Vm~NN 'z'~~Qg a~Z' a m Y~"i b a~0~~ W J m ~ y¢. ~ O tilz gJ~ o W ~~ ~ U °' ~ d n' C7 U °•;CS~py• G Z ~ } ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ q° ~ZE~swrn =~O~Q FW,°-x ~ m °w r- ~ z m m z H N C H ~ v z :[ O O ¢ .~c '~ d a o r a = ~ ~ I ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ "' w N 3 w ~~~ ~ Ci ~ ~ N ~ a. Z vU ~3aW O QpoQQ ~ z ~y yzn ~ z ~ ~ _ ~~V ~I ~J HIV = p x °c O Z U ~ (!7 (n N- O~ 3 O U N N N U ~ V O W Q n < O) 'n _ ~ O III I O O n _II 2 ~ F ~ ~nnr~a~ ~~77r~t z b ~ w _ _ ~ O io J U' U w N /~~ < 'r n/ ~ O A d O E-~ U W Cl. U] O a J ~p N I= O O U X Z N H ~O x~ (=7~ ~p 2~1~ J µ J d D a ~ Q J J 3 ~, X 3 X 1 0 W ~ W ~ J_ ZZZQ~ O W m N Q U ~ Z awaN~ OUOQ~ ~a~wx d W d J W i O w Z Z J azzz O p ¢ O ~ } Q 3 ~Z I = ms {, J ~ c X e -=S J W O O w ~ ~ Q ~ ~a ~ Q O1~a = W ~ ¢ ^ ~~ x~ w a c~x w~0=: v z ¢ ~° `° W NtO. ~~w I ao N ¢ O O J O N U X O o!wa3w aJ~'~z ~ ,~; 5 W ~v w J O N ~ Z Q c~ d Z 2 O I 0= N zll O cO O Q \ ~ v ~' w ~yf J > Q O vUi i • • • so/IO/il zv-eca g~ Otp O O ~..-_ I I I I r J N N ~ ~ ~ Z d O 0 o K K Q~ °~ ~~ c asa o0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a m $ 25 8 a M is .gym o Nmn~g } Up~iO ~ rn _ ~ ~V Us „~~ ° c ~~ynN 2 NUQ ~~~' ~ I o 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ Z ~i ~~ o ~ •r. m W N ~ C7 O ~ $ z n o \ ~ ~ (n J w ~ :i J O $ rx~ n O G' ~ ~~ aa } ~ m ~ ~ W ~ a U U_ w N N Q ~ Q m ~~ m ~ m V12 ~~ 7 O~ r N =_ Q ~„ Z u i ~ p m O ~ ~ Z Z ~ m ~il db .°"' o f ,N=zo" ~ N 10 H F ~ v w N z Y r Q ~,Zj ~ cn a as ~ o x ~ I Ln ~ Z i~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ I 3 w ~~/~~/M ae ~~v~~ ~ ari J r ,ri ~ Z v U ~ a w Z U~ (a!l ~ ~ z~ y~ ~'iZ" a ~ x ~~V V ~l ~I ~I = Z Z = m °c. O O ZO ~ Z U O U VI 1J.1 Q VI N U N K U 3O r ~ O ~ ~ ~ O N ~ I II I io O N-I ~ p O II o ~ 2 U^ tn0 Z J a m ~J x ~ N >~~ K s x~ J a M x OU U U N~ = Z ~ W ~ ~ D ' OI m' ND: ~ x 2 I Z 3 UN ' Q ~ m J p F U ~"ie a ~' ~ J J O w- VI J. ~_-__<~. ~_____ . Za W Ula1~ Z~ Z ZN owQ ~Oie> Owv Owaw \ ~W ?~00 NOw ~~_ ~w K~00 ~¢~? ~¢¢ - Wz~ !LJ a$~~ dU= al,.f SN 3 ~ c~ NZ~o z O~O~ W N w ' a O w a~ 0 ~ ~ _ ,b .~ .. .:. ,! ., ... .. .' ~ / ~ N U VIN N- ~+ `r, `r? elf j"-~ `%`.~c~ . Ilu~ - ~ ~ a ~ r °' cn i \ r m o , .~;: rza~ ro a a ~ _ aW ~Q ~' .. J Z \ ~~+` ~ ~ .Fa, .. `. ~ ~~ N ~ 3 c J T ° I ~ .r ~~~'=~cT-~~~ .~ ~ ~ o it I. ~ O Z, U / /. 1 ~ o a / ~ ~ ~ N / / / , in ~ . i ~~ ao / li 't j ( I I ; ,/~ / 1/ t /~~~~ / / / // /~ Jf /' e w V32iV 3SV31 „9-,OZ ~ Y ~ -~ _ / _ U _ J yam./ ~ ~ % N~ rn Oc0 M / ` 2 T U HJO J _ _ /~`~ / ~ x ~ M / / /H O H J W ~ m Z OW . ..,~/ ~ oa I / / mW3 o°o 0 ."_~-,_ ~~-aO m >ja / ar n a~ pwo ~Omr. ~ a - ~~ ~_~.__ ..~_ ~_ _.1-~ ~ J z J ~ O W /// c~ Z N O z O= m a z o m ¢ w \ '~\ '~..~\ ~~ ~ ~U J m J J~ Jr ~ JaZ~ Z a .` __-xJ x xxvl / / Fa ~ Fa ~~~ ~.ImrO = \{~ ~~`"-,-_,~ ZZ Za ZoI= / wU W W~ w=a xZXV ~ ~^ t'\ -,... ~ J ~ Q W a Z r I/ / O O O a O O O H O a Z Y= Za p ~ . \\\~ Od0 O W O Z OUZ / N~OI (Wn~ NO NN a w .. O~r W 0 w - ~ \ _..___,--~-..~ K JZ ~ W K Z 1J I// O~ O W OJ Ox Z N a~~N ~ I 6. l i 0 ! L J a a a? x 0 ~ W ~ O ~ W O 0 0 'T//I ~\ ~,~" x ~~""J / / / So- .Z-.Z l ~ _ ~2 a / S a J io z io z O z O in `` \ -I ~ / / I o SOZa p `boo / i~0 ozaa o \ \ ~ ~~ =oax ~ II I ~~\ ~t I JZ / / / W Z UUU Sw Z -a r a _ o II / / / F Z OU ~ l/--~ ~~ Z O U -~wa~0 O J 2 N ~ W QO I ~__ ~ I O QZO ~O~n7¢ b O ~ M o ^N w a~0 ~ aWO w~a~~ o ~ p6.O \ U 90 Zw~ W Z -~ U Q I d~~ I ~ ~ I xYa O ¢Z- O-Q' O w N ,I .z.. z 4 ~ N ti / o I / ~ aOV~w~ Q~~V ~ ~ o ~ zz 'i rn I / I a d xa0a Oz /~ ~ ~ ~zaa o tOUrx w s0 __~___ awa~0 rn X Q O W p X w J a r- W 1 Z W~ W 2 Z a I ~ J M N D O^ a V I a W O .Z..Z O _~ axao¢ a~ I < eO ~_ O ~~\. ~ W C I I // W _II I o a ~ J ~ m a y ( O r7 .___..~.--....._....~ J ¢ a I `\. X p C7 ,~' ~~1J J \ Z z .W~.. I .Ogg z2b3S v 4~----".-~ ° a ~ z w ~~I ~_ oa z I z ~ off' ~ xo°za ~z c~zad ~\ as I =oax \ fOU~2w O I JO~aO~ ~Ca70-/ W W J a ~ ~ v zW~wz ~0 .Z/l f-.l „Z~l Z-,9 „9-,l ~ vwi o O Z z O ... Z Qy O~~w~ V3aY 3SV3~ „0-,6 axao ¢ • • • so/lo/zl n-ecac o r o J H `~~ ~ C ~ N ~ O Z I wI y w H Fw- hw- Iw- 3$ O N N N M is : ~ ~ U ] a o vrWi ~ n o0 ~- O ~ U Obi ~ R. I - ~ ~ o ~ a ~ a ~ K ~ oe - (n O M ~ " ~ Ur ~ ~~ 9qq ZS~ ~~v n ,J., O `W C ~ N N O~° ~ W N Of ~ ~ d ¢ Q O U P y+y~ iSn b ~ ~ O ~ o o m \ A ~ p ~ Q ~ ~ O Z yE ~ " NrnuN^i o W ~~ ~p = ~ d O U °itss itl z ~ } ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ k ~ g . °' Z~ z z ~' H a N~ Q A ~ v ~ Y r W z ~ ~ j i Ail ~ ~ n Z v U ~ 3 a~ O F ., ¢ O) Q¢ i Z z~ ~ ~ w ¢ z ~ = ~~` ~ ~ ~ ~ w w rn v ~ ¢ Z U ~ VI N i U O ~ U O U J I 1 I I N N H (V OU r Q C O N J Y N U¢¢ ¢ O 5N3 0 _I co wz~? < 1O II r O N O j W \ O W Q~m = ~- O Z O~oF w In o~ w ao 4 N Noozw No ~ r. c ~ _:J --_ .:~. _~- „~.- » _ _._ _. rza~ zm~ r~ z W 6600 aUwr ¢ 6 tL~ J O a (V C7` C7 Z Q o w J_ ~ O m N7 W w ~~'"1 L.~ ~, ~ ,, OI~ `, U / O 1 I w J 0 i ~ ffff ~' w. ~O ~ I~ _~J ~ O C! K Q O I w r _ Z f N W uJ W -I ~ O IW \ O N m r N ~ w ~ O d~ U n ¢ ¢ Z Z !n S x ~~ Z Z X x _ -...~ w N rJ ~Z N~ J a a 3 ~" o j O N N VI } 2 1? J X ¢ ~W a~ coz J° w. ~J- 1-a WJ J Z J W m W Q ~ W 3 m W\ O (.~ C7 XU xf ~ Z X}U x~ Z Z W W - ¢¢¢¢ Z Z W d' W I z N Z N N N I O O -1 ° 0 w <O O OI NO ~ 0 Na W ~ W 3 3 ~ I. 1 p N W I~ O~ O~ r OAS O W a ?^ Z Z ~~ Z S K Z ~e wa ~ pK a a OJ WJ KO ¢O ® wv a ~¢¢ tr¢~ ¢3 ~ ¢ Oln OU r w U w a~ a~ awl aox N } p x N J ~~ W (.7Z UZ ~a _ Q ~ Fr W~ W U W I I I N ZO Z0 ZN (7Z Z . 0 • 0 0 0~ O O W % o~ ow O J ~w m I ~ ,h o I II OO a~ OO Omx U ~ ¢ ~ N o V l I II n .c .~= a ~ / / I ~ L-- ~ I • 4 I I I ~; ~ / w ¢ U c i ~ .,, 1~ / ~V-,.~; / / / ~ ```~':( :~ - a r^^~~~`- z w z -- -- ~/ ~-'-- O J F J ~ ~ / Ij II ~ ? Z d I L J 1 z ~\( ~~ fit -~~/ w w io O of r""_" r~~ d ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ `~i J O O w N ~ O R H I+7 r_J\ \~ \ ~ od ¢d ¢ w - v N a z ~ W U W; ~ \ ~ - ~._ ~ to O rn l I p m - / ,~sti': x,0- ~; , ,8 w ~ O O w N ~ z to ( .~ 1T_"".. \''~ ` d Z O J W J d m .~ _ - '-\ Y p N ~ _ ~ J ~ W~ 9 6 l LC~J /~,, ~ K 11 a N f m Z Z O a ~ w ~ w p p ~\ ~ lal~ ~ ~~ Z ~1iU Q wowo ~p ~p ~ f 1 =z ~SOO 2 1 =~ S tr a ~~ i^-~. 1`, _ _! au ~~ J a Z U O ¢2 e W O~ Oe L] ~~ ¢ 3m m~O J so ~ . I a I <_ N N W ' ¢ O ~ f ~ W K F U O W ~ O S U Q U ~ _~_ _ _ _ / Y W w~ Jo J00 ~ i ~ O~ X O SS¢ XO w XJ X Jl1 ~ wU wU} Vl Z ;~=' ~.,, h~ ~ ~ N~ O 2 VI Si¢ O Z Z ~ ~ d' ~• d W U O r R~ N 00 J N O U ~ 0 ~ ;. ~ ~= ~ O U L L l¢i ~ 0 L L O v? ~ Z z a a ~ ~ / a W aco a-ca ~ ~ W Z J M ¢ Z a 9 C < Q w0 O J ~1 J U U W ~ W S~ Q¢ ¢¢ C' 1 O U O S I ~ io O m _ 2~ 2~ . w '~ E w.lo ~ ~ 0 a ~ M ~s ~e l a I a. I O ~¢ d Z ~ W U W N^ O^ 0 0 S U N W K z zw r ~w rw-~ Fj0 In w~ W U w(Jj~ a - Z Z Z Z Z Z } N J Z az ~ NpQ_ Vlpa oao aao U w off' oQ oQ as ago ago • • •