Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 PLACE: Adult Day Care Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioners Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone and Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 27, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 27, 2005, were adopted with changes to pages 5 and 13. (3-0-1-3; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioners Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 18, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-020 (389-05-021) LOVOI, 19152 De Havilland Drive; - Appeal by aforesaid property owner of an Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree at the noted address. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that during the processing of an Administrative review of a single-story addition to an existing single-family residence, the Arborist’s report determined that a Canary Island Pine located within the proposed footprint of this addition was worth preserving therefore the Administrative decision was to require the preservation of this tree. • Added that the property owner appealed this decision to require the retention of this tree. • Explained that the Commission shall use the criteria in the Code in formulating its decision on this appeal. Commissioner Hunter told staff that this tree actually looks like a Monterey Pine and that it actually looked quite brown during the site visit although this is likely a part of the needle drop that occur during the summer. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Paul Lovoi, Property Owner and Appellant, 19152 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that he has owned this property for 27 years and it is a 13,000 square foot lot. • Added that they have been planning for this remodel for years now. • Said that this particular tree actually fell over years ago and he simply propped it back up. This tree also nearly died during the drought and that they have been good stewards of their trees over the years. • Explained that there are nine Ordinance sized trees on this parcel and by removal of this tree he is not denuding the local neighborhood of trees. • Said that his back neighbor has a large lot with a large stand of Redwood trees. He is proposing to plant an additional Coast Redwood on his property to join this existing grove. • Reported that there are only two directions they can go in with their addition to the rear and toward Cox Avenue, which is to the north and east sides of his property. • Said that they are proposing to go to the north with an expansion of their kitchen and addition of a study. Their home is an Eichler that needs updating. • Said he is available for questions and assured that he is willing to plant a nice replacement tree for this tree. • Added that this is the only non-native tree on his property. Commissioner Cappello reminded Mr. Paul Lovoi of the discussion during the site visit about the possibility of modifying the addition to keep this tree. He asked Mr. Paul Lovoi if anything had been done to address this possibility. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Paul Lovoi said that the Arborist has imposed an 11-foot perimeter around this tree and they would have to reduce the size of their kitchen and study additions. This tree needs to be eight feet to the north. Commissioner Cappello said that this tree interferes with the existing house as far as the proposed perimeter. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that there is approximately 10 feet distance right now. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is a fair amount of setback between the kitchen and side of the house. She suggested moving the bulk of the house away from this pine. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that they are building as far as possible with required setbacks. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is room to take the kitchen out but perhaps the den and living room additions can be pushed back further. Mr. Paul Lovoi said that they would not likely do a study in that case because they want a square useable room. He pointed out that pine trees are dying in the area. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is not a great area for Monterey Pines. Mr. Paul Lovoi agreed saying that they are not native to this area. Commissioner Rodgers asked why the growth of the limbs appears stunted. Mr. Paul Lovoi said he is not sure but perhaps due to the fact that the tree fell over years ago. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter expressed her appreciation for the City’s staff and Arborist’s interest in saving a tree but that she thinks this particular tree can go. There is no need to preserve it, as it is not a particularly nice looking tree. The Lovois should be able to enjoy their new kitchen and live it up. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out the factors in the Code that must be met including the condition of the tree; necessity due to damage or threatened damage; topography; number of other trees and effect; age and number of trees; alternatives to retaining; any other reason and necessity. • Said that in her opinion the condition of this tree is okay, there is no damage or threat of damage requiring the removal; there is no unusual topography; the tree is underneath existing tree canopy. However, retaining this does make for an awkward addition and the need to implement post and beam construction for that addition in order to retain this tree. Therefore there is no alternative to removing the tree in order to allow this addition. • Stated her agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Hunter. • Expressed her support for granting this appeal to allow the removal of this Canary Island Pine. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop: • Said he agreed with both Commissioners Hunter and Rodgers. • Reminded that there are plenty of healthy trees on this lot. • Pointed out that the applicant is offering to plant a replacement tree. • Said that removal of this tree offers this property owner his only option for remodeling his home. • Stated that the Commission does not need to make a majority of the findings. Any one finding can be used to justify the removal. • Recommended approval of this appeal. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that there is a trade off issue in allowing this property owner to maximize the design of their addition versus retention of this one tree. • Stated that on balance, this owner should be allowed to enjoy maximization of their new residential addition design. • Expressed appreciation to Mr. Paul Lovoi for his willingness to plant a Coast Redwood. • Stated his support for granting this appeal. Commissioner Cappello agreed. Chair Nagpal: • Reiterated her appreciation to staff for fighting for every tree. • Assured that this Commission would not support every tree coming down but rather will look at these requests on a case-by-case basis. • Said that she would support this appeal as necessary findings for support can be met. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted an Appeal (Application #06-020) overturning the Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree on property located at 19152 De Havilland Drive with the added condition to plant a new Redwood tree at the back of the property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-177(386-35-069) NEXTEL, 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue – Church of the Ascension): - Nextel requests Use Permit approval to locate a Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 5 wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of concealed cellular antennas. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Nextel is seeking approval to place a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension. • Described the installation as consisting of a 262 square foot enclosure surrounded by an eight-foot high wall near Warner Hall. Additionally, Nextel would have 80 square feet of lease space on a landscape island for placement of an artificial tree that would contain 12 panel antennas. This antenna is known as a mono-pine. • Explained that several revisions to the proposed appearance of the tree have been reviewed. • Reminded that last year the Commission approved the placement of a mono-pine at the Prince of Peace Church. • Said that staff has requested additional foliage that begins at the 12 foot point of the trunk instead of the proposed 20 foot point to start placing foliage. Staff feels that this added foliage would greatly improve the appearance. • Reported that the appearance of these tree antennas varies. One in Palo Alto has more foliage than the one at the Prince of Peace Church in Saratoga. • Said that she researched conditions imposed by other cities regarding appearance and maintenance. • Said that the Arborist studied potential impacts and made recommended conditions. • Said that this is a new type of antenna for Saratoga. • Reminded that health and safety issues are not an issue for the Commission due to FCC regulations. • Recommended approval. • Reported that there is significant opposition to this application by neighbors to the north of the proposed site. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Planner Lata Vasudevan for her research and conditions. She asked if it would be possible to see a sample of the branches. Planner Lata Vasudevan presented a sample board for the Commissioners to review. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the neighbors are questioning the need for this facility at this location. Director John Livingstone said that the applicant is asked to substantiate their need for this location. Commissioner Hunter asked whether having a child attempt to climb this phony tree would represent a health and safety issue. Chair Nagpal asked about other locations along Prospect. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 6 Planner Lata Vasudevan said that at Lawrence and Saratoga there are three sets of antennas on a tower there. Chair Nagpal asked if there are others further down Lawrence. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the applicant could elaborate, as she is not sure. Commissioner Hunter reminded that a cell site has been located at the railroad tracks. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the coverage map provided is black and white although the key says that colors represent the coverage. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the applicant has a color copy. Commissioner Cappello said that perhaps asking for branches to start at 12 feet instead of 20 might create a public safety concern and that perhaps 20 feet is done to prevent climbing. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that this is a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are plans for a chain link fence at the base of this tree antenna. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Christian Stansky, Nextel Representative: • Said he can attest to Nextel’s need for this site to provide coverage. • Assured that they would not be asking for this site if it were not needed. • Said that Nextel’s RF Engineer is present this evening for questions. • Said that they are attempting to achieve seamless coverage for their customers and they need to fill in areas where there are coverage gaps. • Stated that this is a more difficult task in residential zones and that this church is an ideal site. It is 1.1 miles from Lawrence and .85 miles from DeAnza. It is zoned for Quasi Public use. • Advised that it is common for carriers to approach churches for placement of cell sites. • Said that there are no existing towers in this location and they need a mono-pine to get the height needed. • Reported that there are a lot of factors taken into consideration in site selection. They have a black hole or an area with a lack of coverage. • Said that when they selected the church they also scouted out all other possible locations in the area. • Advised that the church was amiable to the lease. It has a large site in the heart of the area where Nextel’s coverage is lacking. • Said that the most ideal placement on this site is near other pines where it will blend in. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 7 • Said that they had looked at the installation at Prince of Peace. This is a better situation than that. It is a better location. • Reminded that this has undergone a 1.5-year design process. • Assured that they are happy to comply with any conditions imposed. • Said that they will run bark all the way up to the top and place shrubs at the base to surround it. • Said that this is not a hasty process and that a lot goes into the selection of a site including planning, leasing and constructability on that site. • Reported that a flagpole antenna was offered as an alternative but the neighbors did not prefer that option. • Said that they obtained 32 letters of support for the mono-pine. • Said that they had investigated co-location possibilities in the area and found none. They have the ability to accommodate co-location at this site in the future. • Said that he is happy to provide real trees to further screen and mitigate this mono-pine. • Reported that the neighbor with the best line of site of this mono-pine is the church. • Reminded that wireless is here to stay and that they try to integrate as best they can into a community. • Stated his availability for questions. Commissioner Cappello asked what is meant by seamless coverage. He asked about the extent of the gap in coverage. He said that it appears that between Highway 85 and Lawrence there is no gap in coverage for in car service but there is difficulty from in home. Mr. Kevin Curry, Radio Frequency Engineer, Nextel: • Said that problems include garbled sound, dropped calls and/or no ability to make a call or use the walkie-talkie function offered by Nextel. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Kevin Curry if he could provide any data on the number of complaints received about unsatisfactory coverage in this area. Mr. Kevin Curry said that he did not have this data with him this evening but that Nextel does use such data to determine where the need is. Commissioner Rodgers asked about use of repeaters. Mr. Kevin Curry said that height is still needed as well as two antennas and distance between them. Chair Nagpal asked why they couldn’t install at the Prospect and Lawrence site. Mr. Kevin Curry said that it would cause interference. Commissioner Cappello asked if this interference would be with their own network and not with other carriers. Mr. Kevin Curry replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Rodgers pointed to two pie-shaped wedges representing coverage areas depicted along Highway 85. Commissioner Cappello said that without a transmitter the area of coverage is quite short. He asked if taking that into the other direction would it cover the entire area needed. Commissioner Hunter asked why Highway 85 was not considered. Commissioner Cappello said that he trusts that Nextel is optimizing existing sites before constructing new ones. He asked if there are other gaps in Saratoga and for future plans for cell sites in the future. Mr. Kevin Curry said that there is a gap in coverage on Highway 9 between Los Gatos and Saratoga. Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he is here for two reasons. One is to represent himself. The other is to represent 49 other homeowners from his neighborhood and the surrounding area. This represents 79 percent of the impacted zone. • Said that this proposed installation has impacts on streets such as Eric Drive, Candy Lane, Miller Avenue, Ashton and Terrance Avenue. • Questioned why neighbors just learned about this proposal two weeks ago when it has been underway for 1.5 years. • Said that he is surprised at such short notice on such important activities. • Added that the description on the notice sent was not very descriptive. • Reported that representatives from the church talked to some locals as well as to their parishioners. However, the people within the impact zone are the ones who count. • Said that 49 people have listed their concerns and these concerns need to be addressed before a final decision can be made. • Questioned why a commercial venture should be located in a residential area. • Said that there are four areas of concern. One is the idea of this commercial venture in this area. The second is the impacts on the zoning. The third is that this tree looks artificial. The fourth is that this is the wrong location and that there are other viable placements on this site. • Stated that since the neighbors took time to fill out forms, their concerns should be heard and addressed before a final decision is made. • Suggested that this process be slowed down, as the neighborhood has only been aware of this proposal for two weeks. • Recounted that he had sent out an email seeking cell service vendors with coverage in his area. Sprint replied that they could offer excellent coverage. • Announced that Sprint and Nextel recently merged. Ms. Donna Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived at this same address for 38 years. • Stated that she is active in Saratoga activities and takes an interest in her neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 9 • Said that she wants this to stay as a residential neighborhood and that she does not want a fake tree. • Said that this area mainly has Redwood trees. • Stated that this is a poor location and that this would not be safe for children in the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Ness, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that 22 of the 30 people who supported Nextel’s request are out of the area or members of this church. • Said that he is disappointed, mad and feels betrayed. • Stated that he has lived in this town for 40 years, 37 of those years on Ashton Court and the last three on Eric Drive. • Said that he can see this location from his front door. • Reported that a realtor told him that this installation will degrade the value of his property by $50,000 and that he must disclose that this cell site is a source of radiation. Mr. Paul Fontenot, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he visited the 849 Pollard cell site that is co-located with Sprint. • Reported that there are five nearby Nextel sites and five nearby Sprint sites. With their merger, these companies have 10 sites in the area. • Questioned the need for this installation. Mr. Tom Ness, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed the irony of having the first item on tonight’s agenda be the removal of a real tree and the second item on the agenda being the addition of a fake tree. • Said that he grew up in Saratoga. • Questioned the need for this cell site and suggested the need for independent verification of the claims made by Nextel. • Questioned whether this is the best location on this site itself. It would be the first thing seen at the corner of Miller. • Suggested that this cell site would be better located on a street with faster traffic such as Prospect. • Disagreed with the staff report’s contention that this will not be visible from most residences. • Said that most of the people in the impacted zone are against this installation. Actually, all but one is against. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Ness if he has cell phone capability from his house and whether it is important to him to have cell phone service available from his home. Mr. Tom Ness replied yes. Mr. Roy Cook, 12305 Candy Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided at this location for 40 years. It is located off of Miller. • Said that he is a realtor here to support Mr. Muzzy and Mr. Ness. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 10 • Pointed out that California real estate law requires the disclosure of any negative feature of a property. This cell site would scare some people off and could affect the sale and appreciation in value of this property. • Recommended that if the cell site must be located on this property that it be placed in the parking lot rather than at the corner. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that she and her husband recently saw one of these artificial antenna trees when driving down Highway 80 and nearly drove off the road. • Said that this would be awful. • Stated that using a cell phone in the car is just like being a drunk driver. • Said that cells phones are not needed when there are landlines available. Mr. Doug Snyder, 1370 Merrivale West Square: • Said that he is a real estate broker and general contractor. • Said that he sold a home that had a transmission tower behind in within four days. The tower didn’t affect the sales price. • Pointed out that this mono-pine is not an eyesore and will be tucked in the back. • Said that he has been involved with the Church of the Ascension since it was built. • Stated that people tend to get upset and agitated. • Assured that radiation and property value issues are no problem with this installation. • Reported that he is a member of a homeowners association where people can agree on a paint color. Mr. Jerry Streb, 1307 Regency Drive, San Jose: • Stated that he is a member of the parish. • Said that four of the seven closest residents are supportive of this request. • Said that those who changed their opinion did so due to radiation information provided by Bill Ness. • Pointed out that Planner Lata Vasudevan has added conditions to better blend this tree into the environment. • Said that there is a lot of emotion on this issue. • Asked the Planning Commission to consider facts on this issue and reminded that a large number of neighbors do support this. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Jerry Streb if his answer would be the same if the church were not going to be paid $2,000 per month in leasing fees. Mr. Jerry Streb said that if the need were presented he would support the neighbors and the City. Commissioner Schallop asked if other locations on site had been discussed. Mr. Jerry Streb said that they considered the west side of Warner Hall. However, the closer to Prospect the better the coverage would be. He said that it is technically feasible to locate elsewhere on the property and he is not opposed to considering alternate placement. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Rodgers asked about the consideration of a flagpole as an alternative to the mono-pine. Mr. Jerry Streb said that they considered and would accept that idea if it is the consensus. They did a straw pole and the breakdown was two-thirds in support for the tree and one-third in support of the flagpole. Mr. Hui Lin, 19617 Ashton Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has health issue concerns. • Recounted how in 2002 he had placed an offer on a home that he withdrew once he learned of a nearby tower. • Stated his belief that long-term exposure increases cancer rates and he has two young children. • Said that some people use hands-free headsets to avoid exposure of the cell phone too close to their head. • Stated he does not want to risk his family. • Said he has no problem with Nextel achieving good coverage but he is not here to support Nextel’s business but rather to protect his own interest. Mr. Ron Schoengold, 1900 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga: • Said that he is a long-time member of this church. • Said he is also a trained scientist and epidemiologist working on cancer prevention over the last 35 years. • Added that he is not an RF specialist. • Said that he has read many studies on issues of high voltage lines versus radio frequency. • Added that he has used a cell phone for 20 years. • Said that his review of the literature and the fact that the FCC has taken jurisdiction over the issue of radio frequency leaves him believing that no documented studies have shown an effect. • Said that this is a young industry and there is not a lot of long-term data. It takes more than 20 years to obtain that data. • Stated that we live with an imperfect amount of knowledge. While there may be some risk, there is also a tremendous value and benefit. • Said he hopes that a solution can be found that accommodates everyone. Mr. Christian Stansky, Nextel Representative: • Stressed that it is important to understand that 1.5 years of review has been done. • Assured that they are trying to play by the rules and provide a needed service. • Said that this church is also a part of this area and they have property rights. • Said that providing greater service to the majority is important. • Stated that they would mitigate visual concerns using landscaping. • Pointed out that wireless is here to stay, as its capabilities are unbelievable. • Said that it is odd to see this lack of support for technological upgrades here in the Silicon Valley. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 12 • Said that Nextel has the right to provide service and complete its network in order to compete. • Said that they are not trying to be the bad guy and not trying to wreck this neighborhood. • Said that having cell sites located at churches is prevalent today. Cell companies like to do so in order to provide funding to a church. • Stated that he understands that this is a contentious hearing. Commissioner Schallop asked if this specific coverage upgrade is still needed with the recent Nextel/Sprint merger. Mr. Christian Stansky said that the two use different frequencies and have different customer bases. He added that many types of businesses use cell service, as do families. He assured that Nextel’s network does indeed need this location. Commissioner Rodgers asked about Nextel versus Sprint’s technologies. Mr. Christian Stansky said that they both use different frequencies right now. Mr. Kevin Curry said that they hope to integrate in the future but this merger with Sprint occurred just last week. Any merger of service is years off. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Kevin Curry how many antennas would be located on this tree. Mr. Kevin Curry replied six right now with potential for a maximum of 12 in the future. Commissioner Schallop asked if this is the most realistic tree option. Mr. Kevin Curry replied that they are getting better all the time. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the recent experience of Mr. Muzzy who emailed Sprint regarding coverage in this area and was told it is excellent. Is Nextel’s coverage not excellent in this area? Mr. Kevin Curry replied right. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the walkie-talkie distance is the same as cell service distance. Mr. Kevin Curry said that every Nextel customer has the walkie-talkie feature. It is another part of the phone and offers direct connect. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 13 • Said that she has been on the Planning Commission for a long time and there are a lot of cellular carriers in Saratoga. There are a number of carriers at West Valley College as well as on Lawrence Expressway. • Said that some requests have been denied if found to not fit into the area. • Stated that this installation does not strike her as right. • Said that with this recent merger, we are not sure what will happen. • Expressed reservations about a plastic tree. • Said that she is afraid that this matter must go back to the drawing board and suggested a continuance. • Pointed out that the artificial tree at Prince of Peace Church is way back on the site within a grove of trees. On the other hand, this is a very visible location that she cannot accept. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that a continuance is in order here. • Said that he has no issue with the location as long as the tree is tucked back from the street between buildings and among real trees. • Said that other locations on site are worse and would offer a clear view from Prospect. • Said that a health standpoint is not an issue. • Said that he lives in the neighborhood and is not concerned and that required findings have been met. • Suggested more information on what other options are available for coverage in this area as he is not satisfied with what he has seen. • Stated he is in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that this location is appropriate as far as zoning. • Reminded that a Conditional Use Permit allows a structure on a site that is not zoned for commercial uses with conditions. • Said that studies show no significant health risks regarding health and safety issues. • Reiterated that the Federal government has acted to take away local authority to consider the issue of health impacts. • Said that as far as location and aesthetics, she is happy with the tree and the proposed location and that the height of the mono-pine is lower than the trees behind it. • Said that as far as bulk and size, another solution is a flagpole. However, a tree is a better disguise than a flagpole. • Admitted that she is not sure what can be done about property values. However a lack of cell phone coverage would be a negative to many potential property buyers. • Said that the there is not enough information to consider the possibility of locating this antenna on another location that would cover Prospect Avenue. • Announced that she cannot vote to accept this application and supports a continuance. Commissioner Schallop: • Said he agrees with Commissioner Rodgers except for the need for more information on alternative cell sites. • Added that the applicant has shown alternatives and has made a sufficient showing of need. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 14 • Stated that the issue is does it fit in. • Said that he does not think that consensus is likely even with the alternate use of a flagpole. • Said that an up or down vote should be taken on the information we have. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that if Nextel has evaluated and says that there is no alternative available, he too would support an up or down vote this evening. • Said he is inclined to approve but located the tree on the west side of the building amongst the Eucalyptus trees. • Suggested adding real pine trees in the area. • Said if Nextel wants more time he will support the continuance. If not, he would support a vote this evening. Chair Nagpal: • Said that optional locations have been reviewed today. • Stated that she would like to have Nextel say they cannot locate elsewhere and must have this location but she tends to support their proposed location or near existing Eucalyptus trees. • Said that when comparing the flagpole to the mono-pine, she prefers the tree but that she supports a more attractive looking tree than the one approved at Prince of Peace Church. • Said that she feels more time is needed. • Reiterated that safety issues are not within the Commission’s purview. • Suggested that the neighbors could probably come up with a solution as to where to place this on this site and how best to mitigate its placement and supported giving them the opportunity to do so. Commissioner Rodgers asked Commission Schallop if he believes that Nextel has met the burden that there is no other viable location. She outlined the ordinance sections in discussing the application. Commissioner Schallop replied that he must rely on the information provided by RF engineers much like the Commission relies on the Arborist for tree advice. He said that the Code does not require that all alternatives be exhausted. Said that he assumes that the need for a cell site exists at this location. Commissioner Hunter advised those in attendance that the members of the Planning Commission all live in the City of Saratoga and are acting as citizen representatives of the community. If we feel something is not acceptable, we should state it that way. She added that she felt that too much consideration is being given to Nextel. Commissioner Schallop said he did not disagree with that. Director John Livingstone said that if the motion is to be for a continuance he suggests that it be continued to a date uncertain. When the next hearing is set, staff will re-notice the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes for August 24, 2005 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-177) to allow the location of a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension on property located at 12033 Miller Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. 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 Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. to a Study Session immediately following this Regular Meeting and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk