The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-27-1991 City Council Agenda packetPrinted on recycled paper. 2 �8 0,727 EDO 0 ''CoD121 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director DATE: September 27, 1991 COUNCIL MEMBERS: SUBJECT: Revisions to Draft Design and Residential Development Standards Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the changes prepared in response to previous Council direction, adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce the ordinance. Summary of Revisions: At its September 18, 1991 hearing, the City Council directed the following changes to the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Delete the two -story height penalty. 2. Delete the 7,200 sq. ft. cap and consider an asymptotic curve to determine house size for larger lots. 3. Increase minimum lot size for corner lots. 4. Revised corner setback standards should apply to new subdivisions only. 5. Consider a sliding scale for coverage for hillside zone districts. Discussion of Revisions: 1. The two story height limit has been deleted. Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman 2. The 7,200 sq. ft. ceiling for the hillside zones, NHR and HC- RD has been deleted. House size maximums for the R -1 zones (R -1- 10,000 through R -1- 40,000) are retained as prescribed in the current ordinance. 7,200 sq. ft. is the maximum size home in the R-1-40,000 zone district found in the current ordinance and is in the recommended ordinance. Staff revised the house size formula to increase the allowable square footage per 1,000 from 5 sq. ft. to 10 sq. ft. for large parcels over two acres. Lots with a net site area of 80,000 sq. ft. or greater would add 10 sq. ft. of house size per 1,000 up to 20 acres. At 20 acres, square footage would increase by 5 square feet per 1,000 sq. ft. of net lot area. This formula would allow a 14,000 sq. ft. home on a 20 acre parcel. 3. Lot sizes required for corner lots has been increased as shown in the following table: District Lot (Exist) Lot (Exist) Lot (Proposed) R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,000 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 *Corner lots are 20% greater in size than Interior lots. 4. The revised corner lot standards recommended by the Planning Commission have been revised to apply only to lots created after the effective date of this ordinance. Existing infill lots would retain the same setbacks as found in the current ordinance. 5. Staff has developed a sliding scale to increase the allowable impervious coverage for hillside lots. Essentially lots larger than two acres are provided with an additional 50 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. Staff points out that the downward adjustment in coverage was recommended to compensate for the deletion of driveways from coverage calculations. The purpose was to retain the same allowable coverage as presently permitted. The additional coverage allowed for lots greater than 2 acres would liberalize the current standard by allowing more of the lot to cover an is allowed in the current ordinance. Stephen Ems Planning' Director Attachments: Interior Corner 10,000 12,500 15,000 20,000 40,000 1. Revised Ordinance 2. Negative Declaration 11,500 14,000 15,000 20,000 40,000 Corner 12,000 15,000 18,000 24,000 48,000 File No. Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following de- scribed project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DECLARATION TEAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Zone amendments to the Agricultural (A), Northwest Hillside Residential (NHR), Hillside Conservation Residential (HC -RD), R -1- 10,000, 12,500, 15,000, 20,000 and 40,000 zone districts to modify setback standards, lot coverage, lot sizes and density provisions for cluster development, zone amendments to the design review section to add provisions to reduce allowable floor area for all R -1 zone districts based on maximum building height; also included all revisions to the required design review findings, zone amendments to the grading provisions including permit requirements, and provisions for corrective grading. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 The proposed zone amendments are intended to reduce environmental impact by promoting greater compatibility with the natural environment. No proposed development is authorized by these amendments. Subsequent proposals for development would be subject to separate environmental review. Executed at Saratoga, California this I& day of f A .(4,L, 1991. u recto of Planning Director's Authorized Staff Member ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISION OF SITES, DESIGN REVIEW, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, SETBACKS AND GRADING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined that the pro- liferation of new construction in the City's hillside districts has the potential to undermine the City's objective to preserve the unique Saratoga character; and WHEREAS, the trend to reconstruct homes in developed neigh- borhoods poses distinct problems of compatibility, privacy and preservation of the existing neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the City periodically reviews the effectiveness of its design review regulations and the last review occurred in 1987; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City's General Plan is to preserve the community's unique residential character by promoting con- struction that is compatible with the City's sensitive terrain and established neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the existing regula- tions pertaining to the house size, setbacks, coverage and grad- ing require revision to advance the City's General Plan goals. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 06.340 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 06.340 Height "Height" means the vertical distance from the highest point of a structure to the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by a fill; provided, however, that for the purposes of measuring height, chimneys, flagpoles and radio and television aerials shall not be considered a part of the structure. In the case of fences, walls and hedges, the height thereof shall be that side having the greatest distance as measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the fence, wall or hedge to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the finished grade, whichever such grade is lower. Where a fence is con- structed upon, or approximately parallel to and within two feet 1 from, a retaining wall, the height thereof shall be the combined height of the fence and the retaining wall, as measured from the top of the fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner prescribed herein. SECTION 2: Section 15- 06.655 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 06.655 Story; multi -story (a) Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above. Basements which are located entirely below grade are excluded from being considered a story. SECTION 3: Section 15- 11.050 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 11.050 Subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in Paragraph (b) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within an A district shall contain a minimum number of acres based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Minimum Average Minimum Slope Acres Slope Acres 10 or less 5.00 24 10.40 11 5.20 25 11.00 12 5.40 26 11.80 13 5.60 27 12.60 14 5.80 28 13.40 15 6.00 29 14.20 16 6.40 30 15.00 17 6.80 31 16.00 18 7.20 32 17.00 19 7.60 33 18.00 20 8.00 34 19.00 21 8.60 35 or more 20.00 22 9.20 23 9.80 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.030 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter- mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions or geologic hazards. SECTION 4: Section 15- 11.080 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 11.080 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in an A district shall be as follows: (a) Lots less than 80,000 square feet: The maximum cover- age shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 12,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) Lots greater than 80,000 square feet: The maximum coverage shall be 12,000 square feet plus 50 square feet for each 1,000 square feet exceeding 80,000 square feet up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. (c) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 5: Section 15- 11.090 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 11.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater; (c) The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single story structure, and sixty (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. SECTION 6: A new Section 15- 11.160 is added to Article 15 -11 of the City Code, to read as follows: 815- 11.160 Grading on hillside lots The combined cut and fill of any grading on a hillside lot shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon its finding that: (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve reasonable, 3 vehicular access to the proposed development. (b) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 7: Section 15- 12.050 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 12.050 Site Area The minimum net site area in each R -1 district shall be as follows: District R -1- 10,000 R- 1- 12,500 R- 1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Interior Lot 10,000 sf. 12,500 sf. 15,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 815 12.080 Site coverage R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Corner Flag Hillside Lot Lot Lot 12,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 15,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 18,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 24,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 48,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 40,000 sf. SECTION 8: Section 15- 12.080 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: The maximum site coverage in each R -1 district shall be as set forth in the following table. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turn around area for such spaces or required for safety purposes, shall be excluded. District Coverage 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% SECTION 9: Section 15- 12.090 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 12.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District Front Yard R- 1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 (b) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be ten percent (10 of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: Individual District Side Yards R- 1- 10,000 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. Interior Exterior District Side Yard Side Yard R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. (c) Side yards of corner lots created after January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 dis- trict shall be ten percent (10 of the lot width, or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater. (d) Side yards of corner lots created prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 dis- trict shall be ten percent (10 of the lot width, or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater: 5 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Interior Exterior Side Yard Side Yard 10 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 12 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. (e) Rear yards of corner lots created after January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story District Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. R -1- 12,500 25 ft. R -1- 15,000 30 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 6 Multi -story Rear Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 60 ft. (f) Rear yards of corner lots created prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 10 ft. R- 1- 15,000 12 ft. 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 20 ft. (g) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty -five (25%) percent of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 12,500 25 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 15,000 30 ft. 40 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. 45 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (h) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measur- ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SECTION 10: A new paragraph (h) has been added to Section 15- 13.020 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code to read as follows: (h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open spaces. SECTION 11: A new paragraph (1) has been added to Section 15- 13.030 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code to read as follows: (1) Cluster developments in accordance with Section 15- 13.060(c). SECTION 12: A new Paragraph (e) is added to Section 15- 13.040 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code, to read as follows: (e) Quantity of grading. The combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excava- tion for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon its finding that: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected. (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and (4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 13. Section 15- 13.050 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 14. Section 15- 13.060 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 7 S15- 13.060 Subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in paragraph (b) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within an HC -RD district shall con- tain a minimum number of acres based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Minimum Average Minimum Slope Acres Slope Acres 0 or less 2.00 26 3.42 1 2.03 27 3.52 2 2.07 28 3.62 3 2.10 29 3.73 4 2.14 30 3.85 5 2.17 31 3.96 6 2.21 32 4.09 7 2.25 33 4.24 8 2.29 34 4.39 9 2.34 35 4.55 10 2.38 36 4.72 11 2.43 37 4.90 12 2.48 38 5.10 13 2.53 39 5.32 14 2.58 40 5.56 15 2.63 41 5.82 16 2.69 42 6.10 17 2.75 43 6.41 18 2.81 44 6.96 19 2.87 45 7.14 20 2.94 46 7.58 21 3.01 47 8.06 22 3.09 48 8.62 23 3.16 49 9.25 24 3.25 50 10.00 25 3.33 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter- mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions or geologic hazards. (c) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may ap- prove a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The reduction in lot size is for the purpose of clus- tering building sites in order to dedicate, in fee, open. space accessible by the public which may contain recreation- al facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking trails, as permitted in Section 15- 13.020(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross development area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to minimize, to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than 20,000 square feet. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: 1 A= 0.5 .008S Where: A the average land area per dwelling unit. The average slope of a lot or parcel shall be determined according to the following formula: 0.00229 IL S= 9 A Where: S the average slope of the lot in percent I the contour interval in feet L the combined length of contour lines in feet A the gross area of the parcel in acres (6) The size of each unit shall be determined in relation to the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed 7,200 square feet in area. (7) The clustering of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural terrain. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Commission in- cludes specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: i) length of driveway; ii) reduction in building height, iii) reduction in allowa- ble floor area, iv) reduction in site coverage, v) increase in site dimensions, and vi) increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. SECTION 15. Section 15- 13.080 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: S15- 13.080 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in an HC -RD district shall be as follows: (a) Lots less than 80,000 square feet: The maximum cover- age shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 12,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) Lots greater than 80,000 square feet: The maximum coverage shall be 12,000 square feet plus 50 square feet each 1,000 square feet exceeding 80,000 square feet, up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. (c) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 16. Section 15- 13.090 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: S15- 13.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty (20 percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty -five (35) feet in the case of a single -story structure and forty -five (45) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (d) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measur- 10 ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SECTION 17: A new paragraph (h) has been added to Section 15- 14.030 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code to read as follows: (h) spaces. Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open SECTION 18: A new paragraph (k) has been added to Section 15- 14.040 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code to read as follows: (k) Cluster developments in accordance with Section 15- 14.070(c). SECTION 19: Paragraph (g) of Section 15- 14.050 in Article 15- 14 of the City Code is amended as follows: (g) Grading. The combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based upon its finding that: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected. (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and (4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 20: Section 15- 14.060 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 21: Section 15- 14.070 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 11 S15- 14.070 subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within the NHR district shall contain a minimum number of acres based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Minimum Average Minimum Slope Acres Slope Acres 0 or less 2.00 26 3.42 1 2.03 27 3.52 2 2.07 28 3.62 3 2.10 29 3.73 4 2.14 30 3.85 5 2.17 31 3.96 6 2.21 32 4.09 7 2.25 33 4.24 8 2.29 34 4.39 9 2.34 35 4.55 10 2.38 36 4.72 11 2.43 37 4.90 12 2.48 38 5.10 13 2.53 39 5.32 14 2.58 40 5.56 15 2.63 41 5.82 16 2.69 42 6.10 17 2.75 43 6.41 18 2.81 44 6.96 19 2.87 45 7.14 20 2.94 46 7.58 21 3.01 47 8.06 22 3.09 48 8.62 23 3.16 49 9.25 24 3.25 50 10.00 25 3.33 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter- mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions of geologic hazards. (c) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may ap- prove a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following requirements are satisfied: 12 (1) The reduction in lot size is for the purpose of clus- tering building sites in order to create dedicated open space accessible by the public which may contain recreation- al facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking trails, as permitted in Section 15- 13.020(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross development area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to minimize, to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than 20,000 square feet. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: 1 A= 0.5 .008S Where: A the average land area per dwelling unit. The average slope of a lot or parcel shall be determined according to the following formula: 0.00229 IL S= 13 A Where: S the average slope of the lot in percent I the contour interval in feet L the combined length of contour lines in feet A the gross area of the parcel in acres (6) The size of each unit shall be determined in relation to the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed 7,200 square feet in area. (7) The clustering of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural terrain. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Commission in- cludes specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: i) length of driveway; ii) reduction in building height, iii) reduction in allowa- ble floor area, iv) reduction in site coverage, v) increase in site dimensions, and vi) increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. SECTION 22: Section 15- 14.090 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 14.090 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in the NHR district shall be as follows: (a) Lots less than 80,000 square feet: The maximum cover- age shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 12,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) Lots greater than 80,000 square feet: The maximum coverage shall be 12,000 square feet plus 50 square feet for each 1,000 square feet exceeding 80,000 square feet, up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. (c) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 23: Section 15- 14.100 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 14.100 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (3 0) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (d) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measur- 14 ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SECTION 24. Section 15- 45.030 in Article 14 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 45.030 Allowable floor area (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowa- ble floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof), plus any accessory structures. For purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fif- teen (15) feet or greater shall be doubled. The allowable floor area is based upon the size and slope of the lot and the height of the main structure to be constructed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is neces- sary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent (10 the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: Average slope Percentage of Net Site of the lot Area to be Deducted 10.01 20% 20.01 30% Over 30% *Where the average slope is a fractional number it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under Paragraph (c) above, if any, the floor area standard for the lot shall be determined in accordance with the table set forth below: 15 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent of slope over 10 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent of slope over 20 60% Size of Lot Floor area (net site area) Standard 5,000 10,000 sq. ft. 10,001 15,000 sq. ft. 15,001 40,000 sq. ft. 40,001 80,000 sq. ft. 80,001 870,000 sq. ft. 870,000 Zone District R- 1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 HC -RD, NHR A 16 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq. ft.* 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq. ft.* 4,050 sq. ft. plus 78 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft.* 6,000 sq. ft. plus 20 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq. ft.* 6,800 sq. ft. plus 10 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 80,000 sq. ft.* 14,700 plus 5 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 870,000 sq. ft.* *Where division of the net site area by 1000 results in a frac- tional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R -1, NHR, HCRD A Zone districts. The maximum allowable floor area shall be as pre- scribed in the following table: Maximum floor area 4,400 4,830 5,220 6,000 7,200 no maximum floor area (f) Restriction against subdivision. Where the net site area required under this Section for all structures on the site is greater than the minimum net site area prescribed for the district in which the lot is located and such lot is otherwise capable of being subdivided, the owner shall execute and record a restriction against any subdivision of the property in such manner as to reduce the net site area below the amount required under this Section for all structures on the site. SECTION 25. Section 15- 45.030(d) of the City Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 26. Section 15- 45.040 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 45.040 Setbacks (a) Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500 or R -1- 15,000 district will exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of height in excess of eight- een (18) feet. SECTION 27. Section 15- 45.080 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 45.080 Design Review Findings The Planning Commission shall not grant design review ap- proval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural envi- ronment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same 17 zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design Policies and Techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15 45.055. SECTION 28. Section 15- 70.020 is amended to read as follows: 815 70.020 Authority to grant variances (a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the approving authority under this Article with power to grant vari- ances from the regulations prescribed in this Chapter with re- spect to site area, site frontage, width and depth, and coverage, setbacks for front yards, side yards and rear yards, allowable floor area, height of structures, distance between structures, signs, off street parking and loading facilities, fences, walls and hedges, and alteration or expansion of non conforming struc- tures, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in this Article. (b) No variance for setbacks, distance between structures, fences, walls and hedges shall be required, however, for new main structures proposed to be built on existing grading pads where: (1) The pads were graded pursuant to an approved tentative map, recorded final map and approved grading plan, consist- ent with the final map; and (2) The location of the building site was an important factor in approving the subdivision, as demonstrated by such evidence as supplemental site plans, discussion in staff reports, or public hearing minutes, applicable environmental documents, adopted findings and a resolution approving the project and in adopted conditions of approval. The Planning Director shall determine the applicability of this subsection. The Director's decision shall be subject to appeal pursuant to Section 2 05.030. Relief granted under this subsection does not relieve the project from other applicable requirements of this chapter. SECTION 29. Section 16- 15.210 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 18 816 15.210 Section 7018 added to Appendix Chapter 70 concerning general provisions Section 7018 is added to Appendix Chapter 70 of the Building Code, to read as follows: Sec. 7018: General Provisions (a) Restricted hours. Unless specifically exempted, grad- ing will be restricted to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The building official may grant an exemption upon his determination of an emergency. (b) Dust and dirt control. Graded surfaces shall be wetted or suitably contained to prevent public nuisance from dust or spillage on City streets or adjacent properties. Equip- ment, materials and roadways on the site shall be used in a manner or treated to prevent excessive dust conditions. (c) Restrictions. Portions of a site exceeding thirty (30 percent slope shall not be graded without prior spe- cific approval by the Planning Commission. Grading shall be minimized in areas classified in the City's geologic maps as Ps or Pd. Grading which would unreasonably affect the natural character of the area shall not be permitted. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. (d) Cut and fill slopes. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of this code to the contrary, visible cut or fill slopes shall not exceed three horizontal to one vertical. (e) Corrective grading. Corrective grading for existing or proposed developments may be permitted with prior specific approval by the Planning Commission based upon findings that the corrective grading: (i) is consistent with the objec- tives of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code and with the Saratoga General Plan; (ii) is necessary to minimize risks from geologic hazards; (iii) will not result in irrevocable damage to the City's scenic resources; (iv) will produce a benefit to the general public greater than the environmental impact of the corrective grading; and (v) will not result in the removal of any protected tree, as described in Section 15- 50.050. (f) Special precautions. If the building official deter- mines by inspection that the nature of the formation is such that further work as authorized by the existing permit is likely to endanger any property or public way, the building official may, as a condition of work, require reasonable safety precautions to avoid the likelihood of danger. Such measures as flatter exposed slopes, additional drainage 19 facilities, berms, terracing, compaction, cribbing or in- stallation of plant materials for erosion control may be required. If storm damage is anticipated, work may be stopped until temporary planting, structures or other tempo- rary measures have been taken to control erosion and protect adjoining property. (g) Damaging graded lands. No person shall directly or indirectly damage or destroy any ground cover, planting, berms, drains, drainage terraces, ditches, swales, riprap or other drainage structures and erosion controls which are planted or constructed pursuant to this Code, or in accord with any of the regulations or requirements of the building official or the Planning Commission, or pursuant to any site development plan filed in accord with the Subdivision Ordi- nance of the City. (h) Compliance with other ordinances. The building offi- cial shall not issue a grading permit for any grading as a building lot or site unless all proposed uses shown on the grading plans for the lot or site will comply with all applicable provisions of both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City, and with all other provi- sions of this Code, or unless such grading and the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. Any grading permit issued in violation of this Section shall be void and of no force and effect. SECTION 30. A new Section 16- 15.220 is added to Article 16 -15 of the City Code, to read as follows: 816 15.220 General requirement for grading permit Notwithstanding any provision of the Building Code to the contrary, a grading permit shall be required for any cut or fill exceeding a quantity of ten cubic yards, or any increase or decrease in the elevation of any portion of a lot by more than one foot, except for changes in elevation for the construction or installation of any building foundation, basement, pool or other structure for which a building permit has been issued by the City and the excavated material is removed from the site. SECTION 31. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. 20 SECTION 32. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, held on the day of 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Printed on recycled paper. Recommended Motion: Background: OgID7 cDO 0 '0 121 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M 51 Q. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director DATE: September 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Correspondence from W. D. Whetstone concerning repeal of cellular antenna ordinance Consider the request and direct staff to reply pursuant to Council consensus. Mr. Whetstone's letter and the attached petition was precipitated by the recent application of GTE Mobilnet now pending before the Planning Commission. The application was initially denied, appealed to the Council, referred back to the Planning Commission and ultimately withdrawn. GTE reapplied for lower antenna (40 feet) which was denied an administrative permit by staff. GTE appealed staff's denial of the lowered proposal which is currently pending before the Planning Commission. Analysis: The letter requests that the City Council repeal the antenna ordinance to prevent the installation of any further cellular antennae in the City. Since the ordinance was adopted, one antenna was constructed at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway. The Council may recall that the cellular antenna ordinance was enacted early this year in response to Council direction. The Council found that the City Code was absent the regulation pertaining to cellular antenna since the ordinance was drafted prior to the widespread use of cellular telephones. e The ordinance requires that cellular antennae may only be located in the Commercial or office zones and that a use permit is required for any antenna over 50 feet in height. All antennae must also comply with the requirements of the underlying zone. As staff interprets Mr. Whetstone's request, it is based on a concern that adequate controls are not present in the current ordinance to prevent adverse impact to surrounding properties. Concerns raised in the correspondence are threefold: 1. Health hazard due to radio frequency radiation; 2. Interference with nearby electronic equipment; 3. Negative visual impact. Staff feels that adequate controls in both the cellular antenna ordinance, as well as the underlying zone enable the City to deny any request proven to exhibit the concerns raised in Mr. Whetstone's petition. Staff cites the following as examples: 1. The design review provisions of the underlying zone district enable the City to evaluate potential visual and compatibility concerns. If the required findings cannot be determined then the project cannot be approved. 2. Each zone district sets forth as a purpose, the protection of the public's health, safety and welfare. Projects proven to result in adverse health effects are contrary to the intent of the zone district and may not be approved. 3. The California Environmental Quality Act defines antennae as projects subject to environmental review. Should the City determine that adverse environmental effects occur as a consequence of a proposed antenna, complete and independent analysis is required to determine the extent of possible environmental damage. Step Planning Attachment: 1. Letter from W. D. Whetstone dated 9/17/91 SE /dsc EISI September 17, 1991 Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Ave. Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -6611 City Commission, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (2/91 re cellular transmission antennas) Dear Commission members: I enclose herewith the subject petition. Shortly after you enacted ordinance 71.91, GTE Mobilnet applied for permission to install an antenna tower at 14375 Saratoga Avenue, near the intersection of Saratoga Ave. and Highway 9, in the village. The city Planning Staff and the Planning Commission so far have denied the GTE Mobil net applications. However, the basic problem is not just this one proposed antenna but rather the ordinance itself, which is severely deficient in major respects. We urge you to revoke the ordinance immediately, before more applications are made. The attached petition was circulated only to residents in the immediate area of 14375 Saratoga Ave. and to occupants of office buildings immediately adjacent. The 77 signatures were obtained in only a little more than one day, which should give you an idea of the unanimity and intensity of opinion on the subject. I have also enclosed a copy of my 9/17/91 letter to the Planning Commission. That letter includes as an attachment a copy of the front -page headline story of the Sept. 10, 1991 issue of MacWeek magazine regarding the potential health hazards of RF radiation. Please read the MacWeek article carefully, and be aware that the power levels of cellular transmitters are vastly higher than those of the wireless networks discussed in the article. Also please read U. S. FCC OET Bulletin #56. One thing is absolutely certain: if the GTE transmitter goes in at 14375 Saratoga Ave, all adjacent properties will be greatly devalued and substantial rental income will be lost because of the increasing public awareness of the potential RF radiation health hazard. There is no evidence in the Planning Staff reports or in the GTE application that more mobile telephone service is needed in Saratoga. Even if better mobile service in a particular location is wanted by someone, why shouldn't they choose another way, such as switching to Cellular -1 or even to the new direct -to- satellite service? Why should we have our health threatened, our properties devalued, and rental income lost just to reduce someone elses mobile telephone bill and /or increase GTE's profits? Sincerely W. D. hetstone Enclosures: ,/-d 1- Petition to the City Commission, dated 9/9/91 2 -Copy of 9/17 letter to Planning Comission 3 -U. S. FCC OET Bulletin No. 56 4 -Copy of 9/11 Planning Staff Report to Planning Commission re GTE Mobilnet Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signature Address September 9, 1991 zzv iel35'5" zie tJ q 4 ve 156.3 /`(3 z� 7 S it.c, tb �f- 2j% 4 /`v N LiG.3t5 ft othet.7.07 -isa-c60, +0,1/2444. Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signature Address September 9, 1991 /y,.. a c4- 14 41A) ict o Ste.- S ou 449s6 7v /4/15 1Lf��0 Sc.- c 6 07C) 2 (q) Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. September 9, 1991 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Address 3 728 4cog x'� /ye 571' 1-.?- 7 l) f7� 2r► .L3s!- 8 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signat re Address September 9, 1991 is /9J r s c rz-A -ice» 02 c 7 /0Y TL/P )2g. (7- CviL AJ 4(; S� 1453/ /5i49h L it /4 d /oZ FWE 4& 11Y2,_ q (,z) 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. n/ Sparre Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that arc expected to become commonplace in the next few years. `74<14 September 9, 1991 rr la ,A7_44 Address 5 `'0 September 9, 1991 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signature Address t45 SAP -41mA J 1 1 V iCkee 4 5ratoic Cr. ?cow) OiikeW %Oa Pivit51 P-D /44- ,csoif v R Ey LN. -9 09.0 14 3 `1-t" S c--'41.- 143 AK. igit 54 e4. r C4 .s3 y l-c -xss4 -es September 9, 1991 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Si: ature Address 1..6_13 11313 aar l sq,a__Ovt 4 /1375 7 (7) September 9, 1991 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. au9 /1i September 9, 1991 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, sincc a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signature Address �l &AR -P p N1E_, S6eA th E (Office) atAL6RAWA 1A1. ADS cm-6% k 1 2 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to replace it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you vote on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should be given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. 1- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should be given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (see especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, since a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that are expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without question an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, required antenna location, height, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistent to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where underground utilities are required. Signature Address t' 3// 8 ,r Le_ gz(tn T L' fc� E, September 9, 1991 7 3 s TS a. 2)7e) 4 -AZ- L C4(4- --/g 91 143 531 3% P5 1 EISI September 17, 1991 Planning Commission, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 75070 Attention: Ms. Gillian Moran, Chairperson Dear Commission Members: Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Ave. Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -6611 Subject: GTE /Mobilnet application to install a radio transmission antenna at 14375 Saratoga Ave. This is a long letter, but I hope that in the interest of fairness you will take the time to read it completely and carefully. At the 9/11 hearing, you terminated the public discussion on this matter without giving those of us in the audience a chance to challenge grossly erroneous statements that had just been made during the discussion, and to present our views and to submit our formal petition. In confronting this issue over the past 6 months, I have had little success in getting city employees to pay attention to the major issues involved. When I tried to discuss the matter with the city manager, Mr. Peacock, he was abrupt and negative and interrupted me repeatedly to the extent that communication became impossible. This matter has taken a great deal of my time, and has repeatedly disrupted my business and vacation schedules. On 8/1/91, a Thursday afternoon, I received in the mail a notice (Attachment 1 is a copy of it) from the Planning Dept. stating that, subject to a review in progress, they were going to approve GTE's application on 8/5, the following Monday. I was about to leave on vacation early that afternoon, and it was only by accident that I even saw the letter. I immediately called Planning to protest. The Planning staff then postponed its decision, but the episode made it clear that until the issue is finally settled I can't even leave town for a few days for fear that Planning will quietly grant a permit GTE while 1 am away. I request that the Planning Commission meet with me at my building at 14395 Saratoga Ave, next door to the site, and give me a fair chance to show you what the full impact of this project would be. It is clear from the content of the staff reports and from what has been said in the hearings that there are highly pertinent facts of which you are unaware. For example, Ms. Riggs made the astonishing recommendation during the 9/11 hearing that GTE solve the "view impact mitigation" problem by planting a tree on my property! The parking space #15 that she recommended as the site for one of the magical 40 ft. instant trees is largely on a non exclusive easement on my property. Why is Ms. Riggs putting in such an effort to give GTE suggestions to help them get their application approved, but ignoring my repeated requests to independently check on GTE's various unsubstantiated assertions? Why did Ms. Riggs tell me on 9/10 that the staff recommendation would be to deny, then at the 9/11 hearing instead recommend approval if GTE 'would just add a bit of camouflage and use the "magic trees" to mitigate view impact? Whose interests are City employees supposed to represent? Health hazard. Instead of inquiring into the health hazard question through the state and federal government as I have repeatedly requested, the Staff Report indicates that the Planning Staff has instead relied solely on GTE for information in this area. That is like relying on the fox for an expert opinion about the adequacy of the fence around the henhouse. The "Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association" summary regarding health factors is non specific and irrelevant to the question at hand; it talks only in broad terms about effects on the "general public not about people at very close range to transmitters being continuously bombarded by vastly more intense radiation than is the "general public" all day, every day. If you have read US FCC OET Bulletin #56, which I have provided you previously, then you will see that there is an entirely different side to the story. Please note that the buildings adjacent to the proposed transmitter are not steel and concrete, which greatly shield radiation, but lightweight wood -frame structures. I have also enclosed a copy of the front -page headline story from the September 10, 1991 issue of MacWeek magazine, entitled "How Safe Are Wireless Networks." Wireless networks operate at only a tiny fraction of the power level of cellular transmitters, yet even in their case there is growing major concern among unbiased experts about the health consequences. A particularly galling point has been GTE's recent strategy of lowering the antenna height from 50 ft. to 40 ft. to allow them to claim that they need no variance. At the lowered height (a) they would bring the most intense portion of the radiation field much nearer head -level of those of us in the 2nd stories of surrounding buildings, and (b) to get their effective signal strength back up to the same level, they would have to crank up the power to compensate for the additional solid objects (e.g. me and my neighbors) that are in their way. Give us a break! If we really had to have an antenna at that site I would much prefer that it be higher, say about 500 feet, to reduce our radiation exposure. A 500 ft. height would also give all Saratogans an equal opportunity to enjoy the visual merits of the antenna each day. A few basics about radiation. A key thing to be aware of about RF radiation is that it grows vastly stronger near the source. It is in that respect very much like light, i.e. it's energy intensity essentially varies inversely with the square of the distance along a line from the source (amazingly, I had some difficulty in getting a GTE engineer to cuncur in that a few weeks ago he insisted for quite a while that intensity varied in inverse linear proportion). Take the example of a light bulb: when you are 5 feet from a bulb, the intensity of the energy falling on your eye is 10,000 times what it is when you are 500 feet away. You may safely look at a bulb for any length of time if you are far enough away from it; but as you come closer, the length of time that you can look at the light without damaging your eyes becomes progressively shorter. Everyone knows that even a very low power light can blind you if you look at it long enough, at close enough range. The basic question regarding RF radiation is essentially the same: for virtuously continuous exposure at a certain power level, how close is too close? That question deserves a quantitative scientific answer not a used car salesman style "trust me, we haven't had any problems so far that we know of" assurance from a highly biased industry association. Time for truth or consequences. The cornerstone of GTE's application is their statement in their 4/8/91 appeal to the City Council: if GTE cannot establish the cell site at this location in the P -A district, there will be no cellular communication service in the Saratoga Village Area" That statement has obviously been a key factor in the Commissions deliberations. The statement is totally false as Planning Commissioner Favero pointed out during the 9/11 hearings, based on his own personal experience using Cellular 1. Many other cellular users have told me the same thing, including city commisioner Monia, whom I believe uses Pacific Bell cellular service. A tenant of the 14375 Saratoga Ave. office building who uses GTE Mobilnet told me his service in the village area is fine (and he then demonstrated it to me transmission and reception were absolutely perfect). This leads to several questions: 1 -Why did GTE make this blatantly false assertion? The only explanations I can think of are (a) they are lying, for obvious reasons, or (b) they are astonishingly ignorant which if true brings into question their technical competence and the accuracy of all other statements of a technical nature that they have made. Please note that they didn't say that only GTE's service is a bit deficient, or anything remotely like that; they said "no cellular communication service." 2 -What is the Planning Commission going to do about GTE's deception? From what Mr. Favero said during the 9/11 hearing, I gather that GTE also has made some sort of threat of legal action against the City in the event that the City denies their application. Why is that threat not a part of the staff report? Saratogans are certainly entitled to know the details. Flagrantly lying on applications and making threats of reprisals hardly seems to me to be an acceptable way for an applicant to deal with the city. I fully share Mr. Favero's outrage at GTE, as I am sure will all Saratogans who become aware of what has transpired. Why does GTE really want to install the facility? Is it perhaps the cheapest way to improve their service in areas beyond Saratoga, where I have been informed that their competitors have better coverage? If so, why should the City of Saratoga dump GTE's problem onto me and others who live and work in this area? I believe that I am entitled to clear answers from the City to all of these questions. It should not be my burden to hire consultants, investigators, etc. to get these answers, since the entire problem was inflicted upon us by the City. Parking space. Regarding the parking question, City ordinance 15- 35.030, page 15 -118, states that one parking place is required for each 200 square feet of office space. That means that the requirement for 14375 Saratoga Ave. is around 45 to 50 parking places. It now has only 28. Why does the Planning Staff think it is OK to remove spaces for the tower and for screening trees? Electronic interference, especially with wireless networks. In the 9/11 meeting GTE claimed that interference with other equipment of any kind does not occur at all. That conflicts directly with their prior testimony before you (see the minutes of the 3/27/91 meeting, page 18, beginning at line 8). If all cellular transmiters always worked perfectly, which GTE on 3/27 stated is not the case, then there might be no interference problems. But at those transmission power levels (2700 watts according to GTE recently but who knows how much higher it might actually be) common sense indicates otherwise. It is impossible to identify all of the possible specific interferance modes that might occur in the event of transmitter equipment malfunctions. The only certainty is that potential effect of any malfunction increases directly with increased power level and proximity. I personally have experienced bizarre cases of transmitter malfunction that produced interference that could easily have had catastrophic consequences (I will give you the details if you wish to know them). Wireless networks operate at extremely low power levels and therefore are highly succeptible to even extremely low -level interference. At the 9/11 hearing GTE's spokesperson characterized wireless networks as something GTE doesn't know anything about, that might or might not come into existence some time in the distant future. Regardless of what GTE tells you, the truth is that wireless networks for computers are coming soon (unless, ironically, they are delayed because of concern over RF radiation levels vastly below those of cellular transmitters). See the recent MacWeek article on this subject in Attachment 3. Do you find it credible that GTE, a telecommunications company, is really unaware of these facts? The Next Round. Finally, I would like to request that in the 9/25 public hearing you schedule this item at the beginning of the agenda. At each of the last three hearings this item has been heard at a very late hour. The circumstances of some of the Saratogans affected by this matter are such that it would be a great imposition for them to have to wait until nearly midnight. Sincerely, W. D. LWhetstone Attachments: 1- Letter received from Planning Dept. 8/1/91 2- MacWeek magazine article on RF radiation hazard 3- MacWeek magazine article on wireless networks Ac cacnment 1 APN 397 -31 -011 14375 Saratoga Ave. GTE Mobilnet 1 3777FRUITVALEAVENUE SARATO(;A. CALIFORNIA 9507O (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Koh ;er Victor Monra Francis Slurzman The Planning Department has received an application from GTE MOBILNET /TRANSAMERICA ENERGY ASSOCIATES, to construct a 40 foot tall monopole cellular transmission tower within the Professional and Administrative office (P.A.) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code, at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. The City is currently reviewing this application to determine compliance with City Code Section 15- 80.080 which states that antennas and their support structure shall be screened as much as possible by architectural features, fences, or landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public right -of -way. Conditions may be imposed upon the issuance of a building permit or use permit to mitigate the anticipated visual impact of the proposed antenna installation. The antenna is proposed to be located behind an existing office building and is within the maximum allowed height of 40 feet for the P.A. zone district and does not require a conditional use permit.' The proposal will be approved on 8/5/91 unless there is evidence that proposal does not comply with current City ordinance standards. The plans are available for review in the Planning Department beginning Friday, 7/26/91, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., ending Monday, 8/5/91. We invite you to review and comment during this period. Date Step Em 'ie, Planning Director ooks odors the PowerBooks '1, the 4 -poun .'iew will ship in for les. 00. The Lx connects to ae PowerBook's nall SCSI port rid also has a andard 50 -pin :SI port for daisy :ring other exter- ices. software allows color monitors .ther the screen's performance of n Page 112 which has been all since June. x, 1lcx and m :32 -bit .eln to access as -.les of physical ?A \t) and up to :eulorl'. \Vitbout •°sine, the older ler System 7.0. How safe are wireless nets? P By Mitch Ratcliffe San Francisco Wire- less networking will give computer users freedom to 4 move around their offices, but the new technology produces radiation that doctors and scientists say could be a health hazard. Pioneers in wireless computing, including Ap- ple, IBM Corp. and Mo- torola Inc., hope to re- place network cabling with small radio, cellular or microwave transmit- ters. The emerging tech- nologies, known collec- tively as Data -PCS (Per- sonal Communications Services), use radio -like AM or FM modulation. "There is evidence that big tly mo a ate fre- uenci owes end of the ra io s ectrmn have an lect on artous )a S o t le eproc active orris, eyes, and on '6alculm," said Dr. Raymond Neu s a, chiefofspecial epidemiological studies for the California Depart- ment of Health. "We should think carefully about these technologies before propagating them widely." Apple and Motorola admitted a potential for biological effects, say- ing they are working to build prod- ucts as safe as current science says wireless needs to be. "It would he impossible for Apple to say Data -PCS will be completely safe," said Richard Allen, manager of communications technology at Apple's Advanced Technology 7'�r,.. sc cji."-e. -rte ti sty /,-•a c" r..c U/ /t, /i•i' e cLhe. 7 r e /3/e.-;:s a:' t'r. Group. "It's not possible to say, for instance, that a Milky Way bar is completely safe, either. Uncertainty. Radio- frequency radiation (llFR), which is also emit- ted by microwave devices. has not been considered hazardous. But some have begun to suspect that long- term exposure to the radiation, as well as to extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields. could be a health risk. In June of last year the Environ- mental Protection Agency released a draft paper titled "Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields. The doc- ument states that it link between both RFR and ELF emissions and cancer, including leukemia, brain audio spectrum 18 -19 Gill Microwave Motorola's Altair II Television UHF 1.9 -2 GHx 1l Data -PCS J VHF Shortwave radio 0.9 GHz Cellular /F'Jrr' CHRIS MORRIS Users may face radiation threats from three emerging wireless networking schemes: cellular -based services in portable computers, such as IBM's PCradio, which will communicate through the ARDIS networ c (yellow); radio based services, such as Apple's proposed Data -PCS (red); and microwave services such as Motorola's Altair (blue). cancer and male breast cancer; is biologically plausible. Asher Sheppard, research physi- cist at the Jerry L. Pettis Mentorial Veterans Hospital in 1.cnna Linda, Calif., said his in vitro studies sug- gest that radio frcq and ELF fields could interfere with enzyme systems and systems that regulate communications behvee:n cells \within the human body. Because of the large number of people poten- tially being irradiated by wireless networks, we may steed to be very safe, Sheppard said. "Remember it took 40 wars to link saw Marty Fla per. !rector° the Analy- sis and Support Division of the See \Vire1c'5s, Page 112 z_ :atible display or O0 -based Power have color sup leaner )DE32, a system d by Connectix o, Calif., and wwill charge to Mac user groups and S W E E K L Y F O R M A C I N T O S H M A N A G E R S I," w.. 7 A sa wagon Il 1,3% St kw Std 1 Comparison of Mathematics, Theorist, Maple See Reviews, Page 47 s f U /797 rsse-e, Is Claris Resolve just another spreadsheet? ue is would he level with n seated user t ers containing a transmitteron your laps ose proximity to users keep them dose to the body 2, le Z fireless MACWEEK 09.1 0.91 L From Page 1 EPA's Office of Radiation Programs in Washington, D.C. "Are we saying we know there is a significant risk? No. There is definitely the need for more studies." New standard questioned. The American National Standards Institute could deliver the first RFR standard next year. "One of the first responses to the Apple petition was a question of safe- ty," said Fred Thomas, an engineer in the Federal Communications Commission's Frequency Allocation Branch. In January, Apple asked the FCC to designate certain frequen- cies for wireless computer networks. "The proposed ANSI standard is the rule of thumb, and Apple's initial power levels won't exceed the stan- dard," Thomas said. But some experts have criticiz he ANSI s t e are ased on an out ated i. ea that onl rig i- owere fields t fiat aise t le tem.erature o tissues are arm u A SI is based entirely on thermal effects," Sheppard said. "Most expo- sures with cellular and wireless com- munications will be non thermal." The EPA draft a er confirmed a shift in die agency toward concern with non -therm a ects saying, "a real possibility exists 1 t exposure to higher field strengths is actually less hazardous than exposure to low field strengths." Tiny signals. Because wire- less' success depends on the capa- bility to support many networks within a single building, transmit- ters are already designed to broad- cast less than 150 feet. According to scientific and industry sources, the RFR created by such networks is small, by any measure, and well within the limits of the proposed ANSI standard. For instance, the RFR from an Altair transmitter, a microwave evice currently offered by Motorola, measures only one two- thousandth the ANSI standard at a distance of 2 feet, according to Dr. Quirino Balzano, vice president of technical staff at the company's Fort Laud- erdale, Fla., facility. That amounts to "approximately the dose you would Standing in the fields r i �►�Oi z receive from 50 fireflies," he said. More studies needed. Bal- zano acknowledged that the pro- posed ANSI standard does not account for highly modulated, low power radio and microwave signals. Motorola, he said, believes there is a need for more research before a modulation standard can be established. But, he said, "I submit that there is no one who has found an adverse effect at these microwatt levels." Richard Allen said Apple has encouraged the National Academy of Sciences to conduct more studies of potential health risks. "I think we'll find that some of these fields are down at the noise level, like we are exposed to every day of our lives," Allen said. Potential liabilities. Users may have another hazard to consid- er when looking at wireless net- working: the law. "The health issue is definitely a wild card that has yet to be played out," said Reese Jones, chairman and CEO of Farallon Computing Inc. I -le. said Farallon chose not to develop a wireless product because the value of mobility was not worth the added price of a radio card. /0, /4'9/ LsS "Even as people are suing tobac- co comnanies Tor p roducts they. chose to use, it's not inconceivable that in 10 ye s� computer companies when the et cataracts," Jones said. I lan 990 Seattle case, a Boeing Co. engineer, Robert Strom, was paid more than $500,000 in an out of -court settlement after he claimed his leukemia was caused by on -the- job exposure to electromagnetic pulses (EMP), like those that follow a nuclear explosion. Several of his co- workers have died of various can- cers since the exposures. Strom's attorney, Michael With ey, said that while the court had rejected a causal relationship be- tween EMP and his client's leukemia, the weight of evidence pointing to biological effects from RFR contributed to the success of the case. Boeing also agreed to pro- vide health monitoring for other Boeing employees who were exposed. "I'm not sure an employer would be liable for installing these wireless networks," Withey said. "I do think the manufacturers ought to warn people that some studies have indi- cated there is a potential threat." Adobe "Fonts are the s the Macintosh, nd buy ATM fc ffice is a pain." Apple's step r ge of what was 'th Adobe over eveloped its c rmat, which do n alternative to "Apple is lo: onts," said To ove Rhode. esktop Publish 0DE32 trough its Ci enter, which 800) 776 -2333. .0 Answerline my to custom hased upgrade or a limited pt ssistance line i In another sn 11 buy back I rom customer pies before Se re original prog d to an autos customers ceipt will be efunds, up to th 169 plus tax. B postmarked 1 Apple's moot protests fro t marketing s for the older y would be a to 128 Ml: gher density ailable (see Several gn tters of prote st week a C ed a complai rade Commis. "We recogni bligation to fu ortables titer external SCSI bus's urces said. P, But some experts have criticized the ANSI specifications, saying they are based on an outdated idea hat only high- powered fields that raise the temperature of tissues are harmful. "ANSI is based entirely on thermal effects," Sheppard said. "Most expo- sures with cellular and wireless com- munications will be non thermal." The EPA draft paper confirmed a shift in the agency toward concern with non thermal effects, saying, "a real possibility exists that exposure to higher field strengths is actually less hazardous than exposure to low field strengths." Tiny signals. Because wire- less' success depends on the capa- bility to support many networks within a single building, transmit- ters are already designed to broad- cast less than 150 feet. According to scientific and industry sources, the RFR created by such networks is small, by any measure, and well within the limits of the proposed ANSI standard. For instance, the RFR from an Altair transmitter, a microwave device currently offered by Motorola, measures only one two- thousandth the ANSI standard at a distance of 2 feet, according to Dr. Quirino Balzano, vice president of technical staff at the company's Fort Laud- erdale, Fla., facility. That amounts to "approximately the dose you would receive from 50 fireflies," he said. More studies needed. Bal- zano acknowledged that the pro- posed ANSI standard does not account for highly modulated, low power radio and microwave signals. Motorola, he said, believes there is a need for more research before a modulation standard can be established. But, he said, "I submit that there is no one who has found an adverse effect at these microwatt levels." Richard Allen said Apple has encouraged the National Academy of Sciences to conduct more studies of potential health risks. "I think we'll find that some of these fields are down at the noise level, like we are exposed to every day of our lives," Allen said. Potential liabilities. Users may have another hazard to consid- er when looking at wireless net- working: the law. "The health issue is definitely a wild card that has yet to be played out," said Reese Jones, chairman and CEO of Farallon Computing Inc. He said Farallon chose not to develop a wireless product because the value of mobility was not worth the added price of a radio card. "Even as people are suing tobac- co companies for products they chose to use, it's not inconceivable that in 10 years people could sue computer companies when they get cataracts," Jones said. In a 1990 Seattle case, a Boeing Co. engineer, Robert Strom, was paid more than $500,000 in an out of -court settlement after he claimed his leukemia was caused by on -the- job exposure to electromagnetic pulses (EMP), like those that follow a nuclear explosion. Several of his co- workers have died of various can- cers since the exposures. Strom's attorney, Michael With ey, said that while the court had rejected a causal relationship be- tween EMP and his client's leukemia, the weight of evidence pointing to biological effects from RFR contributed to the success of the case. Boeing also agreed to pro- vide health monitoring for other Boeing employees who were exposed. "I'm not sure an employer would be liable for installing these wireless networks," Withey said. "I do think the manufacturers ought to warn people that some studies have indi- cated there is a potential threat." Wireless: Wireless networks now make up less than r percent of ,the LAN market. Still, once prices for wire- less hardware begin to 'fall;ants e sect owth in wireless installa- tions to lUeltliat of the raj idl e an mar et for portabres, la to s an almto s. In ustry o servers view wireless networks as crucial to the success of portable computers, enabling users to carry a computer anywhere with- out losing a network connection or having to reconnect cabling. According to International Data Corp., based in Framingham, Mass., ut of the ether; into theoffice 396,000 wireles s;.. riodes' will be ins e y accountmg or .7 e o eto mar pp e is wor dn on s a wireless network, or Data -PCSi (Personal Communications Services). Apple refused to comment on when its Data -PCS will be released, but ship- ment might be delayed until the Federal Communications Commis- sion decides if 40 MHz of bandwidth in the 1,850- to 1,990 -MHz range should be set aside for data commu- nications. Apple has put consider- able effort into obtaining that band- width, which it considers essential for 10 -Mbps communications. Motorola Inc. already is ship- ping a 15 -Mbps wireless network, called Altair, which uses band- width between 18 GHz and 1 GHz. Altair can serve up to 32 users through two kinds of "cells" a transceiver that connects by wire to as many as four worksta- tions, and a central unit that is mounted near the ceiling. IBM Corp. and Motorola have formed a company, ARDIS, to provide nationwide cellular data communications. Operating near the 900 -MHz band, ARDIS now has cellular stations in more than 400 U.S. cities and supports 9,600 -bps modem speeds. By Mitch Ratcliffe 1/11/7 I a ((Z /,j 9/ through its Customer Center, which can be r (800) 776 -2333. Unlike ti 7.0 Answerline, which is only to customers who chased upgrade kits, and for a limited period, the Assistance line is free to al In another surprising by will buy back copies of from customers who copies before Sept. 5. User: the original program disk ww tled to an automatic refun but customers who subn receipt will be entitled refunds, up to the original I $169 plus tax. Refund req, be postmarked no later tha Apple's move comes in of protests from users that marketing materials als for the older machines they would be able to aca up to 128 Mbytes of n higher- density RAM chit: available (see MacWEI 30). Several groups have letters of protest to Apply last week a Cleveland filed a complaint with th Trade Commission. "We recognize that w obligation to fulfill," Cook Portables F, other external devices, d SCSI bus's narrow 1: sources said. PowerView: able to connect the fo '030 -based Classic II to a itor, sources said. Meanwhile, Santa Cl1 based RasterOps Corp. is readying an entire line products with built -in SC tions. The first model, a white 15 -inch portrait m two 50 -pin SCSI coon debut Oct. 21, it will ship for less than $800, source RasterOps' products internal processor to ensr SCSI connection does performance degradatior Carlsbad, Calif. -based tems will ship this fall upgrade to its ScuzzyGra video interface that we Macs, including the new Other monitor makers are readying video ac Office of Spectrum Federal ELI Engineering Engineering Communications and Technology Division Commission QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND POTENTIAL HAZARDS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION OET BULLETIN NO. 56 Third Edition January 1989 Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering Technology Washington, D.C. 20554 INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for licens- ing or authorizing many of the transmitting devices in the United States that use radiofrequency (RF) radiation to provide a variety of important telecommunications services. Because of its responsibilities in this regard the FCC often receives inquiries concerning potential health risks from exposure to the RF radiation emitted by these transmitters. Recent years have witnessed increasing interest and concern on the part of the public with respect to this issue. The expanding use of RF techno- logy has resulted in speculation concerning the alleged "electromagnetic pollution" of the environment and the potential dangers of exposure to non ionizing radiation. This publication is designed to provide factual in- formation to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked ques- tions about this complex and often misunderstood topic. WHAT IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is one of several types of electromag- netic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together through space. These waves are gene- rated by the movement of electrical charges. For example, the movement of charge in a transmitting radio antenna, i.e., the alternating current, creates electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the antenna and can be picked up by a receiving antenna. Electromagnetic waves travel through space at the speed of light. Each electromagnetic wave has associated with it a wavelength and frequency which are inversely related by a simple mathematical formula: (frequency) times (wavelength) the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a fixed number, electromagnetic waves with high frequencies have short wavelengths and waves with low frequencies have long wavelengths. The electromagnetic "spectrum" includes all of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation ranging from extremely low frequency (ELF) radia- tion (with very long wavelengths) to X -rays and gamma rays which have very high frequencies and correspondingly short wavelengths. In between these extremes lie radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, and ultraviolet radiation. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range from about 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz. One "hertz" equals one cycle per second. A kilohertz (kHz) is one thousand hertz, a megahertz (MHz) is one million hertz, and a gigahertz is one billion hertz. The diagram below illustrates the electromagnetic spectrum and the approximate relationship between the various forms of electromagnetic radiation. Increasing Frequency 1 Hz 1 kHz 1 MHz 1 GHz 10t 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 electric radio TV infrared ultra- X -rays power violet (ELF) microwaves gamma rays visible light 1� RADIOFREQUENCY —►I RADIATION WHAT IS MICROWAVE RADIATION? Microwave radiation is a high- frequency form of RF radiation. Micro- wave frequencies occupy the upper part of the RF electromagnetic spectrum, usually defined as the frequency range from about 300 MHz to 300 GHz. The most familiar use of microwave radiation is in household microwave ovens which rely on the principle that microwaves generate heat throughout an object than just at the surface. Therefore, microwave ovens can cook food more rapidly than conventional ovens. Other uses of microwaves are: the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages through low -power microwave relay antennas, military and civilian radar systems, the trans- mission of signals between ground stations and satellites, and the trans- mission of signals in certain broadcasting operations. Certain medical devices use microwave frequencies in therapeutic applications of RF radia- tion. WHAT ARE TYPICAL USES OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Many uses have been developed for RF energy. Familiar applications involving telecommunications include AM and FM radio, television, citizens band (CB) radio, hand -held walkie-talkies, amateur radio, short -wave radio, cordless telephones, and microwave point -to -point and ground -to- satellite 2 telecommunications links. Non telecommunications applications include micro- wave ovens and radar, as mentioned above. Also important are devices that use RF energy in industrial heating and sealing operations. The latter devices generate RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being pro- cessed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food. These RF heaters and sealers have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items, such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products. Medical applications of RF radiation include a technique called diathermy that takes advantage of RF energy's ability to heat tissue below the body's surface rapidly. The term "hyperthermia" is used in reference to therapeutic RF heating of cancerous tumors. RF energy is also used in the stimulation of bone healing. WHAT IS NON- IONIZING RADIATION, AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM IONIZING RADIATION? The energy associated with electromagnetic radiation depends on its frequency (or wavelength); the greater the frequency (and shorter the wave- length), the higher the energy. Therefore, x- radiation and gamma radia- tion, which have extremely high frequencies, have relatively large amounts of energy; while, at the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum, ELF radiation is less energetic by many orders of magnitude. In between these extremes lie ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and RF radiation (including microwaves), all differing in energy content. Of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation, x- radiation and gamma radiation represent the greatest relative hazard because of their greater energy content and correspondingly greater potential for damage. In fact, X -rays and gamma rays are so energetic that they can cause ionization of atoms and molecules and thus are classified as "ionizing" radiation. Ionization is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules, producing molecular changes that can lead to significant genetic damage in biological tissue. Less energetic forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as RF and microwave radiation, lack the ability to ionize atoms and molecules and are classified as "non- ionizing" radiation. It is important that the terms, "ionizing" and "non- ionizing," not be confused when referring to electromagnetic radiation, since their mechanisms of interaction with the human body are quite different. Biological effects of (non- ionizing) RF radiation are discussed in a later section. HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION MEASURED? Since radiofrequency radiation has both an electric and a magnetic com- ponent, it is often convenient to express intensity of a radiation field in terms of units specific to each component. The unit "volts per meter" (V /m) is used for the electric component, and the unit "amperes per meter" (A /m) is used for the magnetic component. We often speak of an electro- magnetic "field," and these units are used to provide information about the levels of electric and magnetic "field strength" at a measurement location. Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "power density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from the RF emitter to be located in what is referred to as the "far field" zone of the radiation pattern. In closer proximity to the transmitter, i.e., in the "near field" zone, the physical relationships between the electric and magnetic components of the field can be complex, and it is best to use the field strength units dis- cussed above. Power density is measured in terms of power per unit area, for example, milliwatts per square centimeter (mW /cm When speaking of frequencies in the microwave range and higher, power density is usually used to express intensity since exposures that might occur would likely be in the far field zone. A detailed discussion of the physics of RE fields and their measurement can be found in Reference 1. WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF RADIATION? There is a relatively extensive body of published literature concern- ing the biological effects of RF radiation. The following discussion only provides highlights of current knowledge in this area. Detailed information on this topic can be found in References 2 -14. It has been known for some time that high intensities of RF radiation can be harmfLl due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food, and exposure to high RF power densities, i.e., on the order of 100 mW /cm or more, can result in heating of the human body and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage can result primarily because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat. Under certain conditions, exposure to RF power densities of about 10 mW /cm or more could result in measurable heating of biological tissue. The extent of' heating would depend on several factors including frequency of the radiation; size, shape, and orientation of the exposed object; duration of exposure; environ- mental conditions; and efficiency of heat dissipation. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, can be particularly susceptible to heating by RF energy because of the relative lack of' avail- able blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. Laboratory ex- periments have shown that short -term exposure to high levels of RF radiation (100 -200 mW /cm can cause cataracts in rabbits. Temporary sterility, caused by such effects as changes in sperm count and in sperm motility, is possible after exposure of the testes to high -level RF radiation. It should be emphasized that environmental levels of RF radiation routinely encountered by the public are far below the levels necessary to 1 produce significant heating and increased body temperature. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 98 -99% of the population in seven U.S. urban areas studied is exposed to less than 0.001 mW /cm (Reference 15). Howeve•, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments, where RF safety standards are exceeded and people could be exposed to potentially harmful levels of RF radiation. In addition to intensity, the electromagnetic frequency of RF radiation is important in determining the relative hazard. At a distance of several wavelengths from a source of RF radiation, whole -body absorption of RF energy by humans will occur at a maximum rate when the frequency of the radiation is between about 30 and 300 MHz. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon, RF safety standards take this frequency dependence into account. Therefore, as discussed in a later section, the most stringent standards are in this frequency range of maximum absorption. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., field intensities lower than those that would produce significant and measurable heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is less clear. A number of reports have appeared in the Russian and East European literature claiming a wide range of low -level biological effects. The low level effects on animals and humans reported in the Soviet and East European literature have included behavioral modifications, effects on the blood forming and immunological system, reproductive effects, changes in hormone levels, headaches, irritability, fatigue, and cardiovascular effects. However, further research is needed to confirm the existence of these effects and to determine whether they might constitute a health hazard, particularly with regard to long -term exposure. In recent years some Western scientists have also reported biological effects after exposure of animals and animal tissue to relatively low levels of RF radiation, These effects, often referred to as "non- thermal" effects, have included changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, and a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (discussed below). Experimental results have also suggested that microwaves might be involved in cancer "promotion" under certain conditions. However, contradictory experimental results have also been reported in many of these cases, and further experiments are needed to determine the generality of these effects and whether they constitute a threat to human health. It is possible that "non- thermal" mechanisms exist that could cause harmful biological effects in animals and humans exposed to RF radiation. However, whether this is the case remains to be proven. One of the "non thermal" biological effects that appears to be re- producible is the "calcium efflux" effect. This effect can be described as the observation that the release of calcium ions from animal brain tissue is enhanced after exposure to certain low intensities of RF radiation under discrete conditions of frequency and signal modulation. This effect has been observed at RF levels well below those necessary to produce heating of tissue. The extent to which this effect might indicate a hazard is not 5 presently known, and fL rther research is needed to determine the relevance, if any, of this phenomenon to human health. Another RF biological effect that has received attention is the so- called microwave "hearing" effect. Under certain specific conditions of frequency, signal modulation, and intensity, it has been shown that animals and humans can perceive an RF signal as a buzzing or clicking sound. Although a number of' theories have been advanced to explain this effect, the most widely-accepted hypothesis is that the microwave signal produces thermoelastic pressure within the head that is perceived as sound by the auditory apparatus within the ear. It is important to emphasize that the conditions under which this effect occurs would not normally be encountered by members of the general public. WHAT ARE SAFE LEVELS FOR EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY/MICROWAVE RADIATION? There is disagreement over exactly what levels of RF radiation are "safe," particularly with regard to low levels of exposure. In the Soviet Union and several Eastern European countries occupational and population exposure standards are generally more restrictive than existing or proposed standards in most Western countries. This discrepancy may be due, at least in part, to the likelihood that Russian and East European standards are based on levels where it is believed no biological effects of' any sort would occur, rather than where recognized hazards exist. Western standards generally are based on levels where hazards are known to exist, and a safety factor is then incorporated to provide sufficient protection. In the United States there is currently (early 1989) no official, mandatory federal standard for protection of the public or workers from potentially hazardous exposure to RF radiation. There is a performance standard established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for microwave ovens, but that standard is an emission standard (as opposed to an exposure standard that only defines acceptable levels of RF energy that can be radiated from microwave ovens. Until recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was developing federal guidelines "Federal Guidance for exposure of the public to RF radiation. However, the EPA recently stated its intention to defer that activity indefinitely. A federal RF radiation protection guide for workers was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1971 but it was later ruled to be advisory only. This protection guide was based on an earlier RF exposure standard recommended by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non government organization that develops recommended standards for a variety of applications. To date, OSHA has not updated its 1971 guideline, although its sister agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has been working on a recommended worker standard for RF exposure for several years. There is currently no indication that NIOSH will issue a recommendation in the near future. 6 In 1982, ANSI issued revised RE protection guidelines based on more recent data on the interaction of RF radiation with the human body. The ANSI protection guide is probably the most widely used and technically supportable exposure standard available today. As discussed in a later section of this bulletin, the FCC now uses the ANSI protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the RE transmitters it regulates. The 1982 ANSI guidelines recommend frequency- dependent exposure limits covering RF frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz (Reference 16). The guide- lines incorporate data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30 -300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW /cm as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. The ANSI standard was developed over a period of several years by scientists and engineers with considerable experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues. The recommendations were based on a determination that the threshold for hazardous biological effects was approximately It watts per kilogram (4 W /kg) "W /kg" is an expression for the rate of energy absorption in the body given in terms of the "specific absorption rate" or "SAR"]. A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. In other words, the protection guides can be correlated with an SAR threshold of about 0.4 W /kg. The guidelines are intended to apply to non occupational as well as to occupational exposures. However, ANSI states that because of "limitations in the biological effects data base" the guide indicates upper limits of safe exposure, particularly for the general public. It should be noted that ANSI is currently (early 1989). in the process of revising its 1982 standard in light of more recent data on biological effects. Therefore, a new ANSI recommendation may be forthcoming in the next one or two years that could be more restrictive with respect to some exposure situations. In particular, the new guidelines could differentiate between exposure of workers and expo- sure of the general public using an approach similar to that followed by other standard setting organizations (see later discussion). The 1982 ANSI guidelines are summarized in the following table. Note that recommended exposure levels are given in terms of the squares of' the electric and magnetic field strengths as well as in terms of power density. For the lower frequencies listed, intensities are best expressed in terms of field strength values, and the indicated power density is essentially a "far field equivalent" power density. At higher frequencies, and when one is in the "far field" of a radiation source at any frequency, the actual power density is an appropriate unit to use. It is important to remember that the ANSI standard is a "time- averaged" standard, i.e., it is permissible to exceed the recommended limits for short periods of time as long as the average exposure (over 6 minutes) does not exceed the limits. 7 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) 1982 RADIOFREQUENCY.PROTECTION GUIDE Electric Field Magnetic Field Frequency Strength Strength Power Range E H Density (MHz) (v /m (A /m (mW /cm 0.3 -3 400,000 2.5 100 3 -30 4,000 (900/f 0.025 (900/f 900/f 30 -300 4,000 0.025 1.0 300 -1500 4,000 (f /300) 0.025 (f /300) f /300 1500 100,000 20,000 0.125 5.0 NOTE: f frequency in megahertz (MHz) E electric field strength squared H magnetic field strength squared V /m volts squared per meter squared A /m amperes squared per meter squared mW /cm milliwatts per centimeter squared The 1982 ANSI RF protection guide excludes radiating devices with input powers of seven watts or less that operate at frequencies between 300 kHz and 1000 MHz (1 GHz). The guidelines also state that the exposure limits may be exceeded if exposure conditions can be shown to produce specific absorption rates below 0.4 W /kg, as averaged over the whole body, or below 8 W /kg, as averaged over any one gram of tissue. Other organizations besides ANSI have issued health and safety stan- dards for RF radiation. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) is a nonprofit corporation chartered by the U.S. Con- gress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation pro- tection, radiation measurements, and related issues. In 1986, the NCRP issued a report (Reference 11) that contained a review of the literature on biological effects of radiofrequency radiation as well as specific re- commendations for exposure of workers and the general public. The NCRP exposure guidelines differ from the 1982 ANSI protection guide in that separate exposure levels are recommended for workers and for the general public. The NCRP recommendations for worker exposure are essen- tially the same as the ANSI recommendations. However, NCRP recommended that the average exposure limits for the public be generally one -fifth that of the limits recommended for workers, although the averaging time specified for public exposure was 30 minutes rather than the 6- minute period for -8 worker exposure. The NCRP noted that its two- tiered recommendation was more traditional and consistent with past NCRP practice in differentiating between occupational and public exposure by providing for a greater margin of safety for the general public. Exposure guidelines have also been issued by the International Radia- tion Protection Association (IRPA) and by the American Council of' Govern- mental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The IRPA guidelines (Reference 17) are similar to the NCRP recommendations in that a greater degree of protec- tion is recommended for the general public than for workers. The ACGIH guidelines (Reference 18) are basically a modified version of the 1982 ANSI guidelines and only apply to workers. Largely because of the lack of guidelines from the Federal Government, some local and state jurisdictions have adopted, or have considered adop- ting, population and /or occupational standards for RF radiation. Local or state RF standards have been established or proposed in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Many of these standards are more restrictive than the 1982 ANSI standard for exposure of the general public. HOW SAFE ARE MICROWAVE OVENS? The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), a part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has regulated radiation from microwave ovens since 1971. CDRH has established a radiation performance standard for microwave ovens that allows leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface) of 1 mW /cm at the time of manufacture and a maximum level of 5 mW /cm during the lifetime of the oven. The standard also requires ovens to have two independent interlock systems that prevent the oven from generating microwaves the moment that the latch is released or the door of the oven is opened. On the basis of current knowledge about microwave radiation, CDRH believes that ovens that meet its standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for use. IS IT SAFE TO USE AN ELECTRONIC CARDIAC PACEMAKER NEAR A RADIOFREQUENCY DEVICE SUCH AS A MICROWAVE OVEN? In the past there may have been occasional problems due to signals from RF devices interfering with the proper operation of certain implanted electronic pacemakers. Because pacemakers are electronic devices, they can be susceptible to electromagnetic signals that could cause them to malfunc- tion and thereby incorrectly regulate a user's heartbeat. However, it is doubtful that signals from a microwave oven would be strong enough to cause such interference. This situation has now been largely remedied by the incorporation of electromagnetic shielding into the design of modern pacemakers. This 9 shielding prevents undesirable RF signals from being picked up by the electronic circuitry in the pacemaker. The potential for the "leads" of pacemakers to pick up RF radiation has also been of some concern, but this does not appear to be a serious problem. Patients with pacemakers should consult their physician if they believe that they may have a problem related to RF interference. However, there should be no problem of electromagnetic interference from a properly maintained and operated microwave oven. HOW SAFE IS THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EMITTED BY RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING ANTENNAS? Radio and television broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves. These signals can be a significant source of RF energy in the environment since there are currently over 11,000 radio and TV stations on the air in the United States. Broadcast stations transmit at various RF frequencies, depending on the channel, ranging from about 550 kHz for AM radio up to about 800 MHz for some UHF television stations. Frequencies for FM radio and VHF television lie in between these two ex- tremes. Ground -level intensities of the RF electromagnetic fields resulting from broadcast transmissions depend on several factors, including the type of station, design characteristics of the antenna being used, power trans- mitted to the antenna, height of the antenna, and distance from the antenna. Calculations can be performed to predict what field intensity levels would exist at various distances from an antenna. Since energy at some frequen- cies is absorbed by the human body more readily than energy at other fre- quencies, the existence of a possible hazard would depend on the frequency of the transmitted signal as well as the intensity. Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high -level fields t7a might exist near an antenna. easu made by EPA and others (References 15 and 19 ave shown thaw RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facil- ities are generally well below levels believed to be hazardous. There have been a few situations around the country where exposure levels have been found to be higher than those recommended by applicable safety standards (e.g., Reference 20). But such cases are relatively rare, and few members of the general public are likely to be routinely exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation from broadcast towers. In unusual cases where exposure levels pose a problem, there are various steps a broadcast station can take to ensure compliance with safety standards. For example, high intensity areas could be posted and access to them could be restricted by fencing or other appropriate means. In some cases more drastic measures might have to be considered, such as re- designing an antenna, reducing power, or station relocation. 10 Maintenance workers are 'occasionally required to climb antenna struc- tures for such purposes as painting, repairs, or beacon replacement. Both the EPA and OSHA have reported that in these cases it is possible for a worker to be exposed to hazardous levels of' RF radiation if work is per- formed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating antenna (References 21 and 22). Therefore, precautions should be taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to hazardous field in- tensities. Such precautions could include temporarily lowering power levels while work is being performed, having work performed only when the station is not broadcasting, using auxiliary antennas while work is performed on the main antenna, and establishing work procedures that would specify the minimum distance that a worker should maintain from an energized antenna. IS THERE ANY DANGER FROM POINT -TO -POINT MICROWAVE RELAY ANTENNAS? WHAT ABOUT DISH ANTENNAS USED FOR SATELLITE -EARTH COMMUNICATION? Point -to -point microwave relay antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances. These antennas are usually rectangular or circular in shape and are normally found mounted at the top or midway up a supporting tower. These antennas have a variety of uses such as transmitting telephone and telegraph messages and serving as links between broadcast or cable -TV studios and their broadcast antennas. The microwave signals from these antennas travel in a directed beam from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively narrow beam is minimal or in- significant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Such levels are much lower than power levels used, for example, by broadcast stations. Measure- ments have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave direc- tional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. In fact, an individual would likely have to stand directly in front of such an antenna for a significant period of time in order to be exposed to microwave levels that might be considered harmful. In addition, as an added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally made inaccessible to the general public. Satellite -earth stations consist of parabolic "dish" antennas, some as large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit or receive microwave signals via satellites in orbit around the earth. The satellites receive the signals beamed up to them and, in turn, retransmit the signals back down to an earthbound receiving station. These signals allow a variety of communications services to be performed, including long distance tele- phone service. Since earth station antennas are directed toward satellites above the earth, the transmitted beams point skyward at various angles of inclination, depending on the particular satellite being used. Because of the longer distances involved, power levels used to transmit these signals are re- latively great when compared to those used for the microwave point -to -point relay links discussed above. However, .as with the microwave relay links, the beams used for transmitting earth -to- satellite signals are relatively narrow and highly directional. In addition, public access to a station site would normally be restricted. For these reasons it would be unlikely that a transmitting earth station antenna could expose members of the public to hazardous levels of microwaves. Some earth station antennas are used only to receive RE signals. Since these antennas do not transmit any signals, there would, of course, be no danger of exposure from them. WHAT ABOUT PORTABLE RADIO TRANSMITTERS? IS THERE ANY RISK FROM EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM HAND -HELD WALKIE- TALKIES, CELLULAR TELEPHONES, VEHICLE MOUNTED ANTENNAS, OR CORNERS TELEPHONES? "Land- mobile" communication refers to a variety of communications systems which involve the use of portable RF transmitters. Police radio, business radio, and cellular radio are a few examples of these com- munications systems. They have the advantage of providing communications links between various fixed and mobile locations. Cordless telephones are consumer products that also make mobility possible in communication, al- though over shorter distances. There are basically three types of RF transmitters associated with land mobile systems: base station transmitters, vehicle- mounted trans- mitters, and hand -held transmitters. The antennas used for these various transmitters are adapted for their specific purpose. For example, a base station transmitter must transmit to a relatively large area, and, there- fore, its antenna would generally be more powerf it than a vehicle- mounted or hand -held radio transmitter. Although base station antennas usually operate with higher power levels than the other types of land- mobile antennas, their powers are still quite a bit lower than high- powered transmitters such as most radio and television broadcast stations. Land mobile base station antennas are normally in- accessible to the public since they must be mounted at significant heights above ground to provide for adequate signal coverage. Also, many of these antennas transmit only intermittently. For these reasons, base station antennas have generally not been of concern with regard to possible hazar- dous exposure to RF radiation. Transmitting power levels for vehicle- mounted antennas are generally less than those used by base station antennas but higher than those used for hand -held units. At least one manufacturer recommends that users and other nearby individuals maintain a distance of a few feet from a vehicle- mounted antenna during transmission. However, studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution, particularly when the "duty factor" (percentage of time the antenna is actually transmitting) is taken into account since safety standards are "time- averaged." The extent of any possible exposure would also depend on the actual power level and frequency 12 used by the vehicle- mounted antenna. In general, there is no evidence that there is any safety hazard associated with RF exposure from vehicle- mounted antennas. Hand -held portable radios such a s walkie- talkies and cellu]ar radios are generally low-powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used (usually only a few watts or less) these radios would normally not be considered as possible sources of hazardous exposure to RF fields. However, questions relating to the safety of these devices have arisen because the RF signal is emitted in the immediate vicinity of the user's head and some of' these radios use microwave frequencies. At least one manufacturer has conducted extensive tests of hand -held radios operating at various frequencies in order to determine the amount of' RF energy that might be absorbed in the head of an individual using one of these devices. The only potential hazard found could occur in the unlikely event that the antenna tip was placed directly at the surface of the eye. Other studies (e.g., Reference 23) have concluded that during routine use of hand -held radios exposures would normally be in compliance with accepted safety guidelines. Significant absorption might occur if the transmitting antenna of the radio were placed within a distance of about 1 -2 centimeters (less than an inch) from the head or eye. However, this would be a very unlikely user position, and even if it occurred the overall time- averaged exposure would probably be acceptable. Therefore, if hand -held radios are used properly there is no evidence that they could cause hazardous absorp- tion of' RF energy. Cordless telephones are consumer products that use RF energy to com- municate with a telephone "base" unit. These devices operate at very low power levels, and there is no evidence that users experience any significant RE exposure. WHICH FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Several agencies in the Federal Government have been involved to various degrees in investigating or controlling human exposure to RF radia- tion. By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) develops performance standards for the emission of radiation from electronic products including X -ray equipment and other medical devices, television sets, microwave ovens, and sunlamps. As discussed previously, CDRH has established a radiation safety standard for microwave ovens that limits the amount of radiation that an oven can leak throughout its lifetime. However, leakage standards have not been issued for other RF- emitting devices. 13 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for protecting workers from exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. In 1971, OSHA issued a protection guide for exposure of workers to.RF radiation [29 CFR 1910.97]. The guide, covering the frequency range between 10 MHz and 100 GHz, stated that expo- sure of workers should not exceed a power density of ten milliwatts per square centimeter (10 mW /cm as averaged over any 6- minute period of the workday. However, this guide was later ruled to be only advisory and not mandatory. Moreover, it was based on an earlier (1966) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) RF protection guide that has been superseded by revised versions in 1974 and 1982 (see previous discussion of standards). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has for some years been considering issuing a recommendation for occupational exposure to RF radia- tion that would be transmitted to OSHA for consideration in establishing an exposure standard for workers. However, at the present time (early 1989) there is no indication from NIOSH as to when such an official recommendation might be forthcoming. There is currently no official federal standard for exposure of the general public to RF radiation. It is generally agreed that federal responsibility for developing national guidelines for public exposure to non ionizing radiation rests with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Until recently, EPA was developing "Federal Guidance" for RF radia- tion that would have recommended safe levels of exposure for the public. If approved, such a recommendation would have been transmitted to other federal agencies for implementation. However, as noted previously, EPA has apparently decided to abandon that effort and to "defer" indefinitely its program dealing with non ionizing electromagnetic radiation due to budgetary constraints and a lack of resources. At press time it was unclear whether that decision might be reversed. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FCC IN EVALUATING POTENTIAL RADIOFREQUENCY HAZARDS? The FCC licenses and approves equipment and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. Although the FCC would not knowingly authorize a facility or device that resulted in a health hazard, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area. Therefore, the FCC must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters. The issue of potential hazards due to RF radiation emitted by FCC regulated facilities was first addressed by the Commission in a 1979 Notice of Inquiry. Subsequently, several other items related to RF radiation hazards have been approved by the Commission. The FCC's basic policy was outlined in a 1985 Report and Order [50 Fed. Register 11151, 1985]. As an agency of the Federal Government, the FCC has certain re- sponsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 14 to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of facilities and operations must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. The 1985 FCC Order made clear that human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC regulated entities is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In making the determination that environmental RE radiation would be evaluated, the Commission decided to specify the 1982 ANSI RF radiation protection guides (see earlier discussion of standards) for use in determin- ing safe levels of exposure for the public and for workers. It was decided that, in view of the lack of an official standard issued by a federal agency such as EPA, the FCC must use what it considered to be the best available standard at the time. The 1982 (non government) ANSI standard was chosen because it was considered to be widely accepted and technically supportable. Because of the 1985 FCC Order and subsequent adopted items, major RF transmitting facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite -earth stations, and experimental radio stations, are subject to environmental evaluation for compliance with the identified RF health and safety guidelines. Failure to comply with these guidelines could lead to preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement and possible rejection of an application for a transmitting facility. Facilities and operations that operate with lower power levels or are judged to offer insignificant environmental risk from RF radiation have been categorically exempted from these requirements. The FCC's rules on evaluation of environmental RF radiation are found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations CFR 1.1307(b)]. Guidelines for compliance with the FCC's rules can be found in an FCC technical bulletin (OST Bulletin No. 65, Reference 2 Subsequent FCC items adopted since the first Order have dealt primarily with which RF sources are subject to the RF environmental rule and which are excluded [52 Federal Register 132 1987; 52 Federal Register 1 49032, 1987; 53 Federal Register 28223, 1988; 53 Federal Register 1 40918, 1988]. WHERE CAN FURTHER INFORMATION BE OBTAINED REGARDING RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION AND RELATED MATTERS? Within the Federal Government the number of individuals assigned to this area is relatively small, and some agencies are reducing or eliminating personnel in this field. Nevertheless, it is usually possible to obtain at least some basic information concerning RF transmitters or problems. The following federal agencies should be able to provide some information and assistance in this area. FDA: Questions about radiation from microwave ovens and other consumer and industrial products can be directed to: Center for Devices and Radiolog- ical Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20857. 15 EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation Programs M. St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193 -8517) studies exposure of' the public to RF radiation. However, at the present time (early 1989) EPA has apparently decided to phase out the Washington office that deals with RF exposure and to limit future EPA activities in this area to its Las Vegas office. OSHA /NIOSH: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health Response Team (390 Wakara Way, P.O. Box 8137, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108) has been involved in studies related to occupational exposure to RE radiation in the past. However, OSHA has limited involvement in this area at the present time. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) maintains a limited program for studying exposure of workers to non- ionizing radiation. The address is: NIOSH, Physical Agents Branch, 1 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. FCC: The FCC maintains a limited program in this area. Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC regulated transmitters can be directed to the Spectrum Engineering Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, Washington, D.C. 2055 In addition to federal agencies, there are other sources of information and possible assistance regarding environmental RF energy. A few states maintain non ionizing radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field. These state activities are usually part of a department of public health or environmental control. Also, the list of references at the end of this bulletin should be consulted for detailed information on speci- fic topics related to RF exposure. A non government source of information on RE energy is the Electro- magnetic Energy Policy Alliance (EEPA), an organization that provides educational and other services in this field. EEPA is an association of' manufacturers and users of' electronic and electrical systems. The group's self- described purpose is "to work for a responsible and rational public policy regarding electromagnetic energy." EEPA's address is: 1255 23rd St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. REFERENCES [Reports with NTIS Order Numbers are U.S. Government publications and can be ordered for a fee from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, (800) 336 -4700] (1) "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements," NCRP Report No. 67, 1981. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda, MD 2081 (301) 657 -2652. 1 6 (2) "Symposium on Health Aspects of Nonionizing Radiation," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 55 (11), December 1979. (3) "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic En- ergy," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68 (1), January 1980. (4) Gandhi, 0.P., "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of RF Elect- romagnetic Fields," IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 30(11):1831 (1982). (5) Cleary, S. F., "Microwave Radiation Effects on Humans'," BioScience, 33(4): 269 (1983). (6) Petersen, R.C., "Bioeffects of Microwaves: A Review of Current Know- ledge," Journal of Occupational Medicine, 25(2): 103 (1983). (7) Lerner, E.J., "The Drive to Regulate Electromagnetic Fields, IEEE Spectrum, March 1984, p. 63. (8) Steneck, N.H., Ed., Risk /Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case, 1982, San Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA 94101. (9) "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Report No. EPA 600/8-83-026F, 1984, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS Order No. PB85- 120848. (10) Steneck, N.H., The Microwave Debate, MIT Press, 1984, Cambridge, MA. (11) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electro- magnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 657 -2652. (12) Foster, K.R., and A.W. Guy, "The Microwave Problem," Scientific Ameri- can, 255(3): 32 (September 1986). (13) Gandhi, 0.P. (ed.), "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation," IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 6(1): 14 -58 (March 1987). (14) Yost, Michael G.,. Nonionizing Radiation Questions and Answers," 1988. San Francisco Press. Copies may be purchased from: San Francisco Press, Inc., Box 6800, San Francisco, CA 94101 -6800. (15) Athey, T.W., et al., "Radiofrequency Radiation Levels and Population Exposure in Urban Areas of the Eastern United States," Tech. Report EPA 520/2-77 -008, 1978, U. S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, [NTIS Order No. PB 292 855]. (16) "American National Standard Safety Level with Respect to Human Expo- sure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 Ghz," ANSI C95.1 -1982. American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. Purchasing information: (212) 354 -3300. 17 (17) "Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz," Health Physics, 54(1): 115 -123 (1988). (18) "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work Environment Adopted by ACGIH for 1983 -1984; Radiofrequency /Microwave Radiation." Ameri- can Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1983. ACGIH, 6500 Glenway Ave., Bldg. D -5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211. (19) Tell, R. A., and E. D. Mantiply, "Population Exposure to VHF to UHF Broadcast Radiation in the United States," Technical Note ORP /EAD 78 -5, June 1978, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency [NTIS order No. PB 284 637]. (20) "An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Lookout Moun- tain, Jefferson County, Colorado," Electromagnetics Branch, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV 89114, February 1987. (21) Curtis, Robert A., "Occupational Exposures to Radiofrequency Radiation from FM Radio and TV Antennas," in Non Ionizing Radiation: Proceedings of a Topical Symposium, 1980, ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH 45201. (22) Tell, R. A., "A Measurement of RF Field Intensities in the Immediate Vicinity of an FM Broadcast Station Antenna," Technical Note ORP /EAD -76 -2, 1976, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, [NTIS order No. PB 284 637]. (23) Cleveland, R.F., Jr., and T. W. Athey, "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Models of the Human Head Exposed to Hand -Held UHF Portable Radios," Bioelectromagnetics, Volume 10(2), 1989 (in press). (24) "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation," OST Bulletin No. 65, 1985, Federal Communi- cations Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. NTIS Order No. PB86- 127081. ZEW ©0 '0 o 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 3438 Planning Commission Susan Riggs AR -91 -016; 14375 Saratoga Ave (GTE Mobilnet) DATE: 9 /11/91 ITEM 11 Request for administrative approval to construct a 40 ft. monopole cellular transmission tower within the Professional and Administrative (P.A.) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The following is the chronological history of events leading to this appeal: !II 3/27/91 Planning Commission denied a request for a use permit to construct a 50 ft. monopole cellular transmission tower based on the adverse visual impacts it would have on the surrounding office and residential uses and the inability to mitigate the visual impacts of the tower. 5/1/91 Applicant appealed the denial by Planning Commission to City Council. Direction from Council was for applicant to return to the Planning Commission as plans had been revised to show two, 50 ft. tall, wood telephone type transmission towers. 6/12/91 Applicant returned to Planning Commission with a new proposal to construct two, 50 ft. tall, wood telephone type cellular transmission towers. Applicant requested two weeks continuance to study possibility of reducing height of towers to 40 feet. 7/23/91 Applicant submitted application for administrative review to construct one, 40 ft. tall monopole cellular transmission tower. 7/25/91 Notice of administrative review sent to surrounding property owners within 500 ft. of project site. 000091 8/9/91 Proposal for 40 ft. transmission tower denied by Planning Director. Ten day appeal period began. 8/16/91 Applicant appealed administrative decision to deny project. DISCUSSION: The Planning Director denied the application for Administrative Review approval based on the inability to screen or mitigate the visual impacts of the 40 ft. tall transmission tower. Section 15- 80.080 of the City Code states that the antennas and their support structure shall be screened as much as possible by architectural features, fences, or landscaping to minimize the visual impacts of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -ways. During the 10 day administrative review period, several concerned neighbors and business owners reviewed the plans for the proposal. All were concerned about the inability to screen the visual impacts of the transmission tower. Concerns were also raised regarding the effects the transmission waves would have on nearby electronic equipment. A further concern involved the required parking standards for the existing office use. CELLULAR TRANSMISSION INTERFERENCE: In the City's "letter of denial" to the applicant (attached) staff requested information on cellular transmission waves and their effects on nearby electronic equipment should they appeal the denial. GTE did not include this information in their appeal letter. In a phone conversation with Mr. Newman, Radio Engineering Supervisor for GTE Mobilnet, Mr. Newman stated that the transmission tower would cause no interference with nearby electronic equipment. He stated that he would provide supporting documents to back his claims prior to the Planning Commission meeting. To date, this information has not been received. Mr. Newman stated that GTE would remove the transmission tower should any interferences occur. Mr. Newman recently submitted a summary of comments prepared for the Public Utility Commission by the Cellular Carriers Association and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (attached). The report discusses health and safety issues and basically states that the low levels of emissions from cellular transmission are safe and do not in any way pose a danger to the health of the general public. The report stated that "analyses of emissions from typical cellular transmission facilities demonstrate that public exposure to such emissions are several hundred times or more below the most stringent U.S. standard PARKING REQUIREMENTS: According to a Planning Commission staff report which involved a 000092 second story addition to the existing office building in 1981, 26 parking spaces were required. The transmission tower will eliminate one of the required parking spaces. Therefore, the applicants will need to provide an additional parking space in order to comply with the conditions placed on the office building. According to the City Traffic Engineer, there is adequate room for an additional parking space south of the proposed tower and along the rear of the building. This also allows for the required 24 ft. backup space for the cars parked along the rear property line. Should this application be approved, one additional parking space must be provided and indicated on the site plan. CONCLUSION: In summary, staff does not feel that they can support the 40 ft. tall transmission tower as proposed. The tower is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance in that surrounding properties would be adversely impacted. Section 15- 18.010 (a) Purposes of the Article, states that one of the purposes of the Professional and Administrative zone district is to provide harmonious transitional uses between commercial and residential districts. Given the unavoidable impact of this proposal, and the visual impact it creates for the adjacent business and property owners, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal. Staff feels that the visual impacts could be mitigated if the applicant were to use one, 40 ft. wood telephone type pole with the screening devices on top as discussed at the 6/12/91 Planning Commission meeting. Staff also would recommend a wood fence enclosure in place of the proposed chain link fence. Staff also feels that the concerns regarding possible interference with the adjacent uses has not been adequately addressed by the applicant. Due to the absence of the requested information regarding the possible effects the transmission tower may have on nearby electronic equipment, staff feels they have no other choice than to recommend denial of the application. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application without prejudice. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence 2. Denial of Application, Dated 8/9/91 3. Appeal Letter, Dated 8/16/91 4. Public Utilities Commission Summary 5. Memorandums Dated 6/12/91 with Attachment 000093 EISI August 8, 1991 Mr. Steven Emslie Planning Director, City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie: Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Ave. Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867-6611 RECEIVED AUG 0 9 1991 PLANNING DEPT. Subject: Your 7/25/91 letter (APN 397 -31 -011) regarding a use permit for GTE MOBILNET to install a transmission tower at 14375 Saratoga Ave. This letter is in follow up to our 8/6/91 telephone conversation. I own the office building at 14395 Saratoga Ave, at the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road corner, immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed construction. I stated my opposition to the proposed construction during the 3/27 and 6/12 public hearings, and in my 6/5/91, and 6/19 letters (copies attached) to the planning commission. I urge you not to approve the use permit. In addition to the reasons that I and all of the surrounding property owners and tenants have already given, please consider the following. Human health hazard. An experienced ham radio operator recently has warned me of the potential hazard of exposure to high- intensity RF radiation. The frequency range for cellular transmissions is 880 -890 mhz, which is getting up near the microwave range. I have been able to obtain a little information from GTE about the characteris- tics of their planned installation. Apparently the maximum effective radiated power in each of the three directional sectors would be 900 watts (100 watts /channel x 9 channels). A GTE engineer, Matt Fuerter, stated to me on 8/7 that he was unaware of any California or US regulations that require that they take human safety into account in the design and placement of these antennas. 1 am following up on that question with California and US officials, and urge you to do so also. If no regulations exist, then something needs to be done as soon as possible to correct that deficiency. It is well known that RF radiation, if sufficiently intense and if continued over long enough time, will cause tissue damage. I am sure that you are aware of recent public- ity regarding suspected links between RF radiation and cancer (e.g. numerous cases of brain cancer in workers at the county office building). Anyone who assumes that state and federal governments have all potential health hazards well regulated ought to check out the recent news from Dunsmuir. What is especially disturbing about the proposed installation is: RF radiation will be emitted virtually continuously throughout the day. Tissue damage effects due to RF radiation are cumulative. The antenna height is only 40 feet, so the upstairs part of my building will be virtually in direct line with the high intensity portion of the RF radiation field. People on our upper decks and maintenance workers on our roof will be directly exposed with no shielding at all to the full force of the radiation. The power level of the transmitter is extremely high. Mr. Fuerter told me that transmitters in satellites 22000 miles in space operate at about the same power level (1000 watts). I understand that ham radio operators when transmit- ting in this frequency range do so at a power level of 5 to 10 watts and Sincerely, transmit only intermittently. So this installation would be worse than having several hundred ham transmitters (or a couple of microwave ovens with no doors) next door to us. Parking space. trash bin location. While this point is minor in comparison to the foregoing, it should be noted that the proposed installation would eliminate at least one, and possibly 2 parking places. The number of parking spaces at 14375 Saratoga is way below code requirements, so it would certainly be inappropriate for the City to allow it to be reduced further, thereby encouraging illegal parking at my building next door. A related point is that the fenced -in antenna enclosure would include the area where the trash enclosure now sits. Where will the trash bin go? (hopefully not back onto my property as in the recent past!). Spot Rezoning. Ordinance 71.91 (2/20/91) is, in effect, spot rezoning without prior notification to any of the surrounding property owners whose vital interests are at stake. According to GTE's 4/8/91 letter to the city council, "if GTE cannot estab- lish the cell site at this location in the P -A district, there will be no cellular communi- cation service in the village area;" i.e. GTE pinpoints this location as the one and only spot for placement of such a facility, therefore the one specific location affected by ordinance 71.91. To the best of my knowledge, none of the surrounding property owners or business tenants were informed that the city was considering such an ordinance. I hope that in the future when your staff is reviewing proposed measures, you will give those whose property and /or business interests may be affected a fair chance to express their opinion and raise questions before your staff makes its recom- mendation to the council. Would another cellular transmitter in Saratoga be useful? Who would it benefit? Has the City independently checked on GTE's 4/8 assertion that without the new tower "there would be no cellular service in the Saratoga Village area Several local cellu- lar telephone users have told me that reception in the village area may be a little sub- standard at times, but is basically OK as is. The proposed tower would (a) dump all of the potential health hazards and computer malfunction risks on me and the other nearby property owners and tenants, (b) greatly harm our views, and (c) make our office space harder to lease, and less valuable. We would have to absorb all of the damages and risks and others (principally GTE) would get all of the benefits. If improved cellular service is really desirable, why exclude residential zones as potential sites? Surely there are much better locations in residential zones in the hills, not close to houses, where trees would screen the antenna. If that were to cost GTE more money, then it would be their problem as it should be and not mine. Yossarian would understand completely. GTE's attorney has expressed the Catch -22 view that GTE is in compliance with the city's requirement to screen the installation as much as possible because there is virtually nothing that they can do to screen it (see the second paragraph on page 2 of GTE's 4/8/91 letter to the city council). GTE's attorney appears to regard my property only as a screen that would partially hide the tower from view from the village. I find that outrageous. W. D. Whetstone President Attchments: my 6/5 and 6/19 letters to the Planning Commission 000095 MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS August 8, 1991 GLORIA H. FELCYN. CPA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14395 SARATOGA AVENUE. SUITE 110 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-7100 Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie: Re: Use Permit for GTE MobileNet to install a transmission tower at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. RECEIVED AUG 0 9 1991 PO$T OFFICE' 1� ,��T. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95071 0989 FAX: (408) 741-3451 I have just learned that your office is intending to move forward to approve the issuance of a Use Permit for the construction of two (2) Monopole Cellular Transmission Towers at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. On June 5, 1991 I wrote a letter expressing my strong opposition to this matter. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your reference. I am both horrified and distressed at the apparent lack of consideration that your office is showing regarding a project that combines a number of concerns including: I have been provided with a copy of Mr. W.D. Whetstone's letter addressed to you dated August 8, 1991. I have read Mr. Whetstone's letter very carefully and am in complete agreement with its contents. Please be advised that in addition to having my business office right next door to this proposed structure, my home is only two block away. I have spoken about this matter with a dozen of my neighbors and they are all in agreement in opposing a structure of this type. I fully intend to support Mr. Whetstone and have indicated to him that I will join in whatever action need be taken to halt or reverse the issuance of this Use Permit. C rdially yours, 1. Human health hazards 2. Business Services interruption oria H. iE:elc ertified Publ c Accountant GHF j s Encl. 0000 SG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATOR 14393 SARATOGA AVENUE SUITE 110 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -7100 4. MEMBER AM MBER ERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS June 5, 1991 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: UP -90 -011 Cellular Antenna /14375 Saratoga Avenue Dear Group: POST OFFICE BOX 989 SARATOGA. CALJFORNIA 95071-0989 FAX: (408) 741-3451 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the issuance of a Use Permit to construct two (2) fifty foot tall Monopole Cellular Transmission Towers at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. My office is located at 14395 Saratoga Avenue. I have been at this location since 1985 and am planning to stay at this location for quite some time. The very thought of something as unsightly appearing and towering over everything else in a town of which I am so proud of, does not fit in with something that the Planning Commission should approve. Our office is completely computerized and I am well aware that this type of antenna can create interference with computers. What recourse do I have if valuable customer data on my computer is interfered with or lost as a result of these towers. If there is no limit on the height of anything to be built in the Town of Saratoga then there should be. As a business owner as well as a resident of Saratoga, I oppose any thought of such an installation of this type. I sincerely hope that this will be taken into consideration. Cordially yours, ria H. Fe rtified Public Accountant F:js 000©x`7 REALTY WORLD' 411 Mr. Stephen Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie: JPL:dl Each office independently owned and operated REALTY WORLD Moser Long 14363 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -3491 Fax: (408) 867 -7758 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, August 12, 1991 RECEIVED AUG 12 1991 PLANNING DEPT. /Gr: 6 115- I am writing to express my opposition to the issuance of a use permit and /or building permit for a GTE Mobilnet Cellular Antenna at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. I express this opposition as both the property manager of the office building immediately adjacent to the site, and as a home- owner in the condominiums also adjacent to the site. I feel very strongly that such an installation violates the very spirit of the zoning ordinance in that PA zone is specifically to provide a hormonious transition between commercial and residental zones, and provide a suitable environment for office buildings. I do not believe that this antenna fits into the purpose of a PA District, nor do I believe that such a huge and unsightly structure belongs less than 90 feet from an occupied residence. In addition, I do not feel any visual mitigation would improve the looks of such an installation. oseph P. Long, Jr. REALTY WORLD' THE RESULTS PEOPLE.' 00OO 8 Printed on reCvCle0 2.2oer August 9, 1991 Mr. Don Deblanc GTE Mobilnet /TEA 3375 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95050 Dear Mr. Deblanc, OTEW cD2 13777FRLIT\'. \1_EAVENUE SAR. \TOG \.CALIFORNIA 03O7c) 4081 867.3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: blar!ha /1/r;eT �r7.8 -•a^cs The ten day review period for administrative review to construct a 40 ft. tall cellular transmission tower at 14375 Saratoga Avenue has ended. During this ten day period we have had several concerned neighbors and business owners who would be affected by the proposed antenna review the plans. All were concerned about the visual impacts of the antenna and the inability to mitigate these impacts. Section 15- 80.080 states that antennas and their support structure shall be screened as much as possible by architectural features, fences, or landscaping to minimize the visual impacts of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public right -of -way. Based on this, the Planning Director has denied your application due to the inability to screen or mitigate the visual impacts of the antenna. If you wish to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission, you must do so within ten days from receipt of this notice; Monday August 12, 1991. Should you appeal this denial to the Planning Commission we request that you also provide the following information in your appeal submittal: 1. What effect will the transmission waves have on nearby electronic equipment? 2. What effect will the transmission waves have on wireless communication devices either currently available or which may be available in the future? 3. How does GTE ensure that their transmission waves will not interfere with nearby electronics? What assurances be given? 4. Additional technical reports from a disintereste third GTE Page 2 Sincerely, Susan Riggs Planning Director party would help refute or clarify what GTE says about the interference issue. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 867 -3438. 000100 M atteoni Saxe Nan L A W Y E R S August 16, 1991 PMC:md n m �d Lnc.,p.,,r.,;�,mai p RECEIVr AUG 20 199 PLA\1NLNG G. Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Notice of Appeal of Administrative Decision A c jl loo TO: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission GTE Mobilnet appeals the administrative decision of the Planning Director denying design review approval of GTE's installation of a 40 -foot antenna at 14375 Saratoga Avenue for cellular communication. GTE's application was denied "due to the inability to screen or mitigate the visual impacts of the antenna." It is GTE's position that its application was denied in violation of Sec. 15- 19.020, Para. (a)(6) which provides that: "(6) Antennas operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone communications, not exceeding 40 feet in height. are permitted uses in any commercial district. GTE's proposed antenna is 40 feet in height, is located in a commercial district and therefore is a permitted use. The purpose of design review is to condition a project relating to color selection, location, landscaping, etc., not to prohibit an otherwise permitted use. The denial of design review approval is an attempt by the Planning Director to prohibit a use that is permitted. 774 l'och PEGGY M. KER Attorne or GTE Mobilnet, Inc. i Ltk renter !74C Tchn, d, tg. Drive Mate 25C' Sa Jose. CA 951 1 C 4C,7 44I i.RCC FAX 4CR -;.C Norman E. Maaeont Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda Peggy M. Cocker Debra L. Cauble 000101 September 5, 1991 Ms. Susan Riggs Radio Engineering Supervisor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Susan: Enclosed, please find a copy of the summary of the Comments of the Cellular Carriers Association of California and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association prepared for the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. The complete report is on file at the commission office in San Francisco, dated January 15, 1991. I will forward you a complete copy in the next three days. Sincerely, Cole Newman CN:tjn Enclosure TEA 000102 1301 Hightower Trail Suite 300 Atlanta. Georgia 30350 (404) 992-7003 Fax (404) 992 -8432 April 8, 1991 RBCOG6.P50 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's own motion to develop policies and procedures Investigation for addressing the potential No. 91 -01 -012 health effects of electric and (filed January 15, 1991) magnetic fields of utility facilities. COMMENTS OF THE CELLULAR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION GRAHAM JAMES Martin A. Mattes Rachelle B. Chong Richard L. Goldberg One Maritime Plaza, Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 954 -0200 Attorneys for CELLULAR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 000103 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS OF THE CELLULAR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION The Cellular Carriers Association of California "CCAC and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association "CTIA recognize the importance of this Commission's investigation of the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields associated with utility facilities. Prior to this investigation being opened, the cellular industry had begun study of the complex and highly technical issues related to the evaluation of such health effects with the assistance of leading researchers whose work has been in progress in this field for several decades. CCAC and CTIA welcome the opportunity to inform the Commission of the scientific community's consensus that the very low levels of emissions from cellular transmission facilities are safe and do not in any way pose a danger to the health of the general public. This conclusion is supported by two of the foremost scientific experts in the field, Dr. Arthur W. Guy, Professor and Director of the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Center for Bioengineering at the University of Washington, and Dr. Don Justesen, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. In declarations attached hereto, Dr. Guy and Dr. Justesen attest that the power density levels of emissions from cellular transmissions to which the public is exposed are well below permissible exposure standards set by numerous RBCOG6.P50 V 000104 independent scientific bodies to ensure the health and safety of the public. Their conclusion is further supported by measurements taken in and around cellular transmission facilities. These measurements demonstrate that the power density levels in the vicinity of such facilities are significantly lower than the permissible exposure levels that have been scientifically determined to be safe. Based on a review of the literature relating to radio frequency radiation, as well as an evaluation of the analysis undertaken by the standard setting bodies, CCAC and CTIA can state with confidence that neither cellular carriers' employees nor the public are exposed to harm from cellular radio transmissions. Cellular transmission facilities operate in the 800 to 900 megahertz "MHz frequency range. Research has proven that the biological effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation are frequency dependent. The ultra high frequency radio wave transmissions of cellular carriers are very different and fully distinguishable from the fields associated with electric power transmission and distribution lines and must be considered independently. Accordingly, Dr. Guy and Dr. Justesen have focused their review on the significant body of scientific research relating to radio frequencies and have identified nearly 10,000 scientific papers and references relating to studies of biological effects associated. with radio frequency exposure. These papers and references have served as a data base for the RBCOG6.P50 vi 000105 setting of permissible exposure levels to ensure public protection from adverse health effects from radio waves. Because biological effects are induced by the body's absorption of energy, permissible exposure standards are set to limit the specific absorption rate of energy to a maximum level. Based upon the large volume of scientific data which has been subject to independent peer review, both the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements "NCRP and the American National Standards Institute "ANSI have developed standards incorporating substantial safety margins for human exposure to electromagnetic energy. Analyses of emissions from typical cellular transmission facilities demonstrate that public exposure to such emissions are several hundred times or more below the most stringent U.S. standard. Actual measurements of cell sites operating under maximal operating conditions with all channels broadcasting simultaneously demonstrates that, even under these conditions, the power density reading represents only 1% of the current ANSI exposure standard. Typical energy levels associated with cellular transmissions are several hundred times below the NCRP permissible exposure standard for cellular radio frequencies. As indicated by both the scientific data and the actual field measurements discussed on the pages that follow, power densities from cellular facilities are substantially lower than the levels reported in the scientific literature as causing any RBCOG6.P50 vii 000106 biological effects, and well below both the NCRP and ANSI standards. Consequently, the probability that any member of the general public could be exposed to hazardous levels of radiofrequency radiation from a cellular transmission facility is essentially zero. Dr. Arthur W. Guy, chairman of the NCRP scientific committee which set the 1986 NCRP guidelines to limit exposure to radiofrequency radiation, is direct in his assessment that emissions from cellular transmission facilities are safe: Exh. 1, at 40 -41. In view of the strong scientific support for the conclusion that power densities generated by cellular facilities will cause no adverse health effects, and given the existence of well established scientific bodies which devote significant resources to the development and maintenance of standards establishing maximum permissible levels for human exposure to radio frequency radiation, there is no need for this Commission to formulate an active regulatory response to constrain the development of cellular transmission systems in order to protect the public from harm. Nor is there any need for this Commission to dedicate and spend its scarce resources on further research in RBCOG6.P50 Based on the reported thresholds of biological effects in the scientific literature, the recommendations of all standard setting groups in the world (including the most conservative of the USSR), and the form of radio wave modulation, it is my opinion that emissions from cellular transmission facilities are safe and do not pose any threat to the health of the general population. viii 0001e7 this area. Sufficient reliable scientific data already exists to determine accurately the conditions under which exposure to radio 110 waves does not result in harmful effects. Existing scientific and professional institutions, engaged as they are in an ongoing review of radio frequency energy and related biological effects, provide this Commission with sufficient assurance that cellular transmissions will continue to pose no threat to the public's heath. RBCOG6.P50 ix 0001C8 UTIn"( cD2 gi3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Susan Riggs, Assistant Planner UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for use permit to construct two, 50 ft. tall cellular transmission towers within the Professional and Administrative office (P -A) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. BACKGROUND: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 DATE: 6/12/91 The Planning Commission originally reviewed this application at their March 27, 1991, public hearing. The Commission concurred with staff that the proposed antenna would be highly visible and would have an adverse impact on the surrounding office and residential uses. Staff was not able to make the finding that the proposed use was in accordance with the zoning ordinance, as the visual impacts could not be mitigated. Based on this, the Planning Commission denied the application. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The grounds for their appeal were as follows: 1. The proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements. 2. Section 15- 18.020 of the City Code was recently amended to allow an antenna to extend to a height not greater than 60 ft. in the P -A and Commercial zone districts. 3. The antenna is screened as much as possible by various architectural features. 4. There is no other location in which to locate the antenna and still service the Saratoga Village area. The applicant submitted new, revised plans at the City Council hearing in an attempt to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding detrimental visual impacts to the surrounding properties. Based on the fact that the applicant submitted new plans which had: not been reviewed previously by the Planning Commission, the File No. UP -91 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue Council directed the applicant to resubmit the plans for the Commission's review. NEW PROPOSAL: The initial proposal called for a 50 ft. tall monopole cellular transmission tower with two, 4 ft. diameter transmitting devices attached at the top of the pole. The new proposal replaces the monopole with two, 50 ft. tall wood telephone type poles. The poles are equipped with three, 1 ft. wide by two and half ft. long, box shaped directional antennae mounted flush against the pole. While the elimination of this apparatus has helped reduce the bulk of the structure, it necessitates the need for an additional pole in order to receive both the "send" and "receive" signals. The towers are proposed to be erected in the rear of the parcel in basically the same location, with the second antenna located approximately 12 ft. in front (west) of the other. The antenna's will be secured with a six ft. high fence with access provided through a locked gate. The antennae comply with the setback requirements for the P -A zone district as well as with the height requirement. CONCLUSION: Staff remains unable to make the findings that this use is in accordance with Section 15- 18.010, 15- 80.080, and 15- 55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance as the visual impacts have not been significantly mitigated. The telephone poles, although possibly more aesthetically pleasing as they are wood structures as opposed to aluminum, do not alleviate the visual impact. The greatest impact is the result of the bulk and mass of the antennae themselves. Although the mass and bulk has been somewhat minimized with the there will now be a total of two poles and six directional antennae (three on each pole) which staff feels will be highly visible thus creating an adverse impact on the adjoining residential and business uses. Based on this, staff is not able to recommend approval of the revised proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application without prejudice. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution, UP -91 -011 2. Correspondence 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" 4. Appeal Application 000110 MEMBER POST OFFICE BOX 989 AMERICAN INSTITUTE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95071-0989 OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FAX: (408) 741-3451 June 5, 1991 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: UP -90 -011 Cellular Antenna /14375 Saratoga Avenue Dear Group: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the issuance of a Use Permit to construct two (2) fifty foot tall Monopole Cellular Transmission Towers at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. My office is located at 14395 Saratoga Avenue. I have been at this location since 1985 and am planning to stay at this location for quite some time. The very thought of something as unsightly appearing and towering over everything else in a town of which I am so proud of, does not fit in with something that the Planning Commission should approve. Our office is completely computerized and I am well aware that this type of antenna can create interference with computers. What recourse do I have if valuable customer data on my computer is interfered with or lost as a result of these towers. If there is no limit on the height of anything to be built in the Town of Saratoga then there should be. As a business owner as well as a resident of Saratoga, I oppose any thought of such an installation of this type. I sincerely hope that this will be taken into consideration. Cordially yours, ria H. Felcy rtified Public Accountant F:js GLORIA H. FELCYN. CPA' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14395 SARATOGA AVENUE. SUITE 110 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-7100 000111 REALTY WORLD' REA. if WORLD Moser Long 14363 Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga. CA 95070 Telephone: (408) 867-3491 Fax: (408) 867 -7758 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: UP -90 -011 Cellular Antenna /14375 Saratoga Avenue I am writing to express my opposition to the issu- ance of a use permit for a cellular telephone antenna at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. Section 15- 18.010(a) (Purposes of a Professional and Administrative Office District) reads: To reserve appropriately located areas for harmonious transitional uses to serve as buffers between residential and commercial districts. The proposed antenna is not only twice as high as any building in the area, but it would tower over most of the trees. This antenna might blend in if it were just a slim tapered mast, but this type of antenna has large unsightly housings at the top. In my capacity as a homeowner in the complex adjacent to the antenna site, I oppose this installation because it will be unsightly, it will obscure our view of the hills, and it certainly does not fit the "transition to residential" purpose stated in the code. In my capacity as building manager of the office building adjacent to the antenna site, I oppose it as being unsightly in a non commercial zone, and for the possible interference it will cause in telephone, radio, television, and computer installations. JPL:dl Eau+ odds +dsPendsnCY omened and ooe+swd Thank you for your consideration. cerely, LG/ ,Joseph P. Long, Jr. Long, Jr March 20, 1991 cooi REALTY WORLD' M RUM, TS HfOKL' City Of Saratoga June 4, 1991 Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 RE: UP -90 -011 Cellular Antenna /14375 Saratoga Avenue Dear Sirs: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed cellular telephone antenna at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. Floreat has been at the creekside offices since June, 1990. Currently, we employ 5 engineers, all engaged in hardware and software development for high performance computer workstations. All of us at Floreat consider the placement of an ugly antenna in the beautiful creekside setting inappropriate for the following reasons: 1) The high frequency radio waves (in the 500 MHz band) will most likely interfere with our existing computer equipment and preclude our migration to any future wireless Local Area Networks (LANs) similar to the ones proposed by Apple and Motorola. 2) Since this spring, we have noticed a family of migratory ducks (canards from Canada we think) in the creek right outside our office windows. They have built a home here and lately six or seven ducklings can be seen following the mother around in their search for food in and around the creek. We are afraid that any construction activity at or near this site will surely scare the ducks away. 3) As Electrical and Communication engineers we believe that if Saratoga is to be served with a cellular tower, a location can be found that is far better suited than the proposed one. I live off Pierce road, where intervening small hills will block any line -of -sight transmission to the proposed creekside setting a much better site would be one on a hilltop overlooking all of Saratoga. Sincerely, 000113 Sidhartha Maitra, Ph. D. p resident loreat 14395 Saratoga Avenue Suite 150 Saratoga California 95070 (408) 867 -6708 FAX (408) 867 -7958 EISI June 5, 1991 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: UP -90 -011 GTE MOBILNET, 14375 SARATOGA AVE. Fifty foot tall transmission towers Dear Commission Membeis: Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Ave. Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 6611 I own the office building at 14395 Saratoga Ave, immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed construction. I strongly oppose the proposed construction for the following reasons: (1) It would be grossly unsightly and totally inappropriate environmentally to the beautiful creekside setting along Saratoga Creek. (2) We are software developers. All of the other businesses in our building also use computers. We are adamantly opposed to the nearby placement of radio transmission equipment, which is highly likely to cause computer malfunctions. At the 3/27/91 public meeting of the Planning Commission, I raised that point. The GTE Mobilnet engineer responded at that time to the effect that when that sort of thing has happened before. that they have worked out ways to get around the problem. Translation: yes, it happens. If computer malfunctions occur sporadically, it may be very difficult and time consuming to pinpoint the cause, so that even though a problem caused by radio transmission may eventually be "solved," irreparable loss may have been sustained before the cause is clearly established. How long would it take GTE to investigate a suspected malfunction? We certainly do not want to be under that kind of cloud. Sincerely, W. D. Whetstone President 00011 <t NAS Cap) 511 ry ll oN Nfr• Imo' LE (e�F 180) (N) 2)ThO,941 .FP NA I.ES TA WX P Pe' (20'1 iy.60 s P1140 tip 2 4 CoF G 1) al) c!•13w 1f Power°+ sullt,Fr FKO4 2b ri,a3K PN 11itJIdA rvt. (k4/ V5321- sulPogsis PIS FOP. 0 (E) F1RL freGrIGG I NEW,REVISED PROPOSAL (N) ras Cad (6� lt„V, len 11t 1•PD 7/01/4- (2 G 4o' &lee 10 Cz ?ezoo' EXHtbi i A (N) A4rrONA -toWaz. (F c I (r /s1141' FLAT 64 1+ (E) 1 FiRR fr,GGer MIMI I INITIAL PROPOSAL 0 2 a '-o tt, 1p. +s IAI1TiNh p iic6s (op IBo p 04c f-1) etEteiRg- C ft— Proposal: Olf g \-/5-22 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 5/1/91 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director. SUBJECT: Appeal of UP -90 -011; Location: 14375 Saratoga Ave. Applicant Appellant: GTE Mobilnet Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's denial of the use permit. The applicant, GTE Mobilnet, proposes to construct a 50 ft. monopole cellular transmission tower on a property zoned Profes- sional- Administrative Offices (P -A). The property is currently developed with a two -story office building and is located at the entrance to the Village, near the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The cellular transmission tower is intended to provide cellular phone service to the southern portion of Saratoga which according to the applicant now receives marginal to non existent service. Background: GTE Mobilnet applied for a variance in mid -1990 to install a similar antenna at Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. A result of the Council's denial of the variance was the adoption of a revised ordinance to establish regulation for the placement of cellular antennae, a technology not widely available when the ordinance was last amended. The Planning Commission adopted an ordinance which requires a use permit for antennae higher than 40 ft. and less than 60 ft. The applicant applied for a cellular antenna at both the Village location, which is the subject of this appeal, and the Saratoga Avenue /Lawrence Expressway locations which was approved by the Planning Commission. Both antennae were virtually identical in height and appearance, but their respective locations were quite 1 000116 .ti LdG�.0 t l ca u urararar. a MEETING DATE:5/1/91 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue Applicant /Appellant: GTE Mobilnet Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of the use permit. Report Summary: The Planning Commission determined that although the proposed 50 ft. cellular transmission tower would provide cellular phone serv- ice to a portion of the City currently receiving only marginal service, the detrimental visual impacts to the surrounding proper- ties did not enable the Planning Commission to find the proposal consistent with the objectives of the zone district. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution UP -90 -011 2. Appeal 3. Correspondence 4. Minutes 5. Staff Report dated 3 /27/91 Motion and Vote 000117 dissimilar. The Planning Commission approved the antenna at Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway finding that the antenna was removed from surrounding residential and commercial uses resulting in minimal visual impacts. However, the Planning Commission was unable to reach the same findings for the Village location. The Planning Commission found the Village site is surrounded by developed residential properties that would have direct views of the antenna, while the staff's analysis explored possible miti- gating factors such as landscaping, it reported that in this location it would be impossible to adequately screen the antenna from surrounding properties. The following summarizes the Planning Commission findings in denying the project: 1. The cellular transmission tower is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance in that surrounding properties would be adversely impacted. Analysis: Testimony directed at the Commission's hearing indicated that both the surrounding residential and office uses would have direct views of the structure which would detract from the enjoyment of these properties. Section 15 18.010, Purposes of the Article found in the P -A zone district indicate that the purpose of the district is to provide harmonious transitional uses between commercial and residen- tial district. Given the unavoidable impact of this propos- al, and the visual impact it created, the Planning Commis- sion was unable to find this objective would be met if the project were to be approved. 2. The Planning Commission found that the antenna would not comply with Section 15 -80 -080, Mitigation of Visual Impact found in the City's Antenna Ordinance. The provisions of this section require that the visual impact be screened to avoid adverse impact. The Planning Commission found that no amount of screening would be adequate to avoid impact to the vicinity. 3. Section 15- 55.070, Findings required for issuance 1 a use permit sets forth a finding that the granting of the use permit will maintain the public's health, safety and wel- fare. Insofar as the Planning Commission determined that the proposed antenna materially injured surrounding proper- ties, this finding was not present in the Planning Commis- sion analysis. The applicant indicates that much of Saratoga is marginally serv- iced by cellular phone service. The installation of the antenna 2 000118 topography or tne City. H. service a the increasing numbers of cellular users city's tional antennae are required in the southern portions of the City. The Village location was expressed by addi- necessary to provide phone service to the entire community. ant as Also expressed by the applicant was the antennae in Saratoga. Possibility of additional increased number of cellular a phone understands nwill h re quir require the e need for possibly two additional cell sites. technology, an The Planning Commission clearly understood from the applicant that if the Village cell site were not approved of the City would be deprived of cellular hone service. However, the adverse impact to the surrounding and installed, P ssrwa of this project. more serious consideration in the Planning Commlssiol n'sanalysis analysis r SE /dsc Stephe Emsl e Planning Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution UP -90 -011 2. Appeal 3. Correspondence 4 Minutes 5 Staff Report dated 3/27/91 3 000119 Name of Appellant: GTE MOBILNET /TEA Address: 3375 Scott Blvd.,.' #318, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 492 -1377 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: UP -90 -011 Project Address: 14375 Saratoga Avenue Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit to install a 50 foot monopole to operate a cellular telephone'facility. Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached): Please see attached letter of appeal. 15v 1 V.s,uY*aaw.. Fee: APPEAL APPLICATION Hearing e: /S, v d 11- a rc r APR 9 1391 Appell ant's Signature Cole Newman, GTE Mobilnet /TEA *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION )MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE or THE DECISION. 000120 Maeon1 axe 40 \an LA yiis April 8, 1991 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal of Denial of Use Permit (UP -90 -011); GTE Mobilnet, 14375 Saratoga Avenue Dear Mayor Stutzman and Members of the City Council: GTE Mobilnet is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission denying its request for a conditional use permit to establish a 50 foot monopole antenna to operate a cellular communications facility at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. The grounds for this appeal is that the Commission's denial of this conditional use permit was improper given that the proposed installation of the cellular telephone facility located in the P -A zoning district meets all applicable zoning requirements. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 71, Section 15- 18.020 regarding the P -A zoning district was amended to allow, as a conditional use, antennas operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone communica- tions, where such antennas are more than 40 feet in height, including the antenna support structure, provided, however, that no such antenna shall exceed 60 feet in height without the granting of a variance. Subparagraph (e) of Section 15- 80.010 provides that the setbacks for a cellular telephone communication facility shall be at least 20 feet from a front property line, at least ten feet from any side property line, and at least 20 feet from a rear property line, except that if the property line is adjacent to a residential district, the antenna shall be at least 40 feet from such property line. .gym ,.„...cutoun Irriuung a 0.,,(mumd C.,ry. K.xiak Center 174C Tecnn('(ogV Dnte 25C San Joie C. Ji 4:1'9 44! .Ct. FAX 4 44l Norman E Matteuni -\ilan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker .\unia Peggy Cocker Debra L. Cauble 00©121 Honorable City Council April 8, 1991 Page Two GTE's proposed cellular communications facility is to be located in the P -A zoning district. The proposed height of the monopole is 50 feet within the conditional permitted use height. The facility also meets the setback requirements. Staff indicated in its report that the use would be in violation of Section 15- 80.080(g) because the monopole antenna is not adequately screened. This code section, however, does not preclude the installation of the antenna. It requires that it be "screened as much as possible by architectural features, fences, or landscaping to minimize the visual impact." It is GTE's position that given this particular site, the antenna is screened as much as possible. It is located in the rear of the lot, behind a two -story office building. In addition, there are some trees to shield its visual impact. Unfortunately, GTE can only do so much to minimize the impact of a 50 foot monopole. There are only two zoning districts in Saratoga where such a monopole can be established, in the P -A zone and the C district. As you are well aware, there are few P districts and commercial districts in the City of Saratoga. Presently, the Saratoga Village has marginal to zero cellular telephone coverage. This proposed site would service the Saratoga Village and the surrounding one mile radius. In GTE's opinion, in terms of visual impact, it is better to locate the cellular facility on the east side of Highway 9 in the P -A zone district rather than on the west side of Highway 9 in the Village area, zoned CH -1 and CH -2. Also, Staff noted that GTE needed to research and find a more appropriate and less sensitive site for the cellular facility. Unfortunately, there is no other sone district where this monopole can be established. The recent cell site established at Lawrence and Quito will not service the Village area. GTE was unable to locate across Saratoga Avenue, at the fire station, because of a lack of space. Consequently, if GT2 cannot establish the cell site at this location in the P -k district, there will be no cellular communication service in the Saratoga Village area. 0001.2 Honorable City Council April 8, 1991 Page Three In considering this appeal, we also request the City Council to consider GTE's public utility status and the public service provided by cellular communications. Not only does cellular communication benefit the residents of Saratoga who have car phones, it is also vital in emergency situations where conventional telephone lines are down. In summary, it is GTE's opinion that GTE should be granted a conditional use permit to operate a cellular telephone communication facility at the proposed site located in the P -A zone district which meets all of the appropriate zoning code requirements and will provide necessary cellular telephone coverage to the Saratoga Village area. PMC:md cc: Cole Newman, GTE Mobilnet /TEA Very truly yours, 0 PEGG -M COCKER 000123 3/27/91 Minutes Commissioner Forbes cited the requirements for findings to approve a variance. He commented that undoing the project, cutting the deck back, relocating the piers, relocating the beam, etc. weigh more heavily than the requirements. He recommends that the variance be approved. Mr. Emslie responded that if an employee or agent of the City makes a mistake or error, the City is not bound by that error, and case law exists to support that position. He informed the Commission that it is not obligated to approve the variance based on someone making a mistake. Mr. Emslie specified the significant testimony given to the Commission that may be overshadowed by the permit. He referred to Ms. Bennett's statement regarding the substantial parking area off Canyon View, a narrow street. Consequently, her house is situated further back, depriving her of the right enjoyed by other people with adequate parking on site. Additionally, the site's topography included fill which failed during an earthquake, and there was a need to correct it by removing a large amount of fill and placing the posts down into that area below the deck. Mr. Emslie stated that the applicant was constrained topographically by an unstable situation which had to be corrected. Commissioner Durket agreed with Mr. Emslie's comments, and stated he is comfortable making the findings for the variance. Commissioner Moran asked whether a special circumstance for granting the variance could be due to the fact that the applicant has approval from the City to do the construction. Mr. Emslie responded in the negative, and again explained that the City is not bound by a Staff error or mistake. Commissioner Bogosian commented that after tonight's testimony and presentation, he would be able to find that the variance should be granted subject to finding that the narrow street required a larger front yard setback to provide off street parking, that the presence of uncompacted fill restrained the applicant's enjoyment of the property, and that there were no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood. MOTION PASSED 6 -0. I. UP-90 -009 GTE Mobilnet, 17777 Saratoga Ave., request for use permit approval to construct a 240 sq. ft. GTE Mobilnet cellular equipment room and a 45' tall monopole to operate a cellular communication system within the P -A Zone District per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991, to the• Planning Commission. 0001.2.1 15 3/27/91 Minutes Ms. Susan Riggs, City Staff Planner, described the site as a triangular lot with two sides on the City of San Jose side. Staff has visited the site and concurs with the applicant that the project is an appropriate use for the irregular shaped lot. Ms. Riggs distributed photographs of the site to the Commissioners. Responding to Commissioner Caldwell's question, Ms. Riggs said that the total height of the structure including the antenna is 45 feet. Commissioner Bogosian asked the City Attorney what findings must be made to approve or disapprove a use permit. The City Attorney responded that the first finding is that a permit is required for height. The second part is the normal findings the Commission would make for any other use permit. Commissioner Tucker noted that the findings are outlined in page 65, sections a, b, and c of the agenda packet. Commissioner Forbes reported that the Land Use Committee visited the site. He asked whether the transmitting and receiving could be set on PG &E (Pacific Gas and Electric) lines. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m. Ms. Peggy Cocker, attorney for GTE Mobilnet, addressed the Commission, providing a brief history of the project. She indicated that transmitting and receiving cannot be put on PG &E poles because of potential technological problems, specifically interference with the radio. She stated there is a dire need for more cell sites in Saratoga. Mr. Cole Newman, 3375 Scott Boulevard, #318, Santa Clara, addressed the Commission as the engineer for GTE Mobilnet. Responding to Commissioner Forbes' question, Mr. Newman stated that the antennas need to be placed a bit higher than the height of the existing buildings in the particular vicinity. Commissioner Bogosian asked whether the Montgomery Ward building (in Westgate Mall) which probably exceeds 30 feet in height, would be out of range. Mr. Newman stated that cell sites are placed every three to four miles, and if one site moved, it creates an imbalance in the entire system. Responding to Commissioner Forbes inquiry, Mr. Newman indicated that two cell sites are planned for the City of Saratoga now and probably one or two may be added over the next two years. As technology changes, there is a possibility that future systems can be placed on a building rooftop. Mr. Newman noted that the City of Saratoga has a tremendous amount of citizens with cellular phones, but there is marginal to zero 00012 5" 16 3/27/91 Minutes coverage in the City. The City currently gets peripheral signals from San Jose and other surrounding cities. Chairperson Tucker asked if the proposed total four antennas would serve all Saratoga citizens with cellular telephones or whether other companies would want to come in with their own antennas. Mr. Newman replied that the FCC divides the systems in half so that one company would not be able to control all of the market. GTE Mobilnet would serve only GTE Mobilnet customers. Responding to Commissioner Durket's concern, Mr. Newman stated that the sites are not manned, but they are visited once very two months. Commissioner Durket asked what precautions are taken to divert traffic and attractive nuisance. Mr. Newman said that all sites are fenced with chain -link around the site boundaries. Most of the ladders have side steps to get to the top, but, if necessary, the side steps could be removed from the ladder. Commissioner Forbes asked for clarification regarding eventually installing four towers. Mr. Newman stated that if demand from Saratoga citizens increases in the future, GTE Mobilnet might install more towers, but for now, two towers will suffice. Replying to Commissioner Moran's question, Mr. Newman commented that some of the systems reach out three to four miles, depending on the terrain and how well they are located. The proposed Westgate site will cover about a three to four mile radius. Mr. Don West, addressed the Commission as the owner of a building at 14395 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. He has been approached about using his building rooftop for a 50 -foot antenna cellular system. Mr. Newman stated he does not know which company approached Mr. Weston, but to get the maximum range out of the system, 45 feet is the optimum height. Commissioner Durket questioned whether this item is inter- mingled with the SKY project, the next item on tonight's agenda. Mr. Newman replied that the two projects tie -in, and if both items are not approved, part of the City of Saratoga will be without service. Commissioner Bogosian asked whether the height could be lowered if more antennas lowering the range were installed. Mr. Newman responded that they could be lowered to near 35 feet. He pointed out when the system was first developed in the Bay Area, the towers were at least 100 to 150 feet tall. With technological changes and addition of new and more sites, the height has been reduced to 45 feet, and in some areas, to 35 feet. 000126 17 3/27/91 Minutes Commissioner Forbes questioned what other sites the applicants had attempted to locate the tower. Mr. Newman responded that they explored several areas in the vicinity, but the City concurred that the site under consideration was the best site. Mr. Weston again addressed the Commission. He referred to a Mr. Long, a neighbor of the SKY project, who raised the question of interference between radio signals and wireless computer networks. Mr. Newman responded that GTE Mobilnet has had very few interference problems. They have been able to correct those which were interference problems caused by faulty equipment. CALDWELL /FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6 -0. CALDWELL /DURKET MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -90 -009. DURKET /MORAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, CONDITION #1 OF RESOLUTION NO. UP -90 -009 TO READ, "THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT `A,' INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REMOVAL OF THE SIDE STEPS ON THE POLE." REMOVAL OF THE WHIPS FROM EXHIBIT A. ADD CONDITION #4, "A REVIEW OF THE HEIGHT SHALL BE MADE EVERY YEAR." AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED 6 -0. MAIN MOTION PASSED 5 -1 (FORBES OPPOSED). 2. UP -90 -011 SKY, 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for use permit approval to construct a 240 sq. ft. GTE Mobilnet cellular equipment room and a 45' tall monopole to operate a cellular communications system within the P Zone District per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991 to the Commission, distinguishing the differences in the GTE Mobilnet project (previous item on tonight's agenda) and the SKY project. Ms. Riggs noted that the Commission received a letter dated March 20, 1991, from Mr. Joseph P. Long., Realty World, 14363 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, objecting to the project based on visual impacts. Commissioner Moran clarified that in the previous resolution (GTE Mobilnet), the proposed tower was found to be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance whereas the SKY project is not in accordance. 18 000121 Date: 3/27/91 IPN: 397 -31 -011 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location:. UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue .applicant /Owner: sky, A Ca. Ltd Partnership Staff Planner: Susan Riggs Director Approval: 000128 File No. UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXBCUTIVB SUNMAR' 10/25/90 3/14/91' 3/13/91 3/14/91 3/07/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for use permit to construct a 50 ft. tall monopole cellular transmission tower within the Professional and Administrative office (P -A) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project site is located in the rear of a rectangular parcel containing a two-story office building and a parking lot. The tower is within an office complex near the village and adjacent to a multi family condominium complex. Staff is not able to make the necessary finding to recommend approval of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution UP -90 -011. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP -90 -011 3. Correspondence 4. City Code Section 15- 80.080 (g) 5. Plans; Exhibit "A" 000129 File No. UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue ZONING: P A HEIGHT: 50 ft. SETBACKS: Front: N/A Rear: >50 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional and Administrative office PARCEL SIZE: 24,394 s.f. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Chain link fence with verticle redwood slats 50 ft. high monopole painted flat gray PROPOSAL Right Side: 10 ft. Left Side: >10 ft. Right side: Left Side: CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 60 ft. (w /use permit) Front: Rear: N/A 25 ft. (40' from residentialzones) 10 ft. 10 ft. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit to erect a 50 foot tall monopole cellular transmission tower in the P -A zone district. On February 20, 1991, the City Council adopted revisions to Section 15- 18.030 of the City Code, allowing communication towers /antennas to extend to a height of 60 feet without the need of a variance in the Commercial and P -A zone district. Currently, cellular phone service to Saratoga is being provided by towers outside of Saratoga and, according to the applicant, are not providing adequate service. Submitted concurrently with this application is a proposal to construct a 45' foot transmission tower at Saratoga Avenue near Lawrence Expressway. Staff felt that this was an appropriate location for this use and has recommended approval to the Planning Commission for that request. According to GTE, this single Lawremce Expressway tower will not provide ample service to the downtown Saratoga area. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is located at the rear of a rectangular shaped lot on Saratoga Avenue, one parcel east of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The rear most portion of the site slopes down a steep enbankment to the Saratoga Creek. The embankment is heavily wooded with mature oak trees providing screening of the 0001 1' File No. UP -90 -011; 14375 Saratoga Avenue rear portion of the site. Existing on the front portion of the site and extending back along the east side of the parcel is a two story office building. On the west side of the office building and also to the rear, is a parking lot. The parcel is surrounded by a mixture of zone districts. To the north is commercial and multi family, to the south P -A, to the west commercial and to the east multi family and P -A. Use Permit: The applicant is proposing to erect the 50 foot high tower struc- ture on the east side of the parcel directly behind the office building. The structure will be enclosed with a six foot high chain link fence with redwood slats. The tower will be most visible from the multi family condominium complex to the east of the site. The primary views from this complex are oriented towards an interior court yard thus somewhat minimizing the impacts the tower will have on this development. The views along the west side of the complex will be most impacted. The view from these second story bedroom windows look out onto a parking lot and a series of two -story office buildings. The tower structure will also be visible from the Village as the tower rises approximately 25 feet above the existing office buildings surrounding the site. Two large cedar trees located on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road help to screen the tower as one drives north on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. However, as one drives south on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road the tower will be quite visible. The tower will also be very visible from the Village area. To date staff has spoken with one property owner who is adverse to the proposal. Staff is not able to make the finding that this use is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance as the visual impacts cannot be mitigated. Section 15- 80.080 (G) of the City Code addresses mitigation of visual impacts (attached). It states that antennas should be screened as much as possible by architectual features, fences or landscaping. The present site lacks the mature landscap- ing necessary to adequately screen this tower. Staff feels that the applicants needs to research a more appropriate and less sensitive site for the placement of this tower. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution UP -90 -011. 000131 1111111 INIT REALTY WORLD' REALTY WORLD* Moser Long 14363 Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga. CA 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -3491 Fax: (408) 867 -7758 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 20, 1991 RE: UP -90 -011 Cellular Antenna /14375 Saratoga Avenue I am writing to express my opposition to the issu- ance of a use permit for a cellular telephone antenna at 14375 Saratoga Avenue. Section 15- 18.010(a) (Purposes of a Professional and Administrative Office District) reads: To reserve appropriately located areas for harmonious transitional uses to serve as buffers between residential and commercial districts. The proposed antenna is not only twice as high as any building in the area, but it would tower over most of the trees. This antenna might blend in if it were just a slim tapered mast, but this type of antenna has large unsightly housings at the top. In my capacity as a homeowner in the complex adjacent to the antenna site, I oppose this installation because it will be unsightly, it will obscure our view of the hills, and it certainly does not fit the "transition to residential" purpose stated in the code. In my capacity as building manager of the office building adjacent to the antenna site, I oppose it'as being unsightly in a non commercial zone, and for the possible interference it will cause in telephone, radio, television, and computer installations. JPL:dl E.o„ omm milmwomm ownw.ne oo.m"e Thank you for your consideration. rl icerely, vroseph P. Long, Jr. 000132 REALTY WORLD' ME 1/11111111711 ~ML' t Supp. #6, 8/87 Page 15 -183 Zoning Regulations S15- 80.080 (3) Ground mounted antennas, other than satellite dish antennas, shall not exceed thirty feet in height, except that licensed amateur radio station antennas may be erected to a height of sixty -five feet. (f) Instillation requirements. Every antenna and its support structure shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and National Electrical Code as adopted by the City, and in accordance with the following additional requirements: (1) The antenna support structure shall be of noncombustible and corrosive resistant material. (2) Satellite dish antennas shall be self- supporting without guy wires. (3) Whenever it is necessary to install an antenna near exposed utility lines, or where any property damage would be caused by the falling of the antenna support structure, a separate guy wire must be attached to the antenna or the support structure and secured in a direction away from the hazard. Exposed antenna transmission lines and guy wires shall be kept at least six feet distant from any exposed utility lines. (4) The antenna shall be adequately grounded for protection against a direct strike of lightning. (g) Mitigation of visual impact. Antennas and their support structures, including guy wires and accessory equipment, shall be located on the site and screened as much as possible by architectual features, fences or landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. The materials used in constructing the antenna and its support structure shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny or reflective. Conditions may be imposed upon the issuance of a building or use permit to mitigate the anticipated visual impact of the proposed antenna installation. (h) Existing antennas. This Section shall not apply to any satellite dish antenna lawfully installed prior to November 1, 1985, or any licensed amateur radio station antenna lawfully installed prior to May 21, 1986. Such antennas shall be allowed to remain as originally installed and shall not be considered nonconforming structures, but any relocation or increase in the size or height thereof shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Any person claiming an exemption shall have the burden of proving that the antenna was lawfully installed prior to the applicable date specified herein. (1) Variances. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant a variance from any of the regulations contained in this Section pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. In addition to the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060, the Planning Commission shall also find that the variance is required by reason of physical obstructions which adversely affect proper reception or transmission by the antenna. 000133