HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2009 Supplemental Council AgendaCity Clerk [Ann Sullivan]
From: amgibr pubs @yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:39 PM
To: City Clerk [Ann Sullivan]
Subject: Item 7 on CC 9/16/09 consent calendar (tonight) antennas
Attachments: Commercial antennas Sara.doc
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Alan and Meg Giberson
Follow up
Flagged
Attached, and below, are our comments for delivery to the Councilmembers regarding item 7 on tonight's CC
calendar that we are delivering by e -mail.
We speak specifically to proposed changes in the requirements for approval of "antenna facilities operated by a
public utility.... asking that conditional use permit requirements be retained.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
September 16, 2009
TO: Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council
FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson
RE: Item #7, City Council 9 /16/09 Consent Calendar conditional use permit requirement should be
retained in residential districts for "antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and
receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications"
Commercial antennas in residential neighborhoods: The conditional use permit requirement for "antenna
facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless
communications" should be retained for residential districts.
Commercial antenna facilities represent desirable infrastructure, but the changes in the ordinance that Saratoga
proposes allow them as a matter of right in residential areas. Location in residential neighborhoods, however,
may be problematic without the stricter standards of the conditional use permit that is currently required for
such antennas. A conditional use permit allows the community to address and minimize negative externalities
of these admittedly public structures, while retaining benefits to the community. Mere design review is
inappropriate.
Suggested standards, and reasons for retaining the conditional use permit requirement include:
1) The standards by which the installations are currently judged will differ substantially under the
proposed change. When a use is subject to a conditional use permit, as this use is currently, it is not a use as of
right. As Saratoga City Code "Code 15- 55.020 states,
"A conditional use permit is not a matter of right, and a use permit shall be denied or be subject to conditions if
the findings required by Section 15- 55.070 cannot otherwise be made."
i
The Code states,
"conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual
characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect
to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to
achieve these purposes, the Planning Commission and Director are empowered to approve (including
conditionally approve) or deny certain applications for conditional use permits in accordance with this Article,
subject to review by the City Council on appeal."
Code 15- 55.010. These antennas correspond to such unusual characteristics when located in residential
districts, and are appropriately governed through a conditional use permit process.
However, under the proposed changes, the commercial antennas would be a use as of right in residential zoning
districts, subject only to design review. Such re- designation indicates a presumption of suitability for the
zoning district; the design review considerations focus merely on aesthetics "to enhance the aesthetic qualities
of districts
Design review will not provide an opportunity for residents to challenge the location of the antennas; rather,
design review looks to colors, and a harmonious appearance where more than one structure will be built. In
contrast, the findings for issuance of a conditional use permit deal largely with location in relation to the zoning
ordinance and objectives of the district in
which the structure is to be placed— appropriate considerations in residential districts. See, e.g., Code 15-
55.070.
Further, the proposed new code would only require design review under Article 15 -46, which provides design
review for "multi- family dwellings and commercial structures." While the antennas clearly are commercial
structures, it is the location of those structures in single family residential districts that requires closer
examination.
Additionally, while height may be considered under the design review proposed "The proposed development
shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area." Code 15-
46.040(f)), the FCC —as noted in the documents produced for tonight's hearing— regulates these antennas. The
antennas' height may be controlled by the FCC without regard for the residential community's preference or for
the height of structures in the immediate area. Compliance with FCC regulations should be made clear in the
discussion and ordinance.
2) Technology is changing fast in this field; operational lifespans are short. Who will remove and replace the
outdated facilities in 18 months when newer, better tech becomes available? A removal bond should be
required as part of this code change. A proper engineering study could identify the best places to install better
and fewer antennas. This could minimize installations while providing assurance of community coverage.
Fewer, better installations in the best locations are preferable to many inferior ones, some of which may be
badly placed. The Center for Municipal Solutions reports that as many as 50% of the towers /antennas erected
in the last 5 years don't need to exist. A comprehensive engineering study could also preclude possible
interference with other communications and electronic devices.
3) A process, such as the conditional use permit process, is needed for better public input. Church steeples
(where one or more antennas have already been placed) are good places for the towers, as they afford sufficient
height for adequate broadcast and are already present in the community. Also, each antenna has a footprint. An
equipment shed is needed, with other installation equipment (of a fairly large size +750 square feet), as well
as guywires. A church steeple might be perfect— neighborhoods might not be. Easy approval —where
placement in a residential neighborhood is a right, subject only to design review— for antennas can create
blight as well as technical problems.
New technology can be both beneficial and welcome, but a good installation requires appropriate engineering,
which takes time. An investment in town infrastructure should be made properly and should not be done
quickly or badly. An engineering study that identifies appropriate locations for such antennas should be
undertaken, with a public hearing regarding its conclusions, before placement of any further antennas.
2
4) The playing field should be made level for all commercial enterprises; all companies should have the same
access and no one company should be allowed to dominate the field. An easier approval process promotes
exclusive contracts between a city and one company, allowing dominance by one company —bad for
competition and bad for citizens.
5) This proposed ordinance is insufficient because it: suggests no standards for the siting of the antennas;
does not encourage the use of existing structures as an alternative to new tower construction; does not
encourage the joint use of towers; does not demonstrate prevention of harm to the health, welfare, and visual
environment of Saratoga and its citizens.
6) Standards for antennas in residential single- family districts —and perhaps in multi family districts and/or
commercial districts as well should include the following requirements:
visual impact demonstrations using photo simulations of the proposed facility as it would be seen from
residential areas, public rights of way, and public parks (and other sites as deemed appropriate by the Planning
Department or Commission);
a height limit (FCC- mandated height requirements should be divulged to the public before ordinance
adoption);
proof of a bona fide need for the structure and that no reasonable combination of locations, techniques, or
technologies will obviate the need;
an instrument, required to be signed by the applicant and maintained by the city, agreeing to encourage and
promote the joint use of telecommunications towers within the city and, to that extent, committing that there
shall be no unreasonable act or omission that would have the effect of excluding, obstructing or delaying joint
use of any tower where fair and just market reasonable compensation is offered for such use;
no new tower shall be constructed without a setback from the tower's base of at least 1.5 times the tower
height to a public or private road and at least 2.5 times the tower height to the nearest property line;
equipment sheds should not exceed a set square footage and must be secured, as well as screened with
vegetation or other approved materials;
prior to commencing regular operation of the facility, all facility owners and operators must submit a
certificate of compliance with all current Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning
electromagnetic radiation and other electronic emissions applicable to the facility;
all facility operators and owners must sign an agreement, to be maintained by the city, agreeing to bring
facilities into compliance with any new federal, state, or local laws or regulations concerning electromagnetic
radiation and other electronic emissions applicable to the facility within 120 days of the effective date of the
regulations;
the owner of a facility shall establish a $10,000 cash security fund or provide the City with an irrevocable
letter of credit in the same amount to secure the cost of removing an antenna, antenna array, or tower that has
been abandoned;
in the event of a transfer of ownership, the seller shall be responsible for notifying the buyer of this
requirement and for notifying the City of the transfer.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan and Meg Giberson
3
September 16, 2009
TO: Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council
FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson
RE: Item #7, City Council 9 /16/09 Consent Calendar conditional use
permit requirement should be retained in residential districts for
antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and
receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications"
Commercial antennas in residential neighborhoods: The conditional use permit requirement for
"antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone
and other wireless communications" should be retained for residential districts.
Commercial antenna facilities represent desirable infrastructure, but the changes in the
ordinance that Saratoga proposes allow them as a matter of right in residential areas. Location in
residential neighborhoods, however, may be problematic without the stricter standards of the
conditional use permit that is currently required for such antennas. A conditional use permit
allows the community to address and minimize negative externalities of these admittedly public
structures, while retaining benefits to the community. Mere design review is inappropriate.
Suggested standards, and reasons for retaining the conditional use permit requirement include:
1) The standards by which the installations are currently judged will differ substantially
under the proposed change. When a use is subject to a conditional use permit, as this use is
currently, it is not a use as of right. As Saratoga City Code "Code 15- 55.020 states,
"A conditional use permit is not a matter of right, and a use permit shall be denied or be
subject to conditions if the findings required by Section 15- 55.070 cannot otherwise be
made."
The Code states,
"conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so
that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these
purposes, the Planning Commission and Director are empowered to approve (including
conditionally approve) or deny certain applications for conditional use permits in
accordance with this Article, subject to review by the City Council on appeal."
Code 15- 55.010. These antennas correspond to such unusual characteristics when located in
residential districts, and are appropriately governed through a conditional use permit process.
However, under the proposed changes, the commercial antennas would be a use as of
right in residential zoning districts, subject only to design review. Such re- designation indicates a
presumption of suitability for the zoning district; the design review considerations focus merely
on aesthetics "to enhance the aesthetic qualities of districts
Design review will not provide an opportunity for residents to challenge the location of
the antennas; rather, design review looks to colors, and a harmonious appearance where more
than one structure will be built. In contrast, the findings for issuance of a conditional use permit
deal largely with location in relation to the zoning ordinance and objectives of the district in
which the structure is to be placed— appropriate considerations in residential districts. See, e.g.,
Code 15- 55.070.
Further, the proposed new code would only require design review under Article 15 -46,
which provides design review for "multi- family dwellings and commercial structures." While the
antennas clearly are commercial structures, it is the location of those structures in single family
residential districts that requires closer examination.
Additionally, while height may be considered under the design review proposed "The
proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other
structures in the immediate area." Code 15- 46.040(0), the FCC —as noted in the documents
produced for tonight's hearing— regulates these antennas. The antennas' height may be
controlled by the FCC without regard for the residential community's preference or for the height
of structures in the immediate area. Compliance with FCC regulations should be made clear in
the discussion and ordinance.
2) Technology is changing fast in this field; operational lifespans are short. Who will
remove and replace the outdated facilities in 18 months when newer, better tech becomes
available? A removal bond should be required as part of this code change. A proper engineering
study could identify the best places to install better and fewer antennas. This could minimize
installations while providing assurance of community coverage. Fewer, better installations in the
best locations are preferable to many inferior ones, some of which may be badly placed. The
Center for Municipal Solutions reports that as many as 50% of the towers /antennas erected in the
last 5 years don't need to exist. A comprehensive engineering study could also preclude possible
interference with other communications and electronic devices.
3) A process, such as the conditional use permit process, is needed for better public input.
Church steeples (where one or more antennas have already been placed) are good places for the
towers, as they afford sufficient height for adequate broadcast and are already present in the
community. Also, each antenna has a footprint. An equipment shed is needed, with other
installation equipment (of a fairly large size +750 square feet), as well as guywires. A church
steeple might be perfect— neighborhoods might not be. Easy approval —where placement in a
residential neighborhood is a right, subject only to design review— for antennas can create blight
as well as technical problems.
New technology can be both beneficial and welcome, but a good installation requires
appropriate engineering, which takes time. An investment in town infrastructure should be made
properly and should not be done quickly or badly. An engineering study that identifies
appropriate locations for such antennas should be undertaken, with a public hearing regarding its
conclusions, before placement of any further antennas.
4) The playing field should be made level for all commercial enterprises; all companies
should have the same access and no one company should be allowed to dominate the field. An
easier approval process promotes exclusive contracts between a city and one company, allowing
dominance by one company —bad for competition and bad for citizens.
5) This proposed ordinance is insufficient because it: suggests no standards for the siting of
the antennas; does not encourage the use of existing structures as an alternative to new tower
construction; does not encourage the joint use of towers; does not demonstrate prevention of harm
to the health, welfare, and visual environment of Saratoga and its citizens.
2
6) Standards for antennas in residential single family districts —and perhaps in multi family
districts and/or commercial districts as well should include the following requirements:
visual impact demonstrations using photo simulations of the proposed facility as it
would be seen from residential areas, public rights of way, and public parks (and
other sites as deemed appropriate by the Planning Department or Commission);
a height limit (FCC- mandated height requirements should be divulged to the public
before ordinance adoption);
proof of a bona fide need for the structure and that no reasonable combination of
locations, techniques, or technologies will obviate the need;
an instrument, required to be signed by the applicant and maintained by the city,
agreeing to encourage and promote the joint use of telecommunications towers within
the city and, to that extent, committing that there shall be no unreasonable act or
omission that would have the effect of excluding, obstructing or delaying joint use of
any tower where fair and just market reasonable compensation is offered for such
use;
no new tower shall be constructed without a setback from the tower's base of at least
1.5 times the tower height to a public or private road and at least 2.5 times the tower
height to the nearest property line;
equipment sheds should not exceed a set square footage and must be secured, as well
as screened with vegetation or other approved materials;
prior to commencing regular operation of the facility, all facility owners and
operators must submit a certificate of compliance with all current Federal
Communications Commission regulations concerning electromagnetic radiation and
other electronic emissions applicable to the facility;
all facility operators and owners must sign an agreement, to be maintained by the
city, agreeing to bring facilities into compliance with any new federal, state, or local
laws or regulations concerning electromagnetic radiation and other electronic
emissions applicable to the facility within 120 days of the effective date of the
regulations;
the owner of a facility shall establish a $10,000 cash security fund or provide the City
with an irrevocable letter of credit in the same amount to secure the cost of removing
an antenna, antenna array, or tower that has been abandoned;
in the event of a transfer of ownership, the seller shall be responsible for notifying the
buyer of this requirement and for notifying the City of the transfer.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan and Meg Giberson
3
City Clerk [Ann Sullivan]
From: Harnish, Mary [Mary.Harnish @hhs.sccgov.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:57 PM
To: City Clerk [Ann Sullivan]
Subject: Meeting on 9 -22 -09 at 5:30 p.m.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello: I would like this read into the minutes of your meeting as I am unable to attend due to work conflicts.
I have been a resident of Saratoga since 1960, moving here from a small town in Wisconsin. Since then, I have seen
Saratoga go through many changes, most of them positive, even the installation of Highway 85, which most Saratogans
opposed. That being said, the downtown area has always had a charming "village" feel. I was here as a child buying
candy at the Variety Store and going to matinees at the theater on Third Big Basin.
I understand that the Buy and Save shopping area is to undergo a proposed radical change with the construction of 4
story condos. This is a disastrous idea and here's why....the Village is already just a two -lane road through downtown
and into the mountains. This keeps it charming for starters...lined with restaurants and little shops throughout,
businesses that have been here for over 40 -50 years. With greedy banks and landlords, rents went up so high, that many
businesses downtown folded and are now sitting there empty. Ridiculous. Townhomes, I don't think so? 4 stories are
you kidding me? That would block the views of businesses as well as residents on Oak St. Downtown Saratoga is not an
area for "urban" living. It is not a downtown San Jose, where condos rise everywhere. While it is appropriate for
downtown San Jose, it is not appropriate for the Village of Saratoga. Just think of the added traffic there and underground
parking....this is unacceptable. We do not have to change the landscape of Saratoga to accommodate greedy
developers.
I think that in this economy, our City Council and Mayor should be cautious and prudent and careful of unscrupulous
schemes, such as is being proposed with this condo development. Believe it or not, money is not everything to all
Saratogans. The Village needs a small grocery store, not condos. We should be looking at how to improve our schools,
beautify our parks, develop a dog park, develop senior housing, anything but what is at hand. Shame on the developers
for such a lame idea, shame on them!
Mary E. Harnish
(408) 741 -1613
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is
confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in
the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using,
delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to
others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender by return email.
1
Memo
Please refer to this agreement for tonight's meeting.
Thank you.
City of Saratoga
City Clerk's Office
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
Date: September 16, 2009
Re: AGENDA ITEM #11 Dedication of Wildwood Way Utility
Easements
Attached is a revised copy of the Right of Way Easement Agreement that
was attached to the staff report that was emailed to you.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
AFTER RECORDATION RETURN TO:
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
100 E. SUNNYOAKS AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX:
NONE
APN: 503 -26 -044
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE
RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This right of way easement agreement by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA (Grantor) and
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT (Grantee) with reference to a portion of Assessor's
Parcel Number 503 -26 -044 (the "Agreement ")as described in more detail in Exhibits A and B
attached and made a part hereof (the "Property as follows:
1. Grantor is owner of assessor's parcel number 503 -26 -044 in the County of Santa Clara,
State of California. The Property is a portion of this parcel and is a private road known
as "Wildwood Way" shown on the Record of Survey Map entitled "Map Showing the
Location of a Private Road in Lot 5 of the Subdivision No. 1 of the Mary Springer Tract,"
filed on October 8, 1964. The Property is currently used for various utility purposes
including, but not limited to, water, sanitary service, gas, and electric.
2. Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of one (1) dollar, in lawful money of the
United States of America, to it in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, does herby present and grant to Grantee and to its successors and assigns
forever with respect to the Property:
The right and privilege of excavating for and laying of pipelines as and when and
as often as the same may be desirable in the opinion of Grantee, together with all
fittings, connections and appliances which Grantee may desire to install in
connection therewith, such sewer line or lines as Grantee shall from time to time
elect for conveying sewage, and all necessary building sewers and appurtenances
thereto and also the right of maintaining, using and replacing and/or enlarging the
same for such purposes and also the right and privilege of relaying, repairing,
removing and/or renewing the same, using pipe, fittings, connections and/or
appliances either of the same size or sizes as may first be installed or of any other
size or sizes and also a right -of -way along the same, upon, in, through, along and
across the Property.
3. The foregoing rights and privileges hereinabove granted are made upon the following
terms and conditions:
1
a. Grantor shall neither construct nor permit to be constructed any building or any
other permanent structure on the Property, including but not limited to houses,
garages, outbuilding, swimming pools, ponds, tennis courts, retaining walls,
decks, patios or other concrete structures.
b. Grantor shall neither plant nor permit to be planted trees within said right of way.
c. Grantor shall neither change nor permit to be changed the grade over said right of
way.
d. Grantee shall exercise its rights hereunder in a manner consistent with the use of
the Property for such other utility uses as may be located thereon now and in the
future.
e. Grantee, at its sole cost, shall restore any damage to the surface of the Property
caused by Grantee's construction or other work in the Easement pursuant to this
Agreement, in order to leave Grantor's Property in the condition that existed prior
to such construction or other work.
f. Grantee shall indemnify and defend Grantor against any loss, claim, or liability
arising out of or connected with the negligence of Grantee, its employees, agents
or contractors, relating to the construction, inspection, maintenance and use of the
Property pursuant to this Agreement.
g.
Grantor shall indemnify and defend Grantee against any loss, claim, or liability
arising out of or connected with the negligence of Grantee, its employees, agents
or contractors, relating to the Grantee's use of the Property pursuant to this
Agreement.
4. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Property is to be accepted by Grantee in an "as
is" condition with all faults and defects (latent and apparent), including (without
limitation) environmental conditions. Grantor does not make any representations or
warranties of any kind whatsoever, either express or implied, with respect to the physical
and environmental condition of the Property or any of such related matters. Grantee
acknowledges that it is entering into this Agreement on the basis of Grantee's own
investigation of the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, subsurface
and environmental conditions. Grantee assumes the risk that adverse conditions may not
have been revealed by its investigation. Except when Grantor and Grantee may from
time to time agree in writing that Grantor is obligated to make repairs or improvements to
the Property for the purpose of enabling Grantee to exercise its rights and privileges
under this Agreement. Grantor shall have no obligation to make any repairs or
improvements to the Property. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the disclaimers,
releases, and other agreements set forth in this Article are an integral part of this
Agreement and that Grantor would not have agreed to grant an easement on the Property
to Grantee without the disclaimers, releases, and other agreements set forth in this
Article.
2
5. The respective rights, covenants and conditions contained herein shall inure to the benefit
of and be binding upon the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
In Witness Whereof, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement the day and year last
below written.
GRANTOR:
CITY OF SARATOGA,
a municipal corporation,
Dated: By:
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
City Clerk City Attorney
GRANTEE:
Dated: West Valley Sanitation District,
a California County Sanitation District
3
By:
Its:
September 16, 2009
TO: Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council
FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson
RE: Item #7, City Council 9 /16/09 Consent Calendar conditional use
permit requirement should be retained in residential districts for
"antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and
receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications"
Commercial antennas in residential neighborhoods: The conditional use permit requirement for
"antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone
and other wireless communications" should be retained for residential districts.
Commercial antenna facilities represent desirable infrastructure, but the changes in the
ordinance that Saratoga proposes allow them as a matter of right in residential areas. Location in
residential neighborhoods, however, may be problematic without the stricter standards of the
conditional use permit that is currently required for such antennas. A conditional use permit
allows the community to address and minimize negative externalities of these admittedly public
structures, while retaining benefits to the community. Mere design review is inappropriate.
Suggested standards, and reasons for retaining the conditional use permit requirement include:
1) The standards by which the installations are currently judged will differ substantially
under the proposed change. When a use is subject to a conditional use permit, as this use is
currently, it is not a use as of right. As Saratoga City Code "Code 15- 55.020 states,
"A conditional use permit is not a matter of right, and a use permit shall be denied or be
subject to conditions if the findings required by Section 15- 55.070 cannot otherwise be
made."
The Code states,
"conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so
that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these
purposes, the Planning Commission and Director are empowered to approve (including
conditionally approve) or deny certain applications for conditional use permits in
accordance with this Article, subject to review by the City Council on appeal."
Code 15- 55.010. These antennas correspond to such unusual characteristics when located in
residential districts, and are appropriately governed through a conditional use permit process.
However, under the proposed changes, the commercial antennas would be a use as of
right in residential zoning districts, subject only to design review. Such re- designation indicates a
presumption of suitability for the zoning district; the design review considerations focus merely
on aesthetics "to enhance the aesthetic qualities of districts
Design review will not provide an opportunity for residents to challenge the location of
the antennas; rather, design review looks to colors, and a harmonious appearance where more
than one structure will be built. In contrast, the findings for issuance of a conditional use permit
deal largely with location in relation to the zoning ordinance and objectives of the district in
which the structure is to be placed— appropriate considerations in residential districts. See, e.g.,
Code 15- 55.070.
Further, the proposed new code would only require design review under Article 15 -46,
which provides design review for "multi- family dwellings and commercial structures." While the
antennas clearly are commercial structures, it is the location of those structures in single family
residential districts that requires closer examination.
Additionally, while height may be considered under the design review proposed "The
proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other
structures in the immediate area." Code 15- 46.040(f)), the FCC —as noted in the documents
produced for tonight's hearing regulates these antennas. The antennas' height may be
controlled by the FCC without regard for the residential community's preference or for the height
of structures in the immediate area. Compliance with FCC regulations should be made clear in
the discussion and ordinance.
2) Technology is changing fast in this field; operational lifespans are short. Who will
remove and replace the outdated facilities in 18 months when newer, better tech becomes
available? A removal bond should be required as part of this code change. A proper engineering
study could identify the best places to install better and fewer antennas. This could minimize
installations while providing assurance of community coverage. Fewer, better installations in the
best locations are preferable to many inferior ones, some of which may be badly placed. The
Center for Municipal Solutions reports that as many as 50% of the towers /antennas erected in the
last 5 years don't need to exist. A comprehensive engineering study could also preclude possible
interference with other communications and electronic devices.
3) A process, such as the conditional use permit process, is needed for better public input.
Church steeples (where one or more antennas have already been placed) are good places for the
towers, as they afford sufficient height for adequate broadcast and are already present in the
community. Also, each antenna has a footprint. An equipment shed is needed, with other
installation equipment (of a fairly large size ±750 square feet), as well as guywires. A church
steeple might be perfect— neighborhoods might not be. Easy approval —where placement in a
residential neighborhood is a right, subject only to design review— for antennas can create blight
as well as technical problems.
New technology can be both beneficial and welcome, but a good installation requires
appropriate engineering, which takes time. An investment in town infrastructure should be made
properly and should not be done quickly or badly. An engineering study that identifies
appropriate locations for such antennas should be undertaken, with a public hearing regarding its
conclusions, before placement of any further antennas.
4) The playing field should be made level for all commercial enterprises; all companies
should have the same access and no one company should be allowed to dominate the field. An
easier approval process promotes exclusive contracts between a city and one company, allowing
dominance by one company —bad for competition and bad for citizens.
5) This proposed ordinance is insufficient because it: suggests no standards for the siting of
the antennas; does not encourage the use of existing structures as an alternative to new tower
construction; does not encourage the joint use of towers; does not demonstrate prevention of harm
to the health, welfare, and visual environment of Saratoga and its citizens.
2
Respectf lly submitted,
Alan and Meg Giberson
6) Standards for antennas in residential single family districts —and perhaps in multi- family
districts and /or commercial districts as well should include the following requirements:
visual impact demonstrations using photo simulations of the proposed facility as it
would be seen from residential areas, public rights of way, and public parks (and
other sites as deemed appropriate by the Planning Department or Commission);
a height limit (FCC- mandated height requirements should be divulged to the public
before ordinance adoption);
proof of a bona fide need for the structure and that no reasonable combination of
locations, techniques, or technologies will obviate the need;
an instrument, required to be signed by the applicant and maintained by the city,
agreeing to encourage and promote the joint use of telecommunications towers within
the city and, to that extent, committing that there shall be no unreasonable act or
omission that would have the effect of excluding, obstructing or delaying joint use of
any tower where fair and just market reasonable compensation is offered for such
use;
no new tower shall be constructed without a setback from the tower's base of at least
1.5 times the tower height to a public or private road and at least 2.5 times the tower
height to the nearest property line;
equipment sheds should not exceed a set square footage and must be secured, as well
as screened with vegetation or other approved materials;
prior to commencing regular operation of the facility, all facility owners and
operators must submit a certificate of compliance with all current Federal
Communications Commission regulations concerning electromagnetic radiation and
other electronic emissions applicable to the facility;
all facility operators and owners must sign an agreement, to be maintained by the
city, agreeing to bring facilities into compliance with any new federal, state, or local
laws or regulations concerning electromagnetic radiation and other electronic
emissions applicable to the facility within 120 days of the effective date of the
regulations;
the owner of a facility shall establish a $10,000 cash security fund or provide the City
with an irrevocable letter of credit in the same amount to secure the cost of removing
an antenna, antenna array, or tower that has been abandoned;
in the event of a transfer of ownership, the seller shall be responsible for notifying the
buyer of this requirement and for notifying the City of the transfer.
Dear Members of the City Council (hand delivered):
RE: Records Retention Policy
I urge the council to go slowly insofar as the adoption of a records policy which calls for destruction of
certain records is concerned. Once a record is destroyed, there is no chance of recovery. The current
policy, adopted this summer, does not provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the destruction of
records for political gain. Review by the city attorney (a political appointee, not elected) is cursory at
best: thorough review would be cost prohibitive for the city. The decision as to which records should be
destroyed during any given time period ultimately resides with the managers of the various
departments, who most likely delegate the actual record review to subordinates.
The alternative to a records destruction is a policy that emphasizes the archiving of all records in a
cost effective manner for the good of the community. Unfortunately, the discussion to date proceeds
from the assumption that retention and archiving of records is cost prohibitive. Instead of designing a
policy to build an archive, the city has adopted a matrix with legal citations that legitimize the
destruction of records. To put it another way, records are viewed as a liability rather than an asset
Using the current records matrix as a template, I would like to see how much it would cost to design a
digital records archive and implement a periodic scanning and filing of all city documents. This would
entail solicitation of at least three viable bids each for the design of the archive and the scanning of
documents on a periodic basis. In fact, there may be an off the -shelf software available for the archive
itself, which could save even more.
None of this has been done to date. The existing policy is based on assumptions, not hard data in the
form of bids for design and archiving services. Without destroying any more records, why not do the
math to determine if an archive would work? Perhaps the only cost of putting the records destruction
on hold and doing the research would be a few extra boxes. Rent a storage locker if one is necessary.
There is a public storage facility right here in the city.
Surely nobody can argue that the recent records request wasn't costly. What would truly be costly
would be for the council to implement the current policy without doing the due diligence. In this case,
each council member would choose to lug along a metaphorical steamer trunk of baggage, and we
would all be wondering what is in that trunk.
Stan Bogosian
9/16/09
Silicon Valley
v Association of REALTORS
September 16, 2009
Honorable Chuck Page
Mayor, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408.200.0100 Fax: 408.200.0101 www.silvar.org
A=-1
Dear Mayor Page and Council Members,
The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a trade
association representing nearly 4,000 real estate professionals in Santa Clara
and San Mateo counties and an historical advocate for creating and
maintaining safe communities while protecting homeowners' rights. We
would like to comment on agenda item 17, "Preparation of an ordinance
establishing the City's ability to issue administrative citations for violations
of the Saratoga City Code."
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on behalf of
SILVAR regarding the draft proposal that will diminish many of due process
rights currently held by Saratoga residents and homeowners accused of
various code violations. If the Council decides to move forward on this
proposal, we would respectfully request that more information be provided
by city staff in future reports to justify the need to move away from the
traditional model currently imposed by the city for code violations that either
vests elected officials or the courts as the ruling body. For instance, we
would respectfully request the citation of analytical or anecdotal information
to support the proposed change in code enforcement methods, and cite
municipalities currently implementing this type of an ordinance, prior to
removing control from the citizens of Saratoga.
Our overarching concern is the proposed process will apply to any violation
of the City code, including code provisions that may no longer be in
conformance with state or federal law, with a minimum amount of due
process considerations to the accused. These concerns are multiplied by the
fact that the process proposed by city staff places an individual code
compliance specialist as the judge and jury, leaving the accused to be
presumed guilty until proven innocent at the interpretation and application of
the law by a single staff member.
We believe the following due process considerations should be addressed in
future proposals by the City:
The proposal does not allow the notice of violation to be challenged;
the accused must wait until the citation is issued prior to preliminary
review or administrative hearing to challenge the ruling made by the
individual code compliance specialist. An opportunity should be
afforded to the accused to challenge the notice of violation prior to the
issuance of the citation.
The proposal places the burden of proof of innocence of the code
violation on the accused after citation, penalties and fines have
already been issued. An option for guilt to be proven and challenged
regarding a code violation is necessary prior to the issuance of any
fines and penalties. The appeals process after the citation should not
be the only option to challenge the judgment made by the code
compliance specialist. Three options should be made available to the
accused either immediately prior or after the citation but prior to any
fines or penalties being levied: plead guilty to the violation, remedy
the violation if necessary, or plead not guilty, at which point a
preliminary review or administrative hearing would be held.
Since the burden of proof should be on the City in the prosecution of a
code violation, the accused should not be liable to compensate the
City for attorney expenses in defense of their own case, which would
be possible under several separate sections of the proposal.
The proposal precludes the accused from facing their accuser or code
compliance specialist in the administrative hearing.
The City will be granted broader authority to pursue code violation citations
against parties that are currently not liable for violations under the specific
code sections. For instance Article 3 -15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code
calls for actions in response to nuisances on private property against the
property and/or property owners. Under the proposal the code compliance
specialist will have authority to issue citations to anyone with any
connection to the property or nuisance without having to prove those
individuals' connection to the property, or nuisance prior to the levy of fines
or penalties. This is a significant policy shift because through this municipal
code section, the City Council has held property owners liable for these
violations, but this proposal looks to broaden "responsible persons" to
individuals who may have no legal authority to cure the violation.
If the council decides to move forward on this proposal there are unspecified
aspects that should be addressed especially regarding the administrative
hearing body. There is no definition or discussion of whom the body will be
or its standard rules of order.
In order to maintain a high quality of life in Saratoga we agree that it might
be necessary to pursue more expeditious remedies for code violations than is
currently afforded through the municipal code, but believe the proposal
before the council would diminish the rights of Saratoga homeowners and
residents. We believe that a proposal to modify the enforcement procedure
should allow equal weight and prudent due process to all parties involved,
including the accused, complainant and city staff.
We respectfully request the council to set aside the proposal before you
tonight and direct staff to solicit community input on creating a process that
will hopefully strike an equitable balance between the needs of the City of
Saratoga and the individual rights of its residents.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to comment on behalf of
the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS
Sincerely,
A. gome
Government Af airs Director
Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®