Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-04-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS
r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /2- MEETING DATE: 10/4/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM 68 CITY MGR. APPROVAL-' SUBJECT: Planning Commission comments regarding E1 Paseo Draft Environmental Impact Report --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached comments already forwarded to the San Jose Planning Commission and designate a Council representative to attend the October 11, 1989 San Jose Planning Commission meeting to testify against the proposed General Plan amendment. Report Summary: Since the last Council meeting, the Planning Commission's subcommittee met to review the DEIR and to provide staff direction in preparing the written response and the oral presentation to the San Jose Planning Commission. Attached for the Council's review are the comments submitted by staff at the Commission's request. The Planning Commission subcommittee is meeting one last time before the San Jose Public Hearing at 5:00 p.m. Thursday, October 5, 1989 to review the City's presentation. The Council may wish to have its designate attend to coordinate the City's presentation and to provide additional input. Any comments or concerns not addressed in the City's preliminary correspondence can be presented to the San Jose Planning Commission at the October 11th public hearing. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Motion and Vote 1. Correspondence dated September 26, 1989 r s, y' 4, J� 13777FRUI"I V ALE AVENUE • SAR,ATO(G, ,C,-ALIFORNI'A05070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger September 26, 1989 David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman City Planning Department 801 N. First Street City Hall Annex, Room 400 San Jose, CA 95110 Attention: Irum Shiekh Dear Ms. Shiekh: The City of Saratoga received the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for a the General Plan amendment to convert the E1 Paseo Shopping Center to a research and development facility. Although the City's review is preliminary, we have found serious omissions from the draft document when evaluating impacts on our City. Further, the City has fundamental questions regarding a project which has the likelihood of creating adverse impacts on our City. The following impacts discussed in the DEIR are inadequate and warrant further investigation. I. Traffic A. Traffic Analysis is based on computer modeling performed by the City of San Jose in preparing the Horizon 2000 Plan. Saratoga requests that actual traffic counts and projections be used to insure the accuracy of traffic conclusions and mitigation measures of the DEIR. B. The impact of an interchange at Saratoga Avenue and Route 85 is a significant potential impact entirely missing from the DEIR. Since the DEIR concludes that Route 85 will provide the primary route for employees of the project it seems essential that a study of the potential impacts will be a-* part of a comprehensive document. The DEIR does not discuss the potential for traffic congestion on Saratoga Avenue south of the project to the freeway interchange. C. The City has certified an EIR and approved a low density residential and senior care facility at the former Paul Masson winery on Saratoga Avenue and Route 85. Additionally, Caltrans and the Traffic Authority have extensive traffic analysis regarding the Saratoga Avenue interchange. The DEIR must study the accumulative impacts of both the 1 residential project and Route 85 in order to reach sound environmental conclusions. D. The DEIR projects that 2,700 more employees than the the Horizon 2000 plan anticipated will occupy the project (page 3 -3). However, the document concludes that traffic will increase only by 770 trips (pm). This increase is seemingly in conflict with the conclusion that existing roads and intersections will be able to accommodate the increased volumes (page 3 -17). E. The DEIR concludes that most traffic will use Route 85 which will reduce congestion on I280 which will allow better operations than currently exist (page 3 -17). While a positive effect may result on I280, no statistical information regarding the negative impact on Route 85 and surrounding surface streets supports the conclusion that the project will not have a significant impact. II. Land Use A. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cited in the DEIR is 1.15 which is significantly higher than the FAR agreed to by the Golden Triangle Task Force to reduce traffic congestion. This is a land use discussion missing from the DEIR. B. The site is one of several commercial retail centers in the immediate vicinity. The long range growth inducing impact of future land use amendments from commercial retail to research and development are not discussed in the DEIR. The City believes the growth inducing impacts to be a significant issue since the DEIR acknowledges that the proposed amendment will intensify the current use of the property beyond what is contemplated in the Horizon 2000 plan. The possibility that other nearby commercial centers may similarly be intensified must be included in the EIR as further development will have significant environmental effect on both the cities of Saratoga and San Jose. C. The proposed land use amendment does not provide a definitive listing of manufacturing or processing that will be allowed under the land use amendment. Further, DEIR does not discuss the possibility that the project may be occupied by either a single user or many individual users. D. The proposed multi - family alternative introduces an inconsistent land use which does not currently exist within immediate vicinity in either San Jose or Saratoga. This results in land use compatibility concerns such as noise buffering and open space that should be evaluated in greater specificity than in the current document. 2 III. Hazardous Material The DEIR states that hazardous materials will be handled on the site but provides no mention of how such materials will be transported to and from the site. IV. Municipal Services A. The EIR should discuss the location and availability of nearby schools relative to the alternative to include 200 residential units. Since several schools in the vicinity have been closed, there is question whether remaining facilities will be adequate to serve this project. B. Since the project is at the border of two jurisdictions, the EIR should discuss the possibility of emergency response from Saratoga. The handling and transportation of hazardous materials and the proximity to neighboring jurisdiction increases the probability that multiple responses will be necessary to handle an emergency situation. V. Air Quality Since the traffic section omits an analysis of congestion on Saratoga Avenue south to Route 85, the Air Quality conclusions are questionable. Further, the City has completed environmental documentation which indicates that certain intersections impacted by this project will reach significant levels of pollutants to only be exacerbated by the project in San Jose. In closing, I must emphasize Saratoga's serious concerns regarding the proposed General Plan amendment. The draft Environmental Impact Report was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council whose input comprises these comments. The information provided in the draft Environmental Impact Report is inconclusive in its evaluation of adverse impacts to the City of Saratoga. It is imperative that ample opportunity be given this City which is. severely impacted by this project to evaluate the concerns raised herein. The City requests that San Jose take no action until the environmental documentation can be completed and analyzed to the City's satisfaction. Sincerely, � / Imo � Stephe Ems1ie Planning Director SE /kah5 3 S /ARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / ( AGENDA ITEM '(i) A MEETING DATE: 10/4/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of AR -89 -019; Denial of an application to construct an amatuer radio antenna. Applicant /Appellant: Bruce Sawyer Location: 15430 Bohlman Road --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission denying the application. Report Summary: The application was initiated as an administrative permit that was brought to the Planning Commission by two neighbors concerned about a view impact. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposal would negatively affect the views of surrounding properties. Moreover, the Planning Commission determined that no alternative acceptable to the applicant would mitigate the visual impact. Because the applicant currently enjoys radio communication, denial of the permit would not deprive the applicant from his access as required by the Federal Communications Commission regulations. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Motion and Vote Memorandum from Planning Director dated 9/28/89 Appeal City Code Section 15 -80 Minutes Staff Reports Correspondence 0919W Qq §&MZ19Q)(M& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 10/4/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of AR -89 -019; Planning Commission denial of an application to construct an amatuer radio antenna Applicant /Appellant: Bruce Sawyer Location: 15430 Bohlman Road --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to reject the application. Project Description The applicant is seeking City approval to construct a 65 foot retractable ground mounted antenna tower. The tower is to be located approximately 12 ft. east of the existing residence at 15430 Bohlman Road in the HC -RD zone district. The antenna is a tower constructed of galvanized structural grade steel. In order to provide structural strength, a lattice -like arrangement of support members is necessary. At the base, the tower is 18 inches across; and the top the tower is 12 inches across. The antenna tower retracts in telescope fashion in three sections. Atop the tower are the antenna elements which are ten feet in height and twenty feet across. The maximum extended height of the antenna including elements is 65 feet; and the retracted height also including elements is 23 feet. The antenna is lowered by means of an electric motor when not in use. The applicant indicates that when transmission conditions are favorable, the antenna will be extended 6 to 8 hours at a time. Site Conditions The applicant's property is a hillside lot which slopes downward from the building pad dramatically northwest to Bohlman Road. To the southeast, the property slopes into a steep ravine. The property slopes upward to the south to two adjoining residences accessed by Belnap Drive and Bohlman Road. The properties to the south, 15470 Bohlman and 15479 Belnap Way are conservatively 20 to 40 feet higher than the applicant's building pad and therefore enjoy views of the Santa Clara Valley and San Francisco Bay across the site. The proposed location of the antenna will be visible to these two adjoining properties. The applicant currently maintains two existing radio antennae on the property. One antenna is a single element antenna less than 30 feet in height on the northerly portion of the site. The second radio antenna is attached to the residence and is less than 15 feet above the roof. In addition to the roof mounted radio antenna, there is a roof mounted television antenna also less than 15 feet above the roof. The application came to the Planning Commission by way of an administrative process. Mr. Sawyer applied to staff for a building permit to erect the radio antenna pursuant.to the City Code Section 15 -80 (see attached). Primarily, the City Code provides an administrative process for the approval of radio antennae. When the minimum criteria is met by the application, a building permit is approved by the Planning Department. Because the Sawyer application involved hillside view properties, staff requested notification of adjacent neighbors prior to completion of the process. Upon receiving notice of the application, both property owners upslope from the site appealed the administrative approval of the antenna to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at two public hearings and a study session. Further, the Planning Commission's land use committee visited the subject site and surrounding properties on two occasions. In reviewing the application, the Planning Commission received staff analysis that reviewed various alternatives in an attempt to mitigate the visual impact. Staff also consulted with outside experts in the field to explore the technical considerations involved in locating the antenna. The applicant presented FCC regulations as well as cited court cases where local regulations were pre - empted in favor of radio antenna construction. Neighbors presented photographs and testimony attesting to the negative effect the antenna would have on the enjoyment of their views. Findings The applicant's objective is to replace the two existing antennae with the proposed tower, which will improve his ability to communicate with other radio operators. Because the hillside location is not conducive to radio transmission, the maximum height and the prominent site location is requested. While staff explored the possibility of alternate locations lower on the site, technical expertise advised that such alternatives would negate the effectiveness of radio transmission. The existing radio antennae maintained by the applicant provide transmission capability to enable the applicant's pursuit of his hobby. The applicant's testimony before the Planning Commission indicated that communication with other countries is presently taking place. The purpose of the proposed antennae is to extend communication to southern hemisphere countries not accessible with present equipment. The proposed antenna would directly impact the views of the two neighboring properties. The properties were designed to take advantage of panoramic views of the Santa Clara Valley. This is evidenced by the windows and living areas oriented specifically to the view. The proposed antenna as well as alternatives would impact the views from within these residences. Therefore, the Planning Commission concluded that the requirement of Section 15- 80.080 (g) which requires visual mitigation, could not be met. The Planning Commission concluded that denial of the application did not deprive the application his access to the air waves. The City Attorney agreed that the FCC regulations pre -empt local ordinances that prevent property owners reasonable access to the air waves. The City Attorney reported that Saratoga's ordinances were in compliance with these regulations. Moreover, the cases cited by the applicant related to situations where an owners right to construct any access was denied. Recommendation After examination of alternatives and input from the applicant and neighbors, the Planning Commission concluded that the application was inconsistent with the provisions of the City Code. Therefore, the Planning Commission acted to deny the antenna permit. Staff concurs with the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends that the Council deny the appeal. Step en slie Planni Director SE /dsc APPEAL � p Date Received: tg,��/ 1y Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE ON] APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project Project Project for use Bruce B. Sawyer —15430 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 408- 741 -0518 — 6.ruce B. Sawver File No.: na_Rq_nl g Address: _ _ 15430 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, Ca. 9 ,5070 Description: , Erection of a 54' tower and associated antennas in amateur radio communications Decision Being Appealed: Uenia.L..of ermit a lication by Saratoga Planning n at the public meeting held August 23, 1989 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): (1) This decision is in direct violation of federal regulations. The Planning Commission has, been advised of FCC Order 85 -506 ( "PRB -1 "), which requires state and local governments to "accomodate reasonably amateur communications ". The planning Department has consulted with outside experts in,this area and verified that what I'have requested is both reasonable and necessary for the purpose intended, and I have offered three different alternatives to the Planning Commission in an effort to-acheive a reasonable compromise. Nevertheless, the Commission has rejected all alternatives, thereby effectively denying -mb access to-the airwaves. (2) Saratoga Zoning Regulations 15- 80.080 provides that "Conditions may be imposed upon the issuance of a building or use permit to mitigate the anticipated visual impact of the proposed antenna installation." To take the position that the visual impact cannot be mitigated and that the application must therefore be denied is not consistent with the le ter or the int of this regulation. * J A Pellant's Sig ture Attachment.: FCC Order 85 -506 M *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. TILTS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IVITIIIN TEN `fit; DATE O1 -rri�: UCG- irSI0, . 10) CALENDAR DAYS OF C Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) Federal preemption of state and ) PRB -1 local regulations pertaining ) to Amateur radio facilities. ) MEMORANDLIM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 16, 1985 ; Released: September 19, 1985 By the Comm iss [on: Commissioner Rivera not participating. FW 85 -506 36149 1. On July 16, 1984, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) filed a Request for Issuance of a Declaratory Ruling asking us delineate the limitations of local zoning and other local and state regu le -ory authority over Federally-licensed radio facilities. Specifically, the ARRL wanted an explicit statement that would preempt a l l local ordinances which provably preclude or significantly Inhibit effective, reliable amateur radio communications. The ARRL acknowledges that local authorities can regulate amateur Installations to insure the safety and health of persons In the community, but believes that those regulations cannot be so restrictive that they preclude effective amateur communications. 2. Interested parties were advised that they could file comments in the matter 1. With extension, comments were due on or before December 26, 1984 2, with reply comments due on or before January 25, 1985 3. Over sixteen hundred comments were filed. 1 Public Notice, August 30, 1984, Mimeo. No. 6299, 49 F.R. 36113, September 14, 1984. 2 Public Notice, December 19, 1984, Mimeo No. 1498. 3 Order, November 8, 1984, Mimeo. No. 770. c 2 3. Conflicts between amateur operators regarding radio antennas and local authorities regarding restrictive ordinances are common. The amateur operator is governed by the regulations contained In Part 97 of our rules. Those rules do not limit the height of an amateur antenna but they require, for aviation safety reasons, that certain FAA notification and FCC approval procedures must be followed for antennas which exceed 200 feet in height above ground level or antennas w ^lch are to be erected near airports. Thus, under FCC rules some amateur antenna support structures require obstruction marking and lighting. On the other hand, local municipalities or governing bodies frequently enact regulations limiting antennas and their support structures In height and location, e.g. to side or rear yards, for health, safety or aesthete considerations. These limiting regulations can result in conflict because the effectiveness of the communications that emanate from an amateur radio station are directly depencent upon the location and the height of the antenna. Amateur operators maintain that they are precluded from operating in certain bands allocated for their use If the height of their antennas is limited by a local ordinance.. 4. Examples of restrictive local ordinances were submitted by several C amateur operators in this proceeding. Stanley J. Clchy, San Diego, California, noted that in San Diego amateur radio antennas come under a structures ruling which limits bu i Id ing heights to 30 feet. Thus, antennas there are also limited to 30 feet. Alexander Vrenlos, Mundelein, Illinois wrote that an ordinance of the Village of Mundelein provides that an antenna must be a distance from the property line that is equal to one and one —half times its height. In his case, he Is limited to an antenna tower for his amateur station just over 53 feet in height. 5. John C. Chapman, an amateur living in Bloomington, Minnesota, commented that he was not able to obtain a building permit to install an amateur radio antenna exceeding 35 feet in height because the Bloomington city ordinance restricted "structures" heights -o 35 feet. Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance, when written, undoubtedly applied to buildings but was now being applied to antennas in the absence of a specific ordinance regulating them. There were two options open to him if he wanted to engage in amateur communications. He could request a variance to the ordinance by way of a hearing before the City Council, or he could obtain affidavits from his neiehbors swearing that they had no objection to the proposed antenna ----- I- nst- allat- ion.-- - - -He- got -- -the- building permit after obtaining the cooperation of his neighbors. His concern, however, Is that he had to get permission from several people before he could effectively engage in radio communications for which he had a valid FCC amateur license. 3 6. If, s•- dIti :n he:.: ht restrictions, other limits are enacted by local jurisdictions -- anti -,limb devices on towers or fences around them; minimum distances from high voltage power lines; minimum distances of towers from property Imes; and regulations pertaining to the structural soundness of the antenna insta'latlon. By and large, amateurs do not find tnese safety precautions objectlnnable. What they do object to are the sometimes prohibitive, non - refundable application fIIIng fees to obtain a permit to erect an antenna installation and those provisions In ordinances which regulate antennas for purely aesthe-ic reasogs. The amateurs contend, almost universally, that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." They assert that an antenna installation is not more aesthetically displeasing than other objects that pecDle keep on their property, e.g. motor homes, trailers, pick -up true.. <s, solar collectors and gardening equipment. Restrictive Covenants 7. Amateur operators also oppose restrictions on their amateur operations which are contained in the deeds for their homes or in their apartment leases. Since these restrictive covenants are contractual agreements between private parties, they are not generally a matter of concern to the Commission. However, since some amateurs who commented in this proceeding provided us with examples of restrictive covenants, they are included for information. Mr. Eugene 0. Thomas of Hollister, California included in his comments an extract of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Ridgemark Estates, County of San Benito, State of California. It provides: C No antenna for transmission or reception of radio signals shall be erected outdoors for use by any dwelling unit except upon approval of the Directors. No radio or television signals or any other form of electromagnetic radiation shall be permitted to originate from any lot which may unreasonably interfere with the reception of television or radio signals upon any other lot. Marshall Wilson, Jr. provided a copy of the restrictive covenant cont .alned in deeds for the Bell Martin Addition 12, Irving, Texas. It Is binding upon all of the owners or purchasers of the lots in the said addition, his or their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. It reads: No antenna or tower shall be erected upon any lot for the pur;,oses of radio operations. William J. Hamilton resides In an apartment building in Gladstone, Missouri. He cites a clause in his lease prohibiting the erection of an antenna. He 4 Ic states that he has been forced to give up operating amateur radio equipment except a hand -held 2 meter (144 -148 MHz) radio transceiver. He maintains that he should not be penalized dust because he lives in an apartment. Other restrictive covenants are less global in scope than those cited above. For example, Robert Webb purchased a home in Houston, Texas. His deed restriction prohibited "transmitting or receiving antennas extending above the roof line." 8. Amateur operators generally oppose restrictive covenants for several reasons. They maintain that such restrictions limit the places that they can reside if they want to pursue their hobby of amateur radio. Some state that they Impinge on First Amendment rights of free speech. Others believe that a constitutional right is being abridged because, in their view, everyone has a right to access the airwaves regardless of where they live. 9. The contrary belief held by housing subdivision communities and condominimum or homeowner's associations Is that amateur radio installations constitute safety hazards, cause Interference to other electronic equipment which may be operated in the home (televisions, radio, stereos) or are eyesores that detract from the aesthetic and tasteful appearance of the housing development or apartment complex. To counteract these negative consequences, the subdivisions and associations include in their deeds, leases or by -laws restrictions and limitations on the location and height C of antennas or, in some cases, prohibit them altogether. The restrictive covenants are contained in the contractual agreement entered into at the time of the sale or lease of the property. Purchasers or lessees are free to choose whether they wish to reside where such restrictions on amateur antennas are in effect or settle elsewhere. .. • . o-1 10. The Department of Defense (DOD) supported the ARRL and emphasized i.n its comments that continued success of existing national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications plans involving amateur stations would be severely diminished if state and local ordinances were allowed to prohibit the construction and .usage of effective amateur transmission facilities. DOD utilizes volunteers In -he Military Affiliate Radio Service (MARS)4, Civil Air Patrol (CAP) and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). It points out that these volunTeer communicators are operating radio equipment installed in their hones and that undue restrictions on 4 MARS is solely under the auspices of the military which recruits volunteer amateur operators to render assistance to lt. The Commission is not Involved in the PARS program.. iI I! antennas by local authorities a:,iersely affect their efforts. DOD states that the responsiveness of these volunteer systems would be Impaired if local ordinances interfere with the effectiveness of these important national telecommunication resources. DOD favors the issuance of a ruling that would set - limits for local and state regulatory bodies when they are dealing with amateur stations. 11. Various chapters of the American Red Cross also came forward to support the ARRL's request for a preemptive ruling. The Red Cross works closely with amateur radio volunteers. It believes that without amateurs' dedicated support, disaster relief operations would significantly suffer and that its ability to serve disaster victims would be hampered. It feels that antenna height limitations that might be imposed by local bodies will negatively affect the service now rendered by the volunteers. 12. Cities and counties from various parts of the .United States filed comments in support of the ARRL's request for a Federal preemption ruling.. The comments from the Director of Civil Defense, Port Arthur, Texas are representative: T�-; Amateur Radio Service plays a vital role with our Civil Defense program here in Port Arthur and the design of these antennas and towers Iends greatly to our ability to communicate during times Cof disaster. We do not believe there should be any restrictions on the antennas and towers except for reasonable safety precautions. Tropical storms, hurricanes and tornadoes are a way of life here on the Texas Gulf Coast and good communications are absolutely essential when preparl.ng for a hurricane and even more so during recovery operations after the hurricane has past. 13. The Quarter Century Wireless Association took a strong stand In favor of the Issuance of a declaratory ruling. It believes that Federal preemption is necessary so that there will be uniformity for all Amateur radio installations on private property throughout the United States. 14. In Its comments, the ARRL argued that the Commission has the jurisdiction to preempt certain local land use regulations which frustrate or prohibit amateur radio communications. It said that the appropriate standard in preemption uses is not the extent of state and local Interest in a given regulation, but rather the Impact of that regulation on Federal goals. Its position is that Federal preemption Is warranted whenever local governmenTal regulations relate adversely to the operational aspects of amateur communication. The ARRL maintains that localities routinely empicv a variety of land use devices to preclude the installation of effective 2mateur antennas, Including height restrIctIons, conditional use permits, building setbacks and dimensional limitations on antennas. It sees a decla7atory ruling of Federal preemption as necessary to cause municipalities tc accommodate amateur operator needs in land use planning efforts. 15. James C. 0' Connell, an attorney who has represented several amateurs before local zoning authorities, said that requiring amateurs to seek variances or special _se app -oval to erect reasonable antennas unduly restricts the operation of amateur stations. He suggested that the Commission preempt zoning ordinances which impose antenna height limits of less than 65 feet. He sai: that this height would represent a reasonable accommodation of the commu-Ication needs of most amateurs and the legitimate concerns of local zoning authorities. 16. The City of La h'=sa, California has a zoning regulation which controls amateur antennas. Its comments reflected an attempt to reach a balanced view. This regulation has neither the intent, nor the effect, of precluding or inhibiting effective and reliable communications. Such antennas may be C built as long as their construction does not unreasonably block views or constitute eyesores. The reasonable assumption is that there are always alternatives at a given site for different placement, and/or methods for aesthetic treatment. Thus, both public objectives of controlling land use for the public health, safety, and convenience, and providing an effective communicat.lons network, can be satisfied. A blanket rulinc to completely set aside local control, or a ruling which -ecognlzes control only for the purpose of safety o= antenna construction, would be contrary to ... legitimate local control. 17. Comments from t County of-San Diego state: While we are aware of the benefits provided by ___zmateur__operato.sr_ we oppose the issuance of a preemption ruling which would elevate 'antenna effectiveness' To a position above all other considerations. We must, however, argue that the 7 Iocai government must have the ability t:- iace reasonable limitations upon the placement and configuration of amateur radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Such ability is necessary to assure that the local decision- makers have the authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare of all citizens. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize an important difference between your regulatory Powers and that of local governments. Your Commission's approval of the preemptive requests would establish a 'national policy'. However, any regulation adopted by a local Jurisdiction could be overturned by your Commission or a court if such regulation was determined to be unreasonable. 18- The City of Anderson, Indlana, summarized some of the problems that face local communities: .1 am sympathetic to the concerns of these antenna owners and I understand that to gain. the maximum reception from their devices, optimal location is necessary. However, the preservation of residential zoning districts as 'liveable, Cneighborhoods is Jeopardized by placing these antennas in front yards of homes. Major problems Of public safety have been encountered, particularly vision blockage for auto and pedestrian access. In addition, all communities are faced with various bullding lot sizes. Many building lots are so small that established setback requIrements - (in order to preserve adequate air and light) are vulnerable to the unregulated Placement of these antennas. ...the exercise of preemptive authority by the FCC in granting this request would not be in the best interest of the general public. 19. The NaTional Association of Counties (NACO), the American Planning Association (APA) and the National League of Cities (NLC) all Opposed the issuence of an antenna preemption ruling, that federal and slate power must be viewed In harmony and warns thataFederal intrusion into local concerns of health, safety the traditional l Police power exercised by the state and funduly uinterfere with the legitimate activities of the states. NLC believed that both r 0 Federal and local interests can be accommodated without preempting local authority to regulate the installation of amateur radio antennas. The APA said that the FCC should continue to leave the issue of regulating amateur antennas with the local government and with the state and Federal courts. 20. When considering preemption, we must begin with two constitutional provisions. The tenth amendment provides that any powers which the constitution either does not delegate to the United States or does not prohibit the states from exercising are reserved to the states. These are the police powers of the states. The Supremacy Clause, however, provides that the constitution and the laws of the United States shall supersede any state law to the contrary. Article III, Section 2. Given these basic premises, state laws may be preempted in three ways: First, Congress may expressly preempt the state law. See Tones v. Eath Packing �., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). Or, Congress may indicate its Intent to completely occupy a given field so that any state law encompassed within that field would impllclty be preempted. Such intent to preempt could be found in a conc-esslonal regulatory scheme that was so pervasive that it would be reasonable to assume That Congress did not intend to permit the states to supplement it. See °fidelity Federal Savings d Loan A5s1n Y. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). Finally, preemption may be warranted when state law conflicts with federal law. Such conflicts C may occur when "compliance with both Federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers. Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 143 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines Y. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). Furthermore, federal regulations have the same preemptive effect as federal statutes. Fidelltv Federal Savings & Loan Association v. de la Cuesta, supra. 21. The situation before us requires us to determine the extent to which state and local zoning regulations may conflict with federal policies concerning amateur radio operators. 22. Few matters coming before us present such a clear dichotomy of viewpoint as does the instant issue. The cities, counties, local communities and housing assoclatlons see an obligation to all of their ci-izens and try to address their concerns. This is accomplished through regulations, ordinances or covenants oriented toward the health, safety and ceneral welfare of Those they regulate. At the opposite ;:ole are the individual amateur cperators and their support groups who are- -T roub led - by- -Iota l- - -regu Fat Ions which may Inhibit the use of amateur s ations or, in some instances, totally preclude amateur communications. Alloned with the cperaTors are such entities as the Department of Defense, the Amerlcan Red Cross and local civil defense and emergency organizations wno have found in AmaTeur Radio a pool of skilled radio operators and a C 9 readily available backup network. In this situation, we believe it Is appropr late to stIke a balance between the federal interest in promiI ng amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. The cornerstone on which we will predicate our decision Is that a reasonable accommodation may be mace t at,, -een the two sides. 23. Preemption is primarily a function of the extent of the conflict between federal and state and local regulation. Thus, in considerinz, whether our regulations or policies can tolerate a state re may consider such factc-s as the severity of and th on Ne underlying the state's regulations. In this regard, wehaepreviouslyns recognized the legitimate and important state interests reflected In local zoning regulations. For example, in Earth Satellite Communications, Inc., 95 FCC 2d 1223 (1983), we recognized that • • the present situation . r For example, we do not wish to Preclude a state or locality from exercising Jurisdiction over certain elements of an SMATV operation that properly may fall within its authority, such as zoning or public safety and health, provided the regulation in question Is C not undertaken as a pretext for the actual Of frustrating achievement of the Preeminent urpose federal objective and so long as the non - federal regulation is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. 24• Similarly, we recognize here that there are certain state and local interests which ma general legitimately affect amateur radio facilities. eNonetheless, there Is also a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Evidence of this interest may be found in the comprehensive set of rules that the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service.5 rules set forth procedures for the Iicensln Thor C_ frequency allocations, technical standards whichsamateur radio perators meet and operating practices which amateur operators must follow. We recognize the Amateur radio service as a voluntary, noncommerclal communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. Moreover, the amateur radio service provides a reservcir Of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts who can be called on in times of national or local emergencies. By Its nature, the Amateur v Radio Service also proides the opportunity for Individual operators to further international goodwill. Upon weighing these interests, we 5 47 CFR Part 97• Hut believe r, :!mited preemption policy is warranted. State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted. 25. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur communications. Some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial installations than others If they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he /she desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for international amateur communications will differ from an antenna used to contact other amateur operators at short::r distances. We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained' In local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement-, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation Cto accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. 6 26. Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all stz•te and local laws t`.Et affect amateur operations. We are confident, howeve -, that state and local governments will - endeavor to legls!ate in a marner that affords appropriate recognition to the Important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts with federal policy, as well es time— consuming and expensive litigation In this area. Amateur operators who believe that local or state governments have peen everreachlnS e-, tL.erety have oreciuded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of Iccal tribunals and forums. 6 We reiterate that our ruling herein does not reach restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements. Such agreements are voluntarily entered '-to by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed and do not .sually concern this Commission. 27. Accordingly, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16, 1984, by the American Radio Relay League, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and, In all other respects, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William J. Trlcarico Secret =ry ti c 27. Accordingly, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16, 1984, by the American Radio Relay League, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and, In all other respects, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William J. Trlcarico Secret =ry WW K File No. APN AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, Bruce B. Sawyer as appellant on the above file and property known as 15430 Bohlman Road , hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file. Date: September 1. 1989 Signature CITY CODE Zoning Regulations 315- 80.050 S15-80.050 Maintenance of landscaped areas A landscaped area provided in compliance with the regulations of this Chapter or as a condition of any use permit, variance, design review or other approval granted hereunder, shall be planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the owner as may be prescribed by the Planning Director. 515-80.060 Storage in unimproved right -of -way prohibited No portion of any unimproved right -of -way of any public street in any zoning district shall be used at any time for the storage of any of the items of personal property described in Section 15- 12.160 of this Chapter. The term "unimproved right -of -way" shall mean all portions of a public street which are not paved and improved for motor vehicle travel or parking. S15- 80.070 Stadiums prohibited in all districts (a) Neither a stadium of any size nor any other facility with a similar use but different name shall be permitted in any zoning district. A "stadium" is a track and /or field which has any one or more of the following: Permanent or portable seating (other than field -level seating for participating athletes), permanent or portable lighting, permanent or portable sound system, press box, scoreboard, restrooms or concession stands, and on which any inter - school events or other spectator- oriented events of any kind are held. (b) Temporary portable equipment for cultural events (other than sports events or rock concerts) may be utilized on any track or field upon a two-thirds vote of the City Council after a duly noticed public hearing and a finding that the particular event will not be unduly disturbing to the City. (c) This Section shall not apply to facilities at elementary and secondary (junior and senior high) schools or facilities built by private, non - profit, youth - oriented organizations such as Little League or the American Youth Soccer organizations. (d) No part of this Section may be amended or repealed except by the voters of the City at a regular municipal election. S15-80.080 Radio and television antennas (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Paragraph, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (1) Antenna means any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the reception or transmission of electromagnetic waves which system is attached to an antenna Supp. #6, 8/87 Page 15 -180 Zoning Regulations S15- 80.080 support structure or attached to the exterior of any building. The term includes devices having active elements extending in any direction, and directional beam -type arrays having elements carried by and disposed from a generally horizontal boom which may be mounted upon and rotated through a vertical mast, tower or other antenna support structure. (2) Antenna support structure means any mast, tower, tripod or other structure utilized for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas. (3) Licensed amateur radio station antenna means an antenna owned and utilized by a federally licensed amateur radio operator. (4) Satellite dish antenna means any dish - shaped antenna designed to receive and /or send satellite signals for the purpose of television or radio reception, or other telemetry communication, having a diameter greater than three feet. (b) Limitation on number. Not more than one ground- mounted antenna support structure for a licensed amateur radio station antenna and not more than one satellite dish antenna shall be permitted on each site; provided, however, that upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter, a second ground- mounted antenna support structure for a licensed amateur radio station antenna may be allowed where: (1) The site is one acre or greater in size; (2) The height of each antenna does not exceed fifty -five feet; and (3) The Planning Commission finds, in addition to the findings required under Section 15- 55.070, that by reason of the size, topography, landscaping or other special characteristics of the site, the installation of two antenna support structures having a height below the limit prescribed in Subparagraph (e)(3) of this Section will mitigate the visual impact upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -way to a greater extent than the installation of a single antenna support structure. (c) Building permit required. A building permit shall be required for the installation or construction of any satellite dish antenna or any ground- mounted antenna support structure in excess of thirty feet in height. No such permit shall be issued unless the antenna and the support structure comply with the regulations set forth in this Section. Applications for a building permit shall be made upon such form prescribed by the City and shall be accompanied by the following items: (1) Type and description of the antenna and its support structure, including size, shape, height and color. (2) Plot plan showing the location of the antenna and its support structure on the site, including distance from structures, property lines, street lines, setback lines and exposed utility lines. Supp. #6, 8/87 Page 15 -181 Zoning Regulations §15- 80.080 (3) Construction drawings showing the proposed method of installation. (4) Manufacturer's specifications for the antenna support structure and installation requirements, including footings, guy wires and braces. (5) Copy of FCC license, if the application is for a licensed amateur radio station antenna. (d) Location requirements. Except as otherwise specified herein, antenna support structures may be roof or ground- mounted, free standing or supported by guy wires, buildings or other structures. A support structure shall be considered ground- mounted if its base is mounted directly in the ground, even if the structure is supported or attached to the wall of a building. All antennas and support structures shall be located on a site in compliance with the following standards: (1) No antenna or support structure shall be located within any required yard, except that guy wires and antenna arrays may extend into a required side or rear yard but may not extend over property lines or street lines. (2) No antenna support structure shall be located closer to any property line or street line than a distance equal to one -half of the height of the antenna support structure. (3) No satellite dish antenna shall be roof - mounted. (4) Ground - mounted antenna support structures shall be located to the rear of the main structure on the site, unless otherwise approved by the City based upon a finding that the alternative location will more effectively reduce the visual impact of the antenna and its support structure upon adjacent properties and public rights -of- way. (e) Height restrictions. Antenna height shall mean the overall vertical length of the antenna support structure and the antenna mounted thereon, including any length to which the antenna support structure is capable of being raised, as measured from the peak of the roof with respect to a roof - mounted antenna, or from the natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, with respect to a ground- mounted antenna. All antennas shall comply with the following height restrictions: (1) Roof - mounted antennas shall not exceed fifteen feet in height above the peak of the roof, except that a single vertical pole or whip antenna which is not supported by guy wires may be erected to a height of thirty feet above the peak of the roof. (2) Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed six feet in height plus one additional foot in height for each additional three feet of setback from the yard line or lines adjacent to the antenna, up to a maximum height of ten feet. Supp. #6, 8/87 Page 15 -182 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 AUGUST 9, 1989 P IC HEARINGS Continued Chairperso iegfried initially felt that the house could be shifted; now, he was n convinced that a 10 ft. shiftin f the house would not impact other homes in the area. BURGER/TAPPAN VED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -013, DESIGN G THAT THE HOME BE SITED ON THEN SETBACK LINE Passed 5 -1, Com ssioner Tucker dissenting. 14. DR -89 -024 Chen, 12 Star Ridge Ct., request f a two -story addition to an existing V -89 -026 two -story ho with a total floor ea of 5,707 sq. ft. in the NHR zoning district per Chap 15 of the c' Code. A variance is also requested from Ordinance 15 -14.0 e) to ow the addition of the home to be constructed on a slope of 36% in lie f 30% maximum allowed. ------------------------------------ - - - - -- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the la use visit. The Public Hearing was opened a :05 A.M. Mr. Ray Murdock, Represe mg the Applicant, made himself avail a for questions. BURGER/HARRIS OVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT :06 A.M. Passed 6 -0. HARRIS ER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -024 PER THE MODE ESOLUTION. Passed 6- . URGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-026 PER THE MODEL RESOLMON. - 15. AR -89 -019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli- cation that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989; he noted a correction to Staff Report Project Description and stated that the lowered height of the tower would be 34 ft., not 23 ft. as stated. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:09 A.M. Mr. Sawyer, Applicant, reviewed the Appeal and presented a packet of information on recent court cases on the rights of amateur radio operators. The record failed to show that the erection of the antenna would endanger the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or residents. Chairperson Siegfried asked Mr. Sawyer to consider what alternatives were available. Mr. Sawyer provided information on the necessary tower height, building requirements for such; he stated that he used his amateur radio four to six hours per day, on an intermittent basis. Mr. Alan B. Grebene, 15409 Belnap Dr., Saratoga, commented that the antenna proposed had the aesthetics of a oil rig; he contended there was no way to solve transmission problems by building a 65 ft. tower in front of his home. He had moved to the hillsides for the serenity and the views; the Applicant's proposal was completely unreasonable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Krista Billawala noted that none of the visual impacts would affect Mr. Sawyer's view; such was not very neighborly conduct. Mr. Charles Ebes, Volunteer Counsel for the American Radio Relay League, noted that similar testimony was given whenever the question of amateur radio came up; the appearance of antennas were in the eye of the beholder. The FCC had already considered these issues and ruled that a limited preemption existed. Ms. Karen Grebene, 15409 Belnap Dr., Saratoga, stated they did not wish to deny Mr. Sawyer the use of his property or enjoyment of his hobby, but that a balance be achieved between the his interests and theirs. Mr. Billawala felt their must be court cases addressing their concerns; such was not presented. Mr. Grebene added that the legal issues were completely irrelevant. Mr. Sawyer provided information on the topography of the site and the site constraints in terms of setbacks and overhead utility lines; after careful study, he did not feel there was an alternative location for the tower, while still obtaining the reception he wished. Current long range reception was achieved only under ideal atmospheric conditions. Commissioner Kolstad noted the Applicant was receiving transmissions from countries as far away as Russia; he questioned whether the government guaranteed 100% reception. Finally, he com- mented that the Applicant was in the unusual position of having a hobby of amateur radio while residing in the hillsides; did the government allow towers to be 65 ft. in addition to compensation for the hillside topography? BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:38 A.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney stated that Commissioner Kolstad had correctly summarized the issue. Unlike the court cases cited by the Applicant, which were drafted before PRB 1, including Whitter. Saratoga's current Ordinance was drafted after PRB 1 and in collaboration with the American Radio Relay League and with input from local operators. He was comfortable with the Ordinance regulations drafted for the City. The issue under consideration had not been litigated and resolved around the following questions: 1) If there was a balance between competing interests, as the FCC stated there should be, did not such place a responsibility on the radio operator with respect to his selection of a home site? Was one entitled to optimum reception when the operator voluntarily chose a lot against the hillside, where the topography would unreasonably interfere with radio reception? 2) If the radio was already in operation, there was some kind of reception; what was the level of quality one was entitled to? Staff agreed there should be a balance between competing interests? While the Applicant talked of balance, there did not seem to be an effort to achieve this balance. A Study Session was suggested with an invitation being extended to the City's consultants on amateur radio in order to make a determination on this matter. In his opinion, Staffs position was legally defensible. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 16 Consensus reached to hold a Study Session; the Applicant was agreeable to such. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AR -89 -019 TO AUGUST 23, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 15, 1989. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Planning Director Emslie reported on the City Council Meeting of August 2, 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: None. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:48 A.M. Respectfully sub , Carol A. Probst - Caughey PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 AUGUST 23, 1989 HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 4. D 89 -062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review roval to construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwellin m the R -1- 40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- Mr. Greg Barton, Ar •tect, stated he had conferred with the Applican/tDressing ere willing to elimi- nate some windows fa ' the south, namely, the two windows i Room/Water Closet and one window in droom No. 2. Ms. Magneson added that the Ap cant had also offered to rota the house slightly. Commissioner Harris asked that a dition be added requitkfig landscaping on the south side. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CL OS HE PUB C HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Mr. Barton responded that while they had agre to rotate the house, upon reflection such would throw off the alignment of the house with t str and change the presentation of the structure; however, french doors could be installed tX family r m if this would help. Commissioner Burger was not in fav of rotating the hous elimination of the three windows and the addition of landscaping woul a sufficient to address the 'scent property owner's concerns. Commissioner Tappan felt at the Applicant and his architect we being extremely reasonable while the adjacent prop5gy owner was not; he noted the very significan levation of the neighbor's home above this site he elimination of three windows would result in large expanse of blank wall; he was not i avor of rotating the house even a few degrees. commissio Kolstad agree with the above comments; however, if the Applica was willing to Wmakethhe changes , it was his prerogative. /TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -062 PER THE MODEL RESO ION E ELIMINATION OF THREE WINDOWS INDICATED AND THE ADDITIO OF APING ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Tapp dissenting. Break 8:59 - 9:10 P.M. Chairperson Siegfried absent, Vice Chairperson Tucker presiding. 11. AR -89 -019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli- cation that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 9, 1989. Planner Graff reviewed the Memorandum Re: Construction of an amateur radio antenna. The Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Sawyer, Applicant, stated that the location proposed for the antenna by Staff was in his view, the most exposed site, both to the valley floor and to the adjacent property owners; in addition, there was an existing traffic hazard at this curve of Bohlman Rd. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 AUGUST 23, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Alan Grebene, 15479 Belmap Dr., Saratoga, stated that there was no way to prevent visual impacts from a 65 ft. tower; he presented a packet with photographs entitled, "Grebene/Thomas Exhibit A, August 23, 1989, Subject: AR -89- 019 ". Mr. Phil Sims, Attorney for Mr. Grebene and Mr. Thomas, reviewed several court cases which demonstrated that cities could regulate satellite and radio antennas; he discussed the City's recent Ordinance enacted on this topic. Mr. Michael Thomas stated that the subject property looked like a command center; the four exist- ing antennas created a grid -like appearance. The photographs presented earlier clearly showed the visual impacts; he contended that granting the Applicant's request would devalue his property. Planning Director Emslie reviewed Staffs original recommendation not to approve the Applicant's request. Staff had since considered two alternative locations for the radio antenna, both of which would require a variance; testimony given as well as Staff s observation was that the alternative locations had the same visual impact as the original location proposed. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:27 EM. Passed 5- 0-1, Chairperson Siegfried being absent. Commissioner Burger noted the difficulty of this issue and her attempts to balance the needs of the Applicant and the adjacent property owners; she had concluded that Staff Recommendation to deny this request was the appropriate solution. While she understood the FCC's position, it was her understanding that Mr. Sawyer's access to the airwaves had not been denied and that he had adequate access. She could not approve a variance, since the alternative locations for the antenna would make a bad situation worse; all the proposals reviewed were very intrusive. Commissioners Harris and Tappan concurred. Commissioner Kolstad felt this request was a question of efficiency; the Applicant was trying to super tune his radio reception; he had reservations whether the FCC stated that a 100% efficiency was required despite the influence of one's location. He agreed with Mr. Sims' evaluation and felt the Applicant had reasonable reception considering his contacts with countries as far away as Russia; the proposed antenna would affect the value of adjacent property owners. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO DENY AR -89 -019. Passed 5 -0 -1, Chairperson Siegfried absent. DR -89 -060 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, request for design review and variance proval to construct a 1,026 sq. ft. first and second story a an exist - e story home for a total of 3,358 s e ariance is to exceed the maxim owed floor 8 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Cha City Code. ----------------- - - - - -- -_ --------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------- Commissione r reported on the land use visit. raff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated Augu 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M. STAFF REPORTS RESOLUTION NO. AR -89 -019 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATION Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road an WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received antennalata15430 BohlmansRoad,randew approval of an amatuer radio WHEREAS, the Planning Parties anning Commission held a duly hearing at which time all interested r noticed public opportunity to be heard and to were given a full present evidence, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of to support said application, and the following findingohave� been determined: en That, due to the height, Placement, and massiveness of the proposed antenna structure, the visual impacts on surrounding residences cannot be mitigated to an acceptable degree as required by Section 15- 80.080(g) That, since the applicant currently has several antennas on the property that allow him to communicate with ham operators in other locations, denial of this application does not prohibit the applicant access to the airwaves. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site la architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Bruce Sawyer design review approval be and the same is hereby for prejudice, y denied wi thout Section 2. Unless appealed Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga ogaCtyurCodet to thise Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. requirements PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission State of California, this 13th day of September, 1989 b following roll call vote: y the AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Harris, Kol NOES: None Moran & Tappan ABSENT: None ATTEST: Chair, Planni ission Secre ar , Planning Commission REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: C. Todd Graff J DATE August 9, 1989 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: AR-89-019; 15430 Boh lman Road APPUCANT /OWNER: Bruce Sawyer APN: 517 -14 -22 D File No. AR -89 -019, 15430 Bohlman Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 7/06/89 Application complete: 7/06/89 Notice published: 7/26/89 Mailing completed: 7/27/89 Posting completed: 7/20/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of an Administrative Review application to allow the construction of an amatuer radio antenna, in the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing a 65 foot high retractable, ground mounted antenna tower, with a two element antenna, that would be located approximately 12 feet east of the existing residence at 15430 Bohlman Road. Due to the steep topography of the area, the visual impact of the proposed antenna tower is limited to several residences located above the subject property, along Belnap Drive. In staff's opinion, views from the valley floor would not be significantly impacted. The applicant's proposal meets all the requirements contained in Section 15- 80.080 of the zoning ordinance, except subsection "g", which requires mitigation of visual impact. It is staff's opinion that construction of this antenna would constitute an unreasonable interruption of views from surrounding residences. Staff is not able to suggest an alternate location or adequate screening for this antenna that reduces the visual impact on surrounding residences while meeting the applicant's reception needs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution AR -89 -019. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution AR -89 -019 3. Exhibit A 4. Exhibit B, Project Plans 5. Correspondence from neighbors (Grebene, Thomas, Billawala) 6. Correspondence from applicant AR -89 -019, 15430 Bohlman Road ZONING: HC -RD PARCEL SIZE: 1.0 ac. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC Tower: 54 feet (fully extended) Mast: 10.5 feet Antenna: 0.5 feet TOTAL: 65 feet (total height) .LENGTH OF ANTENNA ELEMENTS: Approximately 20 feet SETBACKS: Front: 68 ft. Rear: 65 ft. Right Side: 80 ft. Left Side: 120 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a 65 foot high retractable, ground mounted antenna tower, with a two element antenna, that would be located approximately 12 feet east of the existing residence at 15430 Bohlman Road. Due to potential impact on surrounding properties, staff has required that this item go through the design review process. The tower would be constructed of galvanized, structural grade steel. In order to provide structural strength, a lattice -like arrangement of supports is necessary. It would be constructed in three sections, such that it could be lowered to a height of approximately 23 feet when not in use. This would involve lowering the tower and the mast that sits on top of the tower. The length of the antenna elements would be approximately 20 feet. Currently, there is one grounded mounted antenna located on the property. It is staff's opinion that this antenna is legal since it appears to be less than 30 feet in height. This antenna does not require a building permit at this height. If the Planning Commission were to approve the proposed antenna, this antenna would have to be removed. In order to have two ground mounted antennas, a use permit would have to be granted by the Planning Commission. In addition to the ground mounted antenna, there are also two roof mounted antennas located on this residence. It is staff's opinion that these antennae meet the restrictions contained in the City AR -89 -019, 15430 Bohlman Road Code. There are no restrictions on the number of roof mounted antennas, so long as they do not exceed 15 feet in height above the peak of the roof. ISSUE• The impact of interruption of radio and television reception was not explored by staff. Visual impacts of the proposed antenna was the only issue identified by staff. Due to the steep topography of the area, the visual impact of the proposed antenna tower is limited to several residences located above the subject property, along Belnap Drive. In staff's opinion, views toward the proposed antenna from the valley floor would not be significantly impacted, due to the heavy backdrop of vegetation. The applicant's proposal meets all the requirements contained in Section 15- 80.080 of the zoning ordinance, except subsection "g", which requires mitigation of visual impact. It is staff's opinion that construction of this antenna would constitute an unreasonable interruption of views from surrounding residences. The lattice -like triangulation of the support structure adds significant mass to the structure. Staff is not suggesting that the applicant be denied access to the airwaves. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission prohibits the City from taking this action. However, staff is suggesting that a less obtrusive antenna could be used. The residences on this hillside have wide panoramic views of the valley floor. Since the residences along Belnap Drive are significantly higher in elevation than Mr. Sawyer's residence, it is difficult to find a location for this antenna that will not have significant impacts on their views. Staff has included a graphic representation of the topographic conditions of this hillside (see Exhibit A). Please note that, while this drawing is intended to be a realistic representation of the elevation differentials, it is not as accurate as a site specific survey would be. ALTERNATIVES: Staff is not able to suggest an alternate location for this antenna that would significantly reduce visual impacts on surrounding residences. Staff feels that a large portion of the impact is due to the tower that is proposed. If a less obtrusive tower were used and if the antenna were placed as far west as possible or farther down the hill (to the northeast), the visual impacts may be reduced. However, if this were done, visual impacts may be greater on several of the residences on the downhill side of Mr. Sawyer's residence. In addition, staff has not determined whether these alternate locations would meet Mr. Sawyer's reception requirements. CONCLUSION• The proposed antenna would have a significant impact on the views from two residences located above the subject property, on Belnap Drive. Staff is not able to make the finding that the visual impacts of the proposed antenna have been mitigated to the degree possible as required by Section 15- 80.080(g). RECOMMENDATION• Deny the application by adopting Resolution AR -89 -019. ,EXHIBIT A. �A SAWYER RESIDENCE% e0o; B11AWALA RESIDENCE �-oo"- Scale: i• = zoo' 1 '1 / / /llll►►III ��I.� v� E$EIVE RESIDENCE ZIPE � - 1.1 10 �\ 0 Grebene Residence Billawala Residence �1 Proposed antenna '1 Sawyer Residence Scales: 1" = 100' Horizontal & Vertical 0 z C m E r 0 CO �wr W� REVISED ANTENNA LOCATION EXHIBIT ell, ��\ pop,- j;�9z wZ2�7 lo -ol) 'VA Al L-OCA 7 10 N /TOWER All; mum 4 N P�, .0 IN L i 't l AMATEUR RADIO Lit EFFECTIVE DATE EXPIRATION DATE 10 /04 /EE 1 10/04/98 1 NAME AND ADDRESS .i . BRUCE 8 SAWYER 15430 801ILMAN RD f LIARATOGA CA 95:;7a i C; ` (LICENSEE'S SIGNATVPE1 1 { m NOT TRANSFERABLE CALL SIGN OPERATOR PRIVILEGES STATION PRIVILEGES AASKX EXTRA F i <IMARY FIXED STATION OPERATION LOCATION SA,hE AS 14AILING ADDRESS THIN I �ccusc .c c. m .c.•. . ... --me cvcnac muc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICA FIONS COMMISSION GETTYSBURG. PA 17326 FCCFORMOW FEDERAL AUGUSF IWF COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION a AL91 EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF ANTENNA SYSTEM The basic tower is the Telex Hy -Gain Model Number HG -54D (Order number 130 -1). Enclosed are copies of the catalogue description of this tower together with construction drawings and load and stress analysis. Mounted inside the tower will be a 20 foot long steel mast connected to the Telex Hy -Gain I X antenna rotor. Approximately 10 -1/2 feet of mast will extend beyond the top of the tower. Immediately above the thrust bearing at the top of the tower will be mounted the Telex Hy -Gain TH7DX 10 -15 -20 meter triband antenna. This antenna is described more fully in the accompanying catalogue literature. At the top of the mast, separated by approximately 10 feet, will be mounted the Telex Hy -Gain Disc 7-2 40 meter monoband antenna (2 element). This is also described in the enclosed catalogue literature, but please note that the drawing in that literature is of a three element beam instead of this proposed 2 element beam. The total surface area of the two antennas is 15.4 sq. ft. Antenna Towers EXHIBIT B loped FREE in �o`Nets shUS qg states the oOnti9 301 other oducts inolud%n amateur P� a time o�d NAI-Ga0 at the sam �y ACA, r•ZJ' �g i ORDER MODEL 21 ASTM 16." NO:. NO. _ - STANDARDS 206 125=1 HG -52SS ` 3`> A500-A36 13.75 348.3 9.5 and A570 12g. HG -37SS 120 A500 -A36 • 16: 21.5 6.6 - and A570 16' 13Q-1" . HG -54HD A500-A36 jr 261 70: r: and A570 F6.6 - 131 =t' HG -70HO _4=. '��'' 1100 499:- and A570 'These towers windload rated at 60 mph (96.6 kmJhr.) in. IF r � A, yF O QQ� mm-. I sq. ft. I mI I lbs. I kg.. 52 15:8: 21 6.4 16." 417.6 9.5 .8 455 206 3T '; 11 X; 20.5 6.2 13.75 348.3 9.5 .8 285. 120 54 ;`. • 16: 21.5 6.6 1953. , 491 16' 1.5' >; 575 261 70: . ZTZ:• 21.5 F6.6 2263 574:T 16' 1.5' 1100 499:- Self- Supporting Crank -Up Towers Hy -Gain's rugged sod- supporting crank -up towers are made of steel and are galvanized after welding to ASTM material standards. Open end tubular steel legs are galvanized inside and out and permit unrestricted moisture drainage. Glans welding fixtures assure straight and true alignment of the tower sections for close tolerance crank -up guide systems. These towers can be extended with a manual winch (included) or with an electric winch. A highly recommended option is the thrust bearing, which can be bolted to the tower's top section to accept masts of up to 23/,." (55 mm) diameter. All Hy -Gain towers are complete with bass hinge, foundation steel,--cage and a pro-drilled rotator mounting plate. These towers require no guying and conform to ElA specifications and the Uniform Building Code. They are also approved try the city of Los Angeles under Los Angeles fabrications license no. 1095. USC documents for building permits are available on request (SP" tower model) be bre Purchasing a tower. Diamond -Web Bracing means more strength YMOM it's i The "diamond web" or "double w " lattice brace configuration is used in Hy=Gain towers for added strength where the sections overlap. The diamond web design has 21h times the strength of the common "W" brace. When the tower is in its fully extended position, the wind load capacity is between 50 and 60 miles per hour (at its full rated load) depending on model. 17 Antenna RoiWtors EXHIBIT B Specifications A� h ! _' 33e4�o a�se�� �}o r2TUr' dr o ORDER MODEL NO. NO. m< a0. h. ma bb.A.= Nan. im iia. Nan c0�iirt- 616- � 300 NON 300 2S. 5000• Sir 7500 830 SalraadOpanrO. B(or�SWM%WRdNr Sta�raas, LOCaq er.r. • tiwnga P«nirrragr l++briemo 31M1 aoes 7 58: 21 _:301 rx 20a rT9t. (0 _ EYmr: TftWAs= Chao FWW 106G, . _>»: 9000 ,m7 MAd9► ,7e ear eaaranp g�tygyt, e Y 2e . rPS 30s HAMry " Is• to 7.5 — ;.ems so.-: 5000 586 yyyp� 9se om Naas CkMFkW a 2t �*g Slakllaa LLaaft 302 COLS II ea. ..79 5.0 r8 e0t3 eer. 900 90 � Our Nan Rare MW0Cinip� eMrot a eae e.�wg. S1 u sale e a to. M. AA a0 ' .3A . ZO. t.5 ,♦ .: >OQ 'W: a50 5, t� ouNRa v Flraamoacinoa BMW 12 eae Sawnp ShWrAM 4Wft 5 14 &4 i0601 N>sp, a6. aZ. _ _ �a� W F1tr0 a00D ,otor 27000 2596 p eaarrq 7 370 ,50' HF amamu wan boana in *=m at 26' (9 ml anoiya use TIX. Mr= or N760, Template Bell - Housing Rotators Clearance holes to be / — 11/32" (8.7 mm) / \ Use holes "A" for Models A 3' ne•z mn, - - `A \ HAM IV, AR 40 Use holes "A & 8" for Model T2X �' �• c = 3• (79.2 mml / \A A HDR 300 j TiX 7' (, 78 aim) 20 qWX- 1 --- 9' (229 MMI - -1� J f— 9.3r (277 mm► Lower Mast Support for HAM IV, 7"2X HAM IV TJF Y h Accepts 1 %- to 25/e" 0.0. pipe. Centers on 21/2 ". ORDER NO. 5146710 AR 40 and CD 4511 11 I = � m E E e r— 8• (207 mmi EXHIBIT B TELEX., Of ta- HDR-300 T2X Tailtwister - - - - -- This rotator is capable of handling king-sized antenna arrays of up to 25 ORDER NO. 300 (120/220 Vac 50160 Hz) The worid famous Taittwister is handling ORDER NO. 303 Sq. It. (2.3 MZ) wind load area. Shipping Wt: 55 lbs. (25.0 kg) capable of antennas with wind load areas of 20 sq. ft. (1.9 ". (120 Vac 60 Hz) • Thickwall Castings — handles largest loads UPS Shippable • Thickwatl Castings – undies ORDER NO. 303-2 • Machined steel output gear large, loads • 138 Ball Bearings —large bad (220 Vac 50 Hz) Shipping Wt. for either. 28 lbs. (12.7 • Sleeve Bearings— permanemty capacity kg) . lubricated • Sup heavy duty steel ' Triple control control Race— exceptional UPS Shippable � clamps, self centering • S1x- 8ottAssemb ly —s upenor • Solenoid Operated locking strength Brake — securely locks antenna in • Machined Steel Ring Gear —brig place life with maximum load • Digital Directional Indicator— i • Machined Steel Drive Gear accurate to 1 ° • Separate Brake and Rotation System —time tested durability • Electric Locking Steel Wedge - Contmis— provides longer rotator sm rely locks antenna in place life • North or South Center Scale- • Low Voltage Control —safe marked on troth sides of plate. operation ? • Illuminated Directional r _ • Maximum mast ;.;1 Indicator —easily locates antenna size 3" (78 mm) • Sru p-Action Control Switches — (� lifetime operation l • LE.D. Control Indicators- ' -- positive operational signals _`� �� • Zener Regulated Meter Circuit— accurate positional readout • Low Voltage Control —safe operation • Maximum mast size 2.1 /18" (52 mm) HAM 1 V - -- - -- - -- Designed for medium communications antenna array of up to 15 sq. ft. (1.4 ma) wind load area. • Bell Rotator Oesgn- -total weather protection • Dual 98 Ball Bearing Race — proven support system • Machined Steel Ring Ga • Machined Steel Ring Ori System —time tasted dui • Electric Locking Stall W1 securely locks antenna it • North or South Center St unit • Illuminated Directional Indicator — easily locates position • Zener Regulated Meter C accurate positional reads • Snap-Action Control SvA lifetime operation • Low Voltage Control —sa operation • Maximum mast size 2-1/16" (52 mm) ORDER NO. 304 (120 VarJ80 Hz) ORDER NO. 3042 (220 Vat150 Hz) Shipping Wt: 24 lbs. (11.0 kg) UPS Shippable 9 Triband- Monoband EXHIBIT B Directional Antennas HF Antenna Specifications IV q �q ORDER M MODEL do a as M MHz I IL M M. i im a am t tL M M. I Inv. m memo l lop. M M" l lunjht S SQJL M MR 1 1134. k kg. IMS: T Tm7ox v vp v v r rl - - 2 24 7 7.3 : :�i!v. W WW 2 20 & &1 Z ZM., U UF-j 2 20. 15. 10 � �,Imw t too l lei , ,ILO- '. -..D7 a 3 37 3055 E EXP14 8 8.8. 2 27 c c1 - - U US u u 1 14.1 4 4.3 7 7- s su 1 1725 5 5.3 2 2W. M MF 2 20.15.10 I IS& S SW 1 100 1 161 7 7.37: - -.W 5 50 M M M" 0 0"10 t tr 2 29- 1 1-1 - - - -�MK I IM& - - - - - - 2 21.0. 6 6.3 4 40 q q2f s six s so s so L Lt- 1 10 4 4.5 - - - 1 17M _ 5.31 3 31) A A 2M a ao s so C C ' ':.74 1 10 4 4.5 222-S T TM3JRS V V' 2 25 3 3-1 [ [27.4 - _Lff_ - 12 1 17 A AW 3 3TS 1 14.3 4 4.4 1 1, Z:. 1 1.5u 2 21L 15. 10 T Ter- M M 1 10 1 1128.11 TMWk2 9 9 2 27 5 51 3 31X. 9 9.6 1 111 5 5.8 t t:x 5 5". 1 1&4 5 5.0 : : 2W,, M MS 2 20. 113. 10 : :�' ter - - as t too I Iw.q r r4, - -.00 7 77 3 35 39" T TH & &S 2 20 - 2 2' - - I I-vn- u u a a . .a Z Z S SU 1 14.3 4 4.4 r r S SU 2 2L 15. 10 1 1,= = =F W W 1 12V 3 34 . .3f. 2 22 t to MS 1 103BAS S SJS- 2 25 T T 1 1 1.3 I I..!Lr S SM 8 8 1 1 2.43 I IV. 3 3.1 1 10.2 3 3.05 - - Z:_ _ _50A 1 10 2 'am 2= 8 80 1 112L72 2 2. 1 1 in i is 6 6.8 37S-S I IOSSAS 1 121. 3 34 S S. 1 1.3 ' 'I&L & &g. 2 24 7 7.3 2 2.- 5 5". i is 4 4.6 2 211w S SU 1 10 4 4FA 1 100 1 100.9 3 3S . ..38 2 29 1 13 Z)" I ISMAS L LST 2 20 3 37. . .6 7 74 1 12 1 17 r r. 5 5": 1 14.3 4 4.4 1 15 : :.34& 1 100 1 100.9 1 1 3:. 7 7.'IT 2 21 37" 1 13513AS T TV 3 34 F F57. . .4 ' '2%5 - -T3; 2 25 7 7.9 W W-, W WZ- 1 17.5 5 5.3 . .'2Vbr S SM i is . .a=, 1 100 1 1180.9 S S.V_ . ..-A& 4 42 1 19 M7:3 2 205&M 1 1'.-& 3 39 . .5 ' 'IMMI i it.1 3 34 1 10.4 2 2:- S SILS'. 2 25 7 7.6 I I'ZV, U US 2 20 1 10M S So 120.7 C C. A All, 2265 2 2035As a a-5, 2 25 3 3' . .37 t to 4 4.9 1 2 2 5 51111 2 20.1 1 6 6.1 1 2 2: S Su 2 20 ' 'IF 0 0= I IW 1 160.9 1 14 S SO 3 35 1 16 394.8 2 204BAS 1 10 3 30 141 . .5 . .353. I IT. 1 1 2 26 7 7.9 2 2' 5 501 2 223 6 6.7 2 2W, A AU 2 20 ' '11001 K K4 t too 1 100.9 7 72. . .60 5 55 a a 371-S O OISC7_1 1 1.7' 3 35* t t- 2 22 ' ' 411 W W 2 2.7 . .86 2 2:, 5 50.0 = =5 6 6.7 r rAr- 6 615 3 3M 40 v v l loo I ISMS Z Z7- . .25 2 23 1 10.3 372LS D DISC7- ' '-& 1 15 L LP 1 . 17 a 44& W W 1 2 22.6 6 6.9 ' '-, I:- S SMS. 2 25 g g7.6 • • 2%- O OLS 4 40 a ar W W 1 a 6°. . ..St 5 56.5 2 25.3 3734 O OIR & 7 - 26 2 F, _ 10.79 2 2- S SU 2 2IL7 8 8.8 4 40 2 231Y I I= 8 80 1 128 to Monoband Beams N 203BAS loss" VIPM Cor kAw Pv. �I MGM zo &a ?on 260 an 3.0 On ago An 01109%,f~ 7.1 v2*0 2.0 Q M � Cw Lwwmm 11 l2 11 l2 HF Tdbwdem - WodvFa,,,o„S EXHIBIT B Thunderbirds J TH7DX 7- clement, Broadband Triband Beam 10, 15, 20 meters This amazing new tribander, using a dual driven 7 element system on a 24'(7.3 m) boom maintains a VSWR of less than 2:1 on all bands, including ALL of ten meters. No compromise on TH2Mk3S - ement Tiriiband Beam 10, 15. 20 meters Hy- Gain's Model TH2Mk3S is a ruggedly constructed, top. Performing, compact tribander that installs almost anywhere. and can be rotated with a CD 4511 or HAM IV rotator. Featuring air dielectric Hy-0 traps, which handle the maximum legal power. It feeds with 52 ohm coax, is Beta Matched for 5.5 dB gain, and delivers maximum FIB ratio without compromise. VSWR is less than 1.5:1 at resonance on all bands. Taper swaged, slotted tubing with stainless steel gain performance was needed to achieve this efficiency. A unique combination of trapped and monoband parasitic elements produces a front- to-back ratio of 27 dB. In a parasitic array such as this, high efficiency traps are used rather than parallel stubs. These Hi-O traps are capable of handling the maximum legal power with a 2.1 safety margin, and are superior to parallel stubbing for ease of assembly and maintenance. The TH70X uses stainless steel hardware for all electrical —arid most mechanical connections plus taper swaged 6063 -TS32 thick wall aluminum tubing. The antenna includes exclusive, die- hardware and clamps make the TH2Mk3S one of the most rugged antennas available. _ Hy -Gain ferrite balun SN-86 is recommended for use with TH2Mk3S. ORDER NO. 390S Shipping Wt: 22 lbs. (10 kg) UPS Shippable cast aluminum, rugged boom -to- mast clamp, and heavy gauge element -to -boom brackets. The TH7DX comes complete with a Hy -Gain SN-86 balun. ORDER NO. 391S Shipping Wt: 82 lbs. (37 kg) UPS Shippable 40 Meter EXHIBIT B Disov� sefie S Dipole or erer Monoband Beam Hy -Gain offers you several options with wide bandwidth and Hi-0 efficiency without coils. A low voltage feed point eliminates insulator failure and assures that the antenna can handle twice the new U.S. legal power limits. Discoverer 7 -1 A rotatable dipole of low weight and wind surface area so it easily fits most existing beam installations. This antenna can be tuned to either, 30 or 40 ORDER NO. 371 S Shipping Wt: 23 lbs. (10 kg) UPS Shippable Discoverer 7 -2 A two-element 40 meter beam with 6.5 d8 gain, 15 dB FIB ratio and VSWR of 1.5:1 at resonance. A unique hairpin loading system delivers superior performance without high loss coils. Feeds with 52 ohm coax and comes ORDER NO. 372S Shipping Wt: 56.5 lbs. (25.3 kg) UPS Shippable Director Kit 7 -3 Converts the Discoverer 7 -2 into a three element beam with 8.7 dB gain and a FIB ratio of 26 dB: almost doubling the two- element performance. Even more amazing, it's ail on a 35' (10.7 m) ORDER NO. 373S Shipping Wt: 41.50 lbs. (18.8 kg) UPS Shippable meters with a front to side ratio of 30 d8 for a fast. inexpensive expansion of band capability. Feeds with 52 ohm coax. Comes with preformed mast damp. factory pretuned with Hy- Gain's exclusive Beta Match for reduced lightning hazard. Tiltable boom to mast bracket and stainless steel hardware is included. Hy43ain ferrite balun BN-86 is recommended. boom, outperforming other brands that are much larger. The combination Discoverer 7 -2 and Director Kit even fits on medium duty towers such as the HG52SS saving both cost and space. EXHIBIT B 1 16 =6" 53' -0" 16' -8" 3' -6" 20' -0" + } LL 12.750" 15.187 " 18.032" SECTION DIMENSIONS v. SECTION 4 3/18 TxI9 GALV. A.C. CABLE SECTION 5 i/q 7%19 GALV. A.C. CABLE SECTION 6 I I TOWER ELEVATION SECTION 4 SECTION ! SECTION BASE BOLTS 3/4' ■ 2" A -325 3 REO'D. /LEG 9 REO'D. /TOTAL 3,-6 TOP V T TYP \ 15 TYP 20' WINCH PLATE SEC BRAC s 8 REBAR —i TYP,EACN CORNER 6" UNDISTURBED 27" SOILS 1e" u ° 14 &4 REBAR II CROSS TIES. TYP CORRESPONDENCE September , 1989 City of Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Subject Matter: (APPLICANT /APPELLANT, SAWYER) (AR -89 -019) Dear City Council Members, I submit this letter challenging and requesting denial of the appeal of Mr. Bruce Sawyer that would allow construction of an amateur radio antenna at 15430 Bohlman Road in the HC-RD gone district (AR -89 -019). My wife and I are the owners of property directly above Mr. Sawyer's property (15470 Bohlman Road). and would be most directly impacted if Mr. Sawyer's appeal was to be approved. The City offices currently have on record previous documents submitted by myself detailing my objections to the construction of this antenna. It would appear that Mr. Sawyer is claiming certain FCC Requlations which he believes allows him to build the antenna with no consideration for the quality of life of his neighbors and the instant decrease in value of our property. since= our property is `view property' and much of its' value is determined by the view itself. Mr. Sawyer presently has an array of antennas on his property and existingly enjoys the practice of a Ham Radio Operator. The requested new antenna is apparently for a bigger, better system at the expense of his neighbors and the City of Saratoga. Although I am not an attorney, or steeped in all the legal background of this type of project, it is hard for me to believe that any past rulings Mr. Sawyer brings forward at the Oct. 4th hearing to justify this antenna had the same circumstances of a Hillside Property, purchased with the 'Total View' in mind. it is absurd to believe that Mr. Sawyer has any legal rights what - so -ever to deprive us of the main reason we purchased this property or to lower the value of our property. I would strongly request that the City Council deny Mr. Sawyer's appeal. and that they further initiate a City Ordinance that future persons or parties could not seek approval for this type of project in any area where the same negative impact to property value, both aesthetic and financial, could be impacted. Due to temporarily not living in our Saratoqa home. due to my personal business activities. I would apologize, in advance, for not attending the October 4. 1989 hearing. Mr. Alan Grebene of 15479 Belnap (our neighbor and friend, who has also challenged and requested denial of this antenna project), will represent my wife and myself at the hearing concerning this matter. I look forward to the City Council's denial of this appeal and an assertion that individuals have no personal rights to negatively impact their neighbors for their own personal hobbies or gainti. Thanking you, in advance, for your review of this matter, we remain Yours sincerely, Michael D. Thomas Nancy K. Thomas Property owner:a of: 15470 Bohlman Road, Saratoga. CA '34 `.=,07 Mailing address: b' -15 V. Caile Amorcito. Tucson. AZ 85718 cc: Mr. Alan and Karen Grebene 15,479 Belnap Saratoga, CA 95070 C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (46 8) 867 - 3438. THOMAS MICHAEL D AND NANCY K 517/14/021 6910 NORTH CALLE AMORCITO TUCSON AZ 85718 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga Cit Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 4th day of October, 189, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA AT 15430 BOHLMAN ROAD IN THE HC -RD ZONE DISTRICT (APPLICANT /APPELLANT, S ER) (AR -89 -019) The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8:00 p.m. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council Committee at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before September 28. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cor Deputy City L erk ALAN B. GREBENE 15479 BELNAP WAY SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Objection to appeal of application AR -89 -019, regarding radio antenna tower at 15430 Bohlman Rd, Saratoga. September 27, 1989 Dear Council Members: I, Alan B. Grebene, residing at 15479 Belnap Drive, have been a resident of Saratoga for over 18 years. The last 13 years of it has been at my current residence. My property at 15479 Belnap Drive directly overlooks the Sawyer property, where the proposed antenna tower structure is to be located. I have inspected the submitted antenna tower drawings, which indicate a 54 -foot tall free - standing tower, which reaches to a fully extended height of 65 -feet with the antenna structure mounted on it. I have also inspected the proposed sites for the antenna tower, on Mr. Sawyer's property, together with the members of the Saratoga Planning Commission. Based on this information and review, I hereby submit my very strong objection to this proposed antenna tower. It is my opinion that such a structure is bulky, incompatible with the neighborhood, interferes with views and privacy, and creates a very adverse environmental effect. The very reasons I have moved to 15479 Belnap were the views of the property, its rural setting and its privacy. This proposed construction of an amateur radio antenna tower by Mr. Sawyer ruins all of these attributes. It will very adversely effect the resale value of my property, as well as the Thomas Property at 15470 Belnap. It will create an objectionable eye -sore, directly in line with the views from both of our properties. The visual impact of the proposed antenna tower on the views from the Grebene and the Thomas Properties is illustrated in the attached COUNCIL EXHIBIT 1. Furthermore, I very strongly disagree with Mr. Sawyer's claim that the denial of his request by the Saratoga Planning Commission was in violation of federal regulations, particularly the FCC Order 85 -506 ( "PRB -111). The FCC Order PRB -1 basically states that state and local governments should "accommodate 1 reasonable amateur communications ". Nobody is denying Mr. Sawyer's right to access airwaves!.. He already has several radio antennas erected on his site, and has been actively using them for the last several years. Furthermore, in the Planning Commission hearings, he already testified that he has been able to communicate with Europe and the Soviet Union, but that this new 65 -foot tower antenna will enable him "to communicate with the countries in the Southern Hemisphere...". It is my opinion that Mr. Sawyer's request to build a 65- foot tower on his property, in direct line -of -view of his neighbors is certainly contrary to the "reasonableness" doctrine indicated in FCC's PRB -1 ruling, particularly when he has a number of other antenna strutures already erected on his property, which have served his needs during the last several years. During the Saratoga Planning Commission Hearings, in July, Mr. Sawyer cited a number of legal cases and precedence regarding the FCC's PRB -1 ruling. To investigate these allegations further, my neighbor Mr. Thomas and I have retained the services of Attorney Mr. Phillip M. Sims of Sims & Gunkel, of San Jose. After reviewing the cited cases, Mr. Sims has informed me that none of these cases apply to the present situation. I am attaching a copy of his opinion regarding the intent of FCC Order PRB -1, and the cases relied upon by Mr. Sawyer to this letter, identified as COUNCIL EXHIBIT 2. Although I feel that I have made my reasons for objections very clear, I would also like to extend an invitation to any member of the Saratoga City Council to come and visit the site, and see how the proposed construction will indeed grossly interfere with our view, and will create a very adverse effect in an otherwise very pleasant rural setting. It is my sincere hope that your Council will consider my very strong objection, and concur with the decision of the Planning Commission, and deny the appeal of the proposed construction. Respectfully submitted, Enclosures: Council Exhibit 1 (Visual Impact of Proposed Antenna Tower) Council Exhibit 2 (Opinion on FCC Ruling, and Cases Cited) 2 COUNCIL EXHIBIT 1 SUBMITTED TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL OF AR -89 -019 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 SUBMITTED BY: ALAN B. GREBENE Attached 2 pages show the adverse visual impact of the proposed 65 —foot antenna structure on the views from THOMAS and GREBENE properties. Photographs show the views of the three proposed antenna sites with the outline of the proposed 65 — foot antenna tower structure superimposed. An attemp has been made to draw the tower height as much to scale as possible, based on the observations made during the Planning Commission visit to the proposed site, on August 22, 1989. i I r �; - �.�i � 3�-•ti •�,; �1 I S b z °v - H�h e'L w '��" ' t S.. ..Y` S• -Kii] ..� r' ' S t •L • •',.•. �: �;: y` fs'; +7 •gyp, .'� -.... '� J., :f .; .l. rf •fFlw f'. �' •.'..'+i,:: !• `fie; _ " •. i.(ti` ': ^+": F . : '�4G ;;: . "hl;`': � 1-. . �' .i;`. ;•:f:r.�`r .,l- . •'.� i -.� • .. . +I ' -t •�. ,1`"�} �'� f f ♦♦tip �1 ,�rL- "f V� I hf rl C� •• 131 ` ~`.F." •:rr ^�''S` ,�J� ,%ii/% ��1 � ..}��,'(Ji��t:l<�<?I�G,.(.��'14 ��Y.ii�'9ir•;yYi�;'�i :ti'1 ••,,�tf _��rJ�-.:- '�•.^1�_ I'rf.�r�'! -.1 �`. -�'.� 4': �i� '^'.f�;. ILL .•1 '.;fit >. -- '`.y; `_ - :�{ (.. - .r. � fv COUNCIL EXHIBIT 2 SUBMITTED TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL OF AR - 89 - 019 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 SUBMITTED BY: ALAN B. GREBENE 15479 BELNAP DRIVE SARATOGA, CA. 95070 Legal Opinions On the FCC Order 85 — 509 ( "PRB —1 ") TELEPaomm (408)998 -3400 FecslxlLE (408) 297 -1104 Alan Grebene ABG Associates 15479 Belnap Drive Saratoga, Ca 95070 SIms & GuwREL ATToYRETB AT L&w 84 WEST SANTA CLARA, SUITE 860 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 86113 September 27, 1989 3435 WmamRE BooLavARD SurrE 800 Los A1POELES, CALIPO8XIA 9oolo (213) 823 -4250 REPLY TO: SJ ❑ LA ❑ Re: Proposed construction of an amateur radio antenna Dear Alan: Per you request I have provided the following opinion concerning Federal Communications Commission's Memorandum Opinion And Order #85 -506 and its application to Saratoga's zoning regulations. In July 1984 the American Radio Relay League, Inc. requested the FCC to issue a declaratory ruling to limit the authority of state and local zoning and regularity boards over federally - licensed radio facilities. Pursuant to this request, the FCC released Memorandum Opinion and Order #85 -506 (PRB -1) on September 19, 1985. The FCC decided against federal preemption and instead effected a limited preemption of state and local regulations. The FCC struck a balance between the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters and the federal interest in promoting amateur radio operations. Contrary to the claim of the applicant seeking the antenna permit in the present matter, the FCC did not preempt state and local zoning regulations. The FCC stopped far short and instead stated: We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulations to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. Alan Grebene September 27, 1989 Page 2 Thus, the FCC recognized the legitimate interests of local governments in adopting rules and regulations governing such things as antenna height. The FCC's reasonable accommodation standards requires the local zoning ordinances represent the minimum practicable regulation of the placement, screening, or height of antennas necessary to accomplish the local government's interest. The actions of the Saratoga Planning Commission appears to meet the reasonable accommodation standard. First, Saratoga's ordinance does not totally bar or prohibit the construction of amateur radio antennas. This is also obvious from the fact that the applicant has already several antennas built and in use on his property. Second, the Saratoga Planning Commission has attempted to accommodate the amateur radio operator. This is evident by the Commission's effort to consider alternate antenna sites, the possibility of less massive structures (pole vs. lattice type antennas), and, again, the fact several antennas already exist on applicant's property. The mere fact the applicant's proposed antenna is of such size and mass that any location results in failure to meet the city's regulation does not render the regulation as unreasonable and /or invalid. PRB -1 specifically acknowledges the local government's interest in preserving the "aesthetic" consideration of the community. Saratoga's zoning ordinance and the actions of the Planning Commission squarely fall within this consideration. Specifically, the planning commission does not make ad hoc determinations, but must find, among other things, that the proposed structure avoids unreasonable interference with views or privacy; preserves the natural landscape, minimizes the perception of excessive bulk; and, is compatible in bulk and height with surrounding structures. There is relatively little case law on FCC #85 -506. However, the 2nd Appellate District Court of California did address the topic in Hunter v. City of Whittier, 257 Cal. Rptr. 559 (1989). Here, a satellite dish owner brought suit to restrain a local ordinance regulating placement of dishes. Although holding this particular ordinances was too broad to satisfy FCC requirements, the court noted: "....the FCC endorsed the right of local government to regulate satellite antennas for reasonable health, safety and aesthetic objectives...'[L]ocal communities have the right to erect ordinances which will protect the aesthetic value of citizens....' Alan Grebene September 27, 1989 Page 3 The FCC's decision makes clear that a community may enact reasonable screening and placement standards in order to make satellite television receiving antenna installations aesthetically acceptable." While the Hunter case dealt with satellite dish antennas, there can be no doubt that FCC #85 -506 does not preempt local authorities, including Saratoga, from enacting reasonable standards. A review of the case law in other jurisdictions indicates that very few courts have had an opportunity to address the issue of PRB -1 application. Several of the cases located deal with local ordinances which totally banned radio /satellite dish antennas. (e.g. Thernes v. City of Lakeside Park, 779 F.2d 1187 (1986). These cases can be distinguished from the present situation since Saratoga's regulation does not flatly prohibit amateur radio antenna towers. Further, Saratoga's Planning Commission appears to be making every effort to accommodate the applicant's request in light of surrounding landscape. The mere fact that the FCC has ruled in an area which has almost been exclusively controlled by state and local authorities does not automatically lead to the conclusion that legitimate local interests do not retain their substantial importance. The FCC impliedly recognized this in limiting, rather than a complete preemption, of local regulation of radio antennas. Thus, state and local governments retain their right to regulate the placement, screening and height of amateur radio antenna systems. The only requirement is that the particular ordinance must be crafted to reasonable accommodate amateur communications. In the present situation, the Saratoga Planning Commission appears to meet the FCC standard as set forth above. Furthermore, the applicant is not precluded from amateur radio communications and has been engaged in this activity for some time. It is my understanding the larger antenna is not a technical necessity for radio communications, but merely needed to enhance his already existing ability to receive and transmit. Moreover, PRB -1 makes no mention that an amateur radio has the right to the optimal placement of an antenna with unlimited height. Rather, the FCC expressly refused to set such standards. Finally, enactment of a zoning ordinance is considered a legislative function and is presumptively valid. See, Ensign Bickford Realty v. City Council, etc., 137 Cal. Rptr. 304, 308 (1st Dist. Ct. App. 1977). In order to upset this presumption and find the enforcement of an ordinance invalid, there must be a Alan Grebene September 27, 1989 Page 4 showing that no substantial reason exists to support the determination of the state or local authority. Id. The mere fact that the Saratoga Planning Commission has reviewed alternative placement sites, but found each site to be unacceptable based on its zoning regulation, does not constitute an arbitrary or unjustified exercise of its authority. Based on the reasons set forth above, the FCC limited preemption over amateur radio facilities and its deference to state and local zoning regulations, it appears that Saratoga's zoning regulation is within the FCC's "reasonable accommodation" standard of PRB -1. : -Very PMS /lmr G123 R03 M. SIMS Itl:C ED ALAN B. GREBENE 15479 BELNAP WAY v U! v SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 14081741 -0297 PLAWNG OEPT Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mr. Stephen Emslie Planning Director Subject: Objection to proposed construction on application AR -89 -019, regarding radio antenna tower at 15430 Bohlman Rd, Saratoga. July 11, 1989 Gentlemen: I, Alan B. Grebene, residing at 15479 Belnap Drive, have been a resident of Saratoga for over 18 years. The last 12 years of it has been at my current residence. I have recently received a "Notice of Intention" dated July 7, 1989, from the City of Saratoga, indicating that Mr. Bruce Sawyer, residing at 15430 Bohlman Rd. is planning to build a radio antenna tower having a fully extended height of 54 feet, located in my direct line of view. Subsequent to receiving the "Notice of Intention ", I have reviewed the submitted construction plans at your offices. Having reviewed the submitted plans, and having conducted a survey of the site where the antenna tower is to be built, I hereby submit my very strong objection to this proposed antenna tower. It is my opinion that such a structure is bulky, incompatible with the neighborhood, interferes with views and privacy, and creates a very adverse environmental effect. I have enclosed several photographs and figures to back up my objection. The very reasons I have moved to 15479 Belnap were the views of the property, its rural setting and its privacy. This proposed construction of an amateur radio antenna tower by Mr. Sawyer ruins all of these attributes. It will very adversely effect the resale value of my property, as well as the Thomas Property at 15470 Belnap. It will create an ojectionable eye -sore, directly in line with the views from both of our properties. To give your Committee a better appreciation of the problems to be created by the proposed antenna structure, I have enclosed several sketches and photographs, describing and illustrating the seriousness of its adverse effects. 1 it i t Attached FIGURE 1 shows a cross - section view of the hillside in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Although the Figure is not drawn to scale, an effort has been made to keep the relative dimensions shown are reasonably accurate. Identified in the Figure are the structures as they exist today, prior to the construction of the proposed antenna tower. The direction of the view is from left to right in the Figure. The Figure also identifies the locations from which the Photographs identified as "PHOTO All and "PHOTO B" are taken. With reference to FIGURE 1, please note that the relative locations ofexisting oversize antenna structures, which are identified in the Figure as Antennas #1 and #2, respectively. It is my understanding that these antennas, particularly the more objectionable Antenna #1, have been erected by Mr. Sawyer without any permit from the City of Saratoga, and without the courtesy of consulting with his neighbors. FIGURE 2 shows the relative size and location of the proposed antenna tower, relative to the existing structures. Please note that the proposed antenna tower stands in the direct line of sight between my house at 15479 Belnap, and the view of the valley below. The same is equally true of Mr. Thomas' property, at 15470 Belnap. As indicated by these drawings, the proposed structure is totally inappropriate, offensive and out - of- place; and that, if allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable damage to the re-sale-value of my property, as well as that of Mr. Thomas. Photograph identified as "PHOTO All is the view from spot A in the Figures, looking directly at the Sawyer property. It shows the of the proposed antenna tower, as a paste -on. The location of existing Antenna #1 is also indicated. Antenna #2 is a stretched wire antenna, in the further background; and emphasis is added to the photograph, to high -light Antenna #2 against its background. Photograph "PHOTO B" is the view from my property, identified as "Spot B" in Figures 1 and 2. The effect of the proposed antenna tower is again highlighted. I trust that, based on these Figures and Photographs, you will concur with me that the proposed structure is totally incompatible with the environment, and grossly interferes with the views from my property. Although I feel that I have made my reasons for objections very clear, I would also like to extend an invitation to any member of the Saratoga Planning Commission to come and visit the site, and see how the proposed construction will indeed grossly interfere with our view, and will create a very adverse effect in an otherwise very pleasant rural setting. K Furthermore, it is also my opinion that, since Mr. Sawyer's property is already approximately 900 feet above the Valley floor, there must not be any need to erect another 54 -foot antenna to improve the reception. I would also like to point out that, Mr. Sawyer has also chosen a spot for the proposed antenna which is out of his own line of sight for the view, so that his view will not be impaired by it. Mr. Thomas is currently residing in Arizona, on temporary business assignment. I have contacted him regarding my objection to Mr. Sawyer's proposed antenna construction, and he fully agrees with me that such a construction is totally inappropriate. He intends to contact your commission regarding this matter, and express his objection separately. Mr. Thomas has also indicated to me that he has had several conversations with Mr. Sawyer in the past, regarding the removal of the existing offensive antennas; and in each case, Mr. Sawyer had agreed to cooperate, but has not followed through on his promise. It is my sincere hope that your Committee will accept my very strong objection, and not approve the proposed construction. It is my further opinion that, if allowed to proceed, the proposed construction of the antenna tower will do irreparable damage to my property value; and deprive me of the biggest asset of my property, namely its clear and unobstructed view of the Santa Clara Valley, and its rural, natural setting. If any further discussions are necessary to clarify my objections, I welcome the opportunity, at the call of your Committee, to appear in person and to express my views and reasons in further depth and detail. Sincerely yours, Alan B. ene Enclosures: 2 Figures and 2 Photographs. 3 FIGURE 1: EXISTING STRUCTURES 15479 GREBENE PHOTO SPOT B 15470 THOMAS PHOTO SPOT A Apprnoc. 25 to 30 ft. EAsting Antenna #1 ApproK Ht. 25 ft.) ---- - - - - -- Approoc 25 to 30 ft. l VIEW OFTHE VALLEY 15430 SAWYER Swimming Pool E)dsting Antenna #2 (Approc. Ht =. 30 ft NOTE: E)dsting antennas #1 and #2 are possibly erected without a permit. FIGURE 2: PROPOSED NEW ANTENNA 15479 GREBENE PROPOSED NEW ANTENNA (54 feet high, , fully extended) PHOTO SPOT B 15470 . / THOMAS PHOTO SPOT A T AppMK 25 to 30 ft. i App mK 26 to 30 ft. 1 AWox. i 30 ft. I App=. 100 ft. L VIEW OFTHE VALLEY 16430 SAWYER Swimming Pool E)dsting Antenna #2 (App mv- Ht =. 30 ft.) IPA° 7-0 �9 Fro ,r SF c, /4 J MICHAEL D. THOMAS 6915 N. Calle Amorr_ito Tucson, AZ 85718 (612) 742 -4675 July 12, 1989 Via Emery Express Mr. Stephen Emslie Planning Director SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION City. of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 jUL PLANi` IN0, rEpT Re: Objection to Proposed Construction on Application AR -89 -019, Regarding Radio Antenna Tower at 15430 Bohlman Rd., Saratoga Dear Sir: I, Michael D. Thomas, owner of home and Property at 15470 Bohlman Road and residing at 6915 North Calle Amorcito, Tucson, Arizona 85718, have owned and lived in Saratoga for the past ten (10) years and leased the same home for one (1) year while on temporary business assignment in Arizona, with full intention of returning to my home in Saratoga in the near future. I have recently been provided, by Mr. Alan Grebene, residing at 15479 Belnap Drive, Saratoga, a copy of a "Notice of Intention" to approve new residential construction as applied for by Mr. Bruce Sawyer of 15430 Bohlman Road, Saratoga to erect an amateur radio antenna and Mr. Alan Grebene's formal objection to this approval. Rather than reiterate exactly what Mr. Alan Grebene has stated in his letter to you dated July 11, 1989, I am attaching it to this letter; co- signed by myself and I am in total agreement with the totality and views of Mr. Grebene. I would like to personally reinforce that I am in Complete Objection to this Approval. I purchased my home in Saratoga for its quality of life and view of the Santa Clara valley from this Bohlman property. I am certain that you must realize that a large percentage of the value of this type of property is directly related to its view, and as such I paid for that value. Your own City of Saratoga document states that if the project is bulky, incompatible with the neighborhood, interferes with views or privacy, or creates an adverse effect on the environment, in itself on all items guarantees that this proposal cannot be approved. Mr. Stephen Emslie City of Saratoga Page Two Due to not residing at my Saratoga home for the past year, I only became aware of the existing vertical and horizontal antennas Mr. Sawyer has erected this last Christmas. These existing structures are totally objectionable and I have expressed this view to Mr. Sawyer on three (3) different occasions verbally. I had hoped that Mr. Sawyer would take it upon himself to remove these structures and find it disappointing that these type of actions need to be taken. I again state that I object to the approval of this and am in total agreement with Mr. Alan Grebene's letter of objection to your offices dated July 11, 1989. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, / 4 " /�� W� � � Michael D. Thomas 6915 N. Calle Amorcito Tucson, AZ 85718 (602) 742 -4675 Attachment: Mr. Alan Grebene's Letter to City of Saratoga, dated 7/11/89 cc: Mr. Alan Grebene 15479 Belnap Way Saratoga, CA 95070 NOORUDIN A. BILLAWALA July 12, 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn.: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director RFV;�IyRD JUL - +v' 1989 OIANNINOBsT Re: Application AR -89 -019 for construction of radio antenna tower at 15430 Bohlman Road, Saratoga. Ladies and Gentlemen: The recent receipt of "Notice of Intention" to construct a radio antenna at the above named address constituted the Proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, one might say. We are renting the house at 15470 Belnap Way while the owner is away on business. Other houses of nearly twice the square footage at the same rental were available to us, but we chose this house exclusively because of its location and beautiful view. During the past year we have "viewed" with alarm the many different antennae that have been erected in absolute center of our viewing area. We plead with you to not allow any future construction of antennae and to also have existing structures removed. We appreciate the constraints such action would put on the Pursuit of a hobby such as ham radio operation, but as we all know one person's freedom ends where it intrudes on another's right. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Noorudin A. Billawala P. O. Box 187 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 741 -0595 15430 Bohlman Road Saratoga, California 95070 July 19, 1989 EC__+ 1::D Planning Commission JUL 2 ' 1989 City of Saratoga PLANNIN(, DEPT 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attn.: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director Re: Administrative Review 89 -019, for construction of Amateur Radio antenna at 15430 Bohlman Road I have reviewed the objections to my permit application which have been raised by Alan Grebene, Michael Thomas, and Noorudin Billawala. Clearly I do not agree with many of the opinions expressed concerning the aesthetics of this proposal, but I don't see that I would improve the tone of the dialogue by debating these value judgements. Consequently, I will offer simple factual cor- rections to some of the points made in the letters of objection to my proposal. With regard to Mr. Grebene's letter, there are a number of statements made about existing antennas I have at my residence. None of these is relevant to this proposal, since (a) What Mr. Grebene has identified as "Existing Antenna #1" would be replaced by the pro- posed structure; (b) Irrespective of the above, this antenna extends only 13 feet above the peak of the roof of my house, and so, per section 15- 80.080 (e) (1), a building permit is not required for this antenna; (c) What Mr. Grebene has identified as "Existing Antenna #2" would, if this permit application is approved, have to be removed from its present installation, since section 15- 80.080 (b) explicitly prohibits more than one ground- mounted antenna without a permit; (d) Similarly to (b) above, this antenna is a ground- mounted antenna less than 30 feet tall and so does not require a building permit (15- 80.080 (c)). Continuing with the points made by Mr. Grebene, I note that in his diagram labelled "figure 2" (but I believe mistakenly referenced as "figure 1" at the top of page 2 in his letter), he indicates the dif- ference in elevation between the Thomas property at 15470 Belnap and my property at 15430 Bohlman as being approximately 25 to 30 feet. I have measured this elevation difference quite accurately as 46 feet from a horizontal extended outward from the patio at that residence to the ele- vation of my patio. Another inaccuracy is the location shown for "Existing Antenna #2 ". This antenna would more correctly be shown further down the hill in such a manner that the base of the antenna is 10 feet below the level line from my patio. Also on this cross section, the location of the proposed antenna should be shown just to the right of the peak of my roof line. If scale were pre- served in this diagram, the top of what he has labelled "proposed new antenna" should be approxi- mately in line with the base of the roof of the Thomas property. Similarly, in Mr. Grebene's "Photo A" he has seriously misrepresented the location of the proposed antenna. As can be seen from the plot plan I submitted with my permit application, this location is over 12 feet to the right of the end of my house as viewed from the perspective of "Photo A ". The actual location is thus not even within the range covered by "Photo A "; the proposed location on this photograph would be just at the right hand end of what is labelled "Existing Antenna #1". This is similarly misrepresented in Mr. Grebene's "Photo B ". The location I selected for this pro- posal was carefully selected to place it out of the field of view of the valley floor from the proper- ties above my residence. Mr. Grebene's comments at the top of page 3 of his letter are technically inaccurate. The need for height in an antenna is to avoid interference of the received or transmitted wave with reflections of that wave from the [conductive] ground under the antenna. Both receiving and transmitting capa- bilities are seriously degraded by this ground reflection. Common practice dictates a minimum height of one -half wavelength of the frequency being used, and even that is a poor compromise. (In this case, one -half wavelength would be 66 feet.) It is because of this that PRB -1 prohibiting municipalities from enacting "restrictive antenna height ordinances" was enacted and subsequently incorporated into Section 97 of the Federal Communication Commission Regulations to make it enforcible. In both Mr. Grebene's letter and Mr. Thomas's letter there is the statement made that Mr. Thomas had talked with me on three separate occasions about my existing antennas and that I made certain commitments which I subsequently failed to keep. I would offer the correction that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met nor spoken with Mt: Thomas. During December of 1988 he left two messages on my telephone recorder while I was on vacation. Immediately upon returning, I returned his call to his current residence in Arizona. I spoke briefly with his wife, who advised me of objections voiced to her husband by their tenants in Saratoga. She was under the impression I had a large parabolic reflector on the roof, and I did my best to describe to her the installation actu- ally in place. She replied by saying that she would have her husband call me and she arranged a time with me when he could call. I never heard further from Mr. Thomas. However, it was at that point that I obtained a copy of the Saratoga zoning regulations and discovered that indeed my "existing antenna #1" was in violation of the regulations, since it was at a height of 22 feet above the peak of my roof. I immediately changed this antenna to reduce its height to 13 feet and bring it into conformance with the zoning regulations. It is my hope that the committee will recognize that the preceding,is factual rather than judgemental and represents a disciplined effort to avoid the emotionalism contained in the responses to my pro- posal. This proposal is in conformance with the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga and has been designed in a manner so as to minimize the visual impact. I have proposed a self - supporting tower (a significant expense item) which does not require a guying system. Thus there is no visual impact from guy wires as is normally the case with these kinds of installations. Furthermore, I have located this antenna in the draw between two adjacent topographical "fingers" so that the antenna would not interfere with views of the valley floor. Thus all possible efforts have been made in this proposal to mitigate the anticipated visual impact of the proposed antenna installation. Conse- quently, I believe the Planning Department is justified in approving my application without further delay. Sincerely, Bruce B. Sawyer r I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: 6A MEETING DATE: 1%'4/di CITY MANAGER: IF d ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE \DAN TRINIDAD SUBJECT: CLEANUP OF RECYCLE CENTER CONTAMINATION Recommended Motion: Cleanup of area contaminated at the Recycle Center. Report Summary: Soil borings, samples taken and testing of same have been performed thusfar at a cost of $10,450. Authorization is being requested for an additional expenditure of $3,620 for Safety Specialists to begin final cleanup operations at the Recycle Center. The City will provide the equipment and manpower to keep costs to this minimum and to assist completion before inclement weather arrives. FISCAL IMPACTS: This expenditure of $3,620 added to the previous amount of $10,450 will bring the final total to $14,070. Attachments: 1) Proposal from Safety Specialists, Inc. 2) Recommendation from Maintenance Superintendent Motion and Vote: v 1:-)7771'Itl JH VA1.I :, \VI-iN1 ]: • .ti. \I :.\ (0(;.\,( :,\1.11 Oli \'I.\1) 1O ( ) COUNCIL NII::MI ERS: Kar'err Anderson Martha clevcrirjer Drnvrd moyles September 26, 1989 Donald Perrsc;n Francis Stolzman MEMO TO: Dan Trinidad FROM: Roy Swanson SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FROM SAFETY SPECIALISTS FOR RECYCLE CENTER Attached is a proposal from Safety Specialists for the cleanup operation at the Recycle Center. The estimate of $3,620 is primarily for their services and removal of the contaminated material. In order to keep costs down, the City will provide the support of a backhoe, truck and the necessary people to complete this project before winter rains hamper our efforts. It is further suggested that the Center discontinue accepting oil to avoid any future contamination. The advent of curbside.pickup in April would lend credence to this action. There is no money involved in accepting oil and is only a service being offered to Saratoga residents. Should the City wish to continue accepting oil, a proper containment structure would have to be acquired as a condition of continuing this practice. If we are to proceed, please obtain the necessary approvals and generate a Purchase Order. Roy Swanson Superintendent RS /mt SAFETY SPECIALISTS, Inc. The I�ull $�i vine En iliorimrninl, N�dllh 8 Su�OfJ COiptrnlion September 18, 1989 Mr. Roy Swanson City of Saratoga Recycle Center 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 P.O. Box 4420, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone (408) 988 -1111 Contractor's License No. 460905 Reference: Safety Specialists, Inc., Proposal Number P- 719 -89 Dear Mr. Swanson: Safety Specialists, Inc.,.is pleased to submit this proposal to finish the environmental services at your recycling center in Saratoga. Scope of Work The only borehole that showed contamination was B4 at a depth of 2 feet. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is surface oil and grease contamination at borehole B4 and it is limited to the upper 3 to 4 feet. On the ground near borehole B4, there is free standing oil. This oil will be solidified by Safety Specialists, Inc and placed in drums for proper disposal. The contaminated sand and debris on the surface will also be containerized and properly disposed of in a Class I landfill. Excavation of the soil near borehole B4 will be performed by the City of Saratoga with Safety Specialists' personnel supervising the operation. The soil will be loaded into City of Saratoga trucks and then transported to a local landfill for disposal. After the excavation is completed, additional soil samples will be taken from the hole, and-analyzed for total oil and grease, if the analysis shows no or very little contamination, the hole will be backfilled with imported fill, by the City of Saratoga. Upon completion of the project, Safety Specialists, Inc., will write a report of the operations and conclusions. Compensation Compensation for the services described above is $3,620.00. The estimated costs-are detailed in Table I, attached. In the event that a change in the Scope of Work is-negotiated, a corresponding change in the project cost shall also be negotiated. Safety Specialists, Inc., will invoice as each stage of the project is completed. All invoices will be discounted 2% for payment within five (5) days of invoice date, and are due Net 10 days, upon credit approval. City of Saratoga Recycle Center September 18, 1989 Proposal Number P- 719 -89 Page 2 Agreement An authorizing signature below represents an agreement for Safety Specialists, Inc., to perform the services as stated above and acceptance of the terms herein. A signed copy of this document and /or your company purchase order must be received before work will be scheduled. CITY OF SARATOGA BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: DATE: DATE: SAFETY SPECIALISTS, INC. Safety Specialists, Inc., appreciates your confidence in our abilities. The proposed project is within Safety Specialists, Inc.'s, normal scope of business and can be performed in a routine manner. Do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions. Sincerely, SAFET SPECIALISTS, INC. Y� Ted DeWilde Sales Associates Corporate Sales TD /eyj SAFETY SYECIAUSTS, Inc. k" . TABLE I M Labor Technician 8 hrs @ $65.00 $ 520.00 Engineer 10 hrs @ $80.00 800.00 Analysis 250.00 Materials 500.00 Disposal* 1,050.00 Transportation 200.00 Report 300.00 Total Estimated Cost $3,620.00 * This is the disposal of the surface contamination only. �� SAfETY SP£f ►YL ►STS,fnc. SARATOGA CITY COWCIL Z)=U='IVE StAdl u NO. l� AGENDA r= MEETING DATE: — in -a -RC CITr MM. APPROVALhg ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering )&�O StTBJ=22 Final Acceptance SD 86- 009/13095 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Release Bond Recoa®endid Motion: -Grant Final Acceptance for SD 86 -009 Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, SD 86 -009. Report smeary: This work has been completed satisfactorily. This is a private road so construction maintenance is not warranted. Fiscal ImoactsI Attachments: Bond Memo. Motion and Vote: 2�iV u7 �z 1:3777 Z .V (:, M_11=(W \I.A9-)O7O 4081 867 ; 341' 18 MEMORANDUM T0: City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Tract Location: COUNC1L MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman DATE: 9 -22 -89 SDR 86 -009 13085 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road All improvements required of SDR 86 -009 to in the Improvement Agreement dated have been satisfactorily completed. and agreed July 15, 1987 Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following inform- ation is included for your use: 1. Developer: Woolworth Construction Co. Address: 167 S. San Antonio Road, Suite 14 Los Altos, Ca. 94022 2. Improvement Security: Type: Cash: Security Bond Anr)unt: $3 , 000 .00 : $27,000.00 Issuing Co.: Hartford Connecticut Address: Receipt No.: Bond No.: 5072273 / Receipt No.: 2649 (7-9-87) 3. Special Remarks: Release Cash Bond of $3,000.00. RO S . SHOOK RSS /df OFFICIAL RECEIPT C R TY o� SARAH°OGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 867 -3438 h DATE 7— 67' n19Q/ RECEIVED FROM J ADDRESS 1 C �T/1��, FOR: REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS APPEALS CONSTRUCTION TAX BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUILDING PERMITS ELECTRIC PERMITS GRADING PERMITS MECHANICAL PERMITS PLUMBING PERMITS ROOFING PERMITS ENGR & INSP FEES USE PERMIT FEES DEVELOPMENT FEES AMOUNT: 0001 1045 00,0 9000 9545 9000 7540 9000 7550 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 FOR: DESIGN REV APPLIC FEES EIR REVIEW FEES SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES CENTRAL PLANREZON FEE VARIANCE APPLIC FEES FINAL MAP REVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN FEE PLAN CHECK FEES BLDG SITE REVIEW FEES XEROXING SALE MAPS & PUBL STORM DRAIN FEES SUBDIV PARK DED FEES AMOUNT: 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9510 9000 9890 9000 9890 9170 9530 9310 9550 l'7411- APPLICATION NO. OR ADDRESS OF PROJECT: TOTAL: $ 3rtl 'J it 26 �IC © RECEIVED BY , DEPT. NORMAN PAULS PRIN CE CAMPBELL. CALIF. 26 Z SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. l l AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 4, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Repeal of Restriction Against Exterior Landscape Watering Recommended Action: Introduction of ordinance, with second reading and adoption at the regular Council meeting on October 18, 1989. Report Summary: As directed by the Council at your meeting on September 20, 1989, the proposed ordinance will repeal the restriction against exterior landscape watering during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., as imposed under the urgency ordinance adopted by the City on March 28, 1989. Although exterior watering would be permitted at any time of the day, all of the other restrictions contained in the urgency ordinance would remain in full force and effect. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance. Motion and Vote: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 71.61E PERTAINING TO CONSERVATION OF WATER The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that: (a) Water consumption within the City has been significantly reduced as a result of compliance by the citizens of Saratoga with the conservation measures required under Ordinance No. 71.61E, as adopted by the City Council on March 28, 1989. (b) Although the drought conditions still exist and efforts to conserve water must therefore be continued, the restriction against exterior landscape watering during daylight hours is no longer required by reason of the shorter length of days, reduced temperatures with the passage of the summer season, and assessment of water supplies on hand as a result of prior reduction in use by the general public. SECTION 2: The restriction against exterior landscape watering between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., as contained in Section 2, subparagraph (a) (7) of Ordinance No. 71.61E, is hereby repealed. SECTION 3: Except as herein amended, Ordinance No. 71.61E is declared to be in full force and effect. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s 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 , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR .1- -e SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 02 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 4, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVALAA!��O� ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Design Review for Basement Additions Recommended Action: Approval of Negative Declaration and introduction of ordinance, to be followed by second reading and adoption at the regular Council meeting on October 18, 1989. Report Summary: The ordinance has been revised to eliminate the proposed amendment to the definition of the term "basement" which would have prohibited a direct means of access from the exterior of the structure. The revised ordinance now contains only the section dealing with the circumstances under which a design review application may be referred by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney; (b) Proposed ordinance (Rev. 9/26/89); (c) Negative Declaration. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Design Review for Basement Additions (AZO -89 -002) DATE: September 26, 1989 J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -,982) L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) An earlier draft of this ordinance included an amendment to the definition of the term "basement," as contained in Section 15- 06.090 of the zoning regulations, to prohibit any direct means of access from the exterior of the structure. As a result of concerns expressed by the Council over the proposed amendment and further discussions between the City Attorney and the Planning Director, the amendment to the definition of "basement" has been eliminated. Section 1 of the revised draft dated September 26, 1989, is the same as Section 2 of the earlier draft. This provision amends Subsection 15- 45.060(a)(8), which authorizes the referral of a design review application by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission under various circumstances. The amendment would include an additional circumstance of "excessive intensification of the use or development of the site." Although prompted by concern over basement additions, this. language could have application to other situations as well. Harold S. Toppel Saratoga City Attorney /I ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15 -06.090 OF THE CITY CODE DEFINING THE TERM 'BASEMENT" AND AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.060 CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subparagraph (a)(8) of Section 15- 45.060 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 11(8) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perception of excessive mass or bulk, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may cause excessive damage to the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site." SECTION 2: 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, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 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 , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 9/26/89 r EXECUTOMM SMMU No. MEETMG OM 8 10-4-89 ORIGMTM DEPT= Engineering AGEmA =z= 4 D. CITZ MR. Appxcmh� SUBJECTS Grant Final Acceptance and file Notice of Completion Bohlman Road Landslide Repair Recommended motion: Grant Final Acceptance and file Notice of Completion, Bohlman Road Landslide Repair. Report sUMarV: City Council at their regular meeting on August 2, 1989 awarded contract for Bohlman Road Landslide Repair. Due to hard subground, the cost of the project ran over by $7,382.97. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted and file "Notice of Completion ". Fiscal- Impacts= $41,582.97 Total Construction Cost. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Payment. Motion and Vote: O RECORDING REQUESTED BI City Cleric AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO I City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Aveme Saratoga, 95070 Ca. s.° L J . SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Ia�xre of caMWtffim NOfirt is hereby given that ....................... . the undersigned, ....MarrY.- H-- .l'�C7aC *....... ............'the agent of] • the owner....... of th ............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ............. 0 nd situated in the ................. CT. CSC.. M. SARKMA.................................. County of ...........................................................I State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: BOHLMAN ROAD LANDSLIDE REPAIR That ................................. ............................... ............................................ ............................... ...... as owner...... of said land, did, on the .................. .......................1 enter into a contract with ......................... day oj ......................... ............................... .......................................................................................................................... ............................... for ....................................................................................................................... ............................... ................................................................................................................ ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the countyof . ......................... ............................... . State of California, on the .... ............................... 6. .. day of ......... .......�.................Se+pte be................. , 19 .�`. ......... . . That on the ......... ...zUA .............. y of . .. ..... ............ the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole. was actually completed by the said ................... ........... ............................... That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 PIMTVALE AVENUE SARATOGA,, Cat. 95070 and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ................................................. ............................... ............................ ey .......... 0tvn_e'r . . . .......... STATE OF CALIFORNIA) JG�'' .. ........ ........ County of ............................. ............................... s.. Agent ................................................................................................................................. ............................... beingduly sworn . ..................................................................................:........ ... ............................. says: I am .......... /the agent of]* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this .......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... ................................................. ............................... .................:....................... ............................... ................................................ ............................... • Delete words In buckets If owner sign. PROJECT: • Bohlman Road Landslide Repair DATE: 9 -11 -89 EST. NO. 1 FROM: 8 -7 -89 TO: R -in-H9 PROGRESS PAY ESTI14ATE City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 CONTRACTOR: rRANTTR rnNSTRI1rTTnN Cn_ ADDRESS: p n Box 900 Watsonville. Ca- PHONE: ( 408 ) 224 -4124 anaza - UNIT WORK DONE WORK DONE TOTAL W me REVIOUS ES THIS EST. WORK DONZ TOTAL DOS_ DONE REMARKS 1 Bohlman Road - Landslide Repair L.S. L.S. 4,200. 0 34 200.00 90.0 10.0 100.0 34,200.00 100. 2 Extra Work L.S. L.S. 2 279 6 2 2 100.0 0.0 2,279.26 00.0 3 Extra Work L.S. L.S. 3,503. 1 3,503.71 100.0 0.0 100.04 3 503.71 100. 4 Install A. C. Berm L.S. L.S. L,600.Ob 1.600.00 100.0$ 1,600.00 100. 1 rNA — ` - TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: 1,582.97 P # RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENT P`�0 ✓OA� = .O. EST. R GLEN `V�P NMM NAM BY: ' `loa� RETENTIONS 4 15 8 . 3 FUND # ==RAM. 32 o . ( DyA�lI,- CHECKED BY : A.1v.. 1. d � C� • �'d.�1'�Z - -�eL TOTAL PAYlD�1'!: 3 7, 4 2 4 .6 7 ACCT. # DATE APPROVED BY: 32,906.67 PROGRAM # LESS PREVIOUS PAYMEWM : Director of Community Development Date PAYl�I7'T DUE THIS EST.: 4 5 18 .00 p� (� DIVISION # anaza - SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ni AGENDA ITEM l� MEETING DATE: 10/4/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -062; Approval of a design review permit for a new two -story residence; Applicant: G. Butler; Appellant: J. Magnuson Location: 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the design review permit which includes conditions to maintain privacy. Report Summary: The Planning Commission considered the input of the appellant in reaching its decision to approve the design review application. In response to concerns raised by the appellant, the Planning Commission did require conditions to remove certain second story windows and provide additional landscape screening. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the appellant has indicated her concern that a two -story home will impair a view from the rear yard and the residence of hillsides and vineyards beyond the site. The appellant again requested consideration of a one -story design. While a two -story design will reduce the height, staff concurs with the Commission that a one -story design would also be visible since a one -story would have a greatly expanded building footprint, and the appellant's property is considerably higher than the subject site. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Planning Director dated 9/29/89 2. Appeal 3. Planning Commission staff report 4. Minutes Motion and Vote r 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 10/4/89 FROM: planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -062; Approval of a design review permit for a new two -story residence; Applicant: G. Butler Appellant: J. Magnuson Location: 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the design review permit which includes conditions to maintain privacy. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a 5993 square foot two story residence in the Montalvo Heights subdivision. Currently, the property is undeveloped containing a vineyard. The site is relatively level having an 8% average slope. As a result, minimal grading is required to construct the residence. The proposal meets or exceeds setbacks, and site coverage requirements as well as conforms with the 26 foot height limit and allowable floor area. The Council may wish to refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for a detailed discussion of the site development. SITE CONDITIONS The project is an infill lot located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district adjoined by newer residences. To the west, is a two story residence approximately 5970 *square feet in area. To the south, is a two story residence approximately 6175 square feet in area. To the east is a vacant parcel. Overall, the neighborhood is a mixture of larger one and two story homes ranging in size from 5000 to 6500 square feet. Architectural themes vary from Mediterranean to California Ranch and Colonial. The property to the south is owned by the appellant and is visually connected to the site. Because the appellant's property is approximately 15 to 20 feet higher in elevation, the appellant looks down and across the subject site. With the exception of the vineyard, the site is sparsely vegetated, containing several declining trees near the rear property line. The 1 appellant's rear yard is newly landscaped with ornamental species and turf, and contains a row of myroporum along the common rear property line. None of the existing landscaping is sufficient to effectively screen the view of the proposed residence. FINDINGS The Planning Commission received testimony from the appellant regarding the obtrusiveness of the proposed residence. The issues discussed with the Commission included consideration of a one story design, reduction of second story windows, and re- orienting the building footprint. The appellant requested that a one story design be considered to reduce the amount of building visible from her property and to improve privacy. The Planning Commission discussed the fact that the appellant's property is substantially higher than the site. The Commission found that although a one story design would be lower, the amount of building area would be greatly increased. Because the appellant looked down on the property, an enlarged building area would be equally as visible. The privacy concerns centered on three second story windows that face toward the appellant's home. The Commission concluded that there was a potential impact from these windows and requested that they be removed. Lastly, the appellant requested that the residence be rotated to the west to off -set the rear building elevation from her property. However, the applicant desired to keep the residence parallel to the street for aesthetic reasons. The Planning Commission did not require any change to the building's orientation. Although not requested by the appellant, the Planning Commission added a condition to require additional screening to the rear property line to provide additional screening and to promote privacy. All modifications were agreed to by the applicant and the appellant so the Commission's action was to approve the request with additional conditions. Since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has discussed the project further with the appellant. Although not specifically discussed with the Commission, the appellant raised concern that the residence will obscure a view across the property to a vineyard and hillside on the other side of Montalvo Heights Dr. The appellant reiterated her request that a one story design be considered to preserve more of this distant view. CONCLUSION Staff concurs with the findings of the Planning Commission that a two story home designed to protect the appellant's privacy and increased landscaping satisfy the City's design objectives. Staff 2 agrees that both a one story and two story design will be visible from the neighboring property. Further, staff concludes that a two - story residence will not result in an adverse impact to the appellant's property. The proposal is consistent with the architectural themes established by the numerous two -story residences in the neighborhood. Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that a one story design will be 4 to 6 feet reduced in height but will double the amount of building area visible from the appellant's property. zL- ' Step en E slie Planning Director SE /dsc 3 APPEAL Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Date Received: `- Hearing Date: / Fee .. CITY ' USE ON1 APPEAL APPLICATION ' EW-10 — MOM. Decision Being Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): I& Pella �s Signa re *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 APP1.TC,%TTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IViTFfIN TCN (10) CALLTJDA DLCISI R DAYS Or 1`f1L D, \'fE U1� 'fIIB 0,�. Please understand that I would not be going through this if I wasn't absolutely convinced that my case is worth looking at. I spoke with Mr. Butler's architect and asked him if Mr. Butler would come to my home and discuss this with me. I was told that he would not. I have discussed this with many qualified people and they have encouraged and advised me to come to you. All I am asking is that before this project is approved that someone come to home and access the situation. Thank you so much for your time and consideration concerning this matter. Sincerely, Judy Ma uson I;ote: Council members are welcome to phone and set an appointment time to view my property at their convenience. P_yy phone number is 741 -0821. ra n4 13777 FRUITVALE ,-VENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o (408) 867 -3438 o COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson A Martha Clevenger August 31, 1989 David Moyles Donald Peterson Ms. Judy Magnuson Francis Stutzman 20445 Montalvo Road Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Magnuson: We have received your application for an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of design review for a new two story home at 20440 Montalvo Heights Road. We have also received your check in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and noticing requirements. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of October 4, 1989. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, yGrace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Department Mr. Butler, Applicant PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 AUGUST 23, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Chairperson Siegfried responded that he did not understand the speaker's comments regarding privacy impacts to her home, given the fact that hers was significantly above the proposed house. Mr. Butler, Applicant, estimated the speaker's home to be about 70 ft. above the subject property; regardless of what was built, the adjacent property owners would be able to see over the new structure and would not have their view impacted. The Magneson's were a sufficient distance that they would not be able to see into the windows of the new structure; they had not been allowed to install windows on the south elevation because of the minimum setback from Montalvo Rd. Commissioner Tappan felt that the Magneson's should have an opportunity to view the plans. Commissioner Tucker was amenable Ms. Magneson's request for a site visit to her property. Chairperson Siegfried noted the very substantial difference in elevation between the two properties; he did not understand Ms. Magneson's concerns. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Consensus reached that the Applicant and Ms. Magneson be given an opportunity to review the plans; Item to be returned later in the Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. SD -88 -008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 34 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. The Public Hearing was closed on August 9, 1989. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum, dated August 18, 1989. The City Attorney did not feel it necessary to reopen the Public Hearing given the extensive testi- mony already taken on this Application; the Continuance was to allow Staff to address the technical issues that had arisen. A review of the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed that it clearly provided for access through the Odd Fellows property as one of the alternatives, despite arguments that the project had been changed and new alternatives were being considered. If anything, traffic impacts were mitigated by changing the configuration from a through street to a cul-de -sac. In his opinion, there was consideration of an access through the Odd Fellows property from the beginning, additional detail was provided to elaborate on that alternative and circulation of the Environmental Impact Report was done; a further recirculation of the EIR was not required. In response to Commissioner Harris' question regarding the Applicant's statement that all the streets in Phase III should be constructed to a private street standard, the City Attorney responded that the question of public vs. private streets could be addressed by the Commission; the City would seek an offer of dedication on all streets. It was accepted that any extension of Crisp Ave. or Gypsy Hill Rd. would be a public street since the existing street was public. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 7 4. DR -89 -062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review approval to construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------- - - - - -- Mr. Greg Barton, Architect, stated he had conferred with the Applicant; they were willing to elimi- nate some windows facing the south, namely, the two windows in the Dressing Room/Water Closet and one window in Bedroom No. 2. Ms. Magneson added that the Applicant had also offered to rotate the house slightly. Commissioner Harris asked that a Condition be added requiring landscaping on the south side. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8 :55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Mr. Barton responded that while they had agreed to rotate the house, upon reflection such would throw off the alignment of the house with the street and change the presentation of the structure; however, french doors could be installed the family room if this would help. Commissioner Burger was not in favor of rotating the house; elimination of the three windows and the addition of landscaping would be sufficient to address the adjacent property owner's concerns. Commissioner Tappan felt that the Applicant and his architect were being extremely reasonable while the adjacent property owner was not; he noted the very significant elevation of the neighbor's home above this site. The elimination of three windows would result in a large expanse of blank wall; he was not in favor of rotating the house even a few degrees. Commissioner Kolstad agree with the above comments; however, if the Applicant was willing to make these changes, it was his prerogative. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -062 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THREE WINDOWS INDICATED AND THE ADDITION OF LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Tappan dissenting. 8:59- 9:1opA Siegfried absent, Vice Chairperson Tucker presiding. 11. AR -89 -019 er, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli- cation -would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the HC -RD zone rict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 9, 1989. ------------------------- Planner Graff reviewed the Memorandum Re: The Public Hearing was reopened. amateur radio antenna. Mr. Sawyer, Applicant, stated that the location proposed for the antenna by Staff w - his view, the most exposed site, both to the valley floor and to the adjacent property owners; in a n, there was an existing traffic hazard at this curve of Bohlman Rd. STAFF REPORTS RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -062 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Butler; 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a two story, 5993 Sq. Ft. home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the homes to the rear of the property are at higher elevations than the proposal thus preserving their distant view lines. No interference with views from the parcels to the sides are anticipated. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the second story is stepped back and windows are oriented away from adjacent properties. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal is proposed and minimum grading is proposed to develop the site (1085 cu. yds.). -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that techniques of the Residential Design Handbook are used. The design features varied roof lines, articulated elevations and reduced areas of maximum height. The second floor covers 49% of the structure's footprint. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the floor area of the proposal is similar to homes approved for the neighborhood. The height of the structure would not exceed 26 Ft., the maximum allowed. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are proposed to the property lines. DR -89 -062, 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that depth of cut and fill each measure 2 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Jerry Butler for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure shall not exceed 26 feet. 4. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not exceed 5 ft. 5. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. 6. No ordinance size tree. shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 7. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional to include details on: a.) Soils b.) Foundation 8. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a zone clearance: a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) DR -89 -062, 20440 Montalvo Hts. Dr. C.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher. d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e.) Erosion control measures f.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 9. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Re- roofing, less than 10 %, shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210).. b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. c. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garages. 10. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32 ft. 11. Prior to zone clearance approval a landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final building inspection. 12. Three Windows shall be eliminated from the final plans: the window on the rear elevation in bedroom #2 and the two windows on each side of the vanity in the master bedroom. DR -89 -062, 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of August, 1989 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Tucker, Harris, Burger, Kolstad, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Moran Chairperson, P196ning Commission ATTEST: zce�� Secr tart', lanning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. u REI --JRT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: August 23, 19 8 9 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -89 -062; 20440 Montalvo Hts. Dr. APPUCANT /OWNER: Butler APN: 517 -18 -50 D File No. DR -89 -062, 20440 Montalvo Heights Dr. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 6 -5 -89 Application complete: 7 -16 -89 Notice published: 8 -09 -89 Mailing completed: 8 -10 -89 Posting completed: 8 -03 -89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Article 15- 45.080, a request for design review approval to construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal is located in a neighborhood of mixed one and two story homes. The surrounding dwellings have similar areas to this proposal. The site is relatively flat and its current use is a vineyard. The design of the home applies the techniques suggested in the Residential Design Handbook. All required findings can be made to recommend approval of this application STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Resolution DR -89 -062. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -89 -062 3. Plans, Exhibit 'A' Approval of the application by adopting DR -89 -062, 20440 Montalvo Heights STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING:R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:RVLD; Residential, Very Low Density PARCEL SIZE:0.918 Acres; 40,000 Sq. Ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 620 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2 Ft. Fill: 465 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 2 Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Roof to be wood shakes; siding of stucco painted "magnolia" (off- white) T\T1/�T1I1l. 71 T LOT COVERAGE: 12,020 Sq. Ft. (30 %) HEIGHT: 26 ft. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 4020 Sq. Ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 1973 TOTAL: 5993 Sq. Ft. SETBACKS: Front: 69 Ft. Rear: 64 Right Side: 20 Left Side: 24 CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 16,000 Sq. Ft. (40 %) 26 ft. 6000 Sq. Ft. Front: 30 Ft. Rear: 60 Right Side: 20 Left Side: 20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's design review approval to construct a two - story, 5993 sq. ft. single - family dwelling. The site is an in -fill lot on a shallow cul -de -sac at 20440 Montalvo Heights Drive in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. The site is a relatively level lot (8% slope) that is currently in use as a vineyard. To the right is a 5970 sq. ft. 2 -story home and to the rear is a 6175 sq. ft. 2 -story home. The parcel on the left is vacant. Overall, the neighborhood is a mixture of one- and two - story homes ranging in size from 5000 sq. ft. to 6500 sq. ft. Architectural themes vary from Mediterranian to California Ranch to Colonial. DESIGN REVIEW: Planning staff is able to make all required findings to recommend conditional approval of this application. Under most circumstances an application of this nature would not require design review approval by the Planning Commission - the project is not on a hillside lot, the proposal is less than 6000 Sq. Ft., and design review is not specifically required by the subdivision. However, the Planning Director has used his discretion to require design review approval based on the unique neighborhood where the site is located and the potential of the project to interfere with views. The proposed dwelling is a two -story structure; the second floor covering 49% of the footprint of the home. The hipped roof design has a wood shake finish. The roof and eaves are broken to avoid long, horizontal lines with the elevations featuring strong horizontal articulation. Finish materials include stucco siding painted "magnolia" (off- white), pre -cast corner detailing, arched and bay windows with wood shutters. Though the proposed color is a light shade, it is staff's opinion that the color is appropriate because the site is not a hillside lot, is not in a prominent location and a light colored home is to the southeast of the project. The proposed residence will preserve existing views from the homes to the rear of the site because the parcel is i4t a lower elevation. Privacy impacts are reduced by stepping the proposal back from the perimeter of the home and orienting windows away from adjacent properties. The proposal is compatible with homes in the neighborhood by having a similar floor area and not exceeding the maximum allowed 26 Ft. height limit. The project uses techniques suggested by the residential design handbook to reduce mass and bulk of the structure. The design features varied roof lines, reduced areas of maximum height and articulated elevations. The project is not a full two - stories, covering 49% of the structure's footprint. No tree removal is necessary to complete this project. Grading cut and fill depths measure 2 Ft. each and total material moved equals 1085 cubic yards. The outcome of the relatively balanced grading (620 cu. yds. of cut and 465 cu. yds. of fill) is a level building pad usable outdoor area and driveway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval of this request by adopting resolution DR -89 -062. 1 7AY„}i,,, �'`�: t t � ,,.P4 G', - � a�� b�� -rt R' �,+. ' f /V>]._ s 3•Q' ''F�'.1� a ; S .. � � / r �� * \ � J • E„� ' ^ , fir/ a f t+�w T3,,,rr���'�'�i��t ��� ,� � /� /. �� I , ; , � � .� y "3 ! 1 � tV , // �. _ n v �N _ .",i.^ e.:�...J �y %��`'v .���?')r' I � 1. 1 �R�'^J <" c�i -tf _—���''� tvl�.a �• �_�_ �' — ]�`:aF , rF- 'y_s� �� �•7t a.h��� _ - tt -- r' �.°—,� e.� a �� :�.�. s�, :id. J ,ti ir1 :,•��i, 'r'' +•�i� r 1 {j L'�1 i 6 it ' �1 � •��'.Gi �,. Vv -'+.. `F�. I .._� ■■ ' FF• i7i �� r—. �.�iOi:= lr�,� -i} _ip. `. t - T I x r�a �g.� f:j�■ G.:I���G1��'.- ~. G6 �i �s, . •- �E Y S r _ �. `•a /- .s' p�..'w`w•Y.w'�:eY a9�' e,*. y"'i T ""T, I/ � � �ti �f:r i4 {'�•'••t�15j l;r �y;P }f•/'!' � i• i - - 4 a;u�y.r. =.- 7 ": >,Mr+•vt�. - ri:"Y,1y k4^ � a'..`+•.,i, .ts�tf•� :,e+•, a "'rte 4 j . '��r t` t f�� Y b- '�•t^�ir� Ayr., -'A' � .41 _ •r�n :`$i *i';�5:,+'�'4'? _'��. .,.�, _.�_,e.?�rf�' .�, -`4 r yltvF,'i4+'aL,i:� �p� 4,��''SI MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 AUGUST 23, 1989 'UB HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. DR- 042 Lohr, 14883 Gypsy Hill Road, request for design review approval to con- struct a two story, 5,575 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 ne district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----- - - - - -- --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- 4. DR -89 -062 Butl 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review approval to construc two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 dist ' r Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. DR -89 -052 Crailr, 14929 Bol 6,390 sq. ft., two of the City Code. Road, request for design review approval to allow a dwelling in the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 6. SM -89 -006 Lempert, 13921 Damon Lane, r est for site modification approval to con- struct a swimming pool on a site w a single family dwelling exists in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of t ity Code. 7. DR -89 -013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Road, Plannin mmission approval of a Resolution for design review approval to cons new 5,073 sq. ft. two - story single family home in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning rict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed on August 9, 8. DR -89 -032 Lohr, 14671 Sobey Oaks Court, request for design review app 1 to con- struct a two -story, 6,180 +/- sq ft. residence in the R 1- 40,000 a dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 6, 7, AND 8. Passed 6 -0. " 4. DR -89 -062 Butler, 20440 Montalvo Heights, request for design review approval to construct a two story, 5,993 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 23, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Ms. Judy Magneson, Adjacent property owner, stated that her U- shaped home would look down on the structure; she objected to the proposed second story element and asked that this house be one story. Privacy impacts would result to her home due to the fact that hers was so far above the pro- posed house. When her home was built, no windows were allowed on the side facing the adjacent property; she asked that the same consideration now be given to her. Chairperson Siegfried noted the increased footprint if the house were limited to a one story elevation. Ms. Magneson stated she understood, but a one -story house could be screened with landscaping; furthermore, she asked that no windows be allowed on those elevations facing her home.