Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 13, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Jackman (who had indicated at an earlier meeting she would not be present at tonight’s meeting) Staff: Community Development Director Walgren, City Attorney Wittwer Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - September 8 and 22, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1999, AS AMENDED. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Page 6, paragraph 5, line 6, amended to read: “...(someone paying) the fine and declaring freedom to do as they please.” Page 9, paragraph 11, line 9, amended to read: “...however, it could be done relatively simple simply by just adjusting the garage.” Page 10, paragraph 11, line 4, amended to read: “He said that while under construction...” Page 12, paragraph 7, line 2, amended to read: “...and reduced the frieze by to 10 inches.” COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1999. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT.) Page 9, line 1 of page, amended to read: “...(how they are) viewed measured. She said the report indicates....” Page 3, paragraph 9, line 5, amended to read: “…it is also constrained by its configuration of 50 feet in width.” Page 5, paragraph 9 line 2, amended to read: “...he would be willing to install a six foot fence and plan plant screening along that side.” Page 10, first line, amended to read: “....it if if it were a closed session item.” Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on any item not on the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 2 of 18 Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two technical corrections to the packet as follows: 1. Item #2, page 4, paragraph 5, line 4, amended to read: “This total amount of 995 cubic yards is under the.....” 2. Item #4, page 3, last line amended to read, “The landscaping will consist of native California flannel bush to entirely surround the enclosure. The plants will be irrigated for approximately one year or until established.” CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-98-009 & DR-98-070 (397-27-031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R-M-3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for design consideration to a 6,500 square foot contemporary design home within the Saratoga Heights subdivision. The parcel is 2.75 acres and is constrained on the downslope and base of the property by several landslides. He said the application had been submitted sometime ago but has been delayed because of the length of time it took to get geological clearance on the property. He said the City geologist has granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance, noting that the landslides have been generally identified, and they will need to be repaired before a house can be built on the property. He conveyed that the application is sufficient to present to the Planning Commission for approval; however, because there are still details on the landslides to be identified, including the relationship to adjacent properties and the large oak tree on the property, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 3 of 18 Director Walgren stated that this is one of the last homes in the development, noting that the other homes have been designed in more traditional or rural or English tudor styles. He said this home is a very contemporary and modern design. He expressed that the application is before the Commission tonight for an early read for the applicant's benefit before they continue through the geological investigation process. He said the findings are that the home is consistent and compatible in design, height, size, massing and materials with the natural environment. He noted that although the wood, limestone, and copper roofing should blend in very well with the hillside areas, it is difficult to say that it is compatible with the existing homes in the area. He added that the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards regarding allowable building area, lot coverage, setbacks, and height, and conforms with the original subdivision tentative map, site development and conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren for a briefing on the issue regarding the secondary driveway and parking area. Director Walgren responded that issues raised in the staff report included the roofing material. He said the applicants are proposing a copper roofing and that concerns have been raised in the past about mineral leaching of copper materials. He said that issue could be mitigated through proper roof drains in the landscape areas where it can be absorbed into the soil very quickly. He stated that the applicants are willing to consider a composition roof if the copper roof is not acceptable to the Commission. He conveyed that the original design is a very large, expansive front guest parking area which almost matches the footprint of the home in addition to the two driveways - one accessing the area; the other accessing the garage to the building. He said that the applicants were aware that the City could not support the expansive hard surface on the property, and the plans presented before the Commission tonight show it in a reduced configuration. He said it is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick noted a typographical error in the design review portion of the report and confirmed that the term "and do end up in storm water runoff" should say, "and do not end up in storm water runoff…" Commissioner Page referred to the fact that it had been almost two years since the arborist had reviewed the project, and asked whether, depending on what happens with the second driveway, it would be appropriate to have an analysis of the tree below the tree that would be impacted. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative, noting that one of the recommendations to define this landslide would also give the arborist a second chance for a final look. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Non Cho Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner. Using a model of the project as a visual aid,, he described the project. He said much attention had been given to the design guidelines of the Planning Department. He said the intent is to build a building compatible with the surroundings, neighbors, and work with the landscape. He said that to comply with staff's concern about having too much paved driveway, the driveway was reduced and is now under the maximum allowable 15 percent of the lot size. He said his client had certain ideas about how to use the lot which is a very long shape, and that it has close to 900 feet from one point to the other, and the other direction is very short. He said given the shape, two driveways seemed to make more sense because the overall lot can be utilized more efficiently. However, Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 4 of 18 he said he understood the intention of minimizing the driveway because of the water runoff, and that he is contemplating using a material that is semi-permeable to reduce the water runoff during the rain. Mr. Wang referred to the environmental concern associated with the copper roof, and quoted from research done by the International Copper Institute on the environmental impact of copper on the ground soil and groundwater, which, in his opinion, was positive. He opined that the way to use copper as a roof material is to treat it with proper drainage so when it drains to the soil it will not have high concentration and become toxic. Commissioner Patrick stated she did not see a drainage plan to show that water is not running off the roof into pipes and down into drains somewhere, and asked where the water from the roof was going. Mr. Wang responded that he would have to study the issue further to understand what is the proper way to drain, and explained that according to the report he quoted from earlier, 95 percent of the copper being washed off the roof is not biodegradable and the other 5 percent is diluted when it gets to the ground. He said by the time the 5 percent gets to the ground it has already reacted to organic material in the environment and is not toxic anymore. Commissioner Patrick noted she had information to the contrary. She said the only way to prevent damage to the environment is by putting it in the ground and not in the water runoff which can end up in the Bay. Commissioner Patrick referred to the driveway and asked whether it would be aesthetically possible to combine the two driveways such for a turnaround off of the driveway that comes in to the garage, which would serve the purpose of having parking for visitors and eliminating the pavement area. Mr. Wang replied that he would be willing to consider the suggestion. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that it appeared that the flat or semi-flat area is virtually covered and the rest of the sloping area is uncovered. Commissioner Page noticed that much of the structure has a significant amount of metallic element and asked whether the side with aluminum or metal poles were just design elements, for looks, or for support. Mr. Wang responded that the poles act as design elements as well as structural elements. He said the roof overhang provides much energy conservation which needs more structure to support it. He stated that the south side which Commissioner Page was referring to is the back yard which will used for parties and children's play. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wang confirmed that the south side is the side seen from the valley on the other hills. Commissioner Page asked whether the applicant had any objection to making the poles wood as most of the house is wood. Mr. Wang said he considered using different material; however, the material would be painted so that it would not look like metallic, and when it is painted, one would not be able to tell whether it was wood or metal underneath. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 5 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Wang reviewed the materials, describing the detailed materials he plans to use. Commissioner Roupe commended the applicants for a creative and interesting design. He said he did not see a compelling reason that the design had to be compatible with the more contemporary houses, noting that some of then were not so contemporary. He urged the applicants to take seriously the matter regarding the copper roof, and indicated that the Copper Institute report could be biased. He conveyed that with some issues being addressed, he could support the project. Referring to the amount of hard pavement, Mr. Wang indicated he would be willing to work out a solution good for the environment and to the City’s satisfaction. Commissioner Roupe urged Mr. Wang to work closely with staff. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, a resident of Quito Road, Saratoga, expressed that this was an unattractive building and did not belong on the hillside. Mr. Wang responded that architecture is an expression of the owner’s interest and personality. He said the issues raised by the Commission were of great importance and he would do his best to address them. He indicated he would continue to work with staff. Chairwoman Bernald indicated she did not agree with Ms. Jensen. She said there was an eclectic mix in the hillside, and this project would be an appropriate building. She expressed concerns with the privacy on the east side, and suggested the applicant work with the neighbors, and work with staff to cut back the driveway. She commented she would like to see more research on the copper issue. Mr. Wang responded to Commissioner Kurasch’s questions regarding the driveways and the materials proposed for the project. Commissioner Page, responding to Chairwoman Bernald, stated he could support the project with the proposed modifications. Commissioner Patrick indicated she wanted to support the project. She said if she could see evidence that the copper would be no problem, she would have no concerns. She conveyed that two driveways is one too many, and that the drainage is a problem because of the copper roof. She commented that it was a fabulous design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the design, specifically the poles having different angles and with too many blank walls. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A LATER DATE. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Upon comments from Director Walgren regarding tonight’s discussion, a new motion was made. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DESIGN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE COPPER ROOF, FENCING, DRIVEWAY, AND GEOTECHNICAL MATTERS. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren clarified that the Commission was not bound by any decision until it makes a final decision. He said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any of the east elevation concerns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined that a subsequent hearing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP-99-014 (397-10-009) - CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State-owned right-of-way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right-of-way is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on a less-than-50 feet high PG&E utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local jurisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio frequency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right-of-way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said that staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation, conservation, and open space elements is basically to preserve and protect Saratoga’s uniqueness, Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 7 of 18 including property values, quality of life, aesthetics, and standards. He said the purpose of the discretionary permit for antennas is to determine whether the location would be an aesthetically appropriate location. Chairwoman Bernald referred to an article from the American Planning Association and noted that if the Commission were to discuss property values this evening, or deny applications because of property values, it would be necessary to have a formal report that would indicate how a loss in property value would occur. She asked how property value impacts would occur when a utility pole already exists and has existed for quite some time in the area. She asked whether such a situation could be an issue. Director Walgren responded that part of the article refers to situations where a jurisdiction can prove that an area is already being adequately served. The City is further bound by the Public Utilities Commission; cannot deny this service in its jurisdiction; and would have to provide what is basically considered a public utility service. He said the article referred to areas where it can be shown that the community is already being served and would provide the City with greater discretion to deny reasons beyond aesthetics. City Attorney Wittwer replied that the staff report refers to City Code Section 15-55070 which is the findings for a use permit. He said the City now has an ordinance requiring a use permit for each of the antennas. He said that among the findings that are required are that the proposed location of the use would not be materially injurious to properties or other improvements in the vicinity. He noted that the language is common in most use permit ordinances. He referred to a recent case in New York with similar language in which evidence was presented by real estate experts that a particular 150-foot tower could have a stigmatizing effect that could reduce property values. He said if the General Plan has language indicating that one of the goals of the plan is to protect property values, it could be one way to develop evidence relevant to the Commission to decide that it might have a use that is materially injurious to the adjoining properties or improvements in the vicinity.. The evidence would have to be presented to the Commission, either in a report from the Director or testimony or documents submitted by members of the public who testify. He conveyed that there would have to be adequate evidence in the record to demonstrate that somehow there is some injury to the properties. He indicated that the evidence would have to be solid evidence such as real estate experts testifying. Chairwoman Bernald asked how the Commission would respond to letters it has received which state that the property owners believe there are safety issues and their property values would be decreased. Mr. Wittwer responded that the weight of the evidence would be something for the Commission to evaluate. He advised that something such as an appraisal would be necessary for the Commission to base its decision on reduction of property value. Commissioner Kurasch requested clarification regarding public testimony, the perception of a risk or perception of a problem with property values. Mr. Wittwer said that the Commission could consider public testimony and public perception, but that it goes to the weight of the evidence, and the Commission’s job is to weigh the evidence and decide if there is adequate evidence to make a decision as to whether property values are truly being affected. He said he would advise that if all that is presented is perception and not any documentation or evidence that appears to be based on expertise from someone who has knowledge and experience in the specific area then the Commission may want to continue the hearing to find out if there is such evidence, and give an Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 8 of 18 opportunity for that to be presented. He said he would be reluctant to advise the Commission to make a decision that property values are affected without stronger evidence. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it were possible that such a claim could come up in appeal or challenge of the ruling. Mr. Wittwer responded that it was possible; however, his experience has been that Planning Commissioners take their job seriously and they would want to try to make the right decision based on adequate evidence and, if necessary, continue a matter to assure they had the evidence before it got to an appeal stage. Director Walgren commented that the General Plan does not contain a specific goal stating that the Commission should consider property values for every land use decision. He clarified that his response earlier was very broad, and that he meant that all of the City’s goals and policies are to protect the natural environment, but nothing would be found in the General Plan which specifically calls for protecting property values. He said many people could have different opinions on what building a home next to them does to their property values. He noted that the City is bound by certain constraints under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Act in terms of health impacts and the city’s conditional use permit ordinance, and also by the Council’s decision to adopt an ordinance which should be used to regulate these types of facilities. He said the what-if decisions being discussed this evening focus on the various court challenges that have gone on across the country which merely address what other individuals are doing to test or challenge some of these provisions. He reiterated that the Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application being reviewed under the City’s findings and code and under the FCC ruling of health impacts. Mr. Wittwer stated he conditioned his prior comment on Director Walgren confirming that there was some language in the General Plan which explicitly was designed to protect private property rights, and as such, he would want to look more closely at the General Plan to see if there is any such language if property values becomes an issue in any of the applications before the Commission. He would also want to research any cases that address the words, “materially injurious,” in terms of property values. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Sandy Reyes of Cellular One, 651 Gateway Boulevard, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting that the design was clean, obtrusive, and that the antennas would be installed on an existing utility pole. Commissioner Roupe referred to the cabinet for control equipment and stated that it was possible the dead shrubbery would have to be cleared and screening landscaping replanted. He asked if the applicant would have any objections to the screening. Ms. Reyes responded she would have no problem with placing screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Page, Ms. Reyes confirmed that the antennas would be transmitting to another site toward the street and not the homes behind it. Chairwoman Bernald supposed that a car were to hit the utility pole, causing it to go down into the street, and asked whether safety precautions to disconnect the antennas existed. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 9 of 18 Ms. Reyes replied that if such circumstances were to occur, the facility would probably be disconnected and probably not function. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the wires connected with sufficient tension from the pole to the antennas down the pole and into the box that they would be severed, and whether it contained a safety feature. Ms. Reyes responded that there was no safety feature which would automatically turn the site off, and noted that all of Cellular One’s facilities are stable enough that they would probably not come off the site, adding that it would be difficult to say whether or not the pole would come off the site. Commissioner Kurasch asked what would happen if the trees close to the site were to block the antenna, and Ms. Reyes answered that the antennas would still be able to transmit. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the antennas are coming out from a large canopy of trees and asked whether the trees, when fully grown, need to be trimmed so that the antenna can function. Ms. Reyes responded that if the antennas are screened, there may be a need for trimming. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the utility provider would be responsible for trimming in the event of any problems. Director Walgren read into the record letters opposing the proposed antennas received from Shih-Toung and Shih-Chi Liao, 1950 Glen Una Road; Kenneth Chen, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue; Francis Chien, 15160 Fruitvale Avenue; Patricia Melehan, 19336 Monte Vista Drive; and a petition signed by 12 property owners. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating he resides next to West Valley College. He noticed that the study results of the application gives a certain percentage of the applicable public limit which he does not feel should be accepted. He said the percentage is a variable and has changed many times in the past and will change in the future. He noted that the Federal Communications Commission comes out with lots per square centimeter and all through of a lot of investigation it is lots per square centimeter. He suggested that the watts per centimeter should be noted in parenthesis.l us how many watts per centimeter it is. He conveyed that he researched the subject in Electromagnetic Fields regarding the cumulative effects which the FCC does not seem to mention. He said that electromagnetic fields are bad for the body and nothing is known about the cumulative effect. Mr. William Lawrenson, 19489 Glen Una Road, spoke to the Commission on behalf of himself and neighbors at 19501 Glen Una. He said the property owners were required to bury all utilities so as not to add any more to the environment. He expressed concern with the continual impact of additional utilities in the area from a safety point of view and from a property value point of view. Mr. Wittwer clarified that the case he referred to regarding stigmatizing effect was addressing a stigmatizing effect from aesthetics and noted that a stimgatizing effect with a concern about health would come under the Telecommunications Act prohibition on local governments being able to regulate on that basis. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 10 of 18 Mr. George Kao, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue, concurred with comments from Mr. Martel and Mr. Lawrenson. He suggested that throughout the years the FCC regulations changes and that there is no guarantee for this type of issue. Mr. Edward Ybarro, 15275 Fruitvale Avenue, stated that his five-year old and nine-year old grandsons play 50 feet from the pole and his kitchen is located 80 feet from the pole in which his wife spends a lot of time. He expressed concern with the cumulative effect. He asked whether 25 years from now it would be discovered that the radiation did affect his grandchildren. Commissioner Kurasch stated that with the current process, unless impacts are stated as significant in the initial study, the City is prohibited from basing its decision on health aspects. She asked Mr. Ybarro for his opinion on the aesthetics of the antenna installation. Mr. Ybarro responded by asking whether others would want to see a similar project out their kitchen window if they lived in his area. He stated he had just built in a $350,000 renovation to his house. Rajiv Das, M.D., M.P.H., 19491 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, addressed the Commission, stating he had done training for the University of San Francisco in environmental health. He expressed concern with the utility pole, indicating that when one speaks of health risks, the subject is breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and effects in unborn children. He noted that the main issue is cumulative effect not just from the one single emitter but multiple emitters around the area. He asked whether there was any approximate level of what the total exposure is to the population surrounding the pole. He expressed there are other areas along the road where the antennas could be sited that are not near residences and where risks associated with health and with decrease in property values related to aesthetics do not exist. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the City cannot give the advantage to one provider over another. She said this is one of the guidelines the Commission must follow in making its decisions. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, conveyed that the initial cell phone tower that was put into the city was close to her, described the history of the project, and noted that the tree next to the first cellular tower is dead. She said when the first cellular tower was installed, many of her neighbors lost reception to some cable stations. She conveyed she was on the City Council in 1980 when the Council initiated a program to put in all utilities underground along Highway 9 (now Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road). She said that every pole is a nonconforming pole at this time, and the Commission would be adding to a nonconforming pole. She said every time a person comes in for a permit, they are not allowed to put in their utilities overhead in the city. She expressed that every one of the cellular applications is in a residential district and is nonconforming. Chairwoman Bernald noted that Ms. Jensen had requested to address the Commission regarding Items 4 and 5 of the agenda, and Ms. Jensen stated that she had to leave the building, but she wanted her comments to apply to each item because each issue is a significant issue, an important issue. She said she did not want these "things" in her city. Stephen LeDoux addressed the Commission as counsel to Cellular One, conveying that Director Walgren and City Attorney Wittwer had accurately summarized the law, the results of case law, and interpreting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He referred to two cases - one in San Jose and one in Dana Point, California – involving a 75-foot new monopole with antennas and a 100-foot pole in the northern San Jose jurisdiction. He said both cases were tract developments with similar homes, and the appraiser compared sales, trying to single out the only factor as proximity to the cellular facilities. When that was Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 11 of 18 done with sales prices and actual market data, there was no evidence that the 75-foot monopole or the 100-foot monopole had any negative effect on property values. He said service was in the area because of demand for service, noting that throughout the Bay Area, more than any other carrier, local police and fire rely on Cellular One service to provide important communications redundancy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:26 P.M.) PASSED 5-0. Commissioner Patrick commented that based on the criteria for making a decision, that the application is within the safety standards set by the FCC and under which the City operates. She conveyed she is satisfied that the application meets the criteria; the project is aesthetically appropriate, and especially more so than others which have come before the Commission. She said she was not satisfied that who perceives what as a risk is an issue. She stated that this is a public utility which the City is required to allow for the public good and public safety as long as there is a need for the service. The project meets all the criteria, satisfies all the findings required, and she will be supporting the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Patrick. He commented that he had seen safety officers and others using cellular phones for dialing 911 (emergency calls), and he would not want to vote against someone being able to call 911; thus, he will be supporting the application. Commissioner Kurasch, indicated she would be opposing the application and urged citizens to attend a future Commission meeting specifically addressing this issue. She indicated possible outcomes from that meeting could include that if the community or if the City was interested in undertaking different standards than FFC or federal standards, the community or City may lower the requirements of an environmental impact report which may mitigate the negative effects. Director Walgren clarified that it has not been concluded that the city can develop different standards from those already set by the FCC and adopted by Congress through the Telecommunications Act which is very specific; however, through the City Attorney’s opinion memo, it has been concluded that the city can develop a process where differing opinions or additional studies can be accepted through the CEQA process, but ultimately as the federal law currently stands, the federal emission standards cannot be altered. Chairwoman Bernald commented that adopting a new process would create another layer for the applicants, additional expense, and use of time. Director Walgren recalled that earlier discussions included the possibility of requiring an environmental impact report for each of the applications. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald whether any additional information would be provided as a result of requiring an environmental impact report, Director Walgren stated that earlier discussions included hypothetical alternative, and if a local document concluded that a lower threshold was needed, that document would need to acknowledge that the City is still bound by the FCC’s developed thresholds. He said the process would be for the City to acknowledge that there may be different viewpoints or alternative studies. Commissioner Roupe stated that the significant point raised in the City Attorney’s memo was that before launching into an expensive and time-consuming process there had to be substantial evidence of the significant impact before undertaking this issue, and he had not seen that evidence yet. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 12 of 18 Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren responded that a difficult side of the issue would be that great concern has been raised regarding health effects of the facilities that are not yet known. He said articles he has read refer to effects that perhaps have not yet been analyzed, and commented those types of concerns are going to be difficult to document. Commissioner Roupe opined that the application complies with the law, is aesthetically acceptable, and he will be voting in favor of it. He requested a condition that the applicant work with staff for appropriate screening of the control cabinet. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioners Roupe and Patrick. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-014 WITH THE CONDITION THAT APPROPRIATE SCREENING BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH STAFF. PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. UP-99-016 (386-53-019) - SPRINT, PG&E tower on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing; Request for Use Permit approval to install three antenna sectors with three antennas each, mounted on an existing PG&E tower. The proposal also includes several equipment cabinets located under the tower and enclosed by an eight-foot wood fence. The subject property is within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented details of the staff report, noting that all the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. Ms. Anne Welsh, 3875 Hopyard Road, Pleasanton, Sprint representative, and Paul Zimmerman, Sprint radio frequency engineer, addressed the Commission. Ms. Welsh remarked that Sprint has tried to prepare a project acceptable to the city and described the area. She said Sprint proposes to put the equipment under the high-tension line and would be visually unobtrusive. She said revisions to the plan were based on staff’s comments. She noted that an irrigation plan would be submitted at the building permit stage to maintain the proposed flannel bush screening. Using color boards, Mr. Zimmerman demonstrated the projected coverage area, noting that the site was chosen because of its location, that a new pole would not have to be installed, and it would blend in with the existing conditions. He said the antennas could be painted to match the PG&E tower and aesthetically do what would be required of them. There was no other public comment (except Ms. Jensen’s earlier comments under Item #3.) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 13 of 18 Commissioner Roupe noted this is a good application; encouraged the use of existing structures; aesthetically acceptable, and he will support the project. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Roupe and unlike the last application, she felt this was appropriately located, away from immediate residences, situated to be compatible, and she will vote in favor of the project. Commissioners Page and Patrick concurred. Chairwoman Bernald concurred, stating that the landscaping would be an improvement to what currently exists. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-016. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 5. UP-99-017 (397-13-030, 397-14-022 & 397-15-018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (METRICOM), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval for the installation of 16 panel antennas on the sides of the West Valley College theater building and the placement of a 64 square foot prefabricated equipment cabinet on the ground on the north side of the building. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. All equipment will be painted to match the building. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating that the application is not for personal telephone communications, but for a mobile internet connection service. Chairwoman Bernald, noting the many antennas on the site, asked whether any study had been made that a threshold would apply because of a cumulative effect. Director Walgren responded that the cumulative emissions effect was analyzed in the radio engineer’s report, which noted that the cumulative effect from all the providers (including the applicant) would increase from approximately 2 percent of the federal standard to approximately 3 percent, which is well below the threshold. Commissioner Page asked whether any study of the building rooftop had been made from a structural standpoint. Director Walgren replied that the city does not do the plan checks for the college’s building activities; however, it would probably have been done through the state architect’s office. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10 P.M. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, addressed the Commission on behalf of Metricom, noting that they produce a wireless internet system connected to a laptop computer. He said there are several subscribers in Saratoga who cannot get the service. He said after considering seven different locations, this site was chosen because it was the highest location in the city. It is a central location in the community and if approved, West Valley College students would have internet access to their professors Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 14 of 18 remotely without having a telephone line, from the city library, senior center, schools, etc. He distributed photos of before and after the antennae installation. He described the antennas as very light, noting that the equipment is on the ground, 56” high, weighing approximately 700 pounds, and they can be painted to match to blend in with the building. He said the other cellular providers are above the rooftop and Metricom’s would be below the rooftop and fit into the elevations. He introduced Mr. Mark Newman of Hammett & Edison (470 Third Street West, Sonoma, CA) who prepared the technology report and has done extensive research regarding the cumulative effects. Mr. Newman specifically addressed the issue of human effects at the site. He said he has studied all four of the existing carriers in addition to Metricom. He said analyses were done at several key buildings and areas of interest around the site, including the library building, the local park, the senior center, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of which most are approximately half a mile away from the Theater Arts Building. He explained how the calculations are done, noting they are worst case calculations in an effort to ensure that the numbers reported cannot be exceeded by anything that would be measured in the field. He said the maximum calculation was way below the standard for public exposure. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Zambetti responded that the antennas being installed would be used for receiving and for sending. Mr. Martel again addressed the Commission, recalling that Commissioner Jackman who was absent tonight, had asked what the total levels were at the Odd Fellows. He quoted from the staff report the companies and their wattage, noting that they add up to what Commissioner Jackman had requested. He said additional work regarding the impacts to the Odd Fellows Home remained to be done, and suggested that the consultant do additional work. He expressed that the numbers he quoted are coming from the Theater Arts Building towards the Odd Fellows Home. He said the consultant report only provides various parts, not 100 percent, and has the software to plot this. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Newman to address Mr. Martel’s concern. Mr. Newman responded by explaining that a database which models the roof of the college was built, and the Odd Fellows Home site was inserted in the database to calculate the maximum number at the closest point. He noted that the calculations at the Odd Fellows Home are very much in keeping with the other sites similar in distances. Responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Patrick, Mr. Newman responded that the figure was cumulative of all the antennas at the college. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the antennas would be equally spaced so they appeared as part of the building, and Mr. Zambetti responded that Metricom has taken into consideration the architectural elements and that the distance of each antenna must be kept at a minimum of four feet. He noted that architecturally, elevation changes are every eight to ten feet. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:16 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT.) Commissioner Page commented that he agreed with staff, specifically with the size of the antennae which are placed on the face of the building versus the roof, and is supporting the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 15 of 18 Commissioner Kurasch concurred. Commissioner Roupe concurred and will be supporting the project. Commissioner Patrick and Chairwoman Bernald concurred. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-017. APPROVED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). DIRECTOR ITEMS DR-99-020 - STERLING, 18588 ALLENDALE AVENUE Request for modification of approved plans Commissioner Kurasch indicated she would be recusing herself because she resides within 300 feet of the project. Chairwoman Bernald responded that in complying with the clarification of when a Commissioner must recuse him/herself, Commissioner Kurasch would not have to recuse herself. Director Walgren indicated this was a Director’s Item, not a Public Hearing, and Commissioner Kurasch would not have to recuse herself. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report, indicating that this issue goes back to the City’s policy regarding when changes are made to public buildings after they have gone through a formal public design review process, and the Planning Commission has approved them, they must come back to the Commission for re-review. Director Walgren described the proposed changes to the design, noting that staff recommends approving the enclosure of the porches and additional 46 square feet of floor areas, and deny the modification of the attached garage. Mr. Dan Shaw, 21613 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, stated he is the new owner of the property. He said he entered into a contract to purchase the property after the builder appeared before the Commission with the design. He conveyed that the reason for connecting the garage to the house is a personal safety and security issue. He said the lot is one acre and sits substantially back from the street, and a significant amount of trees and brush screen it from the street. He noted that in returning home late in the evening, occupants would prefer going into and closing a garage, and entering the house; thus, he asked the architect to redesign the home to enclose the breezeway. Mr. Ron Waer, 7352 Prendivale Drive, San Jose, addressed the Commission as the Westbrook Builders architect. He reported that the biggest issue is the long wall along the west side of the house and described the proposed changes in detail. He said one element omitted in the report is the roof pitch has been lowered slightly and the overall building height has been reduced by 18 inches. He said it is important to note that the house sits back from the street frontage and is well shielded. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 16 of 18 Chairwoman Bernald noted that the interior plan is far more workable with the new design, but there is a sizable mud room that is incorporated with the plan. She asked whether the applicant had considered knocking some floor area space from the mud room to give better articulation to the wall. Mr. Waer responded he would be willing to make such an adjustment. Chairwoman Bernald suggested installing lights in the specific area. Commissioner Roupe referred to the architectural drawing of the west elevation and asked whether openings had been omitted from the drawing. Mr. Waer replied that the windows toward the south end of the west elevation had been eliminated because that window was looking out toward residences; whereas out the back the windows look into a much deeper setback and back yard of the house. He added that the door and window in the family room had been eliminated for privacy purposes. Commissioner Patrick asked whether anything had been done with the eucalyptus trees in the front that separate the new home from the older house on Allendale, and Mr. Waer responded that no other measures had been taken for the trees. Commissioner Patrick stated she concurred with staff. She did not think it was a terrific idea to attach the garage as proposed by the owner. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Commissioner Patrick would consider having more of an alcove cutting into the mud rooms that broke it up and ask for the windows to go back. Commissioner Patrick responded she would like to see a drawing because of her past experience with previous proposals making changes to approved projects. Commissioner Page expressed he would prefer to see an exact design of the proposed changes, including the articulation of the building. Commissioner Kurasch had no comment. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioners Patrick and Page, noting that if modifications are to be made in an effort to give greater articulation to the building, the Commission should see it. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could bring the issue back to staff and work with staff or the Commission. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that the design would have to come back to staff for a final plan check before it could be submitted for permits, and if the Commission wanted to see it again, the item could be agendized for the next Commission meeting. Mr. Shaw stated this was not an elevation that could be seen from the street nor from the neighboring driveway coming out. It is only visible to the two property owners behind the property. He said he would be willing to approach the two neighbors. Commissioner Page stated that in addition to reviewing the articulation with staff, it be required that the applicant discuss the plan with the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 17 of 18 Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern with the length of the home and would like to see more articulation on the specific elevation Commissioner Roupe commented he would ask staff to work with the architect and applicant, and did not see any need for the proposal to come back to the Commission. Director Walgren agreed with Commissioner’s Roupe direction, adding direction that the applicants run the plans by the neighbors. Mr. Shaw verified that the Commission direction was to approve staff’s recommendation. Director Walgren distributed information on the League of California Cities annual Planning Commission workshop to be held November 5, 1999, in Grover Beach, California. He stated that the Commission’s annual workshop will be held March 1-3, 1999, in Monterey, California. Director Walgren reported on the City Attorney’s memo regarding the Conflict of Interest procedures for Commissioners recusing themselves. Director Walgren indicated he had planned to move up the telecommunications discussion to October 27, 1999, at which time Commissioner Jackman would be present. However, he noted that Commissioner Roupe will not be present at the October 27, 1999 Commission meeting; thus, the issue will remain on the November 10, 1999 agenda. Commissioner Page said he would want to be part of the discussion of the fencing issue scheduled for the October 27, 1999 meeting from which he will be absent. Director Walgren stated that the fencing issue would be delayed to the November 10, 1999 agenda because Commissioners Page and Roupe will not be in attendance. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald distributed questionnaires to Commissioners which were distributed at the September 23, 1999 meeting of the Circulation Element. Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern regarding canine feces in downtown Saratoga and asked for any information such as City ordinances or policies addressing the issue. Chairwoman Bernald inquired about the Ahmadian property frieze, and Director Walgren noted that the project had been inspected by the Historical Preservation Commission who was satisfied with the modification. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 18 of 18 COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for special meetings of August 30 and September 9, 1999, adjourned regular meeting of September 7, 1999, and regular meeting of September 15, 1999 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1999 - Noted. - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for regular meeting of October 27, 1999; CITY OF SARATOGA, Citywide - Noted. - Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration for regular meetings of October 27 and November 10, 1999; AZULE CROSSING, INC., 12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Noted. - Newspaper article addressing studies to examine the health effects of using cell phones - Noted. - Magazine article regarding the 1996 Telecommunications Act covering siting of wireless facilities - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. to Wednesday, October 27, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission