HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPELLANT PRESENTATION Items 9 - 11Reasons to Reject
1.On May 13th, Planning commission made the decision based on misleading and incomplete information, Aesthetic was forced to be the only considering aspect. The decision was made under pressure and fear.
2.Safety analysis of aging wooden poles and general public safety concerns were not addressed.
3.RF exposure could potentially exceed the FCC limit due to very close to residents’ houses. Verizon’s new RF report is dramatically different than the original RF report. It is not in compliance with FCC requirements
4.City ordinance were not checked and fully utilized
1-A: Misleading 1: Aesthetic only
•Before planning commission public hearing, city staff told all commissioners:
they are limited only aesthetic to review, due to latest FCC regulation.
1-B: Misleading 2: Substantial Change
FCC14-152: Page 127, Subpart CC: “A modification substantially
changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure
if…it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the
ground if there are no pre -existing ground cabinets”
1-C: Misleading 3: Collocation
PDR15-0004/0005/006 are NOT eligible facility, NOT collocation.
FCC 6409 DOES NOT apply here.
City misinterprets Collocation as “collocate with utility pole”
1-D: Misleading 4: existing
The utility pole was constructed many years ago, was meant for
utility power. Verizon has NOT provided any legal documents
showing the utility pole had a wireless site review at time the utility
pole was constructed. Verizon has not provided any safety analysis
report for very old wooden pole.
From City’s Wireless Regulatory Update Memorandum, Page 3.
1-E Process: May 13 decision was made under pressure & Fear
•Planning commission has fear that Verizon will sue city, and it will cost Saratoga
City hundreds of thousands of dollars.
•On May 13, Planning commission made the decision under pressure and fear.
1-F Process: Not Fair for Public Records
City Forwarded Appellant’s legal letter to Verizon 4 hours later.
But we didn’t get Verizon’s legal letter (Dated 8/12), until 8/16
Even though we requested public records on July 28, and I
personally visited city office on 8/13.
2-A. Safety analysis of aging wooden pole and
general public safety issues were not addressed
•GO 95 compliance data for each individual pole was NOT
provided during the planning commission public hearing.
•New report claims Verizon has the individual safety analysis,
but is not provided. All we have seen is the business
agreement.
•For each additional 10 feet length of pole, about 2 feet depth
setting for safety is required –GO 95 Section 4 Table 6
2-A: Verizon Changed in latest legal letter
Verizon Legal Letter, Page 8
Verizon latest legal letter specifically stated FCC “federal law does
not apply” here.
Then the statement “Aesthetic only” would not hold for May 13th
planning commission public hearing.
Other aspects, like health and safety, should be included in the
review criteria
3-A. Beacon RF analysis Report
•The Beacon Report indicates RF exposure is 20% of FCC limit
for one story house with height of 20 feet and 40 feet away
from the pole.
•Worst case scenario was not considered:If the house is rebuilt
to be 15-25 feet away with 26 feet height (city code
ordinance) and a roofer working on the roof top, RF radiation
could exceed FCC limit. We need an independent report.
3-B: Verizon Changed RF Report
May 13, RF report was from
Beacon Development, LLC,
used by planning commission
(Dated April 29)
August 16, we saw new RF
report from Hammett &
Edison, Inc., (Dated May 13),
(of FCC limit)Beacon Hammett & Edison Difference
Ground Floor 6.6%0.34%19X
Roof Level 19.3%0.55%35X
4: PDR15-0004 violates City Code 15-29-010(f)
“Driveway intersections.No fence, hedge, retaining
wall, entryway element, pilaster, gate, or other similar
element located within a triangle having sides twelve
feet in length from either side of a driveway where it
intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed three
feet in height above the established grade of the
adjoining street.”
Cabinet Height is 41.5”, exceeds 3 feet.
Summary
Verizon has been misleading city by using big name “FCC”
May 13, Planning commission made the decision based on misleading
& incomplete information, under pressure and fear
Verizon doesn’t have solid RF analysis data and potentially exceed FCC
limit
Verizon doesn’t have solid utility pole safety analysis data
FCC preempts city and local government from setting ordinances that
prohibit the telecommunication services, but FCC (U.S.C. Section 332)
preserves local authority over individual zoning decisions regarding
the placement, construction and modification of wireless facility.
We strongly recommend city council to reject the applications
48’
Existing
House
(PDR-006
Kristy)Ground Level :
6.6% of FCC limit
19.3%of FCC limit
at 20’ height and 40
feet away40’
Signal intensity decrease proportionally to 1/distance square
High intensity signal space
New
House
?%(32’)
15 -25’
1% of FCC limit
at 21’ height and
80 feet away
PDR-004
Prospect
Road
Property line
5. Utility Pole Safety (GO 95)
•For public safety, the utility
pole must meet California
GO 95
–For each additional 10 feet
length of pole, more than 1
feet depth setting is required –
GO 95 Table 6
•How PG&E and Verizon are
going to comply with this
requirement?
•City has the responsibility to
ensure the safety of
residents
Ground soil level
Depth setting
Requirement
Utility Pole Safety (GO 95)