HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2011 Planning Commission PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
April 27, 2011 and May 11, 2011
April 27, 2011 4
May 11, 2011 6
APPLICATION CUP11-0002 (386-10-006) Quality Project
Management / Wheelworks; 18522 Prospect Road
Staff Report 8
Resolution 11
Noticing Documents 16
Neighbor Forms 18
APPLICATION CUP11-0003 Saratoga Chamber of Commerce;
Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076)
Staff Report 22
Resolution 26
Neighbor Forms 32
Noticing Documents 41
Applicant Project Description 47
APPLICATION PDR11-0001(366-12-072) AT&T 12299
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Staff Report - 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 49
Att. 1 - Resolution 53
Att. 2 - Notice of Approval - 10/94 59
Att. 3 - Photo Simulations, Exhibit "B"60
Att. 4 - Coverage Map 63
Att. 5 - Radio Freqency Analysis 66
Att. 6 - Public Hearing Notice, Affadavit & Mailing Label 89
Att. 7 - Neighbor Notifications 98
APPLICATION ZOA11-0003 (Citywide) Zoning Ordinance
Amendment
Staff Report 104
Attachment #1: Resolution 107
Attachment #2: Ordinance 109
Attachment #3: Sheriff's Office Memo 111
Attachment #4: Impacts Associated with Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries 121
1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of April 27, 2011 and May 11, 2011
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 2, 2011
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. APPLICATION CUP11-0002 (386-10-006) Quality Project Management / Wheelworks; 18522
Prospect Road - The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to bring an existing auto service
station into compliance with the City of Saratoga Zoning Code. Per City Code Section 15-55.060,
conditional uses in a building over 4,000 square feet in area require Planning Commission approval. City
Code Section 15-19.035(b)(2) requires a conditional use permit for gasoline service stations in the CN-
RHD District provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an
enclosed structure. Per City Code Section 15-06.310, “gasoline service station" means a place where
gasoline, oil, tires, small parts and accessories for the operation of motor vehicles are offered for sale to the
public, and servicing incidental thereto. To perform oil change services, Wheel Works requires a
Conditional Use Permit. (Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP)
2. APPLICATION CUP11-0003 Saratoga Chamber of Commerce; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) &
Parking District #3 (503-24-076) - The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for a public
marketplace that would be open on Wednesdays from 1:30pm to 7:30pm. The market would be
concurrently located in the Saratoga Village at Blaney Plaza and the parking lot behind 14411 Big Basin
2
Way (Parking District #3). Approximately 30 vendor booths would sell food, retail items, art, and crafts.
Per City Code Section 15-19.020(b), markets require Planning Commission approval. (Cynthia
McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP)
3. APPLICATION PDR11-0001(366-12-072) AT&T 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, - The applicant is
requesting Design Review approval for the addition of three new antennas and association
telecommunication equipment to an existing monopole. The project also includes the installation of new
coaxial cables on the exterior of the existing monopole. The cabling will be painted to match the existing
monopole. The proposal will not increase the 40 foot height of the existing utility structure. The pole is
located in the behind the Public Storage building at 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The property is
located in the Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning district. (Michael Fossati)
4. APPLICATION ZOA11-0003 (Citywide) Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Prohibit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Christopher Riordan, AICP)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, June 26, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 2, 2011,
at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public
review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, Joyce
Hlava, David Reis and Yan Zhao
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2011(Approved, 6:0:1 (abstain - Zhao))
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
Gene Zambetti – Public noticing issues
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 21, 2011
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Adopt Resolution finding that City’s Capital Improvement Program for FY11/12 is consistent with the City
of Saratoga’s General Plan. (John Cherbone) (Approved, 7:0)
2. APPLICATION PDR11-0004; T-Mobile (Sutro Consulting); 19700 Allendale Avenue (397-30-053) -
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a wireless telecommunication antenna facility on a
new 97 foot tall pole. Per the applicant, the pole height is necessary to provide an adequate cellular signal
to service residential areas north and northwest of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale
Avenue. The height is also necessary to provide coverage beyond the tree line and allow for down tilt
which helps in cellular coverage. The height would allow future carriers to locate below the T-Mobile
antennas such that 10 feet of separation is required between installations. Initially, T-Mobile would install
six (6) antennas at the top of the pole with an antenna center height of 90 feet. Future carriers could occupy
a lower portion of the pole with an antenna center height of 75 feet. The pole would be designed to look
like a pine tree, otherwise known as a “mono-pine” stealth installation. The equipment would be located at
the base of the pole and enclosed in a 10.5 foot x 49 foot area (515 SF) surrounded by a chain link fence
4
with green plastic slats. The enclosure would match the fence surrounding the corporation maintenance
yard. T-Mobile would occupy three (3) cabinets, leaving space for three (3) future carrier cabinets. The
enclosure would displace at least two parking spaces (including a handicapped space) and an area used by
residents for filling sand bags. The applicant will be required to re-stripe the parking lot to replace the loss
of the handicapped space and other spaces as required. The pole would be located on public property
adjacent to an industrialized maintenance yard. Surrounding uses include residences, a school, a post-
office, a public library, a church, City Hall and other public uses. The applicant has submitted an Existing
Coverage Map showings a gap in coverage in the area and a proposed Coverage Map showing the projected
improvement in coverage from the proposed wireless installation (Attachment 6). The maximum radio-
frequency exposure level was calculated at .026% of the public exposure limit set by the Federal
Communications Commission. The site is zoned R1-20,000 and the General Plan designation is
Community Facilities (Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner) (Continued to the June 21, 2011 Study
Session and July 13, 2011 Public Hearing, 7:0)
DIRECTORS ITEM
COMMISSION ITEMS
Pepper Lane fence
19387 Allendale Ave – mobile storage unit
Liaison to committee meetings
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING – ADJOURNED 10:00 PM
- Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on April 21,
2011, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
5
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Commissioners – Chair Douglas Robertson, Vice-Chair Tina K. Walia, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Pragati Grover, David
Reis and Yan Zhao
ABSENT
Commissioner Joyce Hlava
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 2011 (Approval deferred to the June 8,
2011 meeting, 6:0:1 (Hlava))
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not
on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.
However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 5, 2011
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Applications ZOA11-0001, GPA11-0001 - The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga will
consider recommendations to the City Council concerning: - a) An amendment to Saratoga Municipal
Code section 15-58.020(c) to provide that mixed use projects may include less than 50% commercial space
(if authorized by the Planning Commission) only if the project is less than five residential units;
b) An amendment to Saratoga Municipal Code section 15-58.020(d) to provide that mixed use projects
may use shared parking (if authorized by the Planning Commission) only if the project includes fewer than
five residential units; and
c) An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Saratoga General Plan to clarify that the higher densities
currently allowed in the CN(RHD) district at Prospect and Lawrence Avenue are allowed only at that site
6
and not elsewhere in the City. (Christopher Riordan, AICP) (Adopt amendment c (Approved, 6:0:1(Hlava)
Deny amendment a and b (Approved, 6:0:1(Hlava))
DIRECTORS ITEM
Update on the removal of the temporary metal lattice fence at Pepper Lane.
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING- ADJOURNED 7:40 PM
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
POSTING
Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Lori McKenna, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the
foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on May 5, 2011,
at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public
review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda’s via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
7
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. CUP11-0002
Location/ APN: 18522 Prospect Road / 386-10-006
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Applicant / Owner: Quality Project Management / Wheelworks
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP
Meeting Date: 5/25/11
Department Head:
Chris Riordan, AICP
18522 Prospect Road
8
PROJECT SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 04/21/11
Application complete: 05/02/11
Notice published: 05/10/11
Mailing completed: 05/09/11
Posting completed: 05/19/11
ZONING: CN- RHD (Commercial Neighborhood Residential High Density)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Commercial Retail)
OVERVIEW: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to bring an existing auto service
station into compliance with the City of Saratoga Zoning Code. Per City Code Section 15-55.060,
conditional uses in a building over 4,000 square feet in area require Planning Commission
approval. City Code Section 15-19.035(b)(2) requires a conditional use permit for gasoline service
stations in the CN-RHD District provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall
be conducted within an enclosed structure. Per City Code Section 15-06.310, “gasoline service
station" means a place where gasoline, oil, tires, small parts and accessories for the operation of
motor vehicles are offered for sale to the public, and servicing incidental thereto. To perform oil
change services, Wheel Works requires a Conditional Use Permit.
BACKGROUND: City records indicate that the applicant business (Wheelworks) has been in
continuous operation at 18522 Prospect Road since at least August 1970. Previously, the Prospect
Road site was zoned Neighborhood Commercial or C-N where gasoline service stations were not
allowed. On April 7, 2010, the City of Saratoga rezoned the area between Lawrence Expressway and
Prospect Avenue to Neighborhood Commercial Residential High Density or CN-RHD. This new
zoning district includes Gasoline Service Stations as a conditionally permitted use. The sale of
gasoline is not a requirement to be classified as a Gasoline Service Station.
USE DESCRIPTION: Wheelworks provides various vehicle maintenance services to include vehicle
inspections, oil changes, tune-up, air conditioning, heating and cooling services, radiator services,
brake repair, shocks and struts services, battery and electrical repair, wheel alignment, and tire
services. No operational changes are proposed.
SITE AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION: The rectangular lot is 15,320 square feet in area. There is one
existing building on site with a total floor area of 4,320 square feet. No modifications are proposed
to the site or the building and the facility would continue to operate with seven (7) bays. The
building is adjacent to Prospect Avenue. Customers can access the building from either the front or
side of the building. There is existing landscaping along the front of the building and throughout the
parking lot.
PARKING: Eleven (11) parking spaces, including one (1) handicapped space, are located along the
side of the building. There is also parking in between the subject property and the adjacent lot where
the applicant shares a tenant space with Kragen Auto Parts.
9
BUSINESS HOURS: The hours of operation would continue to be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
EMPLOYEES: The facility would continue to operate with up to 17 employees.
SIGNAGE: The applicant is not proposing any new signage. There is an existing monument sign in
front of the building along Prospect Avenue. The applicant also has a second monument sign that is
shared with Kragen Auto Parts, in front of the adjacent shared tenant space along Prospect Avenue.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the north, east,
and west, and a church to the south.
NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION: The applicant notified the adjacent properties and received responses
from four (4) businesses (attachment 3). Public notice was sent to all property owners within 500
feet of the project. Staff has not received any negative comments as of the writing of this staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The project is Class 1 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, and Section 15301. The
project is existing and no modifications are proposed at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit with required findings and conditions by
adopting the attached Resolution.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval.
2. Mailed Notice and Mailing Addresses
3. Neighborhood Notification
4. Reduced Plans “Exhibit A”
10
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT
Application # CUP11-0002
Wheelworks; 18522 Prospect Road / 386-10-006
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to bring an existing auto service station into
compliance with the City of Saratoga Zoning Code. The existing service station provides various
vehicle maintenance services to include vehicle inspections, oil changes, tune-up, air conditioning,
heating and cooling services, radiator services, brake repair, shocks and struts services, battery and
electrical repair, wheel alignment, and tire services. There is one existing building on site with a
total floor area of 4,320 square feet. No modifications are proposed to the site or the building. Per
Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-55.060, conditional uses in a building over 4,000
square feet in area require Planning Commission approval.
II. Planning Commission Review
On May 25, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
III. Environmental Review
The project is Class 1 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, and Section 15301. The
project is existing and no modifications are proposed at this time.
IV. Use Permit Requirement
City Code Section 15-19.035(b)(2) requires a conditional use permit for gasoline service stations in
the CN-RHD District provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be
conducted within an enclosed structure.
V. Use Permit Findings
The Applicant’s Project has met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for approval of
a Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below:
11
(a) The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof. The Project meets this finding in that the use already exists in the City and has been
operating for several years without any known adverse effects. The use would be located entirely
within an existing building where no interior or exterior changes are currently proposed. The City
shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify,
delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and
welfare.
(b) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Project meets this
finding in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the district. The facility meets the objectives of
the commercial neighborhood district by offering goods and services required by residents and
visitors of the City.
(c) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Project meets the required
findings. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable
health and safety codes. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable building and
fire code standards. The facility is operating with all required permits from the Santa Clara County
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division.
(d) The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code. The Project meets this finding. The use permit includes conditions of
approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will
require an amended Conditional Use permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading, or
building permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate
of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in form and content
acceptable to the community development director.
2. If a condition is not “permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent.
Application No. CUP11-0002; 18522 Prospect Road
12
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use
Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
5. Any intensification of the uses approved under this Use Permit shall require an amended
Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to,
physical changes to the site or structure of the use to accommodate more employees or
customers, and changes in operations or equipment that result in ongoing increases in traffic,
noise, or other physical effects.
6. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in
writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City,
containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application,
including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall
expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the
notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building
Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing
fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
7. The use shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, including,
without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by
this reference. The use shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations
of the State, County, and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over
the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues.
8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging
Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by
Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree
to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions,
employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on
their behalf.
Application No. CUP11-0002; 18522 Prospect Road
13
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The uses and development shall be operated, located and constructed
to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and
denominated Exhibit "A" date stamped May 12, 2011 incorporated by this reference. All
proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use must be submitted in writing
with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes.
Such changes shall be subject to the requisite prior City approval and in accordance with
Condition A.3, above.
10. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
11. Public Works Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all Public Works requirements.
D. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
12. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements.
Application No. CUP11-0002; 18522 Prospect Road
14
Application No. CUP11-0002; 18522 Prospect Road
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, and other materials
and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No.
CUP11-0002 is approved.
APPROVED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 25th day of May 2011 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Doug Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Chris Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and
agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in
this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
15
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A
site visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the
Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is
stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development
Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION #: CUP11-0002
APPLICANT: Quality Project Management / Wheelworks
ADDRESS/APN: 18522 Prospect Road /
386-10-006
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to bring an
existing auto service station into compliance with the City of Saratoga Zoning Code. The
existing service station provides various vehicle maintenance services to include vehicle
inspections, oil changes, tune-up, air conditioning, heating and cooling services, radiator
services, brake repair, shocks and struts services, battery and electrical repair, wheel alignment,
and tire services. No building or operational changes are proposed.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the Public Hearing.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cynthia McCormick
Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1230
16
Parcel Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip
38136012 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI ET AL 4675 STEVENS CREEK BL STE 230 SANTA CLARA, CA 95051
38610004 VELLA LEONARD J TRUSTEE 231 HOURET DR MILPITAS, CA 95035
38610006 PATRICK EDWARD H SR AND VIRGIN P.O. BOX 6030 PHOENIX, AZ 85005
38610007 SEGALL JOHN B AND REVA A TRUST 456 CORNELL AV SAN MATEO, CA 94402
38610040 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITO 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129
38610041 MALONE W B AND MARY 1735 SARATOGA AV SAN JOSE, CA 95129
38610043 RUSSO RAY A SR TRUSTEE & ET AL 4010 MOORPARK AV STE 111 SAN JOSE, CA 95117
38610043 FRUTTI 18562 B PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
38610043 NILOU RAHIMI 18576 PROSPECT RD.SARATOGA, CA 95070
38610043 McDONALD'S 18578 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070
38610055 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE, CA 95108
38610056 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 8 Rivers Park Place East Fresno, CA 93720
18
GEO10
17
18
19
20
21
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. CUP11-0003
Location/ APN: Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076)
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Applicant: Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP
Meeting Date: 6/8/11
Department Head:
Chris Riordan, AICP
Blaney Plaza & Parking District #3
22
PROJECT SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 04/25/11
Application complete: 05/12/11
Notice published: 05/24/11
Mailing completed: 05/24/11
Posting completed: 06/02/11
ZONING: Commercial Historic (CH)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Retail (CR)
OVERVIEW: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for a public marketplace that
would be open on Wednesdays from 1:30pm to 7:30pm. The market would be concurrently located
in the Saratoga Village at Blaney Plaza and the parking lot behind 14411 Big Basin Way (Parking
District #3). Approximately 30 vendor booths would sell food, retail items, art, and crafts. Per City
Code Section 15-19.020(b), markets require Planning Commission approval.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The public marketplace would operate year-around in two locations
concurrently; Blaney Plaza and the parking lot behind what is currently U.S. Bank. Blaney Plaza is
located between Saratoga Village and the intersection of Big Basin Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road. The parking lot is located behind 14411 Big Basin Way in Parking District #3. The operation
of the marketplace could be further enhanced by the future capital improvement project by the City
Public Works Department to install automated bollards to block off the short one-way access road
between Big Basin Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road.
USE DESCRIPTION: The marketplace would sell traditional farmer’s market items including fruits,
vegetables, and other consumables. Vendors would also sell arts, crafts, and retail items from
Saratoga Village merchants. There would be up to 30 vendor booths, each approximately 10’ x 10’
in size. The applicant also proposes live music during the normal operating hours between 2:30 and
6:30pm. The resolution includes conditions of approval regarding noise limitations and public health
standards. The use is further described in attachment 4.
VENDOR BOOTHS: There would be up to ten (10) vendor booths in Blaney Plaza and twenty (20)
vendor booths in the parking lot location.
HOURS OF OPERATION: The marketplace would be open to the public on Wednesdays from
2:30pm to 6:30pm. Set-up and break-down would occur between 1:30 and 2:30 and between
6:30 and 7:30, respectively.
PARKING: There is limited parking and loading/unloading areas immediately adjacent to Blaney
Plaza. Vendors and patrons would need to park along Big Basin Way or one of the City’s
23
parking districts. There are 52 spaces in the parking lot location. However, there are
approximately 200 spaces within Parking District #3 and it is anticipated that most people would
be able to park in this area for access to both market areas.
SIGNAGE: The proposed signage is not illuminated and would be reviewed and approved
administratively in a separate application. However, the allowable signage is described here for
information purposes.
• Temporary Grand Opening Signs or Banners: The applicant may announce the
commencement of the public marketplace on temporary signs or banners, not exceeding twenty
square feet in area (aggregate). Such signs shall not be displayed more than thirty days.
• Public Interest Signs: Per City Code section 15-30.140(b), the Chamber of Commerce may
advertise the event on a sign structure, up to fifty square feet in area, adjacent to an arterial street at
each entrance to the City. The sign shall not exceed ten feet in height.
• Directional Signs: The applicant is allowed up to two 1 free-standing directional signs on each
site, up to three square feet in area and five feet in height. Directional signs direct traffic flow and
indicate entrances, exits, parking information or similar information.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the site are primarily commercial. A creek
separates the parking lot from residential uses to the northeast and southeast. Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road separates Blaney Plaza from the Fire Department to the west.
NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION: The applicant notified several of the adjacent properties about the
proposal (attachment 2). Public notice was also sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the
project (attachment 3). Staff has not received any negative comments as of the writing of this staff
report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The project is Class 4 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, and Section 15304(e).
Class 4 exemptions include minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent
effects on the environment. The project would include the operation of temporary vendor booths
that would be dismantled at the end of the day of operation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit with required findings and conditions by
adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
1 The Planning Director may permit more than two directional signs in a particular location.
24
2. Neighborhood Notice Forms
3. Mailed Notice and Mailing Addresses
4. Project Description from Applicant
5. Reduced Plans “Exhibit A”
25
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT
Application # CUP11-0003
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for a public marketplace that would be open
on Wednesdays from 1:30pm to 7:30pm. The market would be concurrently located in the Saratoga
Village at Blaney Plaza and the parking lot behind 14411 Big Basin Way (Parking District #3).
Approximately 30 vendor booths would be operated to sell food, retail items, art, and crafts.
II. Planning Commission Review
On June 8, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
III. Environmental Review
The project is Class 4 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, and Section 15304(e).
Class 4 exemptions include minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent
effects on the environment. The project would include the operation of temporary vendor booths
that would be dismantled at the end of the day of operation.
IV. Use Permit Requirement
City Code Section 15-19.020(b) requires a conditional use permit for markets in a commercial
district.
V. Use Permit Findings
The Applicant’s Project has met the burden of proof to support the Findings required for approval of
a Use Permit under Article 15-55 of the City Code, as set forth below:
(a) The proposed conditional use will [not] adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, or will [not] adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof. The Project meets this finding in that the marketplace will be open to the public one day per
week between the hours of 2:30pm and 6:30pm to avoid overlap with evening restaurant traffic.
Furthermore, all operations must be completely broke down by 7:30pm. Residential uses to the
northeast and southeast are separated by a creek and heavily screened by trees and landscaping. Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road separates Blaney Plaza from the Fire Department to the west. The applicant is
required to comply with all City standards including noise limitations.
26
(b) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Project meets this
finding in that it is a conditionally permitted use in the district. The project meets the objectives of
the commercial historic district by offering goods and services desired by residents and visitors of
the City. The project meets the following objectives with respect to the Saratoga Village:
(1) Preservation and enhancement of the small-scale, pedestrian character of the Village to
make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners. The marketplace would be
concurrently operated in two locations, encouraging patrons to walk between the two locations
and visit other nearby merchants and restaurants. The market would also showcase retail items
and services of Village merchants.
(2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village.
The marketplace would be set-up on a temporary basis one day per week during the afternoon.
No buildings or other permanent structures are proposed. The marketplace would not disrupt
any existing landscape and operators will be required to remove all rubbish and debris by the
end of the day of the event.
(3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops,
services and residences. The marketplace would complement existing restaurants and retail
establishments by providing residents and visitors to the Village mid-week access to fresh
produce and other food and services typically offered by weekend only farmer’s markets.
(4) Conservation of historic structures. The use would be located entirely outside and does not
affect any historic structures.
(c) The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Project meets the required
findings. The use permit includes conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable
health and safety codes. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable building and
fire code standards. The project shall operate with all required permits and requirements from the
Santa Clara County Health Department.
(d) The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Saratoga Municipal Code. The Project meets this finding. The use permit includes conditions of
approval to ensure compliance with zoning requirements. Any intensification of this use will
require an amended Conditional Use permit. The City shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the
Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the
permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
Application No. CUP11-0003; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076
27
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading, or
building permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate
of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in form and content
acceptable to the community development director.
2. If a condition is not “permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a certificate of occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use
Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose, any new conditions of the permit to
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
5. Any intensification of the uses approved under this Use Permit shall require an amended
Conditional Use Permit. Examples of intensification of use include, but are not limited to,
physical changes to the site or structure of the use to accommodate more employees or
customers, and changes in operations or equipment that result in ongoing increases in traffic,
noise, or other physical effects.
6. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in
writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed by the City,
containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application,
including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall
expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the
notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building
Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing
fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
7. The use shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, including,
without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by
this reference. The use shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations
of the State, County, and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over
the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues.
Application No. CUP11-0003; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076
28
8. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging
Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by
Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree
to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions,
employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on
their behalf.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans. The uses and development shall be operated, located and constructed
to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans and
denominated Exhibit "A" date stamped June 2, 2011 incorporated by this reference. All
proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use must be submitted in writing
with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes.
Such changes shall be subject to the requisite prior City approval and in accordance with
Condition A.3, above.
10. Vendors: The marketplace shall operate as represented on the Use Permit application with a
maximum of thirty (30) vendors at Blaney Plaza and ten (10) vendors in the parking lot behind
14411 Big Basin Way.
11. Hours of Operation: The marketplace shall be open to the public on Wednesdays from
2:30pm to 6:30pm. Set-up and break-down would occur between 1:30 and 2:30 and between
6:30 and 7:30, respectively.
12. Music: Music may be played between 2:30pm and 6:30pm on the day of the marketplace
event and shall comply with all applicable City Codes and noise standards.
13. Refuse: All vendors and marketplace operators shall remove all trash from their booths and
vendor areas prior to 7:30pm on the day of the marketplace event.
14. Noise Standards: Marketplace operations shall at all times be compliant with City Code
Section 7-30 (Noise Ordinance).
Application No. CUP11-0003; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076
29
15. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued
to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”).
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this
Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and
in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required
by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum
reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from
adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways
and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes.
C. PUBLIC WORKS
16. Public Works Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all Public Works requirements.
D. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
17. Fire Agency Requirements. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements.
E SANTA CLARA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
18. Health Permit Requirements. Applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara County
Environmental Health Permit requirements.
Application No. CUP11-0003; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076
30
Application No. CUP11-0003; Blaney Plaza (397-22-018) & Parking District #3 (503-24-076
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, and other materials
and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No.
CUP11-0003 is approved.
APPROVED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of June 2011 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Doug Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Chris Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and
agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in
this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: June 8, 2011
Application Type / No: Design Review / PDR11-0001
Location: 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
Owner / Applicant: Public Storage / The Lyle Company (AT&T)
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
Department Head: Chris Riordan, AICP
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
49
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 01/13/11
Application complete: 05/16/11
Notice published: 05/24/11
Mailing completed: 05/23/11
Posting completed: 06/02/11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to replace three existing antennas on an existing
monopole with three new Long Term Evolution (LTE) antennas. LTE is also referred to as “4G” and is
the latest standard of mobile network technology. LTE is expected to substantially improve a users
experience with cellular phone service. The new antennas will be approximately 4 ½ feet in length and
match the existing antennas. The project also includes the installation of accessory equipment, such as
Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), Remote Electric Tilt (RET’s), a GPS antenna and associated conduit.
Due to the small size and placement of the accessory equipment, it will be literally unseen from the
public right-of-way. There is no proposed increase in height to the existing monopole. The property is
approximately 3.08 acres in size and located in the Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning district.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS
No permanent conditions of approval are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting the attached Resolution.
50
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: Commercial-Visitor
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Commercial-Retail)
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project, which includes installation of new cellular equipment to an existing cellular
monopole, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new
construction and installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Site Characteristics and Background
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the replacement of three wireless
telecommunication antennas and the installation of associated equipment to an existing cellular
monopole. The monopole is located behind a rear storage building owned by Public Storage Inc. The
monopole is surrounded by Public Storage warehousing facilities to the north and west and existing
railroad tracks to the south and east. A residential townhome community is located approximately 100 –
150 feet northwest of the existing monopole. The existing cellular antenna facility was approved by a
use permit in October 1994 (Attachment 2).
The proposal includes replacing three existing antennas with three new LTE antennas. The dimensions
of the new antennas are four and a half tall, one foot wide, and six inches deep. The new antennas are
exactly the same size of the existing panel antennas. The new antennas will be attached to an existing
crossbar. Small (two to three inches in size) RET controllers will be attached to each new antenna in
order to automate its tilt mechanism. Six rectangular boxes, known as RRU’s, will be installed
underneath the antenna crossbar and attached directly to the monopole. The dimensions of the RRU’s
are approximately two feet long, one foot wide, and six inches deep. New conduit and a GPS antenna
will be installed onto the pole to assist in controlling the antennas. All proposed antennas and
miscellaneous equipment would be painted to match the existing pole. A photo-simulation has been
added to the report to illustrate the new look of the facility (Attachment 3).
The applicant is proposing the replacement of the antennas in order to upgrade the existing technology
to the new standard, also known as LTE. A wireless coverage map demonstrating the existing and
proposed coverage has been included in this staff report (Attachment 4).
Noise-Generating Devices
The cellular monopole is controlled by a small equipment room located within one of the Public Storage
warehouses. Chain link fencing surrounds the portion of equipment that is located outside of the
building. Major noise impacts are unforeseen due to the location of the pole and equipment. The
monopole is substantially setback from residential units and buffered by existing commercial buildings.
As conditioned, the antenna facility must comply with City Code regarding noise.
Alternative Sites
Due to the location and existing approved infrastructure currently in place, AT&T determined that
51
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was the most optimal site to install the proposed new antennas. Per the
Coverage Map, there appears to be a reduction of in-building and in-transit cellular service for properties
located west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The proposed placement of the antenna would substantially
increase the service for those properties.
FCC Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Any concerns
regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning
Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the
safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis
(Attachment 5) which concludes that the proposed telecommunications facility would comply with the
FCC’s current prevailing standard. Due to the applicants mounting locations, the antennas would not be
accessible to the general public and in compliance with FCC public exposure guidelines. A condition
has been added to the attached resolution that the applicant must meet all requirements established by
the FCC.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
The public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
(Attachment 6). Furthermore, the applicant sent out letters directly to property owners nearby the
proposed site. The applicant received three neighbor notification responses (Attachment 7). One
response had no concerns, one response requested additional information regarding the level of
radiation, and one opposed the project.
Staff contacted the concerned citizen regarding the level of radiation and informed them that, per the RF
report, the level of exposure is substantially less than the allowed occupational and general public
exposure limits mandated by the FCC. Staff has been unsuccessful in contacting the concerned citizen
in opposition of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed wireless facility (Application
PDR11-0001) by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Notice of Approval – October 1994
3. Photo simulations, Exhibit “B”
4. Coverage Map
5. Radio Frequency Analysis
6. Public Hearing Notice, Affidavit and Mailing Label
7. Neighbor Notifications
8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A"
52
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-013 FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
Application # PDR 11-0001
AT&T (The Lyle Company) / 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to the
above-described application:
I. Project Summary
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review
Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" including a photo simulation denominated Exhibit
“B” date stamped May 11, 2011, incorporated by this reference. The proposed project is the
installation of three new antennas and associated equipment to replace three existing antennas and
accessory equipment to an existing monopole. The overall number of antennas for AT&T would be
twelve antennas, on three existing crossbars, near the top of the 40 foot pole. The length of the
antennas would be approximately 4 ½ feet tall. The foregoing use will be described as the “Project”
in this Resolution.
II. Design Review Requirement
City Code Section 15-12.020 (i) and 15-46.020(a) (7) requires Design Review Approval for any
new antenna facility operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone
and wireless communication. This Design Review Approval requirement implements the Saratoga
General Plan, including but not limited to: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use
the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are
compatible with the site and the adjacent surrounding.
III. Planning Commission Review
On June 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
and argument. The Planning Commission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project,
CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all
testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
IV. Environmental Review
The Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15301), “Existing Facilities”. This exemption
allows for minor modifications involving negligible expansion of use and no exception to that
exemption applies.
53
2
Application No. PDR 11-0001; 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
V. Design Review Findings
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-
46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of
those required findings:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and
landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs,
material, color, and appurtenances. The proposed structure will be harmonious in appearance
and design with the industrial/commercial area. The proposed antennas will be installed on an
existing monopole and located substantially away from the public right-of-way. The proposed
antennas and accessory cabling will be constructed of the same material and painted a color to
match the existing antennas and monopole structure. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the sign shall have a
common or compatible design theme and locational positions and shall be harmonious in
appearance. This only proposed signage for the project is an informational sign and a alerting
sign. The signs will be attached either to the chain link fence enclosure or existing AT&T
access door. They will be posed at a conspicuous point and appropriately located and be readily
visible. The signs will make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the project
area. The signs will be of a compatible design. The finding can be made in the affirmative.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved;
it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the
maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in
natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This
project does not propose landscaping. The existing monopole is located on a cement pad,
further surrounded by commercial warehouse buildings, an existing railroad line, and pavement.
The antennas will be placed approximately 40 feet in the air and placed in a manner identical to
the existing antennas it will replace. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be
nonreflective. This project does not propose a wall or roofing materials. The colors of the
materials of the associated equipment will match the existing monopole, as conditioned. The
colors are muted and non-reflective. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as
composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be
located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. This project does not propose a roof or
roof structure. All associated equipment will be placed on the existing pole and be painted in a
color similar to the pole. This finding is non-applicable to the proposed project.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other
structures in the immediate area. This project meets this finding in that the proposal will not
54
3
Application No. PDR 11-0001; 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
substantially add any additional mass to the existing cellular facility. The height will not be
increased and the installation of the proposed new antennas is virtually identical to the existing
antennas that will be removed. The structure is located behind numerous buildings and
surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. The design is significantly unnoticeable from
the public right-of-way and will not be a visual distraction to community members who use
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
VI. Project Approval
After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, and other materials
and exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, Application No.
PDR 11-0001 (Planning Commission Design Review) for the replacement of a wireless antenna
facility is approved subject to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Design Review and
may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the
public health, safety, and welfare.
2. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the city code including but not limited to section 16-05.035, as applicable.
3. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner/Applicant a notice in writing,
on or after the time this Resolution of Approval is duly executed by the City, containing a
statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all
consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty
(60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice
have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit
may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have
been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution and the Design Review will expire unless extended in accordance
with the City Code.
5. The facility shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the
State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdictional authority over
the facility pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality
issues. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the State,
County, City and other governmental entities having jurisdiction.
55
4
Application No. PDR 11-0001; 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
6. Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit to implement this Design
Review approval the Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community
Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community
Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this
Resolution.
7. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action Challenging
Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized by
Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree
to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions,
employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any
action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person
acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the Community Development Director.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8. Compliance with Plans. The facility shall be operated, located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A" and
Photo Simulations denominated Exhibit “B”, date stamped February, incorporated by this
reference. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans
showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes
shall be subject to the requisite prior City approval.
9. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. Prior to the installation of the proposed randome,
panel antennas and accessory equipment, the randome and equipment shall be painted a color
similar to the existing utility pole and subject to approval of the Community Development
Director.
10. Safety Fencing During Construction. During all phases of construction, the Applicant shall
install and maintain temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active on-site
construction activities, materials, or chemicals.
56
5
Application No. PDR 11-0001; 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
11. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and
related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation.
12. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
13. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The owner and/or Applicant for
this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said
Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed
equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner
and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from
the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's
requirements.
14. Fire Agency Conditions. The Owner / Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency
Conditions.
15. Building Department. The Owner / Applicant shall comply with all building standards
including any improvements necessary to comply with the building code.
16. Emergency Access. The owner / applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which
interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24
hours from the time the interference was reported.
57
6
Application No. PDR 11-0001; 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 8th day of June 2011 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Christopher A. Riordan, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND OWNER
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and
agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in
this Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.
__________________________________ ____________________________
Applicant Date
__________________________________ ____________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
58
59
60
61
62
CNU0454 Permanent SitePropagation MapMarch 25th2011Site Objective: To provide LTE Services to the area around the proposed site. (c) 2007 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.63
Coverage Without The Proposed Site – CNU0454March 25, 2011We need in-building, in-transit & on street coverage hereCNU0454_South CupertinoLegendSite CNU0454In‐Building ServiceIn‐Transit ServiceOutdoor ServiceProposed site64
Coverage With Proposed Site – CNU0454 at ftMarch 25, 2011LegendSite CNU0454In‐Building ServiceIn‐Transit ServiceOutdoor ServiceProposed site65
Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME)
Compliance Report (Predictive Modeling)
Prepared for:
AT&T Mobility, LLC
7655-7665 Redwood Blvd.
Novato,CA 94945
USID# 13130
Site No. CNU0454
South Cupertino
12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, California 95070
Santa Clara County
37.289640; -122.034710 NAD83
EBI Project No. 62101985
December 16, 2010
66
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3
3.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5
4.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5
5.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8
7.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Personnel Certifications
Appendix B Antenna Inventory
Appendix C RoofView® Export File
Appendix D RoofView® Graphic
Appendix E Compliance/Signage Plan
67
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio
frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CNU0454 located at 12299 Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T
wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 2.0 of this
report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure
(MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the
results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting
human exposure to RF-EME fields.
This report contains a detailed summary of the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
Antenna Inventory
Site Plan with antenna locations
Antenna inventory with relevant parameters for theoretical modeling
Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling
Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers
This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation
to all collocated facilities at the site.
Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC
exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an
installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF
hazards.
As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled
areas on any accessible rooftop or ground-level walking/working surface related to the proposed
antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site.
AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan
AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy guidance, dated March 31, 2009, requires that:
1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF
Exposure Policy guidance document, dated March 31, 2009, additional guidance provided by AT&T,
EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations
have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy
guidance document, dated March 31, 2009. The following signage is recommended at this site:
68
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 2
Green INFO 1 sign posted on or next to the access gate.
Yellow CAUTION sign posted at the base of the tower.
The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy and
therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. No barriers are recommended for this site.
More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 5.0 and
Appendix E of this report.
69
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 3
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
This project involves the proposed installation of up to nine (9) wireless telecommunication antennas on
a monopole in Saratoga, California. There are three Sectors (A, B, and C) proposed at the site, with
three (3) antennas that may be installed per sector. For modeling purposes, it is assumed in each sector
that there will be one UMTS antenna transmitting in the 850 MHz and two bands of the 1900 MHz
frequency ranges; one GSM antenna transmitting in the 850 MHz and the 1900 MHz frequency ranges;
and one LTE antenna transmitting in the 700 MHz and 1710 MHz frequency ranges. The Sector A
antennas will be oriented 20° from true north. The Sector B antennas will be oriented 270° from true
north. The Sector C antennas will be oriented 130° from true north. The bottoms of the antennas will
be 58 feet above ground level. The Sector C antennas and the Sector A1 antenna will be transmitting
over an adjacent equipment rooftop. The bottoms of these antennas will be 38 feet above this rooftop.
Appendix B presents an antenna inventory for the site.
Access to this site is accomplished via a gate in the fence surrounding the tower. Workers must be
elevated to antenna level to access them, so these antennas are not accessible to the general public.
2.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS
The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of
frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
(IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI
guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and
NCRP.
The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon
occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits
for members of the general public.
Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully
aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/
controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental
passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see
below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can
exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.
General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be
exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made
fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore,
members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not
employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a
nearby residential area.
Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE
limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary
by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a
70
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 4
particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled
and uncontrolled exposures.
The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the
power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter
(mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency
range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2
and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations.
Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Range
(MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density (S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6
3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6
1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6
(B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency Range
(MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density (S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)
0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30
1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30
1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30
f = Frequency in (MHz)
* Plane-wave equivalent power density
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy
for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Power Density (mW/cm2) 71
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 5
Personal Wireless Service Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE Public MPE
Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2
Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2
Most Restrictive Freq, Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2
MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous
exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age,
gender, size, or health.
Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of
850-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets)
connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the
transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically
connected to antennas by coaxial cables.
Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good
propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate
energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.
This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for
exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly
in front of the antennas.
3.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS
AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy guidance, dated March 31, 2009, requires that:
1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is
described below in Section 4.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a
Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended
Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 5.0.
4.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING
In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofView®
software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site rooftop and ground-level resulting from
operation of the antennas. RoofView® is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been
developed by Richard Tell Associates to predict both near field and far field RF power density values for
roof-top and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically
used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. The models utilize several
operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power
densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit.
For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T, and compared the resultant
worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65.
72
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 6
The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T, and information
gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site.
Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled areas on any accessible rooftop or
ground-level walking/working surface related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s
occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to
the AT&T antennas, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately
9.70 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (1.94 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit).
The inputs used in the modeling are summarized in the RoofView® export file presented in Appendix C.
A graphical representation of the RoofView® modeling results is presented in Appendix D. It should be
noted that RoofView is not suitable for modeling microwave dish antennas; however, these units are
designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground
level coverage.
73
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 7
5.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN
Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially
exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must:
Be posted at a conspicuous point;
Be posted at the appropriate locations;
Be readily visible; and
Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area.
The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations.
Informational Signs Alerting Signs
INFO 1
NOTICE
INFO 2
CAUTION
INFO 3
WARNING
INFO 4
Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy guidance document, dated March 31,
2009, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site:
74
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 8
Recommended Signage:
Green INFO 1 sign posted on or next to the access gate.
Yellow CAUTION sign posted at the base of climbing ladder on the tower.
No barriers are required for this site. Barriers may consist of rope, chain, fencing, or painted/taped
stripes. The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in
Appendix E.
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T
telecommunications equipment at the site located at 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga,
California.
EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas
to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to
meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the
preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any
accessible rooftop or ground-level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area
that exceed the FCC’s occupational and general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the
proposed AT&T project is in compliance with FCC rules and regulations.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC. It was performed in accordance with
generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the
same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the
information provided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the
investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided
to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared
in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are
integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
75
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Appendix A
Certifications
76
77
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Preparer Certification
I, Darrell Barrick, state that:
I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety
and compliance services to the wireless communications industry.
I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards
from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations.
I am familiar with the FCC rules and regulations as well as OSHA regulations both in general and
as they apply to RF-EME exposure.
I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure Policy guidance
(dated 3/31/09) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofView® modeling software.
I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance
Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
78
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Appendix B
Antenna Inventory
79
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454 EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Antenna Number Operator Antenna Type TX Freq (MHz) ERP (Watts) Gain (dBd) Model Azimuth (deg.) Length (ft) Horizontal Beamwidth (Deg.) X Y Z ATT A1 AT&T Panel UMTS 850 219 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 20 4.3 65 13 2 38 ATT A1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 418 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 20 4.3 65 13 2 38 ATT A1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 418 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 20 4.3 65 13 2 38 ATT A2 AT&T Panel GSM 850 697 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 20 4.3 65 15 5 58 ATT A2 AT&T Panel GSM 1900 941 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 20 4.3 65 15 5 58 ATT A4 AT&T Panel LTE 700 163 10.25 Kathrein 800-10764K 20 4.3 65 18 8 58 ATT A4 AT&T Panel LTE 1710 469 15.15 Kathrein 800-10764K 20 4.3 65 18 8 58 ATT B1 AT&T Panel UMTS 850 213 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 270 4.3 65 18 11 58 ATT B1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 405 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 270 4.3 65 18 11 58 ATT B1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 405 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 270 4.3 65 18 11 58 ATT B2 AT&T Panel GSM 850 675 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 270 4.3 65 15 14 58 ATT B2 AT&T Panel GSM 1900 912 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 270 4.3 65 15 14 58 ATT B4 AT&T Panel LTE 700 159 10.25 Kathrein 800-10764K 270 4.3 65 11 16 58 ATT B4 AT&T Panel LTE 1710 454 15.15 Kathrein 800-10764K 270 4.3 65 11 16 58 80
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454 EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 Antenna Number Operator Antenna Type TX Freq (MHz) ERP (Watts) Gain (dBd) Model Azimuth (deg.) Length (ft) Horizontal Beamwidth (Deg.) X Y Z ATT C1 AT&T Panel UMTS 850 209 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 130 4.3 65 8 16 38 ATT C1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 399 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 130 4.3 65 8 16 38 ATT C1 AT&T Panel UMTS 1900 399 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 130 4.3 65 8 16 38 ATT C2 AT&T Panel GSM 850 664 11.85 Kathrein 742-264 130 4.3 65 6 13 38 ATT C2 AT&T Panel GSM 1900 897 14.65 Kathrein 742-264 130 4.3 65 6 13 38 ATT C4 AT&T Panel LTE 700 158 10.25 Kathrein 800-10764K 130 4.3 65 3 10 38 ATT C4 AT&T Panel LTE 1710 447 15.15 Kathrein 800-10764K 130 4.3 65 3 10 38 81
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Appendix C
Roofview® Export File
82
Map, Settings, Antenna, and Symbol Data Table .. Exported from workbook ‐> RoofView 4.15.xlsDone on 12/16/2010 at 2:12:55 PM.Use this format to prepare other data sets for the RoofView workbook file.You may use as many rows in this TOP header as you wish.The critical point are the cells in COLUMN ONE that read 'Start...' (eg. StartMapDefinition)If used, these (4) headers are required to be spelled exactly, as one word (eg. StartMapDefinition)The very next row will be considered the start of that data block.The first row of the data block can be a header (as shown below), but this is optional.When building a text file for import, Add the Map info first, then the Antenna data, followed by the symbol data.All rows above the first marker line 'Start...' will be ignored, no matter how many there are.This area is for you use for documentation.End of help comments.You can place as much text here as you wish as long as you don't place it below the Start Map Definition row below the blue line.You may insert more rows using the Insert menu.Should you need additional lines to document your project, simply insert additional rowsby highlighting the row number adjacent to the blue line below and then clicking on the Insert menuand selecting rows.StartMapDefinitionRoof Max YRoof Max XMap Max YMap Max XY Offset X Offset Number ofenvelopeList Of Areas40 40 60 90 20 20 1 $AE$161:$$AE$161:$BR$200$AE$161:$BR$200StartSettingsDataStandard Method Uptime Scale FactoLow Thr Low Color Mid Thr Mid Color Hi Thr Hi Color Over Color Ap Ht Mult Ap Ht Method4211100150045000 2 3 1.5 1StartAntennaData It is advisable to provide an ID (ant 1) for all antennas(MHz) Trans Trans Coax Coax Other Input Calc (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) dBd BWdth Uptime ONID Name Freq Power Count Len Type Loss Power Power Mfg Model X Y Z Type Aper Gain Pt Dir Profile flagATT A1 UMTS 850 39.8 1 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 23.50082 Kathrein 742‐264 9 21 38 4.3 11.85 65;20 ON•ATT A1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 23.50082 Kathrein 742‐264 9 21 38 4.3 14.65 65;20 ON•ATT A1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 23.50082 Kathrein 742‐264 9 21 38 4.3 14.65 65;20 ON•ATT A2 GSM 850 31.6 4 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 74.63578 Kathrein 742‐264 13 20 58 4.3 11.85 65;20 ON•ATT A2 GSM 1900 22.4 4 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 52.90638 Kathrein 742‐264 13 20 58 4.3 14.65 65;20 ON•ATT A4 LTE 700 39.8 1 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 25.18159 Kathrein 800‐10764K 21 17 58 4.3 10.25 65;20 ON•ATT A4 LTE 1710 39.8 1 60 7/8 LDF 1.46 23.50082 Kathrein 800‐10764K 21 17 58 4.3 15.15 65;20 ON•ATT B1 UMTS 850 39.8 1 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.76581 Kathrein 742‐264 6 6 58 4.3 11.85 65;270 ON•ATT B1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.76581 Kathrein 742‐264 6 6 58 4.3 14.65 65;270 ON•ATT B1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.76581 Kathrein 742‐264 6 6 58 4.3 14.65 65;270 ON•ATT B2 GSM 850 31.6 4 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 72.30146 Kathrein 742‐264 6 10 58 4.3 11.85 65;270 ON•ATT B2 GSM 1900 22.4 4 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 51.25167 Kathrein 742‐264 6 10 58 4.3 14.65 65;270 ON•ATT B4 LTE 700 39.8 1 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 24.67647 Kathrein 800‐10764K 6 18 58 4.3 10.25 65;270 ON•ATT B4 LTE 1710 39.8 1 70 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.76581 Kathrein 800‐10764K 6 18 58 4.3 15.15 65;270 ON•ATT C1 UMTS 850 39.8 1 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.40697 Kathrein 742‐264 21 13 38 4.3 11.85 65;130 ON•ATT C1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.40697 Kathrein 742‐264 21 13 38 4.3 14.65 65;130 ON•ATT C1 UMTS 1900 39.8 1 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.40697 Kathrein 742‐264 21 13 38 4.3 14.65 65;130 ON•ATT C2 GSM 850 31.6 4 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 71.16182 Kathrein 742‐264 18 10 38 4.3 11.85 65;130 ON•ATT C2 GSM 1900 22.4 4 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 50.44382 Kathrein 742‐264 18 10 38 4.3 14.65 65;130 ON•ATT C4 LTE 700 39.8 1 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 24.42773 Kathrein 800‐10764K 13 3 38 4.3 10.25 65;130 ON•ATT C4 LTE 1710 39.8 1 75 7/8 LDF 1.46 22.40697 Kathrein 800‐10764K 13 3 38 4.3 15.15 65;130 ON•StartSymbolDataSym Map MarkeRoof X Roof Y Map Label Description ( notes for this table only )Sym 5 35 AC Unit Sample symbolsSym 14 5 Roof AccessSym 45 5 AC UnitSym 45 20 Ladder83
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Appendix D
Roofview ® Graphics
84
ATT Sector A Access Gate ATT Sector C ATT Sector B Roofview: Composite Exposure Levels Facility Operator: AT&T Mobility Site Name: South Cupertino AT&T Site Number: CNU0454 USID Number: 13130 Report Date: 12-16-10 % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Exposure Level ≥ 5,000 500 < Exposure Level ≤ 5000 100 < Exposure Level ≤ 500 Exposure Level ≤ 100 85
ATT Sector A ATT Sector B ATT Sector C Access Gate Roofview: AT&T Exposure Levels Facility Operator: AT&T Mobility Site Name: South Cupertino AT&T Site Number: CNU0454 USID Number: 13130 Report Date: 12-16-10 % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Exposure Level >5 Exposure Level ≤ 5 86
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 13130 Site No. CNU0454
EBI Project No. 62101985 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
Appendix E
Compliance/Signage Plan
87
Sector BAccess Gate B Secttor A Sector C CompliancFacility OperSite Name: SAT&T Site NUSID NumbeReport Date: e/Signage Plaator: AT&T MobilSouth Cupertino Number: CNU045er: 13130 12-16-10 n lity 54 88
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 8th day of June 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The
public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga
Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please
consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR11-0001 / 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
APPLICANT/OWNER: The Lyle Company in c/o AT&T
APN: 366-12-072
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the addition of three
new antennas and association telecommunication equipment to an existing monopole. The
project also includes the installation of new coaxial cables on the exterior of the existing
monopole. The cabling will be painted to match the existing monopole. The proposal will not
increase the 40 foot height of the existing utility structure. The pole is located in the behind the
Public Storage building at 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The property is located in the
Commercial-Visitor (CV) zoning district.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should
be filed on or before Tuesday, May 28th 2011.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Michael Fossati
Assistant Planner
(408) 868-1212
89
90
500 Foot Radius from 12299 Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Rd.
91
,
ADACHI SACHI E AND TATSUKO TRU
20431 CUNNINGHAM PL
SARATOGA, CA 95070
ALAMEDA-FAROTTE ZOE TRUSTEE
12341 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
AZULE CROSSING
12314 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
Bennett Truck Transport
1001 Industrial Pkry
McDonough, GA 30253
BHASKAR S C PHANI AND GOWRI S
18326 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
BOWMAN ROBERT A AND CAROL J TR
12416 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CAGAN MYRON AND FELISSA
12234 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CASE DOUGLAS R AND BETTINA G T
12445 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHAN ANTHONY D AND MABEL L
12554 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHAN CHANG-LEE (LILY) TRUSTEE
12343 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHAN ROBERT AND JAMIE
18006 HARVEST LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHAO ERH-FAN
20628 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHEN I JU
18010 HARVEST LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHEN XINBI AND ZHANG XIAN
12319 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHENG BOR C AND SU J
12577 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CHIANG PEY-CHEN PATRICIA AND S
12305 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CURTNER INVESTORS
12300 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
CYESTER PATRICIA A TRUSTEE & E
12258 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DALTON DAVID A
20609 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DAWSON HEATHER L
20647 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DEFFNER RICHARD P AND BEVERLY
12231 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DEIWERT GEORGE S
12272 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DHANASEKARAN GOUTHAMAN AND GOU
18396 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DO MANH B AND QUYNH D
12284 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
DURR DAVID W AND LAURA J
12314 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
ENG THERESA A TRUSTEE
18272 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FEINSTEIN VICTOR
20661 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FELL JEFFREY S AND TRACY M TRU
20523 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FELLER HELEN L TRUSTEE
12339 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
92
FERNANDEZ DAVID AND KRAUSS LOR
12358 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FICHTER NANCY A TRUSTEE
12365 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FITZENZ JOHN A TRUSTEE
8321 PINOTAGE CT
SAN JOSE, CA 95135
FOOT COMFORT
12201 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
FUJII GREGORY AND RENEE
18228 KENYON CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
GALEB SLOBODAN AND MARGARET E
20437 SEAGULL WY
SARATOGA, CA 95070
GEORGE WILLIAM P AND JAN H
12370 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
GILLIS JAY C
12316 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
GOTO HARUHIRO H AND MATSUSHITA
20568 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
GUGGENHEIM ALLEN AND KAREN M
12296 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HABBU HEMANT R AND URMILA H
20572 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HANDYAL RAVI K AND JAYASHREE R
18352 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HARP GERALD R AND PINET CELINE
12335 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HARTER BRYAN K AND CATHLEEN M
20549 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HOFFMAN DANIEL J AND JEANNETTE
12343 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HOLT THOMAS R AND MONICA C
12468 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HON CHRISTOPHER MAN HI AND OR
18060 KING CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HONG LINN N AND CAROLYN M
20627 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HU YAW W AND ALLISON T
21860 ALCAZAR AV
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
HUA ZHONG QIANG AND LIN YIXING
18026 KING CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
HUNG ELLIS KWOK-CHEUNG AND LAM
18118 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
JAYADEVAN MANOJ AND MANOJ SREE
20644 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
JOHN BINU AND PAULOSE RITA
20643 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
K AND S MANAGEMENT
,
KAN JAMES AND CELIA ET AL
18088 KING CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
KAPLAN JONATHAN M AND MARI E
12327 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
KEPLER NICK AND GAIL TRUSTEE
20745 GRANADA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
KIM TAE HO AND HAE OK
20665 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
KIMURA MAKOTO AND FUMIKO
18239 KENYON CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
KNAPP JULIE A TRUSTEE
18196 KENYON CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
93
KON LIDA L
20631 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LAND GARY A AND MENDY YVONNE
18018 KING CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LEE BYEUNG JUN AND PARK YONG H
20584 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LEE EDDIE N AND LEANNE
1398 DRY CREEK RD
SAN JOSE, CA 95125
LEE JONG SU AND KIM JIN
18308 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LEE WHEY-YING GRACE AND JANG D
18358 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LI WEI JUN AND ZENG YUXIANG
18374 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LIN JEM K AND WANG QIU YUAN
20575 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LIN KWANG ET AL
12301 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LIOU YU-DE AND LO CHIACHIA
20657 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LIU
12347 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
LOUIE TERESA A
1133 VIA PARAISO
SALINAS, CA 93901
MADABOOSI PADMA S AND SRINIVAS
20753 NORADA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MADANAHALLI ASHOK AND MALINI
20640 RITANNA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MAHALLATI NASSER AND BALSINI Z
20576 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MAHAN LESLIE A TRUSTEE
20635 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MAMMINI CORPORATION
333 W SANTA CLARA ST UNIT 280
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
MARKLE DAVID A AND THERESA M T
20690 RITANNA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MARKS CLIFFORD O AND JENNY F T
18235 KENYON CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MARVIN JOSEPH G AND VALERIE A
12308 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MASON FRANK R AND GWENDOLINE B
12423 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MATSUNAMI HIROYUKI AND CHIHARU
18188 KENYON CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MCLAUGHLIN EDWARD C AND VIVIAN
2171 MANZANITA AV
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
MEHROTRA BHOLA N AND RATI
17990 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MOGENSEN ERIC AND CURTIS TERRI
12300 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
MOORE JAMES W AND BARBARA P
12320 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS
12241 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
OHARA NED H AND KIMIKO TRUSTEE
12467 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
OLIVER JOHN TRUSTEE
PO BOX 729
MENDOCINO, CA 95460
OLIVER-JAMHOUR DOLORES TRUSTEE
17330 LOCUST DR
LOS GATOS, CA 95033
94
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO
SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PARK SARATOGA ASSOCIATES
12100 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PENG STEPHEN HSIN-YEH
20436 SEAGULL WY
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PUBLIC STORAGE PROPS IX INC
P O BOX 25025
GLENDALE, CA 91221
PUN YIM TRUSTEE
20684 RITANNA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
QUINN LAWRENCE A AND MARINA L
12458 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
RAJARAMAN RAJA AND CHARU
12392 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
RAWLINGS WILLIAM A ESTATE OF E
20619 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
RED ROOTS LANSCAPING
12335 LLAGAS AVENUE
SAN MARTIN, CA 95046
RHEE YOUNG E AND ANGELA M
21037 BANK MILL LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
RODIN ROBERT AND DEBORAH A
12331 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
ROMANDIA BARBARA K
125 CARNEROS RD
AROMAS, CA 95004
ROTHBAUM IRENE FBO SUE & MIKE
PO BOX 810490
DALLAS, TX 75381
S C V W D
SARATOGA, CA 95070
S C V W D
SARATOGA, CA 95070
S C V W D
ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SALLAN C. NANCY TRUSTEE & ET A
20571 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
1265 S. BASCOM AVE
San Jose, CA 95125
SARATOGA COURTYARDS LLC
1855 PARK AV
SAN JOSE, CA 95126
SCHUYLER MARC P AND CAROLINE M
12336 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SCHWARZ GERTRUD R
20668 RITANNA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SEKAR SRINIVASAN AND LATHA
20632 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SHAPIRO MARK AND ZINA ET AL
20653 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SHERRY JAMES B AND LOIS O
20754 GRANADA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SHI / JIN
18000 KING CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SHTEIN VARDY AND ALLA
18258 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SHUFFLE E B AND CYNTHIA M
20811 NORADA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SIFFERMAN DONALD J AND SANDRA
12400 GREENMEADOW LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SILVER JOAN E ET AL
P O BOX 130
LOS ALTOS, CA 94023
SINGH INDERJIT AND OOI CHOON B
18136 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
95
SMITH GREG
20615 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATIO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATIO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATIO
SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SPENHOFF DAVID M AND KATHLEEN
12275 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SUNDAR CUDDALORE AND SATHYABHA
20564 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TAN MERCEDES F
12324 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TANG ALICE ET AL
12312 JULIE LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TARNG JUNG-MING AND LEE JOYCE
17998 ARROYO LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TATAR FREDERICK P AND RAFFAELA
20577 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TIMESPACE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
12230 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
TRUAX ROBERT C AND SALLY A
4362 VIA DE LOS CEPILLOS
BONSALL, CA 92003
TSUEI YUHSHENG AND CHAO MU-HAN
20636 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
USHIBA KATHY
11623 SPUR RD
MONTEREY, CA 93940
WALKER JEFFREY J AND LYNN S
20451 SEAGULL WY
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WALKER KATHARINE H TRUSTEE & E
2010 W CLIFF DR
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WANG
12297 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WANG MAN AND ZHANG DING
12239 ATRIUM CL
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WEI JERRY AND RUBY
20511 MANOR DR
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WELCH ROY M
12340 SARATOGA-SVALE RD STE 10
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WEST LARRY L AND FERRANTI-WEST
20623 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WEST VALLEY MUSLIM ASSOCIATION
12370 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WHITELAW PROPERTIES LLC
1033 WINDSOR ST
SAN JOSE, CA 95129
WONG STEVEN AND JENNIFER
12246 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
WU PING-CHIH TRUSTEE & ET AL
20656 CRAIG CT
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
XUAN YONGNAN AND LI XINGCHAO
18567 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
YAMADA KENNETH K
20580 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
YELSANGIKAR VISHWAMBER AND RAO
20605 OAK CREEK LN
SARATOGA, CA 95070
YOUNG MIMI
18535 MILL CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
YUE
20763 GRANADA CT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
96
ZIS JEROME C AND PHYLLIS J TRU
12260 VIA RONCOLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. ZOA11-0003 – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Prohibit Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries
Location: City Wide
Applicant: City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP
Meeting Date: June 8, 2011
Department Head: Christopher Riordan, AICP
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning adoption of
the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City’s moratorium on the approval of medical marijuana dispensaries will expire on
November 17, 2011. During its January retreat, the City Council directed staff to prepare the
attached zoning ordinance amendment prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries in all zones within the City (Attachment 2) for consideration by the Planning
Commission and recommendation to the City Council. A draft resolution recommending
adoption to the City Council is attached (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION:
In 2009, the City of Saratoga received several inquiries from prospective medical marijuana
dispensary operators. The Saratoga Municipal Code does not specifically address the regulation or
location of medical marijuana dispensaries or list medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use
or conditionally permitted use in any zoning district. On November 18, 2009, the City Council
adopted by a unanimous vote an interim ordinance imposing as an urgency measure a moratorium
on granting approvals and entitlements for use for medical marijuana dispensaries. The City
Council twice extended the moratorium, which will now expire on November 17, 2011. The
moratorium may not be extended further.
The moratorium was extended to provide staff additional time to research medical marijuana
dispensaries and to allow for additional clarification from the courts regarding local regulation of
medical marijuana. The City Attorney had been anticipating a court of appeal decision in Qualified
Patients v. City of Anaheim regarding the legality of Anaheim’s ordinance banning medical
marijuana dispensaries. Unfortunately, the court’s decision did not reach this issue. Nonetheless,
other courts of appeal have upheld local zoning regulations that effectively ban medical marijuana
104
dispensaries.1 In addition, recently enacted legislation authorizes localities to restrict the
establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries.2
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office prepared the attached report regarding medical marijuana
dispensaries (Attachment 3). The Sheriff’s Office concluded that “the establishment of any medical
marijuana dispensaries within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Saratoga would present
potential health and safety issues to the community as well as invite a criminal element to the City.”
The Sheriff’s Office findings are consistent with evidence from other jurisdictions as discussed in
the attached summary of impacts associated with medical marijuana dispensaries (Attachment 4).
The attached draft ordinance would ban medical marijuana dispensaries in all zoning districts. The
proposed ordinance begins with findings, which describe Saratoga’s basis for banning medical
marijuana dispensaries and its authority to do so. The proposed zoning code amendment has three
main components: 1) it establishes that medical marijuana dispensaries shall not be permitted in any
zoning district within the City, 2) it defines medical marijuana dispensaries, and 3) to ensure
compliance with state law, it prohibits qualified medical marijuana users from being subject to
criminal sanctions for violating the ordinance, while clarifying that all other civil and administrative
enforcement actions still apply.
Prohibition of Use
Given that medical marijuana dispensaries have been associated with an increase in crime and other
negative land use impacts, the Sheriff’s department recommended banning medical marijuana
dispensaries within the City.
Definition of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
State law does not define medical marijuana dispensaries. Instead, it authorizes patients with a
doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana and their primary caregivers (“qualified
individuals”) to collectively or cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana.3 In addition, a primary
caregiver may cultivate and provide medical marijuana to qualified patients.4 The ordinance
defines Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as any location where a primary caregiver or a collective or
cooperative provides marijuana to more than two qualified individuals. The definition excludes
state licensed care facilities that are authorized under state law to provide medical marijuana to
qualified patients.5
Note that the sale of medical marijuana by a primary caregiver or a collective or cooperative is
prohibited under the Saratoga Municipal Code. Article 4-05 regarding Business Licenses provides
that no business license may be issued for an unlawful business and the distribution of Medical
Marijuana is unlawful under federal law.6
1 City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153, (upholding an MMD moratorium);
City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418 (upholding permissive zoning regulations
that did not list medical marijuana dispensaries).
2 Health & Safety Code § 11362.768(f).
3 Id. § 11362.775.
4 Id. §§ 11362.5, 11362.765.
5 Id. § 11362.7(d)(1).
6 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 494.
105
Policy Issue
Whether medical marijuana dispensary should be defined to allow for distributions to fewer than
two or more than two qualified individuals. The ordinance has been structured to allow households
with two members who are qualified patients to cultivate and consume medical marijuana within
their household. The ordinance would also allow a household with a primary caregiver to cultivate
medical marijuana for distribution to two qualified patients (one of which might be the caregiver).
Within Santa Clara County, the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale allow
distribution to only one qualified individual. The cities of Cambell, Gilroy, Los Altos, and
Mountain View do not allow distribution at all. San Jose allows collectives of three or more
qualified individuals and limits the number of collectives that distribute to four or more qualified
individuals. The County of Santa Clara allows medical marijuana dispensaries serving any number
of qualified individuals provided they operate in accordance with specified regulations. Several
dispensaries located in surrounding jurisdictions are reported to offer delivery services to qualified
patients within the City of Saratoga.
Enforcement
The ordinance declares that any violation would constitute a public nuisance and an immediate
hazard such that violations could be abated through the City’s Emergency Nuisance Abatement
Procedure. Violations could also be enforced through judicial nuisance abatement proceedings,
civil code enforcement proceedings, unfair business practice proceedings, suits for injunctive relief,
and administrative fines. The ordinance provides that violators that are qualified patients or primary
caregivers under the state’s medical marijuana laws would not be subject to criminal enforcement
proceedings. The state’s medical marijuana laws exempt qualified individuals from certain
specified criminal liability and the City Attorney recommends this provision to avoid a potential
conflict with state law.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative definition of medical marijuana dispensary is discussed in connection with the policy
option above. In addition, the Commission could recommend that the City Council direct staff to
draft an ordinance that would establish medical marijuana dispensaries as a conditional use in
specified districts.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Inform the City Council of the Commission’s recommendation.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this hearing was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on May 25, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Proposed Resolution
2 – Draft Ordinance
3 – Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Memorandum Regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
4 – Impacts Associated with Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Other Jurisdictions
106
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11-014
APPLICATION NUMBER: ZOA11-0003
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
WHEREAS, On November 18, 2009, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance placing
a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, which may no longer be
extended; and
WHEREAS, The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office recommends prohibiting the
establishment of any medical marijuana dispensaries within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on June 8, 2011 at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not change any uses of land directly
or indirectly and therefore is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
pursuant to Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section
15378) and is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (the
amendments are exempt because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest because it will help prevent crime and incompatible land uses in the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan;
Now Therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval by the City
Council of a zoning ordinance amendment to prohibit the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries in all zoning districts as set forth in the recommended ordinance attached as Exhibit 1.
***
[Continued on next page]
107
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 8th day of June, 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Douglas R. Robertson
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
________________________________
Christopher Riordan, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
108
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SARATOGA
CITY CODE CHAPTER 15 CONCERNING ZONING REGULATIONS
PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
Amendment to Saratoga City Code Article 15-80
Article 15-80 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to add the following section.
15-80.140 - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries prohibited in all districts.
(a) Definition. For purposes of this Section, “Medical Marijuana Dispensary” means any facility,
building, structure, or establishment, where a primary caregiver or a collective or cooperative group
of qualified patients, persons with identification cards and/or primary caregivers makes available,
sells, transmits, gives, allocates, administers, delivers, processes, or otherwise provides marijuana to
or cultivates marijuana for more than two (2) qualified patients, persons with identification cards, or
primary caregivers. The terms primary caregivers, persons with identification cards, qualified
patients, and collective or cooperative group are defined in California Health and Safety Code
section 11362.5 et seq. and the State of California Department of Justice Guidelines for the Security
and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use (Aug. 2008) and any amendments thereto.
Medical Marijuana Dispensary does not mean a state licensed facility listed in Health and Safety
Code section 11362.7(d)(1). A Medical Marijuana Dispensary shall not fall within the definition of
accessory use or any other use defined in this Code.
(b) Prohibition of Use. A Medical Marijuana Dispensary shall not be permitted in any zoning
district.
(c) Enforcement.
(1) Violations of this Section are hereby declared to be public nuisances and determined to be
an immediate hazard to the public health, safety or welfare for purposes of Article 3-20 (Emergency
Nuisance Abatement Procedure) of this Code.
(2) In addition to other remedies provided by this Code or by other law, any violation may be
remedied by a civil action brought by the City Attorney, including, but not limited to, administrative
or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil code enforcement proceedings, unfair business
practice proceedings under Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and suits for
injunctive relief. The remedies provided by this Section are cumulative and in addition to any other
remedies available at law or in equity.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, including Article 3-05 (Criminal
Enforcement) and Article 15-95-030 (regarding misdemeanors and infractions), a qualified patient,
person with a valid identification card, or primary caregiver, as those terms are defined in the
Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, California Health and Safety Code
sections 1111362.5 and 11362.7 et seq., shall not be subject to criminal liability under California
Health and Safety Code section 11570 or any criminal abatement actions or complaints for operating
or owning a Medical Marijuana Dispensary as that term is defined in this Section. Any qualified
patient, person with a valid identification card, or primary caregiver owning or operating a Medical
1
109
2
Marijuana Dispensary in violation of this Section shall be subject to all other compliance actions set
forth in subsection (c)(3) of this Section, code enforcement actions set forth in Chapter 3, and legal
proceedings authorized in Section 15-95.020 of this Code. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the
criminal enforcement of other violations of this Code or state law.
110
County of Santa Clara
Office of the Sheriff
55 West Younger Avenue
San Jose, California 95110-1721
(408) 808-4900
M E M O R A N D U M
Laurie Smith
Sheriff
TO: Dave Anderson, City Manager City of Saratoga
FROM: Lieutenant Don Morrissey, West Valley Patrol Division
DATE: April 27, 2011
SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
BACKGROUND: With an impending public hearing regarding the permitting of medical
marijuana dispensaries within the municipal boundaries of the City of Saratoga, the Office of the
Sheriff agreed to provide a law enforcement perspective into the matter. The text outlined below
is not intended to frustrate or delay the process of the creation of an ordinance related to the
permitting of medical marijuana dispensaries in any way; to the contrary, the information
contained in this document is provided to educate and inform those involved in the ordinance
process by identifying all areas impacted by cultivation, marketing, possession and use of
marijuana. This information is provided to ensure the responsible and comprehensive focus on the
importance of the regulatory issues.
ISSUES: To illustrate the many areas medical marijuana dispensaries may have on a
community, such as Saratoga, this document will categorize each and examine them closer.
Topic: Medical marijuana dispensaries, cooperatives and collectives have brought upon a
criminal element, officer safety issues, blight issues and other public safety issues
to the immediate and surrounding areas of their locations.
1. Local Marijuana Cultivation Incidents:
• July 2010 – Unincorporated Santa Clara County, Sheriff’s Deputies
shoot a man who pointed a rifle at them during a marijuana farm
raid. (abclocal.com)
• July 2008 – Saratoga, Sheriff’s Deputies are engaged by a gun
wielding man who was tending to a marijuana garden. The suspect
is shot and killed by the deputies. (CBS5.com)
111
• August 2005 – Los Gatos, A Fish and Game Warden was shot in
both legs during a marijuana cultivation investigation. The suspect
was shot and killed during the investigation. (SFGate.com)
2. Statewide Marijuana Dispensaries, Collectives and Cooperative Incidents:
• August 2006 – Wilitis California, Two home occupants were shot in
the course of a home-invasion robbery targeting medical
marijuana*.
• February 2005 – Mendocino County California, Two masked
suspects held a knife to a 65 –year-old man’s throat during a home
invasion robbery and stole large amounts of marijuana*.
• August 2005 – San Leandro California, Several suspects attempted
a take-over style robbery of a storefront marijuana business. The
owner of the business shot and killed one of the suspects during the
attempt. The suspect who died was 18 years- old*.
• September 2005 – Hayward California, A patron of the CCA
Cannabis Club was leaving the dispensary when he had a gun
pointed at his head and his marijuana was taken from him*.
• November 2005 – Laytonville California, Six men carrying guns
and baseball bats broke into a residence yelling “this is a raid”. The
suspects shot and killed one man and beat his friend with a baseball
bat. The deceased owned two storefront marijuana businesses*.
* Information obtained from the White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries by the California Police Chief’s
Association’s Task Force on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, 2009.
3. Officer Safety Issues as Related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries,
Collectives and Cooperatives (Nationwide):
• Los Angeles Police Department Officers report that marijuana
growers increasingly are armed and/or booby-trap their cultivation
sites and often use fertilizers that are poisonous to humans at grow
sites, posing a serious threat to tenders, marijuana users, law
enforcement and others who happen upon their sites. (National
Drug Intelligence Center Los Angeles High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area Drug market Analysis 2008).
• Boulder Colorado City Council, out of concern for the use of
booby-traps in the protection of marijuana, “decided to pursue a
measure that would outlaw the use of any device designed to kill,
injure or trap people when activated”. (DailyCamera.com May
2010)
112
4. Environmental Impact:
• Pesticides and Herbicides (many banned in the Untied States) are
regularly used in the cultivation of marijuana. Ultimately the toxic
chemicals drain into the ground water systems.
• On average, 1.5 pounds of fertilizer and pesticides are used for
every 11.5 plants cultivated. (Agent Patrick Foy, California
Department of Fish and Game)
• Rat poison and other poisons chemicals have been sprinkled over
the landscape to keep animals away from the tender plants.
Additionally, many sites are strewn with the carcasses of deer and
bear poached by workers. (Agent Patrick Foy, California
Department of Fish and Game)
• Garbage, gasoline, PVC piping, volatile propane canisters,
irrigation material utilized for the gardens are discarded at the
garden sites. (Agent Patrick Foy, California Department of Fish
and Game)
• Poaching, theft of livestock, diversion of waterways, erosion and
forest fires have all been attributed to clandestine marijuana
gardening.
• “Pristine creeks, springs, and wildlife and public drinking water
sources for many miles throughout our forests are permanently
scarred by these illegal grow sites. In some cases an entire
ecosystem of wildlife species (such as the red-legged frogs or
steelhead trout) are killed for many miles along a waterway”.
(Lieutenant John Norse, California Department of Fish and Game)
5. Health Impact:
• There is a great concern about the safety of an item that is going
to be ingested into the human body that has not been tested,
evaluated and regulated by the accepted regulatory boards such as
the FDA.
• Chemicals and fertilizers such as DDT, Agent Orange, paraquet
and horse manure are often used in the cultivation of marijuana.
• Fungus, bacteria and black mold are often found to be present in
marijuana cultivation operations.
o Los Angeles Police Department Officers have reported
many “grow homes” contain high levels of black mold
113
from the extreme moisture content necessary for
successful grow operations and have high levels of carbon
dioxide. Additionally altered electrical wiring poses a
serious health and safety concern for law enforcement
officers, private citizens, and those tending to indoor
grow. (National Drug Intelligence Center Los Angeles
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug market
Analysis 2008).
o “Because mold is ubiquitous, it is not surprising that 85%
of the marijuana tested at Steep Hill Labs has shown traces
of mold. However, only 3% of those samples have been
deemed unsafe under general guidelines for herbal
products”. (Steep Hill Lab website 2010 (utilized by
Harborside Marijuana Dispensary)).
• Marijuana dispensaries, collective or cooperatives normally do
not utilize production or quality control measures.
• Marijuana testing facilities currently do not test for pesticides.
Testing facilities are very vague regarding what types of testing
devices are being utilized to conduct the testing. (Steep Hill Lab
website 2010)
6. Social, Medical and Mental Health Concerns Surrounding Marijuana Use:
• “The research on the efficiency of medical marijuana as medicine
is limited. The FDA, along with most national medical
associations (including the American Medical Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics, National Institutes of Health,
Institute of Medicine, American Cancer Society, National Cancer
Institute and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society) does not
support smoked marijuana as a medicine” (Ohio Advocates
Distribute Medical Marijuana Position Paper. www.cadca.org
April 2010)
• Many special interest groups oppose medical marijuana
dispensaries, collective and cooperatives including:
o Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
o Narcotics Anonymous (N/A)
o Children’s Advocates
o Mental Heath Professionals
o Health Officials
• The Carcinogen Identification Committee of the office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Science Board
identifies chemicals for addition to the list of chemicals known to
114
the State of California to cause cancer (Health and Safety Code
25249.8). The committee met in May of 2009 and discussed
marijuana smoke. From the reading of their transcripts, 33 of the
individual compounds found in marijuana smoke are already
listed as Proposition 65 carcinogens.
• The affects of marijuana on an individual vary. Studies have
shown that the affects differ depending on age. The data below
are examples of how the affects vary depending upon age:
o Children Under 18
• Education, graduation and college enrollment
rates
• Employment
• Chemical dependency treatment
• Teen pregnancy
• Gate-way drug affect (use of other
addictive/illegal substances)
• Involvement in criminal activity
o Young Adults (18-30)
Employment
Inability to maintain a stable relationship
• use of other addictive/illegal substances
• Involvement in criminal activity
• “Marijuana is a powerful and dangerous psychoactive substance.
Society and our children do not need another dangerous substance
in their lives. Simply stated the use of marijuana is not and never
will be good for the success, education and well being of our
society”. (California Police Chiefs Association Position Paper on
the Decriminalization of Marijuana)
LEGAL IMPACT: In three different cases, both Federal and State judges have upheld the
rights of cities to enact ordinances prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. (refer to
“Attachment A”, a client memorandum from the Law Offices of Jones & Mayer).
In addition to the recent case law decisions a firm understanding of California Senate Bill
420 (Medical Marijuana Program). The bill was enacted to further clarify the scope and
application of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (also known as Proposition 215). Of the many
stipulations set forth in SB 420, one is particularly noteworthy. SB 420 strictly prohibits the
cultivation and distribution of marijuana for profit (California Health & Safety Code
11362.775(c)). As one can expect it is often discovered that the majority of dispensaries are in
fact making a large profit from the sales of medical marijuana. Additionally, several cities and
states have taken a firm stance on prohibiting marijuana dispensaries, collectives and
cooperatives. Examples of these include:
115
• On May 3, 2010, a United States District Judge upheld the Cities
of Costa Mesa and Lake Forest, (Orange County California) ban
of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. (See Attachment A for
further details).
• On May 5, 2010, the City of Alameda California voted
unanimously to ban Medical Marijuana Clubs.
• On May 6, 2010, the State of Colorado Senate voted to pass sate
wide regulations regarding medical marijuana dispensaries. The
Bill in part allows local jurisdictions to ban marijuana
dispensaries.
CLOSING: Based upon the information cited above it is the opinion of the Office of the
Sheriff that the establishment of any medical marijuana dispensaries within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Saratoga would present potential health and safety issues to the
community as well as invite a criminal element to the City. As stated above, the negative impact
cultivation has on the environment, coupled with the hazards to the public and law enforcement,
the benefits of a dispensary clearly do not outweigh the negative impact a dispensary can have on
the community.
116
117
118
119
120
Impacts Associated with Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Other Jurisdictions
This report summarizes a number of negative impacts associated with medical marijuana
dispensaries as reported in the following documents on file at the City Attorney’s office.
• County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff Memorandum Regarding Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries, (April 27, 2011).
• Medical Marijuana and Associated Issues: Presented to the California Chiefs of
Police Association, (Jan. to March 2010).
• Medical Marijuana and Associated Issues: Presented to the California Chiefs of
Police Association. (April to June 2010).
• White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries by California Police Chiefs Association
Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries, (2009).
• Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Associated Issues: Presented to the
California Chiefs of Police Association, (2004 to 2006)
• Fullerton Police Department Memorandum Regarding Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries (MMDs), (Oct. 25, 2006).
• Concord Police Department Letter Regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries—
Potential Secondary Impacts, (Aug. 29, 2005).
• El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum Regarding Recent Information
Regarding Marijuana and Dispensaries, (Jan. 11, 2007).
• South Bay News, 22 arrested in drug dealing scheme, (Oct. 1, 2010).
• Los Angeles Times, Sheriff says pot dispensaries have become crime targets,
(Sept. 2, 2010).
I. Increase in Crime
A number of California cities with medical marijuana dispensaries have experienced an
increase in crime associated with these dispensaries. Storefront dispensaries have been targets of
violent, take-over style armed robberies. One such robbery occurred in Anaheim, and another in
San Leandro where the owner shot and killed an 18 year old suspect. Police from other
jurisdictions have also reported an increase of burglaries at or near dispensaries. Patrons going to
or leaving medical marijuana dispensaries have been robbed for their cash and medical
marijuana, including a man in Hayward who had a gun pointed at his head.
Operators of medical marijuana dispensaries have been associated with a variety of
illegal activity. Police report that medical marijuana dispensary operators in Oakland, San
Francisco, San Diego, Redwood City, Vacaville, Santa Clara County, and Pacific Beach have
possessed and sold illegal weapons and drugs at their dispensaries. Dispensary operators in
Oakland, San Francisco, Pacific Beach, and Roseville have also been involved in organized
crime and money laundering activities. Organized criminal gangs have been linked to grow
operations in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the vicinity of Sacramento that supplied medical
marijuana to dispensaries.
121
Residences where medical marijuana was grown or that were associated with storefront
dispensaries have been targets for armed robberies and assault. A resident in Willits was shot in
such a robbery and a resident in Laytonville was shot and killed during another. In other cases,
marijuana cultivators have resisted police investigations with fire arms.
II. Illegal Diversion of Medical Marijuana
In numerous cases, medical marijuana from dispensaries has been diverted to illegal uses.
The City of Pleasanton reported illegal re-sales of medical marijuana to juveniles. The Los
Angeles County police reported that a dispensary sold marijuana to minors who were in
possession of third party’s medical marijuana identification card. A teen in Oak Park reported
that at least 10 of his friends have fraudulently obtained medical marijuana identification cards to
purchase marijuana from a local dispensary. An undercover officer in Morro Bay purchased
marijuana on the street from a dispensary security guard, and undercover officers observed
patrons of a Modesto dispensary re-selling medical marijuana in the shop’s parking lot.
Similarly, two individuals were arrested for illegal re-sales in the parking lot of an Anaheim
medical marijuana dispensary.
III. Negative Impacts on Neighboring Land Uses
Neighborhoods and retail districts with medical marijuana dispensaries have reported an
increase in noise, traffic, and other activity that negatively impacts neighboring land uses.
Neighbors of a dispensary in San Francisco experienced patrons double-parking and blocking
driveways. Neighbors of dispensaries in the City of West Hollywood also complained of
increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic and noise. Other cities and counties have experienced
street dealers attempting to sell marijuana at a lower rate to people entering dispensaries. Police
agencies also reported increased loitering and public marijuana smoking in the vicinity of
dispensaries. In addition, dispensaries have been associated with an increase in traffic accidents
and arrests for driving under the influence in which marijuana was implicated. Residential fires
have been caused by improper electrical modifications to facilitate marijuana cultivation.
Dispensaries have also had an adverse impact on neighboring businesses, including a loss
of business as a result of the above mentioned impacts. Two businesses neighboring a
dispensary in Anaheim relocated because of problems associated with the dispensary. One left
out of fear for the safety of their employees after the dispensary was robbed. Another left
because it could find no solution for the marijuana smell permeating through a common wall
with the dispensary. Business owners in the City of Yorba Linda likewise suffered from the
smell of marijuana inside their business from an adjacent dispensary. Businesses in the City of
Long Beach contacted police regarding smells in their businesses and marijuana being smoked
and sold in parking lots around the dispensary.
122