Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2000 Agenda Item 5A ARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development DEPT HEAD SUBJECT: UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Hwy. 9 Appeal of Planning Commission adoption of Negative Declaration and grant of Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas mounted on an existing utility pole located at the intersection of Fruitvale and Hwy. 9. The project also includes construction of an equipment structure 6 ft. (1) x 2 ft. (w) x 4-1/2 ft. (h) located at the base of the pole. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: BACKGROUND During its October 13, 1999 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of CellularOne for Negative Declaration and Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole with a maximum height of 26 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole was also proposed. The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed the planning staff's analysis and recommendations and heard testimony from neighbors present at the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Commission could make all of the Use Permit findings required in City Code Section 15-55.070. The Commission then voted 4-1 (Commissioner Jackman was absent, Commissioner Kurasch opposed) to adopt the Negative Declaration and Resolution UP-99-014 with added conditions requiring landscape screening for the equipment cabinet. An appeal application was filed on October 28, 1999. The appeal was originally scheduled for the December 1, 1999 City Council meeting, but was continued at the appellant's request. The appellant, Kenneth Cheng, requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's adoption of an environmental Negative Declaration and Use Permit approval. ISSUES The appellant addresses two issues in his appeal. The appellant maintains that staff did not analyze the impacts of the City Arborist's mitigation measures on the health of the Ordinance- protected trees. Further, the appellant asserts that no analysis has been made on the cumulative adverse aesthetic impact that will result from this installation, combined with prior and future possible applications. Ordinance-protected Trees The Arborist's recommendations, which were incorporated as Use Permit conditions of approval, clearly require that no additional grading, trenching, or surface scraping is to be done, and where this may conflict with other requirements, the City Arborist must be consulted so that appropriate protection measures are implemented. The Arborist has recommended using a water truck to irrigate required landscaping, and applicant has indicated their willingness to do this. Staff feels that this appropriately addresses tree protection for this project. Aesthetics In Saratoga telecommunications antenna applications are considered through the Use Permit process. As each application is submitted it receives a comprehensive review, including existing conditions and cumulative aesthetic impacts should the application be approved. The Planning Commission has found that the proposed project would not have a significant aesthetic impact. In regards to future possible aesthetic impacts, the number and location of future applications for telecommunication facilities is determined in large part by demand for service. If demand changes, possible future locations also change. In addition, there are several wireless providers operating within the City. It is not appropriate or possible to base an evaluation of a single proposal on the possible future locations of sites as predicted by several different companies. Through the Use Permit process, the City of Saratoga evaluates each proposal's impacts as well as the cumulative impacts. In this way, the City controls and prevents possible negative impacts associated with these facilities. For example, there are several providers located on the rooftop of the Theatre Arts building at West Valley College. At its regular meeting on July 14, 1999, the Planning Commission declared that due to the number of existing antennas on the rooftop, no more should be allowed as it would result in a negative impact to the aesthetics of the site and the surrounding viewsheds. Thus, if in the future it is determined that specific proposals, independently or cumulatively, have a negative impact they can be modified or denied. SUMMARY The Planning Commission found that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared properly and conform to the findings required in Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commissioners felt that the application was appropriate for this location, and is in accord with the necessary findings set forth in Section 15-55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission added conditions of approval to the Use Permit to address aesthetics. The Commissioners noted that the City Council has already determined that a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for this type of project, that it conforms with FCC standards, that the location for the facility was reasonable, and that the City should allow the project. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal based on tree or aesthetic impacts, they will need to direct the applicant to reduce the project's impacts by specified measures. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: If the City Council sees fit, they may add conditions to the approval to further reduce aesthetic impact or possible impact on Ordinance-protected trees. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The City Attorney shall prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decisions of the City Council on this matter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on November 17, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 13, 1999 2. Written Comments received at the Planning Commission meeting, October 13, 1999 3. Excerpted Planning Commission meeting minutes, October 13, 1999 4. Appeal from Kenneth Cheng 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" 6. Photo: Existing conditions and Photo simulation: Proposed project ~ ~ ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Applicant No./Location: U-99-014: N/E corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9 Applicant/Owner: CELLULARONE Staff Planner: Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner ~~~,~~ Date: October 13, 1999 APN: State-owned parcel #9815 of right-of way map # 42.5 Department Head: /~~~ N/E corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HV'vY 9 000001 u ~I File No. UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9 Application filed: 6/16/99 Application complete: 9/13/99 Notice published: 9/29/99 Mailing completed: 9/30/99 Posting completed: 9/23/99 Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. An equipment cabinet is proposed to be located approximately 10 ft. north of the utility pole. The size of the antennas and cabinet are as follows: Panel antennas: 4 ft. (1) x 6 in. (w) Equipment cabinet 6 ft. (1) by 2 ft. (w) by 4 lh ft. (h) An Environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Approve the Use Permit request, with conditions, by adopting the attached Negative Declaration and Resolution UP-99-014. 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP-99-014 3. Supplemental Information 4. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration with attachments 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" ®00002 • File No. UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9 7.nNTN(:: Single-Family Residential, 40,000 sq. ft. (R-1-40,000) (:F.NF.RAT, PT.AN DF.~T(:NATTnN: Residential, Very Low Density (RVLD) MF.A~TTRF, (:: Not Applicable PARC'FT. ST7.F,: Not Applicable MATFRTAT.S AND CnT.nRS PRnPnSF,D: The antennas are to be painted matte brown to blend with the existing pole, per the photo simulation. The equipment structure will be painted gray to match the existing signal light cabinet, per the materials board. In May of 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance that established communication antenna facilities as a conditionally permitted use in all zoning districts within the City of Saratoga, including the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Since the ordinance was passed, several telecommunications antenna facilities in Saratoga have been approved. The applicant started installation of this facility without City of Saratoga permits. The parcel is located within the CalTrans right-of--way and the applicant has stated that they were unaware that a Use Permit was required for this project. Upon being informed that the City of Saratoga did have jurisdiction, the applicant ceased work on the project and applied for a Use Permit. Staff notes that before cessation of work, trenching was begun that affected Ordinance-protected trees. This is addressed in the Tree Protection discussion below. The applicant is proposing to mount two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 22 ft. An associated 12 sq. ft. equipment cabinet is also proposed. Sam It has been determined by William F. Hammett, of Hammett & Edison, Inc., that the cumulative radio frequencies associated with the proposed CellularOne antennas will not create or result in harmful transmissions. Their findings, attached to the Environmental Initial Study, are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by the Federal Communications Conuiiission (FCC). 000403 File No. UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9 It is noted by Mr. Hammett that persons performing work within 3 ft. of the antennas, should only do so when the site is not in operation. It is recommended that warning signs be posted near the antennas so that they will be visible to persons intending to perform work within 3 ft. of the antennas. Staffhas included this recommendation in the attached conditions of approval. As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. Staff finds that this site is an appropriate location for telecommunication antenna facilities. The brown antennas as well as the equipment cabinet will present a minimal visual impact. As noted above, the applicant began work on this project before applying for a Use Permit. Trenching has been done beneath Ordinance-protected trees, as well as installing construction forms for the base of the equipment cabinet. The City Arborist has reviewed the site and recommended mitigation measures to repair the existing damage, as well as protective measures to be implemented throughout remaining construction. With these protective measures implemented, the Arborist feels that all Ordinance-protected trees at risk will be sufficiently protected. These reparation and protection measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Approve the Use Permit application by adopting the attached Negative Declaration and Resolution UP-99-014. 000004 RESOLUTION NO. UP-99-014 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CellularOne: CalTrans right-of-way, corner of Fruitvale and HWY 9 WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application from CellularOne for a Use Permit approval to install 2 antennas on an existing utility pole with an adjacent equipment cabinet at the base of the pole in the CalTrans right-of--way at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and the Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed wireless communication antenna facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive. b. That the proposed wireless communication antennas and equipment structure and the ecmditions under which it would be operated ar maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfaze, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that an Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declazation were prepazed that found that the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy; and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. c. That the proposed wireless communication antenna facility complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazefixl consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of CellularOne for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas and equipment structures shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Warning signs shall be posted near all the transmitting antennas so that they are visible to workers intending to perform work on the site. Signs will comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Contact information will also be provided with a 24-hr. phone number to arrange for access to restricted areas. 3. The proposed antennas and cable tray shall be painted matte brown to match the existing utility pole. 000005 • M File No. UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue & Hwy. 9 4. The equipment structure shall be painted gray per the submitted materials board, Exhibit "B", incorporated by reference. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all equipment in a timely manner. 6. Within 30 days of cessation of business, applicant will remove all equipment and structures. 7. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading pernuts, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 8. All recommendations of the City Arborist Report dated 8/11/99 shall be followed. This includes, but is not limited to: a) Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance: The Arborist Report shall be included as a separate page in the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. Supplemental irrigation must be provided as stated in the Arborist's report. The severed roots must be cleanly cut adjacent to the face of the trench and the remaining root stubs must be painted with latex paint. This must be inspected by the City Arborist before any backfill occurs. 9. Prior to Final Inspection approval: The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify that the tree maintenance and protection measures have been followed in order to determine whether the tree protection security may be released. Any outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid. ~d4®o(j • File No. UP-99-014; CellularOne: N/E Corner of Fruitvale Avenue & Hwy. 9 10. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the 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. 11. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 12. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 13. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the pern~it. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13~' day of October, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ®DO~®~ • CELLULARONE® Hwy 9/Fruitvale #E093 APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STATE OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL #9815 OF RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP #42.5 ************************************************************************ PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION INTRODUCTION Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a Cellular One ("Cellular One"), a public utility, is submitting a Development Plan application to the City of Saratoga Planning Department to allow for the construction and operation of a cellular telephone communications facility ("microcell site") located at Highway 9 and Fruitvale Ave. This proposal describes the scope of the proposed project by providing specific information regarding the project location, specifications, and required services. Also included is general information regarding cellular systems and use. Project Goal Cellular One's goal with respect to its "Highway 9/Fruitvale" project is to enhance portable coverage along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Highway 9) and Fruitvale consistent with all policies and ordinances of the City of Saratoga. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Overview Cellular One is proposing to construct a cellular telephone facility on a utility pole within the right-of--way located in the City of Saratoga, and owned by Caltrans. Cellular One has received an encroachment permit from Caltrans to install the equipment cabinet within the public right-of--way parcel #9815. Facility Specifications Equipment Shelter -The facility would involve the installation of Cellular One's radio transmitting and receiving equipment which would be housed in a prefabricated 2 X a- foot structure. 000®08 • • Support Pole/Antennas -Two sectors of one- (1) flat panel antenna per sector would be mounted to an existing sixty- (60) foot wooden utility pole. The antenna is 2 (two) feet tall by Utilities -Cellular One will arrange with PG&E to run the electrical service to the facility from the existing power source on the property. Cellular One will arrange for telephone service to the facility with Pacific Bell. Both of these utility runs are illustrated on the attached drawings. Facility Maintenance -The proposed facility would be used strictly as a cellular transmitting and receiving facility, and for no other purposes. The facility is completely self-operating and therefore unmanned. Once the facility has been constructed, a technician from Cellular One will visit the site approximately once per month for maintenance purposes during normal operations. In the event of a malfunction, more frequent visits would be required. Cellular One will lease sufficient space at the site to park a service technician vehicle (usually Ford Explorers). PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Improved Cellular Coverage Cellular One has identified a pressing need for a facility in the area of the proposed cell site to improve cellular coverage along Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue. This cell site will allow better coverage and increased system access and quality to the growing numbers of cellular telephone users. The proposed facility was selected after an investigation of the topographic characteristics, frequency analysis, adjacent cell interconnection, and site land-use compatibility. Public Benefits of the Project The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The operation of the cell site would involve only low-power radio transmissions and low-power consumption. The provision of cellular telephone service is a tremendous benefit to the City of Saratoga. Hundreds of cellular telephones were distributed during the Pt. Reyes fire, as well as the Loma Prieta and Oakland firestorm disasters. The availability of quality service saved lives. Numerous public agencies, including the fire and police departments, continually rely on cellular telecommunications. 2 ®®®~Q9 • The proposed use will not be contrary to the character or performance standards established for this area of Saratoga as the location provides significant visual mitigations and will not be intrusive to the vicinity. Radio Interference Electronic interference between the cellular system and commercial radio, television or civilian aeronautical communication is extremely unlikely. The FCC is responsible for assigning cellular radio frequencies in such a way as to eliminate the possibility of interference with existing transmission. Cellular telephones operate in the FCC approved frequency bands of 825-835 MHz and 870-880 MHz. The frequencies are sufficiently spaced from other uses such that interference will not arise. For example, commercial radio, VHF and aeronautical transmissions all operate at frequencies which are less than 300 MHz. Cellular One has a number of cell sites located within or near other communication entities, such as radio and TV stations, airports, office buildings and hospitals, and has not experienced any interference problems. Existing Use The subject area is identified as Caltrans public right-of--way parcel #9815. As a registered public utility and member of the joint pole association, Cellular One has ownership in the existing wooden utility pole. CELLULAR SYSTEM OVERVIEW In 1984, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorized Cellular One to construct and operate cellular mobile telephone systems in the Greater Bay Area. Under FCC rules, the project was not a "major action" and did not require the preparation of a federal Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in its role as the regulator of telephone service within the state, licensed construction and operation of the cellular telephone systems as public utilities. It is Cellular One's policy, consistent with the CPUC order, to obtain permits for their cellular facilities in order that these facilities conform with zoning, design, and other environmental requirements of the jurisdiction where the site is located. The cellular telephone system divides the service area into a grid of smaller areas, called "cells", each with its own radio receiver and low-power transmitter. The size and location of each cell is based on the volume of telephone traffic expected in each area and ranges from approximately 1 to 10 miles in radius. From each cell, calls are sent by radio to and from the mobile units, and then routed through the public telephone system to fixed telephones, or to other cells and other mobile units. A central "switch" routes all of ®®®~.® • the calls through the cellular system. The switch also shifts the frequency and transfers the transmitting/receiving function from one cell to an adjacent cell as the mobile telephone moves through the service area. The transfer takes but a twentieth of a second and is not noticeable to the caller. The cellular system permits improved wireless communications in the service area, and voice transmission quality generally equivalent to that of a conventional landline telephone. Businesses, local governments, and emergency service agencies in the Bay Area have long expressed a strong interest in the uses of cellular technology. The cellular system and the service it provides are of great benefit to emergency and disaster relief efforts. This was evident during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1990 Yosemite fire, the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley fire and the 1995 California floods, when many emergency service entities relied heavily upon cellular communications. Independent back-up power (batteries) allows the cellular facilities to remain operational even in the event of PG&E service disruption. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Cellular One believes it has identified a quality location for its facility because the site is located in an unobtrusive area and the antennas would be placed on an existing utility pole, thus eliminating the need for an additional structure. In addition, the visual impact of the facility is very low, and the site will have a minimal impact on existing and future development within the area. Cellular One is prepared to comply with all applicable conditions as may be required by the City of Saratoga Planning Department. 4 ®©®01.1 • ENVIRONMENTAL I1~IITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For CellularOne Proposed Telecommunications Antenna Facility September 1999 Project Description: Request for Use Permit approval to construct two panel antennas 4 ft. (1) x 6 in (w) mounted on an existing power pole located at the intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. The project also includes construction of an equipment cabinet 6 ft. (1) by 2 ft. (w) by 4 1/a ft. (h) located approximately 10 ft. east of the power pole. Project Location: Northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. Applicant: CellularOne 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 1 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®Q®®~2 • CONTENTS • Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Negative Declaration Attachment A: Saratoga City Arborist Report Attachment B: Statement of William F. Hammett, Consulting Engineer City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 2 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®~®013 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant signiecant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ^ ^ ^ ^ adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts ^ ^ ^ ^ to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ^ ^ ^ ^ established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ^ ^ ^ ^ projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ^ ^ ^ ^ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ^ ^ ^ ^ III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.-Would the proposal result in or expose people tp potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Landslides or mudflows? ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 3 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 00001 • C~ ENVIItONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ^ ^ ^ ^ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Expansive soils? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^ ^ N, WATER: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ^ ^ ^ ^ rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ^ ^ ^ ^ such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of ^ ^ ^ ^ surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ^ ^ ^ ^ body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ^ ^ ^ ^ movements? f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through ^ ^ ^ ^ direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ^ ^ ^ ^ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ^ ^ ^ ^ otherwise available for public water supplies? City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 4 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ~~®®15 ENVIItONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) • Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant sigiuficant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 'V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ^ ^ ^ ^ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause ^ ^ ^ ^ any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ^ ^ ^ ^ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATIQN. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ^ ^ ^ ^ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ^ ^ ^ ^ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ^ ^ ^ ^ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ^ ^ ^ ^ VII, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ^ ^ ^ ^ (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 5 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®0®~6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ^ ^ ^ ^ There are three heritage trees in the vicinity of the proposal. It has been determined by the Saratoga City Arborist that with proper fencing during construction, as well as mediation measures for existing damage, these trees will be protected. Applicant will provide fencing and mediation measures as prescribed by the City Arborist. These measures will insure that there is a less than significant impact on any heritage trees. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, ^ ^ ^ ^ coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ^ ^ ^ ^ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ^ ^ ^ ^ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient ^ ^ ^ ^ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ ^ resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? TX, HAZARDS. Would the_proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ^ ^ ^ ^ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ^ ^ ^ ^ emergency evacuation plan? City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 6 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist o®®~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ^ ^ ^ ^ hazard? It has been determined by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, that the radio frequency associated with typical telecommunication antennas do not create or result in harmful transmissions. Their findings are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. In addition, warning signs will be posted informing service personnel not to approach within 3 ft. of the antennas while they are in operation. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health ^ ^ ^ ^ hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ^ ^ ^ ^ grass, or trees? X.NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ^ ^ ^ ^ XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the pronosal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered ;government services, in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 7 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®0~~-9 Q • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) • Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I~IL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new svstems or suvnlies._ or suhstantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Communications systems? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ^ ^ ^ ^ facilities? d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and ^ ^ ^ ^ disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? ^ ^ ^ ^ fl Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Local or regional water supplies? ^ ^ ^ ^ XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal;. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ ^ The proposed antennas would be unobtrusive as viewed from the street and neighboring properties. The antennas, measuring 4 ft. (1) x 6 in. (w), would be mounted on an existing power pole at a height of 26 feet. The antennas would be painted brown to match the color of the pole. The proposed equipment cabinet, measuring 6 ft. (1) by 2 ft. (w) by 4 1/a feet (h), would be located approximately 10 ft. east of the pole, and painted gray to match the existing signal light cabinet. The natural topography of the site and existing oak trees reduce the visual impact of the antemias and cabinet. c) Create adverse light or glare effects? ^ ^ ^ ^ City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 8 planning) CR 1 environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®0®®~.9 • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Affect historical resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ^ ^ ^ ^ would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ^ ^ ^ ^ potential impact area? XV. RECREATION, Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks ^ ^ ^ ^ or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ENVIItONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) ^ ^ ^ ^ Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 9 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®®LI®IIr® ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (see attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation IInpaCt Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ^ ^ ^ ^ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Dces the project have the potential to achieve short-term, ^ ^ ^ ^ to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Dces the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ^ ^ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will ^ ^ ^ ^ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 10 planning) CR 1 environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®0®®~1 • XVII. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 9// ~f99 DATE . ~ SIGNATURE For: JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 11 planninglCRlenvironmentallCellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®®o®e~rFr NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Use Permit #99-014 CellularOne The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: Request for Use Permit approval to construct two panel antennas mounted on an existing power pole located at the intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. The project also includes construction of an equipment cabinet 2 ft. (w) by 6 ft. (1) by 4 lh ft. (h) located approximately 10 ft. east of the power pole. Project Location: Northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and HWY 9. Name and Address of Proponent: CellularOne 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed personal communications antennas are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed antennas will modify the existing use of the site, it is a minor modification which will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 1999. JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 12 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist E~~®®~3 ~ ~ ATTACHMENT A City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 13 planning) CR I environmental) CellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ®®00~.~ BARRIE D.~JATE and ASSOCIATES RECEIVE D Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 SEP 0 91999 Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 PLANNING DEPT, A REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS ON CELLULAR ONE PROPERTY FRUITVALE AVENUE AND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Christina Ratcliffe City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench August 11, 19999 lob #06-98-166-99 ®®®~~S .n A REVIEW OFCONSTR~lONINPROGRESS ONCELLULAR ON1~.iPERTY FRUITVALEAVENUEAND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, City of Saratoga, this report comments on the construction in progress at the comer of Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Why 9) in the context of potential damage to the existing adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the affected trees at this site and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted within acceptable horticultural practices to prevent significant decline with the expectation of continued health. The plan reviewed for this report is the construction plan prepared by BM5 Engineering Inc., Simi Valley, California, sheet 1, dated 10-01-97. Summary Four existing trees have suffered root damage by the construction in progress. The root damage to tree #1 is moderate, but the damage to trees #2-4 is minor. If mediation procedures are followed, the value of loss to Tree #1 will be insignificant. If the mediation procedures are not followed, the estimated value of loss will be equivalent to one -24 inch boxed and one 15-gallon native trees. A 30% bond of $2,980 of the value of the trees, which is calculated to be $9,934 is suggested to assure that the suggested mediation procedures are followed. Observations There are four trees on this site that have suffered root damage by construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their canopy dimensions. The numbers assigned to each tree on that map is the primary reference used in this report. All trees that will be affected by proposed construction and meet the requirements of the city ordinance have been included. The root systems of trees extend outside their canopies by as much as 50% of the total canopy diameters. If the canopy reaches into the construction area, the root system will as well. When this occurs, the tree has been included. The four trees are all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), a species that is indigenous to this area. The overall condition of each of the four specimens is rated as follows: " Eace tional s ecimens Fines ecimens Tree #2 Trees #1, 3, 4 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench August 11, 1999 ollV®~~ A REVIEW OF CONST~TION INPROGRESS ON CELLULAR Ol'~P~cOPERTY 2 FRUITifALEAVENUEAND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Trenching has already occurred between the construction forms for a concrete pad (on which the Microcell will be placed) and the utility power pole, which will support the antennas. The depth of the trench is approximately 12 to 14-inches. Tree #1 is located directly adjacent to the utility power pole on the north side and extends east to the concrete pad (presently formed for a concrete pour). Thus, the trench is located within approximately 18-inches of the root collar of Tree #1. At least one 3-inch root, one 2-inch root and one 1-inch root have been severed. These are clearly visible on the face of the trench. At this distance from the trunk of Tree #1, it is likely that there are additional moderate roots (1-2 inches) in diameter that may have been severed. The trench appears to have been dug by hand. I have found that many contractors believe that trenching by hand is less damaging than trenching with a machine. The reality is that any trenching inside a trees root zone removes the roots encountered. Typically the amount of damage depends primarily on the proximity to the trunk, and the species. For example, a trench that is cut on a radius (like the spoke of a wheel) and does not extend inside a distance of five times the trunk diameter usually results in fairly minor root damage. A trench that cuts across the root zone at the same distance usually results in severe root damage. In this case, the trench is near to a radius angle and extends almost to the trunk. Judging by the size and volume of roots which have been severed, damage has certainly occurred, but the damage fortunately is only moderate. A severed 3-inch diameter root likely provided some buttressing, but its loss alone is not considered severe. The primary loss is the severing of multiple absorbing roots. Because of the angle of the cut, the loss of absorbing roots is only moderate in this case. Tree #1, is expected to survive and if mediation procedures are used, the tree will likely recover without noticeable decline. Trees #2, 3 and 4 have suffered absorbing root losses, but it is likely that these will recover without mediation. An AC paved bike path exists between Trees #1, 2, 3 and 4. On the north side of the bike path adjacent to a wood fence is a recently installed drip system for shrubs that parallel the bike path. This drip system appears to have been installed by the adjacent neighbor on the north side. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. 1. There must be no further grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the canopy of these trees. Where this may conflict with other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted (ca11408-353-1052). 2. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all four trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1-inch of rainfall). Irrigate 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter throughout the remaining dry months of 1999 and throughout the entire dry Prepared by: Michael L. Benck August Il, 1999 ®®®®w A REVIEW OF CONSTZ~TIONINPROGRESS ON CELLULAR OI~tcOPERTY FRUITVALEAVENUEAND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA season of 2000. The neighboring drip system is acceptable for this purpose even for Tree #1, which has absorbing roots in the irrigated area. However, the volume provided to the shrubs is likely insufficient for the trees. If this can be negotiated with the neighbor, a copy of the written agreement must be provided to the city planner. If a written agreement cannot be achieved, Cellular One must provide supplemental irrigation without additional trenching as described. 3. The severed roots must be cleanly cut adjacent to the face of the trench and the remaining root stubs must be painted with latex paint. This must be inspected prior to backfill by the city arborist. 4. The existing trench must be backfilled with a mixture of 50% fir bark and 50% native soil. This backfill mixture must be mounded to at least 6 to 8-inches above existing grade because of the settling that will occur. 5. Spread a fu113-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root zone of all four trees. Spreading must be done by hand. 6. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1988. Yalue Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. The four trees have a total value of $9,934; I suggest a 30% bond of $2,980 to assure that mediation procedures as defined here are followed. Respectfully sub , -r-----:.. ..a.~--- Michael L. Bench, Associate B oate, n~nc~ipa MLBlsI Encl: Tree Evaluation Chart Map Prepared by: Michael L. Benck August 11, 1999 ®~®~?~8 a a I ~o ... ~O ~ ~ 1 rl 00 .+ ~0 ~ 3 ~ ~ o . ti D 6J C L <>Q U ~_ ~"" O • LJ 1>r ~) ulaolad ~vnowaa v 1VnOW3a 4N3WW003a _ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 3 ro b ~ ~ QUI 213ZI111213d S033N » ~ N ~ M ~ ~ o N ~ M I °------- (S-l) a31VM S033N II II II n II (S-L) 3SH3S10 aVlIOO lOOa $ ~ c o ~ (s-~) a3a3noo aviioo tooa ~ x a` (S-l)~1V030 ~Nflal a ------------------------------------ - -- ----- -- ------ - ----- - ---- - -- ---- - -- - ---- - - u (S-l) dOOM 4H3a N y (S-L) 3SV3SI4 NMOaO 33x1 w N ,~ a,., w „~ (S-L) S103SNf N q II II II II (s-~) ulaolad ~NlNnad ~ ~ ~ ~ a # a3a33N S319b!O --- ---- -- ------- ~ Z --------------- ----------------------- 1HJ13M-aN3 3nOW3a -°--° c ~ ------- c '~' ------- c ~ - --- c ~ - c ~ `~' ~_ --------------------------------------- ------- X ------ X ------- x ------ X ------- X ------- X $ - 9NISNa NMOaO •~ NOI1VaO1S32i NM0210 ~ ---- N II~~ 1I AA ~ JNINNIHl NMOao ~ w ~ y ~ p ~JNINH3l0 NMOaO n u u n n n (6-£)'JNIlVa Oab'ZVH $ $ $ $ - (Ql-Z) JNI1Va NOI110N00 Q a ~ ~'' ~ m '~ m b ~ m m m A m A g -------------------------------------- ------- ~ ---°-- " ------- ° ------- ° ------- " ------- ~j (S-L)3af110f1a1S '~ "' N ~' "~ O1 ~' `^ `" x x X x x x (S-l) H1lH3H ~ av3ads r~i 0 p $ N N ~ ~ N --------------------------------------- ------- t0 --____- (D ----.-. ~ ---..-. N ---_--_ -_.____ 1H~J13H N W N d- N IR N K- IA 1A „ 133 Z~ a313WV10 co N ~ ^ `" I I ~ --°----------------------------- H8O ------- o c - ------- c - ---- - c - "-- c - ----'-- c - ------- c - --------°----------------------------- H9Q ------ O p In N M ------- O ~ n N M ------- P N M ------- I~ N M ------- n N H ~ N M X X X X X X W31S,lS-I1lf1W x x H9a c ~ N ~ N m ~ N O 0 0 C C G C C C W ~_ ~ d ~., ~ ~ m E V V o o~~ ~s z <., ~ 4 ~ a a """ ~~~ ro s ~ s s s OG C tt ~ ~ 2 m fQ ..J ~ J .J V J aR ~ Y N f7 ~ o 0 ~ ~ N (Q N a w m 0 0 No~_8. W ~ ~ - ~ Nwen J a W~$$ ~ ~ M ~ Z W N W ~ e N w w w U w n n u Q i 0 0 0 a A a a a ~~tSNa~ ®0®®29 2EE SURVEY AND PRESERVATIO BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES RECOMMENDATIONS AT CELLULAR ONE (408) 353.1052 z3s3s sum~a Road PROPERTY, SARATOGA Los Gabs, G 95030 Job X06-98-166-99 HORTICULTURAL DATE: Au t 12, 1999 CONSULTANT CONSULTING ARBORI3T ~, ,, i \\~y\. ~~ 000030 ~~~~~- ~ n ~ `~~ . ~. 1 ~ ~'' ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ G~'`~ ` SIGNAL IGHT CABINET ~~ ,~Pr'~' ~~~~ SIGNAL Li T METER BOX `_^I it i • 4•~1 ~.~ti POLE N0. 001 75 2 wq~K f r ` PRO CONDUIT 0 ., I' • 1 PC -^ J `F _ CONDUIT 1 . ~" - .:~;~5"' '~ _ : t `~ K~-•" - ~ ' ~" Bark Chip: 6s _ : , 1 ~ Y _~ ~- .~' ' '^~~ Y t ~, ,X v~ ~ h`~' y~TF I~NF ATTACHMENT B • City of Saratoga CellularOne September 20, 1999 p. 14 planninglCRlenvironmentallCellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 000031 CelluTarGne • Proposed Base Station ite ~~o. E093) Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of the Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company ("CellularOne"), a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the proposed base station facility at the intersection of Highway 9 and Fruitvale Road in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress has required of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") that it evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). A summary of the exposure limits contained in NCRP-86 is shown in Figure 1. Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") Standard C95.1-1982, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency ("RF") energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service erating Fre~ency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,900 MHz 5.0 mWlcm2 1.0 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.9 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") 850 2.8 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.0 0.20 General Facility Requirements Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned for personal wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate. Antennas for base station use are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the limits without being physically very near the antennas. ~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 970120-E093 ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS sniv ~nivclsco Page 1 of 3 0®~~~~ Cellul5rc~~~e • Proposed Base Station (~e ~~o. E093) Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California Computer Modeling Method The FCC has provided direction for determining compliance in the Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. The attached Figure 2 describes the ground level calculation methodology in detail and the computerized techniques for modeling particular sites. This method of evaluating expected exposure conditions is accepted by the FCC, and its conservative nature has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description According to information provided by CellularOne, it is proposed to install two antennas at about 26 feet above ground on an existing utility pole, located near the intersection of Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. The antennas will be oriented at 130°T and 300°T, with a total effective radiated power of 110 watts, which would be the maximum in any direction. There are reportedly no buildings of similar height nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF levels near ground level due to the proposed operation are calculated to be less than 0.9% of the most restrictive applicable public limit. It should be noted that this result includes several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore is expected to overstate actual power density levels. Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are mounted on a utility pole, access to the antennas is available only to authorized personnel. Such access as would allow authorized personnel to approach within 3 feet directly in front of the CellularOne antenna faces may result in exposure levels in excess of the occupational limit and so should be prohibited while the station is in operation. Posting warning signs* near the antennas, such that they would be visible to persons intending to perform work within these distances, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. " Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. ~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 970120-E093 s~ F~c~isco G~E~ Page 2 of 3 Q~OiJ33 Ceilul~rt~~~e • Proposed Base Station (~e ~vo. E093) Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue • Saratoga, California Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the CellularOne base station facility proposed at Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2001. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. - p~'' F S5~! ~ 1 ~l ~~ ~P~ F~ hq~~~l~~ William F. H ett, P.E. ti. June 24, 1999 Jr~~~ E-13026 ~~~ M-2os7s ~ ~ i i~1 ~ it Exp. 6-30-01 v ~ S, ~y,.FCTR~G a~, .,Q- °:~CF CRS CFO ~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 970120-E093 ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS P Nationa~ouncil on Radiation Protection •d ~aeasurements Report No. 86 (Published 1986) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Radio Frequency Protection Guide FreauencX Electromagnetic Fields Contact Currents Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field (mA) Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (Alm) (mW/cm2) 0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 200 1.34 - 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/f2 200 3.0 - 30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900/fz 180/f~ 200 30 - 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 no limit 300-1,500 3.54J~ 1.59J}" J~f7106 Jf/238 f/300 f/1500 no limit 1,500 - 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 no limit Note: f is frequency of emission, in MHz. 1000 Power 100 Density 10 (mW/cm2 ) 1 0.1 Occupational Exposure Public Exposure - - - ~` ~---~ Contact 1000 Current (mA) 100 0.1 1 10 100 103 Frequency (MHz) ~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCLSCO 104 105 NCRP-86 Standard Figure 1 ®<iV~:3S ~R.GROUNDT"' Calculation Meth• oio 9Y Determination by Computer of Compliance with Human Exposure Limitations The U.S. Congress has required of the FCC that it evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 79-144, the FCC adopted the radio fi•equency protection guide of the American National Standards Institute Standard C95.1-1982, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz." Exposures are to be averaged over asix-minute period. In 1992, ANSI published a revised standard, C95.1-1992, which defined "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments, setting for the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The C95.1-1992 controlled (i.e., occupational) limits are approximately the same as in 095.1-1982. In Docket 93-62, the FCC adopted the exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. This standard is very similar to C95.1-1992, and the effective date for applying it to all FCC licensees was October 15, 1997. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives the formula for calculating power density from an individual radiation source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFFZ x [VERP + AERP] ~ in mW/cm2, power density S = 4nD2 where VERP = 0.4 x total peak visual ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts for NTSC, = average power (all polarizations), in kilowatts for DTV, AERP = total aural ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 0.4 converts NTSC peak visual ERP to an average RMS value; for FM, cellular, and PCS stations, of course, the value of VERP is zero. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a computer program by Hammett & Edison that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of the actual terrain at the site to obtain more accurate projections. ~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. Methodology ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS srri Fxnzvcrsco Figure 2 ~~~~~~ `7r~ /9336 ~~'~' / ~~l., l/ c~s~7v HOB- 35~- a79~ c N `~ ~o-~~-qY Ar,r,,,c'e~r~C'~ OCT 1 3 ~g99 f ~~ ' p4• ~' Srhil~Toang Li~o~ - 't958-1 Glen Ur~aRoad Saratoga, CA 95070 408-354-7131 _ October 11, 1999 To: Cityof Saratoga- - Communi#y Development Department 13777 Fra+tvale-Ave._ Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1269 Dear Sir or IUlada~n; ilU~- are Strung to- against Cellutar One to-- instatt two panek antennas at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. ~ arm livint} in-the area where witl e~pase-undeF the-Antenna_ RADIATION. A lot of reports said that RADIATION hurts human-body. Sincerely, u Stith-Toung-& Shin-Chi Liao Owner of Property ~~ • Francis- - '~516a^Fruitv~+e~At~e: Saratoga, CA 95070 40~=354-962.8 October 11, 1999 To: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 408-8651-269-, Dear Sir or Madam: I am Strong to object Cettutar O~-project that installs two. panel antennas at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. My study tells me that the Antenna- will RADIATION that will hurt human body. Sincerely, _ _ Francis Chien ~ y~~z~ c~,~e-~~ Owner of Pro~rerty To: C.Ity of Sarat~?ga. Community Development Department 15288 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)-395-8896 Dear Sir or Madam, M ~l 3 We are strongly opposed to installation of Cellular One utility pole at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. We live in that area and are very concerned about possible radiation exposure from the two panel antennas. We are concerned about health risk to area families. There is no guarantee that people will not be harmed; no one really knows the possible effect of radiation in years to come. There will also be a negative visual impact on the appearance of the neighborhood due to the large size of the antenna, which could result in lower property values in the future. The utility pole does not belong in a residential areal We also do not want other companies making similar installations in the future. Name ~ Address ~ ~ --~ Signature/date y~ , t !/ • October 13, 1999 To: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 152$8 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)-.395-8896 Dear Sir or Madam, VI%e are strongly opposed to installation of Cellular One utility pole at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. We live in that area and are very concerned about possible radiation exposure from the two panel antennas. We are concerned about health risk to area families. There is no guarantee that people will not be harmed; no one really knows the possible effect of radiation in years to come. There will also be a negative visual impact on the appearance of the neighborhood due to the large size of the antenna, which could result in lower property values in the future. The utility pole dues not belong in a residential area! We also do not want other companies making similar installations in the future. Name Address Signature/dat k r! ~ C~~~~~~%~C~ ~~ i ~ ty Cara ntta To. Cl of ~,~i..~#~.',~w Community, Development Department i 5288 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 85070 (~08~-395-889b Dear Sir or Madam, We are strongly opposed to installation of Cellular One utility pole at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. We live in that area and are very concerned about possible radiation exposure from the two panel antennas. We are concerned about health risk to area families. There is no guarantee that people will not be harmed; no one really knows the possible effect of radiation in years to come. There will also be a negative visual impact on the appeaaramee of the neighborhood due to the large size of the antenna, which could result in lower property values in the future. The utility pole does not belong in a residential area! We also do not want other companies making similar installations in the future. Name ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C ~~,~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Address Signature/date ~~~13~~~ ~~ij~ ~' ~-`~ ~ n` ~- ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ,~~, ^.-x :~Ar 1 Z 1 Q4E~ yam.:.:. ~.., To: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 15288 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 {408)-395-8896 Dear Sir or Madam, We are strongly opposed to installation of Cellular One utility pole at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. We live in that area and are very concerned about possible radiation exposure from the two panel antennas. We are concerned about health risk to area families. There is no guarantee that people will not be harmed; no one really knows the possible effect of radiation in years to come. There will also be a negative visual impact on the appearance of the neighborhood due to the large size of the antenna, which could result in lower property values in the future. The utility pole does not belong in a residential area! We also do not want other companies making similar installations in the future. Narne Address Signature/date ~cc~ /~~~1 f~~~,cs ~S ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ c~ ~ ~ s~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~3 s ~~ ~~ C; l ~ ~ / ./ .. i • October 13, 1999 RECEIVED QGT 141999 To: City of Saratoga Community Development Department PLAI\iNING DEPT. 15288 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)-395-8896 Dear Sir or Madam, We are strongly opposed to installation of Cellular One utility pole at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. We live in that area and are very concerned about possible radiation exposure from the two panel antennas. We are concerned about health risk to area families. There is no guarantee that people will not be harmed; no one really knows the possible effect of radiation in years to come. There will also be a negative visual impact on the appearance of the neighborhood due to the large size of the antenna, which could result in lower property values in the future. The utility pole does not belong in a residential areal We also do not want other companies making similar installations in the future. Name Address Signature/date ~l~ u ~ -r , T~ ~) ~ , ryi ~~ ~.~ i. ~l,~~u N~'~~7 f U ''~" _Y ~~; ~. ~; 1~~~~~o~~ v~si{~~~. ~~ ~2~~~~~ ~~~ 7 ~ _.. ~ J.~b -~~ ,,// ,,Cti~; ~:~,~,~ ~ 1l~.;~~, ~~ ~,-, y J _ n ~l l7 '; ;. • ; ~~,//7/ RECENED ..~ oc3141 p~r11NG DEpT. _ ~ ~~~ ~°~~e ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ .~2,~ ~~D ~ ~~y~~y'N~' _~ ~~~~~ ~s ~ ~~ '~ ~~~ ,~~ o~ ~~` ~ ate' ~`~~ ~j ~~ ~~ o ~ ~~ti~~ ~~ ~~ r ~ /~9 ~' li `~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ s L'7~~ ~~~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Ifith--~her~ - October 12, 1999 • '1528 Fruitva~ Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 408-395-8896 To: Cit~t of Saratoga Community Development Department '13777 Fruitvale Ave_ Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-129 Dear Sir or Madam: Cellular One is planning to install two panel ante=nnas' at the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9. F'or SAFTY reason, my family is strongest to agar th+s- project. Antennas will generate RADIATION to hurt human bey. Also, those antennas are just neaf my prope~y and . will -reduce rrE~ property value dramatically, lVfy wife is very very sensitive to those-antennas. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ Kenn a Cheng Owner of Property Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 Responding to a ion from Chairwoman Bernald, Director W clarified that the Commission was not bound by any de ' ' until it makes a final decis' e said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any oft t elevation c rns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined tha seque acing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOW ISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPO ;COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP-99-014 (397-10-009) -CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State-owned right-of--way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right-of--way is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on ales-than-50 feet high PG&B utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local jurisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio frequency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right-of--way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said that staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how`the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation, conservation, and open space elements is basically to preserve and protect Saratoga's uniqueness, Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 7 of 18 including property values, quality of life, aesthetics, and standards. He said the purpose of the discretionary permit for antennas is to determine whether the location would be an aesthetically appropriate location. Chairwoman Bernald referred to an article from the American Planning Association and noted that if the Commission were to discuss property values this evening, or deny applications because of property values, it would be necessary to have a formal report that would indicate how a loss in property value would occur. She asked how property value impacts would occur when a utility pole already exists and has existed for quite some time in the area. She asked whether such a situation could be an issue. Director Walgren responded that part of the article refers to situations where a jurisdiction can prove that an area is already being adequately served. The City is further bound by the Public Utilities Commission; cannot deny this service in its jurisdiction; and would have to provide what is basically considered a public utility service. He said the article referred to areas where it can be shown that the community is already being served and would provide the City with greater discretion to deny reasons beyond aesthetics. City Attorney Wittwer replied that the staff report refers to City Code Section 15-55070 which is the findings for a use permit. He said the City now has an ordinance requiring a use permit for each of the antennas. He said that among the findings that are required are that the proposed location of the use would not be materially injurious to properties or other improvements in the vicinity. He noted that the language is common in most use permit ordinances. He referred to a recent case in New York with similar language in which evidence was presented by real estate experts that a particular 150-foot tower could have a stigmatizing effect that could reduce property values. He said if the General Plan has language indicating that one of the goals of the plan is to protect property values, it could be one way to develop evidence relevant to the Commission to decide that it might have a use that is materially injurious to the adjoining properties or improvements in the vicinity.. The evidence would have to be presented to the Commission, either in a report from the Director or testimony or documents submitted by members of the public who testify. He conveyed that there would have to be adequate evidence in the record to demonstrate that somehow there is some injury to the properties. He indicated that the evidence would have to be solid evidence such as real estate experts testifying. Chairwoman Bernald asked how the Commission would respond to letters it has received which state that the property owners believe there are safety issues and their property values would be decreased. Mr. Wittwer responded that the weight of the evidence would be something for the Commission to evaluate. He advised that something such as an appraisal would be necessary for the Commission to base its decision on reduction of property value. Commissioner Kurasch requested clarification regarding public testimony, the perception of a risk or perception of a problem with property values. Mr. Wittwer said that the Commission could consider public testimony and public perception, but that it goes to the weight of the evidence, and the Commission's job is to weigh the evidence and decide if there is adequate evidence to make a decision as to whether property values are truly being affected. He said he would advise that if all that is presented is perception and not any documentation or evidence that appears to be based on expertise from someone who has knowledge and experience in the specific area then the Commission may want to continue the hearing to find out if there is such evidence, and give an Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 8 of 18 opportunity for that to be presented. He said he would be reluctant to advise the Commission to make a decision that property values are affected without stronger evidence. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it were possible that such a claim could come up in appeal or challenge of the ruling. Mr. Wittwer responded that it was possible; however, his experience has been that Planning Commissioners take their job seriously and they would want to try to make the right decision based on adequate evidence and, if necessary,, continue a matter to assure they had the evidence before it got to an appeal stage. Director Walgren commented that the General Plan does not contain a specific goal stating that the Commission should consider property values for every land use decision. He clarified that his response earlier was very broad, and that he meant that all of the City's goals and policies are to protect the natural environment, but nothing would be found in the General Plan which specifically calls for protecting property values. He said many people could have different opinions on what building a home next to them does to their property values. He noted that the City is bound by certain constraints under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Act in terms of health impacts and the city's conditional use permit ordinance, and also by the Council's decision to adopt an ordinance which should be used to regulate these types of facilities. He said the what-if decisions being discussed this evening focus on the various court challenges that have gone on across the country which merely address what other individuals are doing to test or challenge some of these provisions. He reiterated that the Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application being reviewed under the City's findings and code and under the FCC ruling of health impacts. Mr. Wittwer stated he conditioned his prior comment on Director Walgren confirming that there was some language in the General Plan which explicitly was designed to protect private property rights, and as such, he would want to look more closely at the General Plan to see if there is any such language if property values becomes an issue in any of the applications before the Commission. He would also want to research any cases that address the words, "materially injurious," in terms of property values. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Sandy Reyes of Cellular One, 651 Gateway Boulevard, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting that the design was clean, obtrusive, and that the antennas would be installed on an existing utility pole. Commissioner Roupe referred to the cabinet for control equipment and stated that it was possible the dead shrubbery would have to be cleared and screening landscaping replanted. He asked if the applicant would have any objections to the screening. Ms. Reyes responded she would have no problem with placing screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Page, Ms. Reyes confirmed that the antennas would be transmitting to another site toward the street and not the homes behind it. Chairwoman Bernald supposed that a car were to hit the utility pole, causing it to go down into the street, and asked whether safety precautions to disconnect the antennas existed. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 9 of 18 Ms. Reyes replied that if such circumstances were to occur, the facility would probably be disconnected and probably not function. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the wires connected with sufficient tension from the pole to the antennas down the pole and into the box that they would be severed, and whether it contained a safety feature. Ms. Reyes responded that there was no safety feature which would automatically turn the site off, and noted that all of Cellular One's facilities are stable enough that they would probably not come off the site, adding that it would be difficult to say whether or not the pole would come off the site. Commissioner Kurasch asked what would happen if the trees close to the site were to block the antenna, and Ms. Reyes answered that the antennas would still be able to transmit. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the antennas are coming out from a large canopy of trees and asked whether the trees, when fully grown, need to be trimmed so that the antenna can function. Ms. Reyes responded that if the antennas are screened, there may be a need for trimming. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the utility provider would be responsible for trimming in the event of any problems. Director Walgren read into the record letters opposing the proposed antennas received from Shih-Young and Shih-Chi Liao, 1950 Glen Una Road; Kenneth Chen, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue; Francis Chien, 1 S 160 Fruitvale Avenue; Patricia Melehan, 19336 Monte Vista Drive; and a petition signed by 12 property owners. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating he resides next to West Valley College. He noticed that the study results of the application gives a certain percentage of the applicable public limit which he does not feel should be accepted. He said the percentage is a variable and has changed many times in the past and will change in the future. He noted that the Federal Communications Commission comes out with lots per square centimeter and all through of a lot of investigation it is lots per square centimeter. He suggested that the watts per centimeter should be noted in parenthesis.l us how many watts per centimeter it is. He conveyed that he researched the subject in Electromagnetic Fields regarding the cumulative effects which the FCC does not seem to mention. He said that electromagnetic fields are bad for the body and nothing is known about the cumulative effect. Mr. William Lawrenson, 19489 Glen Una Road, spoke to the Commission on behalf of himself and neighbors at 19501 Glen Una. He said the property owners were required to bury all utilities so as not to add any more to the environment. He expressed concern with the continual impact of additional utilities in the area from a safety point of view and from a property value point of view. Mr. Wittwer clarified that the case he referred to regarding stigmatizing effect was addressing a stigmatizing effect from aesthetics and noted that a stimgatizing effect with a concern about health would come under the Telecommunications Act prohibition on local governments being able to regulate on that basis. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 10 of 18 Mr. George Kao, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue, concurred with comments from Mr. Martel and Mr. Lawrenson. He suggested that throughout the years the FCC regulations changes and that there is no guarantee for this type of issue. Mr. Edward Ybarro, 15275 Fruitvale Avenue, stated that his five-year old and nine-year old grandsons play 50 feet from the pole and his kitchen is located 80 feet from the pole in which his wife spends a lot of time. He expressed concern with the cumulative effect. He asked whether 25 years from now it would be discovered that the radiation did affect his grandchildren. Commissioner Kurasch stated that with the current process, unless impacts are stated as significant in the initial study, the City is prohibited from basing its decision on health aspects. She asked Mr. Ybarro for his opinion on the aesthetics of the antenna installation. Mr. Ybarro responded by asking whether others would want to see a similar project out their kitchen window if they lived in his area. He stated he had just built in a $350,000 renovation to his house. Rajiv Das, M.D., M.P.H., 19491 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, addressed the Commission, stating he had done training for the University of San Francisco in environmental health. He expressed concern with the utility pole, indicating that when one speaks of health risks, the subject is breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and effects in unborn children. He noted that the main issue is cumulative effect not just from the one single emitter but multiple emitters around the area. He asked whether there was any approximate level of what the total exposure is to the population surrounding the pole. He expressed there are other areas along the road where the antennas could be sited that are not near residences and where risks associated with health and with decrease in property values related to aesthetics do not exist. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the City cannot give the advantage to one provider over another. She said this is one of the guidelines the Commission must follow in making its decisions. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, conveyed that the initial cell phone tower that was put into the city was close to her, described the history of the project, and noted that the tree next to the first cellular tower is dead. She said when the first cellular tower was installed, many of her neighbors lost reception to some cable stations. She conveyed she was on the City Council in 1980 when the Council initiated a program to put in all utilities underground along Highway 9 (now Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road). She said that every pole is a nonconforming pole at this time, and the Commission would be adding to a nonconforming pole. She said every time a person comes in for a permit, they are not allowed to put in their utilities overhead in the city. She expressed that every one of the cellular applications is in a residential district and is nonconforming. Chairwoman Bernald noted that Ms. Jensen had requested to address the Commission regarding Items 4 and 5 of the agenda, and Ms. Jensen stated that she had to leave the building, but she wanted her comments to apply to each item because each issue is a significant issue, an important issue. She said she did not want these "things" in her city. Stephen LeDoux addressed the Commission as counsel to Cellular One, conveying that Director Walgren and City Attorney Wittwer had accurately summarized the law, the results of case law, and interpreting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He referred to two cases -one in San Jose and one in Dana Point, California - involving a 75-foot new monopole with antennas and a 100-foot pole in the northern San Jose jurisdiction. He said both cases were tract developments with similar homes, and the appraiser compared sales, trying to single out the only factor as proximity to the cellular facilities. When that was Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 11 of 18 done with sales prices and actual market data, there was no evidence that the 75-foot monopole or the 100-foot monopole had any negative effect on property values. He said service was in the area because of demand for service, noting that throughout the Bay Area, more than any other carrier, local police and fire rely on Cellular One service to provide important communications redundancy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:26 P.M.) PASSED 5-0. Commissioner Patrick commented that based on the criteria for making a decision, that the application is within the safety standards set by the FCC and under which the City operates. She conveyed she is satisfied that the application meets the criteria; the project is aesthetically appropriate, and especially more so than others which have come before the Commission. She said she was not satisfied that who perceives what as a risk is an issue. She stated that this is a public utility which the City is required to allow for the public good and public safety as long as there is a need for the service. The project meets all the criteria, satisfies all the findings required, and she will be supporting the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Patrick. He commented that he had seen safety officers and others using cellular phones for dialing 911 (emergency calls), and he would not want to vote against someone being able to ca1191 l; thus, he will be supporting the application. Commissioner Kurasch, indicated she would be opposing the application and urged citizens to attend a future Commission meeting specifically addressing this issue. She indicated possible outcomes from that meeting could include that if the community or if the City was interested in undertaking different standards than FFC or federal standards, the community or City may lower the requirements of an environmental impact report which may mitigate the negative effects. Director Walgren clarified that it has not been concluded that the city can develop different standards from those already set by the FCC and adopted by Congress through the Telecommunications Act which is very specific; however, through the City Attorney's opinion memo, it has been concluded that the city can develop a process where differing opinions or additional studies can be accepted through the CEQA process, but ultimately as the federal law currently stands, the federal emission standards cannot be altered. Chairwoman Bernald commented that adopting a new process would create another layer for the applicants, additional expense, and use of time. Director Walgren recalled that earlier discussions included the possibility of requiring an environmental impact report for each of the applications. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald whether any additional information would be provided as a result of requiring an environmental impact report, Director Walgren stated that earlier discussions included hypothetical alternative, and if a local document concluded that a lower threshold was needed, that document would need to acknowledge that the City is still bound by the FCC's developed thresholds. He said the process would be for the City to acknowledge that there may be different viewpoints or alternative studies. Commissioner Roupe stated that the significant point raised in the City Attorney's memo was that before launching into an expensive and time-consuming process there had to be substantial evidence of the significant impact before undertaking this issue, and he had not seen that evidence yet. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 12 of 18 Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren responded that a difficult side of the issue would be that great concern has been raised regarding health effects of the facilities that are not yet known. He said articles he has read refer to effects that perhaps have not yet been analyzed, and commented those types of concerns are going to be difficult to document. Commissioner Roupe opined that the application complies with the law, is aesthetically acceptable, and he will be voting in favor of it. He requested a condition that the applicant work with staff for appropriate screening of the control cabinet. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioners Roupe and Patrick. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-014 WITH THE CONDITION THAT APPROPRIATE SCREENING BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH STAFF. PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners ~d staff were 4. P-99-016 (386-53-019) -SPRINT, PG&E tower on Saratoga-S nyvale Road at the uthern Pacific Railroad crossing; Request for Use Permit appr al to install three antenna sec rs with three antennas each, mounted on an existing PG tower. The proposal also inclu s several equipment cabinets located under the tower enclosed by an eight-foot wood fence. e subject property is within an R-1-12,500 zoni district. An Environmental Initial Study an egative Declaration have been prepared for is project. Director Walgren pre nted details of the staff report, no ~ g that all the necessary findings can be made to recommend annroval. Chairwoman Bernald openec~he Public Hearing~f 9:50 p.m. Ms. Anne Welsh, 3875 Hopyar oad, Pl canton, Sprint representative, and Paul Zimmerman, Sprint radio frequency engineer, addresse he mmission. Ms. Welsh remarked that Sprint h tri d to prepare a project acceptable to the city and described the area. She said Sprint proposes put th equipment under the high-tension line and would be visually unobtrusive. She said revision to the plan re based on staff's comments. She noted that an irrigation plan would be submitted at a building permi tage to maintain the proposed flannel bush screening. Using color boards, .Zimmerman demonstrate the projected coverage area, noting that the site was chosen because of it ocation, that a new pole woul of have to be installed, and it would blend in with the existing condi 'ons. He said the antennas could be inted to match the PG&E tower and aesthetically do what would a required of them. There was~o other public comment (except Ms. Jensen's earl'i~r comments under Item #3.) CO ISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. P SED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). . - • • D L~ '' ~`=~;1 n ~.S A f+t r' THI~B~~-TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK ~.~'i•~' ;;, - ~:.~. --- - Date Received ' D o7i~ 9`' o~- YSP~( Hearing Date_~ ~ 5 _.. Fee ~a~ ~ ~~ Receipt # City of Saratoga APPEAL APPLICATION (THIS TWO-PART APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION) Appellant Name Kgnneth Cheng Address 15288 Fruitvale Avenue S~•atnga cA 9507n Telephone ~ 4081 395-fiA9~ Fax Name of Applicant (ifi - _ different from Appellant) Project Fife Number and Address UP-99-01 4 (397-1 0-0091 rrt; i it.~Pole at Ksv~=tea-- - Fruitvale Ave. Decision Being Appealed cellular one, Lrti i ~ r~ Pnl A Grounds for Appeal (fetter may be attached): See letter attached A rr ~-~ G~_ '`Appellant's Signature (Please do not sign this application and fhe attched authorization until it is presented at City offices.) M • • ATTACHMENT A No analysis has been made by staff or the applicant of the potentially significant adverse impact on the health of the Ordinance Trees that will result from the well intentioned mitigation measure recommended by the City Arborist and imposed by the Planning Commission. The mitigation measure requires the installation of an irrigation system for the trees. That will require trenching. It was applicant's trenching before it applied for this use permit that caused the initial damage to the roots of certain Ordinance Trees to which the City Arborist's recommended mitigation measure of the installation of an irrigation system is directed. However, an irrigation system will itself require additional trenching. Neither the staff, the City Arborist, nor the applicant has addressed the potential cumulative adverse impact of the original trenching and the irrigation system on the health of the Ordinance Trees. No analysis has been made by staff or the applicant of the cumulative adverse aesthetic impact that will result from this installation, when combined with prior installations and future installations. If antennae and equipment boxes are installed, ad hoc, around Saratoga with no analysis of the ultimate and optimal plan to provide coverage for the entire city, it is likely that a greater number of antennae and equipment boxes will litter our streets than if applicant were required to provide a complete analysis of what locations will be required to service Saratoga's anticipated needs for the future. Only with such an analysis will it be apparent whether the location which is the subject of this application is a rational choice in light of the anticipated needs for the ultimate build out of the applicant's cellular system for Saratoga, or whether a different location (which might alsa equally serve the area to be served by this application) would be a more efficient one and might allow Saratoga to be served with a smaller number of installations and therefore suffer a smaller cumulative adverse aesthetic impact. MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP ONE POST STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 December 27, 1999 VIA FEDERAL EXPRES TO CITY CLERK Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Abneal of Planning Cnmmiccini Dear Members of the City Council: We represent Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, which conducts business in the San Francisco Bay Area as Cellular One ("Cellular One"). We submit this letter in response to the appeal by Kenneth Cheng of the Planning Commission Resolution UP- 99-014. Cellular One's proposed microcell site consists of two 4 foot by one foot antennas mounted approximately half way up an existing utility pole and an equipment cabinet within the CalTrans right-of--way. CellularOne has designed the facility to be effectively unnoticeable, and the Planning Commission properly found that it meets all the City's standards for a conditional use permit ("CUP") and that its aesthetic impact will be "less than significant." (Resolution No. UP-99-014.) The appellants arguments are not supported by facts or law, and the appeal should be rejected. We well first explain how this project meets the City's standards for a CUP, and then address the points raised by the appeal. I. CellularOne Meets the City's Standards for a Use Permit. The City's Zoning Code provides for the Planning Commission to grant a CUP if the Commission finds all of the following: (a) that 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; (b) that 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; and (c) that the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (Code Section 15-55.070.)' The Commission properly found that CellularOne meets each of these standards, which we address sequentially. A. The Microcell Site is Consistent with the Objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the Purpose of the District in which it is Located. ' We will make further references to the City's Zoning Ordinance by section number only (e.g., "Section _"). Members of the City Council City of Saratoga December 27, 1999 Page 2 of 6 The proposed microcell site is within the CalTrans right of way at the intersections of Highway 9 and Fruitvale Avenue. The staff report to the Planning Commission found that "this site is an appropriate location for telecommunication antenna facilities." The Commission itself found the microcell site consistent with both the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this particular district "in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive" (Resolution UP-99-014). In many jurisdictions, Cellular One, a California public utility, would be permitted to locate its antenna facilities on an existing utility pole located within right of way without discretionary review.z Cellular One telephones are not simply a matter of convenience. They provide a vital alternative to land lines in natural disasters such as earthquakes or severe weather, as well as a critical component of many emergency response systems. Cell phones are standard equipment in police cars and fire trucks today, and Cellular One provides cellular service to more police and fire personnel in the San Francisco Bay Area than any other cellular carrier. Saratoga's zoning code, by requiring a conditional use permit for such sites, constitutes a higher standard of review. Despite this higher standard, both the Planning Staff and Planning Commission concurred that this site is visually unobtrusive and should be conditionally permitted. The site is within an R-1 or single-family residential zoning district. The City's zoning regulations specifically provide that the microcell site is a "conditionally permitted use" within R-1 zoning districts (See Section 15-12.030(n).) recognizing the importance of cellular coverage in these districts. B. The Microcell Site will not be Detrimental to the Public Health, Safety, or Welfare, nor Materially Injurious to Neighboring Properties or Improvements. The Planning Commission properly found that CellularOne satisfies this element of the CUP, based on the following: (a) the Environmental Initial Study led to a Negative Declaration, meaning there will be no significant impact on the environment; and (b) its conclusion that "the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant." (Resolution UP-99-014.) The Commission was correct in so finding. As the staff report to the Planning Commission noted, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a wireless communications facility's compliance with FCC standards precludes local regulation based on alleged health or environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields ("EMF") produced by the facility. This does not reflect any arrogance by the FCC or Congress, but rather the detailed survey of numerous scientific studies on which FCC standards are based. To provide a comfortable margin of safety, the FCC standards were set at 1/60, or less than two percent, of the lowest exposure level at which any study documented a measurable effect on human tissue. As documented in the June 24, 1999, report of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers (the "RF Study"), the projected EMF levels near ground level (the point of greatest public exposure} are less than one percent (1%) of the most restrictive FCC standard for public exposure. In other words, the EMF 2 This location is also favored by state law. Under Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code, public utilities such as Cellular One are given the right to install antenna sites within the right of way of any public street or highway. Members of the City Council City of Saratoga December 27, 1999 Page 3 of 6 near ground level from the CellularOne microcell site will be far below the FCC limits, which already contain a rather wide margin of safety.3 The Commission was also correct with respect to aesthetics. The proposed antennas will be at or slightly above tree level on an existing utility pole. The equipment shelter will be similar in size and appearance to the existing utility boxes in the immediate vicinity, and only four feet high (lower than the level of the adjacent fence which separates it from the closest residence). The best way to understand the staff and Planning Commission conclusions of minimal aesthetic impact is to examine the photo simulations attached to this letter. As they demonstrate, the microcell site will be effectively unnoticeable. C. The Microcell Site will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission found, based on staff's recommendation, that CellularOne satisfies this requirement because "the location, height, size, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district." (Resolution UP-99-014.) The appellant has not even suggested that this conclusion is mistaken, and there is no reason to question the conclusions of the City's experts on zoning matters. II. There is no Basis in Fact or Law for this Appeal. The appeal raises the following two issues: (a) possible impact on mature Oak trees adjacent to the site; and (b) a generalized concern about the "cumulative aesthetic impact" of this and other telecommunications facilities absent an "ultimate and optimal plan to provide coverage for the entire city." Neither point provides any basis to overturn the Planning Commission's and staff's well-reasoned conclusions. A. The Oak Trees will be Protected. CellularOne's contractor, due to a miscommunication with the City's Department of Public Works, began trenching without first seeking a CUP. Such trenching unfortunately severed some smaller roots of mature Oak trees adjacent to the site. Upon realizing that a CUP would be required, CellularOne stopped work on the site pending receipt of a CUP. Cellular One, as required by conditions already imposed by the Planning Commission, will comply with the recommendations of the City's arborist in his report dated August 11, 1999. The planning staff and the Commission found that those recommendations will adequately ensure the continued health of the Oak trees in question. One of the arborist's recommendations was for Cellular One to irrigate the Oak trees.4 Appellant alleges that such irrigation will require additional trenching, and thereby further threaten the Oak trees. Appellant is simply wrong. The arborist's first s As noted in the RF study, separate (and somewhat more lenient) standards apply to EMF exposure of workers climbing the utility pole. The Planning Commission imposed a special condition addressed to this concern, requiring that signs on the pole notify such workers of the risk and the need to turn off the antennas while accessing the pole. a Although future tree trimming was raised at the Planning Commission hearing, it is Cellular One's present understanding that future trimming will be not be required in excess of that required for PG&E to maintain fire safety for existing power lines. Members of the City Council City of Saratoga December 27, 1999 Page 4 of 6 recommendation -which CellularOne is required to follow -specifically forbids any further trenching beneath the canopy of the trees. In any case, CellularOne is committed to irrigation methods that will not require further trenching. One alternative, which CellularOne has proposed to the appellant, involves use of the appellant's existing irrigation system (at no cost to appellant, of course).5 If appellant is not willing to allow this, CellularOne will simply have water periodically delivered to the site in a water truck as proposed by the City's arborist. Cellular One is committed to preserve the health of the Oak trees in question which provide aesthetic shielding for both the PG&E pole and Cellular One's antennas. Appellant is simply mistaken in assuming that the necessary irrigation will require any further trenching. B. Appellant's Request for an "ultimate and optimal plan to provide coverage for the entire city" fails to comprehend Cellular One's capacity requirements and is tantamount to a moratorium on antenna facilities in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cellular One, working with City Planning Staff, has exercised every effort to locate the proposed facility in the least visibly obtrusive location possibleb. Appellant implicitly concedes that the particular proposal in question has no significant aesthetic impact. Rather than address the aesthetic impact of the actual proposed facility, appellant raises vague concerns about "the cumulative adverse aesthetic impact" of this proposal "when combined with prior installations and future installations." Generally, "aesthetics" are not the subject of cumulative impact analysis. Commonly, cumulative impacts are significant when associated with sources such as air pollution, water pollution or traffic congestion from an applicant which when accumulated with other polluters in the air, a stream or already congested roadway constitute a significant impact. Aesthetics, which is generally addressed by a city's zoning code and general plan, are not common to cumulative impact analysis. Appellant cites no authority requiring such analysis and our research has disclosed none. In any case, the Planning Staff and Planning Commission properly addressed cumulative impacts in its Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated September 20, 1999 wherein Article XVI (c) determines that there are no such impacts. Appellant asks the City to deny further CUPS for antenna sites pending "analysis of the ultimate and optimal plan to provide coverage for the entire city." Aside from the lack of any such requirement under the City's zoning regulations, the appellant's request demonstrates a common misunderstanding with respect to Cellular One's need to add new cellular facilities in communities such as Saratoga. In essence, there is no "coverage" problem in Saratoga. Cellular One's engineers have designed and built a system which will generally provide adequate signal to dust about any location within the City limits. The current problem is capacity; that is, too many Cellular One customers seeking to access the same antennas at the same time. This proposed facility is intended to address "capacity" constraints of existing cellular sites. Unfortunately, as cell phones become more of a modern necessity than a luxury, and more pervasive in our community, s Cellular One's offer was confirmed by a letter to Appellant dated December 23, 1999. e The approved location avoids the need for Cellular One to construct a monopole or other aesthetically objectionable structure. Cellular One reviewed the location of the facility in the median adjacent to the proposed site at the request of nearby residents and was advised by Planning Staff that the site would be visibly obtrusive in that location. Members of the City Council City of Saratoga December 27, 1999 Page 5 of 6 Cellular One is unable to predict those locations where cellular use will outstrip available signal capacity. The need for "infill" sites is based on such factors as income growth, population growth, changes in employment location, mobility and traffic patterns all of which are impossible to predict with any precision. Cellular One's decision to install a "capacity" site is determined primarily by customer complaints of dropped calls in addition to Cellular One continuous monitoring and testing. Installation of the proposed site is a direct response to complaints from Cellular One's Saratoga customers. To emphasize the unpredictable nature of capacity requirements, we include for the Council's review the attached article from the December 5, 1999, San Francisco Examiner. As the article makes clear, capacity and coverage problems in a cellular system are determined largely by the volume of customer complaints. While CellularOne would be only too happy to have a reliable method of predicting such problems, the fact is that no such method exists. The bright side of this story is that "capacity" sites are smaller, lower and less obtrusive than traditional cellular "macro" sites and function at a lower effective radiated power. In fact, as capacity sites are added, taller legacy sites can ultimately be retired. This has already occurred at such locations as the Sutro Tower in San Francisco and Mt. Tamalpais in Marin County. In sum, there is no "coverage" problem in Saratoga, and therefore no "ultimate and optimal plan" which can be created for wireless facilities. To hold any conditional use permits until such a plan could be created would be tantamount to a moratorium on wireless facilities in Saratoga which is specifically prohibited by Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.' Cellular One's proposed facility at the intersection of Highway 9 and Fruitvale, while effectively invisible, provides needed wireless communications to Saratoga residents as well as police and fire safety personnel. The site is properly located and meets all applicable zoning and conditional use requirements. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Council affirm the well-reasoned decision of the Planning Commission and deny appellants appeal. Very truly yours, G~ Paul B. Albritton Enclosures cc: James Barrett, Esq. Section 253 states in relevant part "No state or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." T ~ K N ,f' -., ~ f ,, C .~ /' ~ ~; ~ /, , O j,i" i i ~~ ti d N ~+ O C e ~ p1 o ~ _. o ~~ .~ 3 a~ ,_ t ,, ,~- , i ~~~ it ., { 5!, ~~ ~ .~~w~ `. ~ „a~ ~ 1~ 5 ~~ r S y I ~ W z LL °~ a ~~ ~4 ~~ J ~~ U .;; ~~ ..~ ^ ,: ~' ~~ ~ "~':' ~-_ z~#, '~vho has s~ `ib Fhe;nes with dif'farent __: p3roviders. 1rf vne c~urxier's ne~warlr' is may, he'll rry atwther. ''t'he rec~t'swarms of in~ni° places with; long distance qrs-._ ituning inc3nded helped push `fie fiber of mok:~ phi, users; _te, ; nearly 28 p~ereeat of the U.S. ~t1f~t3,thl6 ~2aXy or-'78 n31~hOA $ll' ~~r :- ~t3fstibsCr~ers~ha~- lI1 t$!IIlB Rf I0^'- ''"t` s~=vela doh~totse , ,eaaxt ix cellular ~~~'leac#ng eart'iar. ~-they've signed ulr, rnillxorss= . '#~rs are staying on longez aYer. Instead of stashing ~` e~~-i1e. phones far e2neFgeincis3 ` ' tpcsrtant business ca€ls, ~p~ ~, sty using -them to chat v~rb~;° ~iiting fn line or tv relaiece `_ ~~ ~ ~e service.,~e~ manes rrttl~ Ions t~t#ery lie ark ~saf~ares I?~~ € ~~~ _ - ed use. l~obie phone st~~re an. avre of S ;iaant per „ r-~ nn ]cal ~ f~~ a year ago, ae~ t€a the duty ~eitiun in'~ ts, D.. 'e _ ~ -~g;~e ~~ . - ~i~~ ., " ~a~,iio ~~_'~~ - nt cif marked-,. ~idiat~ ~~ ~Iie Kati Antonio ~tnnaunic~icana. ,,,~.'~"he bcxmty of new subscriher~~ t some rani off ca~gh guard, de--,. p~ ~ clzei* ~ax~setzn~.l seise and engtneeri~ deaf-m "Y"be massive competition fas~e' ay t3igital +sar~rice attzat twc '€c~. iii omen more subscr~era than` ~, anslys#~s ssid._ The wireless i~.tstxy`s cvn~inv- - "`ing push for new Cszstritners ems- +~sere ice ~~ N~ezj, 7,~ whv~_ an hia Sprint P~ as hive 'primaryphcu~.` `:_, ' (:ails an his snobiie plrvne oil`,. c}rog. Adore recently,. his friends „~II]LiBt d)8~ hrm two 43` three tl~e~ -~ „before getting, ~rougl~, hs said.' .t3stomer service rej7r~seTttar~q'=' mid the grope wexe due to nett v ~warl~. aved. At tl~e same Sprint< .and other carers haver° stepped ~ their blitz advart~- ~_ tng,:ans~ promotions Spri~"!t" ~g with a ~et~. ~~ampaign, but it sn'`t ~- ` tl~e i~rixct - h~adici ,zit sabacxs~bers," said ~- ±' Pala' Alto, ~'~` i~Ys ~ ~~~' p` ~1'vsCe. I~ t~ ,~1 t~~ o. -. l _ P~' ~u~ the „_- ~g a , Nextel„ t`c.~ye~d closely ~int~. ,at ~9 pet+oent, 'Cslhtiar ~ s~'` - p~t~ ~ W~e]~ at, 4~ Iaer c~at~Pac?~l~'~Yi~eless st:3`f' ~ the ~ fir, ~ u~ ~ ~m~~ sears = d'!~n'g .~ "` ~ xx~i~icsri natiacs~n a ~-~ ' tamer°ea~s srle€- rc :carted re~card groves,. '`""For ~ ~~"~. lying try 'spots before~ha~nd is rlanyx~ nedct imlx~sszble. It's a whole nr~w ~.reoce," ~aisl Grp Ellin ~v~:~z~tt~, an ruxalyst' ~t.;_~he.-Yankee C=mom, a market research'..~zn Boston.', . Ne~rk Y~ Y ,~ .. ~.~.. z~~ ~. ~a~~l' 'ivadf~ tom.; n#~., ~~~~~~_ lam' -:~, aura' ~~l~n w~~a the advent of ~itsl f~chnalogy -- wt>icia has ' <'- t~t°pacity three to seven traxr greater tha~a_ alder axaatag . t `unexpected Hash of custome3, attained the netwarl~. t]n : hvth wir8ie~ and lath luxe ~,,, haste a's~wart+as, ostiy s aertatn € nt~rber of arils can ga ~b at any giuex~ tie. CaTie cortapetis wrth =others ~, ~ and. stay an. t~ net =. pvorlc nu a faxst-came, iSrsbs~ ~~ Whs nraba~e B; ttaera ,erzenced dropped calf of bane trar~ble evYnnect~~ it may be dtbs to _~i~n (although an aid , faulty mobile phone or a dew u else cause snch prom: Ua the patezntial' icy dis~o~aected call is th+e gza of ~g~ As a user ch.$te vsbrle =xi~in~ hid colt gets psxsed from tersisa to an#.arans. if the h,s~ad ,:; riff` cite is bey serving ntber users the tel. ap~r di~aanne~;t. - .. w _ ~ . . ~~~~~: ty b~ ~ t~eroaz~raaR'ins' s~~~ e~r>~ ar by eQ~~ n~wt~ % aid a~ ', °`iE wottid-great tc erT~,,iust ~~ icnab ;~ av~e ~~ ~cs~ t~ ~ ~" 1~~~.~~ -'gay Area- era] ~. Nextei, .~ ~ "~a'.~ carrier tlra~ p~arily ~mEea New t~e~igns ats? fir,: IC ~SV@~8 ~ A ~~st eaar.~= 9drYSe capacity as' wasted-' during tlawYt times, sire sauir , 'aa industry has ]abated tp in , cr+~se capacity and cxiverage, makes izig an esta~oaated ~9 biflivn ira ca~i- tal expetadif~r~ thie-year m North Aanetic~t. sprint PAS hae rair-esdy- .~~ ~ to buikd. Ol1~ ~ itkcreaa8 capacity Lhrotagiz X11. - Like~vgise, c~var the l~a+t t3xree ycsrg, C;ei~ulez fie aperxt ~3flQ.mi3lit~t 4ta netvrorlc ianprav~+raents, tt~.inga~ x~±~re-sites than' in the F i~ year Feriotl, a sgakeswomexn mid. Nextel ea~pects to increase the ttiber of its Bay Areff coil sites by ~(? Iiercent "~ a ~a~ta[~ie sib; -'Cirnapani ~ to get mar from ~ cal"gaVesnme~Officials, n~oti8te iaases ,with ~rtrperty pwtrers sud s~metimea. Ott neighborhood c-p- ~taon. _ ~, ~`We try t4 anticipate floe speeds ~ hands: fmm. subscribers,' , said ~icli 9wanaczrn, a Sprint lam', >~cesvvuman. _"Suf .vv~e ~~r't go_ where gia~p down (ts~abiie plzo€~e equipment) i~ a site.'' oong~stian 1~cad same tamers - #~ .zeti~ink theix cam:' ~~,anrrTysts wear, sixace tna»_ ~~°~ calf graalit}~ ~~rsge ,as high in inn ''here's nothizig mc~e fru~traC- 3ng theta talking tc~ r'crak}or eisent,. awantl~g to AlaCe an a~croan#, and in t~ naa ~tfae ~st~ea^seti~. the ~„~' s~7d Scott H--°° ~ brealSS ~rorznet~ `~ dl~t ~i~"' O_ sew try ~- ~xre re~ie~ nary come' in ' neat £a~v years ~ c'tirisera ~ ataL mtheir bah cerixacity getwar~.s. Biat ~etecamazrursicatic~ne sxperta skid t~e bc~l~reck is here #~ $txty~: daily as r bend~fdth-e~~dis~g 4L~s1a arrd: ~r..services and mark= rptpitie i~>~' ~a'bezs test. tine;,. "'twaris. ul~ak$d say tbiey are wrli =~8 to put ug with the inaroiave--. n-lance xs the tachtnotagy evolves k~ „L .~ "~: tam' sa3es ~:. ~~~~ ~~ of the ~uprint PC,9 service he:t~n =~ axng Un sia inonttfs .;Said Grams +'~~' ~~~~ ~~~ .fAN-OS-00 06:24 PM TERRY R. ELLZ3 415 96'3 3699 P. 01 1~1-5144 ~~ 5'08 PS•r1 ~?J2 zee 8 Ali)rltt[~T 4 ~t &2t39.4Q10 ~ "•. i, j" E~. 1 Pdut A~imtt~~n ttac~an 1 , ~~LI~I~LAR~I~i~~ 1ai~«~rv ~, ?ooa Mr. t~ennath Chen4 15288 ~ruitvalz Avc. Saratoga, Ca 95074 itE: ~~ O I a;,CellularO~e: N/>; ~rne,Lof ~ itvgle B~Hti~r ;_9 Dear Mr. Chong: Cellular One s~'.ks to be a gtaod neighbor to you and your community. In exthangc for your withdrawal of your appeal of UP 99-014, Cellular C-ae agrees to meet with you on your property to make auy teelutically feasible and reasonable adju~~tments to the atttrMas installed, following installation, at Cellular One's cosw, to reduce any aesthetic impact on your hone, Such adjustments may includa a plastic "shroud" over the anttnnas at your req-~est, to the e.+rtent technically feasible and permitted by the City of Saratoga, Cellular One confirms that the ar-tenna $ignAl is directed down ~iighway 9 anc# not tcfward youur property. Celiutart]ne looks forward to being youur good neighbor. Please confirm your agreennent with this withdrawal of appeal U>' 99-OI4 by your signature below. . Very truly yours, { d l~eyes ' Property Aevelop>inent Specialist Ktnneth Chong, Appellant ~~` C B~4 04 ~L° /°~~OO C~G~ ~~~~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9070 • (-I08) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 January 10, 2000 Camilla J. Corvin Ellis and Barrett PO Box 391228 444 Castro Street, Ste. 123 Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF YOUR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF UP 99-014) APPLICANT: CELLULAR ONE Dear Camilla: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogos~an .,'chn Mehatfe~ Nick Strut Ann Waitonsm~th Attached is your check 1121 in the amount of $250.00 which we received in payment of the continuance of the above-referenced appeal. This check is being returned to you since the appeal was withdrawn by Attorney Barrett at the City Council regular meeting of January 5, 2000. Sincerely, L( , san . Ramo , CMC City Clerk /attachment Printed on recycled paper i~- 0 0 OFFICIAL RECEIPT DATE: +~ ~ ~~ :~ CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 868-1200 FAX: (408) 868-1280 CJ~ RECEIVED FROM: --~- i ~ r. ,~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ .../ ~~ 1 - '~. v ~ ~~J 1 ~C~" y ~.i -,. ~ ,- ;; ( ~ I ANIMAL LICENSES 001-2025-421-Ot-00 $ MAPS/XEROX 001.1040-473-01-00 $ ARBORIST FEE 250-4010-444-02-00 PARK RENTAL 292-6020-462-03-02 BUILDING PERMITS 250.4015.422-p1-00 PROPERTY TAXES/SECURED 001.1040.411-Oi-00 BUILDING RENTAL 292-6020-462-03.01 PLANNING FEES 250.4010-444.01-00 BUS TICKETS 001-0000.202-10.01 REFUNDABLE DEP/ BONDS 800-0000-260-10-00 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 001-1040-413-05-00 RENTAL DEPOSIT 292-0000-260-00.00 DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES 250-4010-444-OS-00 SALES TAX 001.1040-412-01-00 DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 001-1040-413-01-00 THEATER SURCHARGE 293.6005-462-03-03 DONATIONS-RECREATION 290-6010-471-01-00 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY 001-1040-413-03-00 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 001-3035-422-03-00 WIRELESS COMM. (EASE 001-1040-462-Ot-00 ESVGINEERING FEES 250-3035-443-02-00 f"l,Q ~`~ {~iF ~'y1 ~.. f'..;~(I ~ {,~,~ ~J ~-•~~/ ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 26,p-5005-444-03-00 FALSE ALARM FEES 001-1040-451-01-00 FINES & FORFEITS 001-1040-452-Ot-00 FOOD 5}CLE/RECREATION 290.6005-445-06.00 FOOD SALEITEEN SERVICES 290.6010.445-06-00 FRANCHISE FEES 001-1040-413-04-00 GEOLOGY FEE 250.3035-443-01-00 GRADING PERMITS 250.4015-422-02-00 INTEREST 001-1040-461-01-00 OTHER APPL./PERMIT NO. TOTAL ~ V../ ('y , v'~ ('\ (~. , ll ~J RECEIVED BYlDEPT.: ~i ~ • V . FORM OF PAYMENT: CASH CHECK NO. DEPOSIT # RECEIPT # ~~oC~ 4755 ELLIS & BARRETT, a professional law association Attorneys and Counselors PO Box 391228 TERRY R. ELLIS 444 Castro Street, Suite 123 JAMES M. BARRETT Mountain View, CA 94039 Phone (650) 969-3687 Fax (650) 969-3699 December 29, 1999 Personal Service City Council Susan Ramos, CMC City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Kenneth Cheng; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of UP 99-014 (Applicant Cellular One) Dear Susan: As law would have it, we are in negotiations with Cellular One's Attorney, Mr. Albritton. We are requesting a continuance to the February 2000 meeting in hopes that our negotiations will come to a settlement and there will be no need for a hearing. Enclosed is a check for $250.00 as required for any subsequent continuances that are requested. I spoke with Ms. Linda Burk since you are on vacation and she advised to submit this to herself or the receptionist. I hope that your holidays were safe and peaceful and I look forward to our working. relationship. Si ely, -~-----......~..._...m... Camilla. J. Corvin ~~ Senior Legal Assistant to James Barrett Enclosure c: file _t ,~^~,`_" S~ww _Fx- i ~~' M Memo To: City Council From:Susan A. Ramos, CMC, City Clem C~ Larry Perlin, City Manager Date: January 5, 2000 ~~. ~~ ~1~1 Re: SECOND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE - CHENG APPEAL For your information, attached is a letter from the appellant's attorney, which was received on December 29, 1999, requesting a second continuance to the Cheng appeal hearing, under item 5A on tonight's agenda. I called the appellant's attorney's representative, Ms. Cowin, yesterday and explained to her that because this is a second request for continuance, it would be at the discretion of the City Council whether to grant or deny the request. If the request is denied, the public hearing will be held and a decision will be rendered. I also called the applicant's attorney, Mr. Albritton, to advise him of the request from the appellant. He informed me that his client (Cellular One) is not interested in continuing the appeal hearing and delay the project further. It is staffs recommendation to deny this continuance on the basis that this is a second request for continuance and the appellant's have been provided adequate time to settle this matter with the applicant if that was the intent; the applicant's have no desire to continue the hearing, delay the project and incur additional costs; and lastly, both the applicant and appellant and their representatives will be at the meeting tonight to present their cases. (Note: Staff is currently working on developing a written policy to address appeal continuances and develop a standardized method of responding to them, for your review and approval on January 25, 2000.) 4 ~~ ~ ~ O .,a n o o r~~`, ~~~`~~~ 13777 FRLTITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95(l; (~ • ~ ~(~ti ! ~;t~a-;~i~~+~° hicorporated October 22, 1r35G December 2, 1999 Kenneth Cheng 15288 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 cot~~~ci~ ~7r:~+_f~r~;~: ~.-, ..~n~~-rr,. a~ .~.,. .., ,. SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF YOUR APPEAL TO JANUARY 5, 2000 Dear Mr. Cheng: The City Council, at their meeting of December 1, 1999, approved to continue your appeal to the regular Council meeting of January 5, 2000, as requested by your attorney's office. Please be reminded that if you wish to submit any materials to the City Council for this meeting, you will need to submit them to me no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 29, 1999. Sincerely, usan A. Ramos, MC City Clerk Cc: Camilla Corvin, Ellis & Barrett Sandy Reyes, Cellular One Jim Heard, Mackenzie and Albritton Planning Department Printed on recycled paper O- tl . ~ ,~.Q,r,.~- ,co ~ nl >t arc/ ~ rr /~ 1 ~ 5 ~~~ ~ ~ G ~-~ o 13777 FRUITVALE A 'ORNIA 95070 (40S) HGh-1Z~i~}~ COi?NCIL b1ED1BEPS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evar, BaKe- November 1, 1999 stan 6ogos;an John Mehai;ey Nick Streit Kenneth Cheng Ann ~^/altonsmith 15288 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF UP 99-014, A UTILITY POLE IN THE STATE OWNED RIGHT OF WAY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRUITVALE AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 9 (APPLICANT: CELLULAR ONE) Dear Mr. Cheng: .This letter will confirm receipt of your appeal of Planning Commission approval of UP-99-014, a request for a Use Permit to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet located in the state owned right of way within an R-1-40,000 zoning district, along with your check in the amount of $250.00 covering the appeal fee, on October 28, 1999. According to Section 15-90-070 of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing within thirty days after the date on which the notice .of appeal is filed or at the next available regular meeting of the City Council which would be the reg=ular meeting of December 1, 1999 at 7:30 n.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic 'Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, to allow public hearing notification and notification to affected property owners, as required by law. If you wish~o request a continuance, you may do so without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $250.00. The deadline for submitting any additional materials for the Council agenda packet on your appeal is Tuesday, November 23, 1999. If you wish to submit maps, please provide ten 11 X 17 copies of each map to the City Clerk. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten (10) minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo", which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have technical questions about your project, please contact the Planning Department at 86$-1222. If you have questions about the process, you may contact me at 868-1269. Sincerely, ~~ZU~ an amo C City Clerk cc: Planning Department Printed on recycled paper. ~4 137 i i FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9~O r (1 • (-I08) 86~i-1'?I~U Htcorporated October 22, 1956 November 9, 1999 Camilla J. Corvin, Senior Legal Assistant Ellis & Barrett PO Box 391228 444 Castro Street, Ste. 123 Mountain View, CA 94039 COI'tiCIL MEDIBER~: Evan 6ake~ S:c^ ~OQ::SIa „'ohn Ivizha`,`ey l~'iCk Strer! Ann l'UaRa~smah SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL/UP 99-014, CHENG (Applicant: Cellular One) Dear Ms. Corvin: This will confirm acceptance of your request to continue the public hearing scheduled for December 1, 1999 to January 5, 2000 regarding the above-subject appeal. Please be reminded that if you wish to submit any materials to the City Council for this agenda item, you will need to submit them to me no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 29, 1999. Sincerely, an . Ramos~C C City Clerk cc: Kenneth Cheng Cellular One Case Planner D~1 l~ ~~~~ ~ e~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ Printed on recycled paper