HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. e:Q 6Sl
MEETING DATE: November 3, 1993
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: :74
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Heritage Resource Designation Ordinance - HP -19
Recommended Motion: Designate 14065 Saratoga Avenue; the Florence
Cunningham House, as a historic landmark by adopting Ordinance HP -19
(attached).
Report Summary: As a condition of Planning Commission Resolution SD -93-
004, the owner of 14065 Saratoga Avenue was required to apply for
Heritage Resource Designation. The applicant has willingly submitted the
appropriate documentation to the Heritage Preservation Commission for
their review and recommendation. At their regular September meeting, the
Heritage Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council
designate this structure as a Historic Landmark (minutes attached). The
Heritage Resource Designation application as well as a copy of the
appropriate page from the Heritage Resource Inventory book "Saratoga's
Heritage" are attached for reference.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Follow -up Action: Amend list of Designated Historic Landmarks
accordingly.
Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: 14065 Saratoga
Avenue will not be designated as a historic landmark.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance HP -19.
2. Heritage Commission Minutes dated 9/14/93.
3. Heritage Resource Designation Application.
4. Excerpt from "Saratoga's Heritage ".
Motion and Vote:
CITY OF SARATOGA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, September 14, 1993, 9 a.m.
PLACE: Warner Hutton House
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZ:TION
A. Roll Call
Present: Dutro, Koepernik, Peck, Peepari
Absent: Ansnes, Davis, Fine
Staff: Secretary White
B. Approval of Minutes of 8/10/93
The minutes were approved as submitted. M/S Peck / Peepari
C. Posting the'Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 546954.2, the agenda was posted at City
Hall on Friday, September 10.
D. Oral and Written Communications
Staff reported on the status of the Warner Hutton House
landscaping.
II,.--OLD BUSINESS j
1. Review of draft plans for Heritage Lane signs.
The Commission approved of the final design and directed staff to
obtain bids for construction and installation.
2. Response from City Manager regarding request from HPC.
The Commission was unanimous in not desiring to pursue this issue
with the City Manager.
III. NEW BUSINESS
1. HP -19 - Application for Heritage Resource Designation.
Fine, 14065 Saratoga Avenue (Florence Cunningham House).
The Commission unanimously moved to recommend to the City Council
that they adopt a resolution designating 14065 Saratoga Avenue as
a Heritage Resource.
RECEIVED
pUG 2.6 1993
t,LMNIN(; DEPT.
Date Received t�
Designation # -
HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION.
APPLICATION FORM
(No Fee)
PROPERTY ADDRESS 14065.Saratoga Avenue
NAME OF RESOURCE Florence Cunningham Residence
PROPERTY OWNER Larry & Jill Fine
OWNER ADDRESS 14075 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga California 95070 -5437
OWNER PHONE (408) W -7398
61
OWNER SIGNATURE
M
Jill,',-*. Fine
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION`
Briefly- describe the present-physical appearance:--of the site
or structure, including major vegetation-- features,
outbuildings /walls /fences, and any major alterations from the
original condition:
This is a simple one -story bungalow with a gently pitched
broad gable roof and lower gable covering the front porch.
The front porch features an arched entry, which is-duplicated
on a side entry :porch at the rear west side of the house. The
exterior is clad in stucco. with an aggregate finish of
polished pebble's. The windows are all wood sash. There are
tow large single -pane windows on the front with muntins
dividing the glass at the upper quarter of the window; the
wood front door is set off by sidelights using a similar
muntin treatment. There is a white picket fence in the. front
and to the west of the house. The interior includes natural
stained redwood trim and built in book cases. There is a full
basement.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE:
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION:
NAME OF ARCHITECT OR BUILDER:
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SIZE
FRONTAGE 74'
DEPTH 131`
ACREAGE
CONDITION OF STRUCTURE AND /OR SITE
Excellent
xx Good
Fair
deteriorated
Craftsman Bungalow
Estimated late 20's /early
30's
Ms. Florence Cunningham
IS STRUCTURE ALTERED OR UNALTERED?
IS STRUCTURE ON;ORIGINAL SITE OR HAS
PHOTOGRAPHS
Original site
UNALTERED
IT BEEN MOVED?
.-Please attach photographs showing all four elevations of the
structure or site. Indicate date taken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT
Prior to `submitting an application for heritage resource
designation, the following should be read carefully:
I, the applicant, understand that by applying for designation
of my property as a heritage resource, that such property will
be subject to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Saratoga
City Code. I' also agree that these provisions will be
complied with as well as any conditions upon which the
application is anted.
Signature
Date
Address 14075 Saratoga Ave.
Saratoga CA 95070 -5437
Phone (408) 867 -7398
PROPERTY SIGNIFICANCE
A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance
of the property, including dates, events and persons
associated with the property:
This residence, located on Saratoga's only designated Heritage
lane, was designed and constructed by Florence Cunningham, the
author of Saratoga's first hundred years, a history of the
Western Santa Clara Valley and Saratoga. The home has a
unique architectural ambiance that is a clear statement of the
1920's and 30's design. Ms. Cunningham's parents, Amanda &
Ebinizer, built the home next door in 1882. When Ms.
Cunningham's parents were unable to care.for themselves, Ms.
Cunningham cared for them in this house, and her brother
lived in the parents older home next door. Ms. Cunningham was
also one -of the founders of the Saratoga Historical Society
and upon her death in 1965 the contents of the house. were sold
at the Saratoga Historical Museum.
B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books,
documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates -
attach copies if available):
Having owned the subject property for over twenty years, my
wife and I have gained a lot of knowledge about the home.
Some of the items we have left out since we can not
substantiate the information. Information was also obtained
from the Historic Resources inventory list maintained by the
Saratoga Heritage Commission. This home is number 74 on this
list.
C 4;A"-Does__thks -site %strut_ re have a county, state -or _ national
landmark- designation? No.
N MIS
IN(�
14065 Saratoga Avenue
, . #A �.
,�az,
IT his house is an outstanding
example of the 1920's
California bungalow, still
retaining original details
designed by Florence
Cunningham. Daughter of a
pioneer Saratoga family, Miss
Cunningham was the author of
Saratoga's First Hundred
Years, a source for much of
what we know today about
Saratoga's early history.
SARATOpGA CITY COUNCIL f�
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. O AGENDA ITEM v
MEETING DATE: November 3, 1993 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Subject: Commercial Property Maintenance Ordinance
Recommended Action: Introduce the Ordinance by Title Only waving reading in full.
Background: This ordinance was first considered at your public hearing on February 17, 1993.
After considering the testimony and written communications Council referred the matter to the
Planning Commission for review. Subsequently an ad hoc committee of the Planning
Commissioners (Caldwell and Moran), the City Council (Burger and Monia), and Staff (Curtis
and Peacock), met on August 29th to review the draft ordinance and to make changes in response
to the issues raised at the February 17, 1993 hearing. Following that meeting a number of
changes to the ordinance were proposed and submitted to the City Attorney for redraft. Because
of the passage of time this matter was readvertised for hearing on November 3, 1993.
Discussion: Attached is the revised draft ordinance. Those changes to the original draft are
highlighted as follows:
New language is shown as shaded and deleted language is shown at being lined out.
There are several technical changes, but the substantive changes are:
- the establishment of a Purposes Section
the establishment of a general 30 day compliance period for
voluntary correction before a citation will be issued
the inclusion in several locations - provisions for "continuous,
offensive odor" as a violation of the ordinance
a 10 day limit on removal of graffiti
- establishment of an infraction option for violations in the penalties
section of the ordinance
Page 2 - Memorandum - Commercial Property Maintenance Ordinance - November 3, 1993
Fiscal Impact: Indirect but considered minimal. This ordinance may result in a nominal
increase in legal costs to require compliance if not voluntarily achieved. No CSO time increase
is anticipated since such problems are now investigated, but following action is beyond the scope
of the current law.
Next Steps: Adopt the ordinance on November 19,1993, to go into effect on December 19,
1993. Training of CSOs and Deputy Sheriff personnel on administration of the ordinance by the
Community Development Director.
Consequences of Not Acting: City will continue to experience difficulty in responding to
complaints about conditions at commercial property locations.
Attachment: Revised Draft Ordinance
o:cr.ord
ORDINANCE NO. 71 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING
ARTICLE 7 -45 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
RELATING TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Article 7 -45 is hereby added to the Code of the
City of Saratoga to read as follows:
"Article 7 -45
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
sections:
:. P g..s.e ..:. f ;:
.....
7:x45sfi >; >; >! > > » > > > >PUr "os..�s....o. .... 1
.. ..............................: <. <:::«<. >:. >:......
� >.................................... . :s pe
s.t e
..
o maa_ntaa n and preserve property vlue witha .;he
.......................... .:........................................................:........................................:... ................... ................................................ ................................
m.::':
.. ......................:........
.........................
7-45.0-146-4:0 'Definitions
For the purposes of this Article the following words and phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this
Section, unless the context of the provision clearly requires
otherwise.
(a) Building means any structure used or intended for
supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr 1
(b) Junk means any cast -off, damaged, discarded, junked,
obsolete, salvaged, scrapped, unusable, worn -out or wrecked
object, thing or material.
(c) Owner means any person owning property, as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll for City taxes or the lessee,
tenant or other person having control or possession of the
property.
(d) Person means any individual, partnership, corporation,
association or other organization, however formed.
....................... ma .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....: ..:....:......... ..... ..........................................................
Director means the 01D' en: a y: u
............. ...... ... ..
..................
'.
Cttri Y6P Planning and his/her designees.
.........................::
....................
(f) Property means all non - residential zoned real property,
and all real property upon which a non - residential use or
occupancy exists, including, but not limited to, the entire
premises, parking lots, sidewalks, gutter, driveways, walkways,
alley ways and shall include any building and structure located
on such property.
(g) Registered /Registration means a current, valid
California Registration for a vehicle conforming to California
Vehicle Code Sections 4000, or 9840 et seq. for boats.
(h) Street means the full width of the right of way of any
street, as defined in the California Vehicle Code used by the
general public, whether or not such street has been accepted as
and declared to be part of the City system of streets, including
streets forming a part of the State Highway System.
(i) Vehicle means a device by which any person or property
may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway, road or body of
water, and for the purposes of this Chapter shall include, but
not be limited to, automobiles, recreational vehicles, campers,
boats, motorcycles and mopeds.
7- 45.9;tI3;0 Unlawful property nuisance - private property
It shall be unlawful for any person owning, leasing, renting,
occupying or having charge or possession of private property in
the City to maintain or to allow to be maintained such property
in such manner that any of the following conditions which are
visible from the street or from neighboring properties are found
0
exist thereon f r od ':`f »re >ahari >3`d!a: >`s <af'e > >ra 'eri
to a:; >:;:x�er.3.. ....c...... V
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr 2
Gity Manager except as may be allowed by any other provision of
law, including provisions of this Code.
Unlawful Outdoor storage d a ri Y
(a) The accumulation of abandoned, discarded, or
dilapidated objects, including but not limited to junk;
abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles;
vehicle parts and equipment; machine parts, scrap
material, appliances, furniture, household equipment
and furnishings, shopping carts, containers, packing
materials, scrap metal, wood, plant cuttings, rubbish
and debris or similar matter which constitutes a threat
to the health or safety of any person or renders any
premises unsightly and detrimental to the general
public welfare.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as
prohibiting the orderly outdoor storage of business
related materials and inventory where permitted by
applicable zoning designation, rules or regulations.
(b) The accumulation of dirt, sand, gravel, concrete,
litter, debris or other similar material on the
property which is visible from the street, from
neighboring properties, or from areas of general
public /invitee access on the property.
(c) Attractive nuisances visible from a public street, or
neighboring properties, dangerous to those members of
the public unable to discover the nuisance condition,
or recognize its potential danger, including, but not
limited to abandoned, broken, neglected or unsupervised
vehicles, machinery, equipment, lights, light fixtures,
refrigerators and freezers, hazardeus pools, ponds and
excavations, as well as all other items and conditions
identified in Penal Code Section 402(c) and Health and
Safety Code § 24400.
(d) Materials or other items stacked in a manner as to be
visible from the street or from neighboring properties,
or from areas of general public /invitee access on the
property, 'above any fence. Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting the orderly outdoor
storage of business related materials and inventory
above fence height where permitted by applicable
s ,g
�;oning de on, rules
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr
(e) The placement of items of business inventory, refuse
containers, equipment, vehicles, or obstruction on the
street, sidewalk or parking areas developed or intended
for use by public invitees in general.
(f) Materials stored or stacked on property in a
°``` > "':' ::: manner view of
disorderl ; >;; >d`'pa'::en...:... ht].:. �n
the street, of neighboring properties or of areas of
general public /invitee access on the property, in
Zoning Districts where outdoor storage may be
permitted.
(g) Boats, trailers, recreation vehicles, vehicle parts or
other articles of personal property which are left in a
state of partial construction, dilapidation or
disrepair
determined by the Gity Manager in locations which are
visible from the street or neighboring properties; or
which are left parked or stored in violation of
applicableoning ;loon
......... ...............
o e u1 bobs .
(h) Packing boxes, pallets, lumber, junk, trash, salvage
materials, or other debris kept on the property €er-
Manager and visible from the street, from neighboring
properties, or from areas of general public /invitee
access on the property.
(i) The storage of firewood or other flammable materials in
excess of standards relating to the safe storage of
combustible materials as determined by the Fire Chief
and the Uniform Fire Code.
Landscaping /Vegetation
........... ...............................
(j) Dead, decayed, diseased`r cf3 ! ei or hazardous trees,
weeds or other vegetation constituting unsightly
appearance, a danger to public safety and welfare::; sr a
detriment to neighboring property or property values.
dr fam wrch..a.. cor�tlnous offensi�sre odor emanates. ..
I
(k) Overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats, vermin and
other nuisances, growing into the public right -of -way,
or obstructing the necessary view of drivers on public
streets or private driveways, and visible from the
street, from neighboring properties, or from areas of
general public /invitee access on the property.
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr 4
(1) Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in
any City zoning approval or permit applicable to the
premises.
Trash, Litter, Trimmings, Oil and Debris
(m) The accumulation of litter, debris, trimmings or trash
on any property, including sidewalks, gutter,
driveways, walkways, alleyways, parking lots or the
public right of way, which is generated on, or as a
consequence of the use or maintenance of the property;: *j
f. 'o w .......h...: :: a ....c ...:....:..........:...:.. ...::.:.:: -f f.e �: ..............�...... :: ::::.... ......::.........::.:.
.............. ...............................
.................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
(n) Pooled oil, water, or other liquid accumulation,
flowing onto the street, or excessive accumulations of
grease or oil on paved surfaces.
Trash Containers
(o) Trash, garbage or refuse cans, bins, boxes or other
(p) Any property without regular and adequate trash
collection service.
(q) Trash containers without secure, firmly fitting covers
or evidencing an overflow of trash and or other debris.
Buildings and Structures
(r) Buildings which are dilapidated, abandoned, boarded up,
partially destroyed, have broken windows or broken
windows secured with wood or other materials or which
are left in a state of partial construction for an
Manage-r--,- buildings subject to demolition pursuant to
applicable provisions of this Code or other authority,
for which demolition has not been diligently pursued,
and such buildings which are unpainted or where the
paint on the building exterior is significantly
cracking,'peeling, chalking or worn off.
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr 5
(s) Unsecured buildings constituting hazardous conditions
or inviting or permitting trespassers and malicious
mischief.
(t) Awnings, covers, canopies, umbrellas, screens, lights,
light fixtures or other window coverings or building
structures which are damaged, torn, severely faded,
rusted, bent, unpainted or in some other state of
tstnt11 disrepair.
........... ...............................
.......... ...............................
Fences and Gates
(u) Fences or other structures on private property
abutting, fronting upon, or visible from any public
street or neighboring properties, which are sagging,
leaning, fallen, decayed, extending into the public
right -of -way or other dilapidated or unsafe condition.
Graffiti
(v) Graffiti or other words, lettering or drawings not
otherwise permitted by the provisions of this Code,
which remain on the exterior of any building::,.
Parking Limitations
(w.) Vehicles, whether motorized or non - motorized, parked
within any required setback or on any surface which has
not previously been approved for parking purposes
pursuant to applicable Building Code and /or Zoning
Ordinance provisions.
Parking Strips
(x) Allowing an accumulation of junk, rubbish, debris, or
dead, decayed or overgrown vegetation in that area
between the property line and the street line of a
given parcel, commonly known as a .
......................... . _ _ .
Miscellaneous
(y) Any other condition or use of property which gives rise
to a reasonable determination by the City Manager, that
said condition or use represents some threat to the
health and welfare of the public by virtue of its
unsafe, dangerous or hazardous nature, or which is so
October 4, 1993
273 \ord \DraftCPO.msr 6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. eC 3 F0 AGENDA
MEETING DATE: November 3, 1993 CITY MGR. APPROV
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office
103Ogo
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Regulations with Respect to Basic
Cable Service and Setting Forth the Administration
Thereof j
Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution which adopts by reference
Federal Communications Commission regulations with respect to basic
cable television service in the City.
Report Summary: In order to receive franchising authority
certification from the FCC to regulate basic cable service rates,
the City must file a request with the FCC. Part of that filing is
a certification that the franchising authority (the City) will
adopt (within 120 days of certification) and administer regulations
with respect to basic cable service that are consistent with-the'
regulations adopted by the FCC. The City cannot regulate until it
has, 1) adopted these regulations, and 2) notified the cable
operator that it has, been certified and has adopted the required
regulations. Certification becomes effective 30 days after the
date stamped on the ,postal return receipt sent to the FCC by.the
City requesting certification unless notified otherwise by the FCC.
Fiscal Impacts: Indirect. Staff resources will bel needed to
review and recommend'on the appropriateness of rates requested to
determine their status under the regulations. j
Follow Up.Actions: Wait the required periods of tiie and then
notify the operator if certification has been granted.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Regulations
would be assumed by the FCC only if the City demonstratles the cost
of regulation exceeds its franchise fees. Otherwise �he FCC may
choose not to regulate.
Attachments: Resolution
FCC 328 (Certification Form)
0 K
t+vwa osralrte
Wd6ehna,o.G 24554
FCC 328 Eor FCC use only .
CERTIFICATION OF FRANCHISING AUTHORITY TO REGULATE BASIC CABLE SERVICE RATES
AND INITIAL FINDING OF LACK OF EFFECTIVE COMPETITION
Name of Franchising Authoritye/ dF S x
w 7276,4
Mailing Address 7779 /-- u
J f
E V
city S RA
C
95.70
Tetephr ne No. (include area code)j•
"�og
8'67 3,�Z✓
Person to contact with respect to this form;
2. a_ None (s) and address(es) of cable system(s) and assorted FCC community
unit identifiers within your jraisciiction. (Wach additional sheets If necessary.)
Cable System's Name J f`DUr� (• Y
Mailing Address
Z poSrorT' DutE� R
City
State
40,
ZIP Code
9 DSD
Cable System's FCC Community Unit Identifier.
Cable System's Name
Mailing Address
city
State
ZIP Code
Cahte System's FCC Community Unit Identifier.
2. b. Nine (s) of systems) and associated community unit identifiers) you
claim are subject to regulation and with respect to which you are filing this
certification_ (Attach additional sheets if necessary-
Name of System Community Unit
Identifier
ouT Y Z7464611KIPA/ O & O- .
Name of System Community Unit
Identifier
2. c. Have you served a copy of this form on all parties 19 Yes 0No
listed in 21.1
3. Will your franchising authority adopt
(within 120 days . of �fi�on) and Yes �No
administer regulations with respect to
basic cable service that are consistent
with the regulations adopted by the FCC
pursuant to 47 U.S.0 Section 543tb)?
4. With respect to the franchising authority's regulations referred
to in Question 3,
EYas []No
a. Does.your franchising authority have
the legal authority to adopt them?
b. Does your franchising authority have IRYes ONO
the personnel to administer them;
S. Do the procedural Laws-and regulations' Nye; ONO
applicable to rate regalalion proceedings.
by, your franchising authority provide a
reasonable opportunity for consideration
of the views of interested parties?
6. The Commission presumes that the, cable �res �No
system(?.) listed in 2b. is (are) not subject
to effective competition. Based on the
definition below, do you have reason to
believe that this presumption is correct?
(Effective competition means that (a) fewer than 30 percent of the
households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a
cable system; 0) the franchise area is (1) served by at least two
unaffiliated multichannel video programming distr-ibutors each of
which offers comparable video programming.to at least 50 percent
of the households in the franchise area; and Ga the number of
households subscribing to - programming : services . offered by
multichannel video programming distributors other than the largest
multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15. percent of
the households in the franchise area; or (c) a multichannel video
programming distributor operated by the franchising authority for
that franchise area offers video programming to at least 50 percent
of the households in that franchise area-)
Signature •VQ
Title / I 1%oywG n
K
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE
PUNLSHABLP BY FINE AND /OR IMPRLSONMENT (LI S. CODE '
TITLE 18, SECTION 1001).
Return the original and one copy of this certification form Cu
indicated in Instructions), along with any attachments, to:
Federal Communications C Knmisslon
Attn: Cable franchising Authority Certification
P.O. Box 18539
Washington, I). C. 20036
FCC 7=B
Aupu ASn
Federal Commuoicalions eanunosian
Wash6enn, P.C. 20554
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FCC 328
FRANCHISING AUTHORITY .CERTIFICATION
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act,
enacted in October 1992, changes the manner in which cable
television systems than are not subject to effective competition are
regulated. In general, rates for the basic service tier (the tier required
as a condition of access to all other video services and containing,
among other services, local broadcast station signals and public,
educational, and public access channels) and associated equipment
will bP subject to regulation by local or slate governments
( "franc' .icing authorities "). Rates for cable programming services and
associated equipment (all services except basic and pay channels) will
be subject to regulation by the FCC_ Rates for pay channels
(channels for which there is a specific per- channel or per -program
charge) are not regulated-
Only cable systems that are not subject to effective competition may
be regulated. Effective competition means that (a) fewer than 30
percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable
service of a cable system; (b) the franchise area is 6) served by at least
two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors each of
whirr offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of
the households in the franchise area; and 60 the number of
households subscribing to programming services offered by
multichannel video programming distributors other than the largest
multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of
the households in the franchise area; or (c) a multichannel video
programmin &distributor operated by the franchising authority for that
franchise area offers video programming to at least 50 percent of the
households in that franchise area.
3_ in order to regulate basic service tier rates, a franchising authority
must be wed by the FCC In order to be certified, a franchising
authority must complete this form. An original and one copy of the
completed form and all attachments must be returned to the FCC
by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the FCC at the
address on the farm.
4. - A copy of the form must be served on the cable operator by fast -class
mail on or before the date the fort is sent or delivered to the FCC.
5_ The franchising authority's certification will become effective 3030days
after the date stamped on the postal return receipt unless otherwise
notified by the Commission by that date_ The franchising authority
cannot begin to regulate rates, however, until it has actually adopted
the required regulations (see below) acid until it has notified the cable
operator that it has been certified and that it has adopted the required
regulations.
6. . to order to be certified, franchising authorities must answer "yes" to
Questions 3, 4, and 5, which are explained as follows:
Question 3: The franchising authority must adopt rate regulations
consistent with the Commission's regulations for basic cable service.
To fulfill this requirement for certification, the franchising authority
may simply adopt a regulation indicating that it will follow the
regulations established by the FCC
The franchising authority has 120 days to adopt these regulations
after the time it is certified. The franchising authority may not,
however, begin to regulate cable rates until after it has adopted these
regulations and until it has notified the cable operator that it has been
certified and has adopted the required regulations.
8. Question Allah The franchising authority's 'legal authority' to regulate
basic service must come from state law. In corn sttat,P,S, nnlV the
state 80- Imment wthetrutate cable rate 5 in those states, the state
government should file this certification. Provisions in franchise
agreements that prohibit rate regulation are yDU and do not prevent
a franchising authority from regulating the basic service tier and
associated equipmenL
Approved by OMB
7060 -0550
t3tplfes as/3L,96
Question 4(b): The franchising authority must have a sufficient
number bf personnel to undertake rate regulation.
...A franchise authority unable to answer'yes "• to questions 4(a) or 4(b)
may wiih to review th6 FCC's Rgontt and Order in Docket 92 -266.
FCC 93 -177 (released May 3, 1993) for further information on the
establishment of alternative federal regulatory procedures.
9. •.Qt;estidn'S: Franchising authorities must have procedural regulations
allowing for public participation in rate regulation proceedings. If a
franchising authority does not have these regulations already in place,
it must adopt them within 120 days. of oertification,and.before it may
undertake rate regulation_
lo_ Question 6: Most cable systems are = subject to effective .
competition, as defined by the table Act. (The definition is included
above and on the form) The franchising authority may presume that
the cable system in its jurisdiction is not subject to effective
competition.
For purposes of applying the definition of effective competition (see.
Item 2 above), ;multichannel video programmingdistributor5" include
a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a
dirw broadcast satellite service, a television receiveonly satellite
program distiibljto , a video dialtone service, and a satellite master
antenna television system A multichannel video programming
distributor's services will be deemed "offered'. when they are both
technically and actually available. Service is "technically available
when the multichannel distributor is physically able to deliver the
service to a household wishing to subscribe, with only minimal
additional investment by the distributor. A service is 'actually
available' if subscribers in the franchise area are reasonably aware
through marketing efforts that the service is available_ Subsaibetship
of those multichannel video programming distributors offering service
to at least 50 percent of the households in a franchise area will be
aggregated to determine • whether at least 15 percent of the
households in the franchise area are served by competitors. A
multichannel video programming distributor must offer at least 12
channels of programming, at least one channel of which is
nonbroadc st, to be found to offer "comparable ". video programming.
11. This certification form must be signed by a government official with
authority to ac on behalf of the franchising authority,
FCC NOTIM YO tNDIVIDUAL4 UOUIRID By THE PRIVACY ACT AND THE rMfYWORK
REDUCTION ACT
-the solicitation of personal information In this form is autttericed try the cnmmu ki Ltions Act of
1933, as amended. The Cacnrnission will rda the: Inforruion pnrMed in this form to doctminp
if the Yranchise authority should be authorised to fmiate cable rates in Fwehing dmm
deturniwion, or for taw enforcement purpa.es, it may become necessary to refer oesoeal
Werauion caniaincd in this form io anorhelgevemmeat agency, All information provided in this
form will be arulable for public inspection. Your response is required to obtain the requested
authority.
public repoAing burden for this eelleeliaA of infari wion is ts6nuted to average 30 o%Lwka,
including the time for reviewing inatuaions, searching ecbtins data nouam, guhering and
maintaining dre•data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of Information. Send
comments regarding this burden esairrWt or any Other aspea of this collection of mfammdon,
indudngsugiiV ions for reducing the burden, to the Federal Communication Commission, Records
management Division, AmaPIRS, vAh:hington, D. G 20554, and to the Office of Managenernt
and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (30604370),.washtngton, D. C. 20503.
THE FOtr{GO1NC NOTICE IS MUatsen 6Y THE PRIVACY ACT OF 19Y4, P.L 93 -579.
DECEMBER 31, 1197S. S 115.0 52224(tXR AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1960, .
F-L 96511, DECEMBER 11. 1980, 44 U.S;C. 3507.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 8 ?=- AGENDA ITEM: SA
MEETING DATE: November 3, 1993
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT:
Appeal of design review approval to install two cellular
transmission arrays, consisting of 18 individual antennas, on the
roof of an existing structure in the Commercial Historical (CH)
zone district at 14471 Big Basin Way. (Applicant, GTE
Mobilnet /Cellular One; Appellant, V. Amezcua)(DR -93 -029).
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision.
Report Summarv:
At the September 22 regular meeting the above referenced item was
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In making its
decision, the Commission considered the Staff Report (attached),
supporting documentation, correspondence and public testimony.
Cellular transmission antennas are permitted by right in the CH zoning
district. The application was referred to the Planning Commission at the
discretion of the Planning Director, who determined that, pursuant to
Chapter 15 -46 of the City Code, the proposal constituted a significant
modification of an existing commercial building and, therefore, required
Design Review approval.
In the report presented to the Commission, staff evaluated the proposal
in terms of code compliance, visibility and general aesthetics. In
addition, staff completed an initial study as mandated by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for discretionary projects. With the
support of a technical report provided by the applicant (attached) ,
staff concluded that no potentially significant environmental impacts,
including proximate electromagnetic fields, were resultant from this
project. Staff prepared a negative declaration for this project which
was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 22.
As indicated in the attached minutes, the appellant, Mr. Amezcua,
addressed the Commission to support his previously submitted letter
(attached) regarding this application.
Attenuation of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR):
In his letter and testimony, Mr. Amezcua indicates general support for
the proposal but expresses the desire for a screening element,
specifically a trellis to cover the patio area, to be installed to
reduce alleged radio frequency radiation (RFR) impacts to customers of
his coffee roasting establishment. Mr. Amezcua claims that such a
screening device will reduce the radiation level by 90 per cent. A
supplemental letter dated 10/26/93 (attached) from Peter Polson Phd.,
the author of the original technical report (attached), disputes this
claim. Mr. Polson found that the projected RFR level for the patio area
is 110.005% or less of values (of RFR) demonstrated to be potentially
hazardous to human safety" and concludes that "it is difficult to
conceive of how some structure at the subject property, as requested by
Mr. Amezcua, will further physically protect his clients."
The Commission considered Mr. Amezcua's concerns but ultimately
concurred with the staff that no potential significant environmental
impacts were presented by the antennas, and, therefore no screening of
this type was needed. The Commission approved the project as submitted.
Mr. Amezcua has now appealed this decision and requests that the City
Council require the aforementioned screening device to be built.
Public Notice:
In his letter of appeal to the City Council dated October 6 (attached),
Mr. Amezcua also contends that insufficient notices were sent to
advertise the Planning Commission hearing on this matter. As with all
Planning Commission public hearings, the standard noticing procedure was
followed for this application. This consists of a notice mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet of the project area (a total of 95
property owners), a notice published in the Saratoga News and a notice
posted at City Hall. In addition, prior to the Planning Commission
hearing, the applicants mailed an informational letter to all of the
Village Merchants Association members.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Follow -up Actions:
Acting on the recommended motion will allow GTE /Cellular One to apply
for the necessary building permits to install and operate the proposed
cellular transmission facility.
Consequences of not:Acting on the Recommended Motion:
If the appeal is approved, the item could be referred back to the
Planning Commission for their review of appropriate screening devices or
the Council may approve the appellant's proposed screening outright by
adding a condition to the Planning Commission Resolution requiring such
a trellis to be built subject to staff review and approval. If the
Council pursues this course of action, staff believes a precedent might
be set that would prompt other property owners in the Village area to
request similar screening devices.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report to'the Planning Commission dated 9/22/93.
2. Technical Report written by Peter Polson, Phd. dated 8/19/93.
3. Letters from Victor Amezcua dated 9/15/93 and 10/6/93.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/22/93.
5. Letter from Peter Polson Phd. dated 10/26/93.
6. Letter from GTE Mobilnet dated 10/28/93
Motion and Vote:
i
. Q
�o
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 =3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
A
- nn Marie Burger,
Willem Kohler...
Victor Monia
MEMORANDUM_ : Karen Tucker
DATE: September 22, 1993.,
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: DR- 93- 029, - GTE Mobilnet /Cellular One
14471 Big Basin Way
Background:
In February of 1991 the City Council amended Chapter 15 of the City
Code to allow cellular transmission facilities as a permitted use
.in the Commercial and Professional zoning districts. This amendment
established minimum. setback requirements and a maximum height
limit of 40 feet.
Consistent with this Council action, GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One
are acting as co- applicants in requesting approval to install a
cellular transmission facility in the Village area of.Saratoga.
GTE /Cellular One approached City staff in early summer with a
proposal to establish two cellular antenna arrays or "cell sites"
on the roof on one commercial building. These "cell sites ",
totalling 18 antennas, would typically be served by two individual
monopoles. GTE/ Cellular One felt that this arrangement would
minimize the impact of the antennas while meeting the technical
needs and customer demands of their cellular transmission network.
Since cellular antennas are a permitted use in the Commercial
District, staff was limited to assessing the visual and aesthetic
impact that such a facility would have on the immediate area. To
create an accurate representation of this array, the applicants
were requested to erect "dummy' antennas in.the exact location of
the intended units.
A set of non - functioning antennas was installed in July of this
year. After several site inspections, the Community Development
Printed on recycled paper.
Director determined the antennas to be a significant modification
to the existing building and required GTE /Cellular One to make an
application for design review per Chapter 15 -46 of the City Code.
Design Review Discussion:
The applicants propose to locate 18 cellular transmission antennas
on the roof of the Caribbean Cafe Restaurant as indicated on the
plans, Exhibit "A ". Each antenna will be painted forest green and
will reach a maximum of five feet above the existing building roof
line. Accessory equipment will be housed in the existing storeroom
which is located on the ground floor of the structure.
The proposal complies with all of the applicable zoning regulations
pertaining to cellular transmission facilities, including setback
and height standards.
The "cell site" is a minimum of 128 feet from Big Basin Way and
each antenna will be a minimum of 40 feet above the parking
district surface. The subject parcel is bounded on the north by
Saratoga Creek, on the south by Big Basin Way and on the west and
east by the parking district.
The antenna array will be visible from various locations in the
Village, including parking district number 3, the main entrance of
the Saratoga Inn and several public and private vantage points
along Oak Street.
The antennas, while visible, appear as appurtenances to the
building, similar to other radio and television antennas located on
adjacent rooftops. As such, these appurtenances are part of the
general aesthetic fabric of the Village and, as a result, become
visually indistinct.
Given the proposed color of the units and the distance from Big
Basin Way, staff feels that the antennas will be reasonably
unobtrusive and are visually and aesthetically preferable to
monopoles performing the same function.
The concept of screening was explored by staff and the applicants.
This option was rejected because the screen, which would
circumscribe the roof perimeter, was considered to be less
desirable than the unscreened individual antennas.
Unlike the Residential Deign Review Ordinance (Chapter 15 -45) which
requires specific findings to approve or deny a project, the
Commercial Design Review section (chapter 15 -46) of the City Code
only establishes general criteria to be used in reviewing a
commercial proposal. This criteria was developed to assist in the
review of new commercial buildings and does not address the type of
project that is under consideration. As an alternative, staff has
prepared a resolution (attached) containing findings relating
specifically to this project.
Environmental Documentation:
Staff evaluated this project in accordance with the guidelines of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I Section
15300.2(c) states that a categorical exemption from CEQA cannot be
used "where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity
will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances ". Staff applied this section to this project, citing
the "unusual circumstances" as being the location of the proposed
cellular antenna array on an existing building in a relatively
dense, pedestrian oriented, commercial environment.
Pursuant to this finding, staff completed an Initial Study. An
Initial Study is a vehicle by which a project is assessed to
identify any potentially significant effects on the environment..
This study is- conducted by using available data and documentation
that relates to the project.
The Initial Study for this project was completed with the support
of a technical report provided by the applicants in the form of a
study dated 8/19/93 written by'Peter Polson, PH.D. This report
(attached) provides an in depth analysis of the site, the intended
use, maximum power densities and the potential for related public
health hazards. This document concludes that by using a worst case
cellular power density model, "there is no hazard to people from
the radio frequency radiation that will be emitted from this site
under even its maximum designed operating conditions ". Since no
potentially significant environmental impacts were identified
relating to the proposal, staff has prepared a draft Negative
Declaration (attached).
Summary:
This project was referred to the Planning Commission at the
discretion of the Community Development Director. Because cellular
transmission facilities are a permitted use in the Commercial
district, staff's evaluation is limited to the relative visual and
aesthetic impacts !of the proposal. Staff believes that the
applicant has made a reasonable effort to effectively minimize the
impact of the antennas on the surrounding area. An initial study
has identified no potentially significant effects on the
environment relating to this project and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
Recommendation:
Approve the request for design review by adopting Resolution DR -93-
029.
File No.DR -93 -029
RESOLUTION NO. DR -93 -029
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GTE Mobilnet /Cellular One
14471 Big Basin Way
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for design review approval to install a cellu'Ar
transmission facility atop an existing commercial building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time -all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
1. That the project is visually and aesthetically acceptable in
that the adequate setbacks from surrounding uses, the distance from
the pedestrian environment along Big Basin Way, and the color,
size, number and height of the proposed antennas combine to
minimize visual and aesthetic impacts.
2. That the project has been reviewed according to the guidelines
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify any
potential significant environmental impacts and that pursuant to
CEQA sec. 15300.2(c)- the has City prepared an Initial Study which
identified no potential significant environmental impact relating
to this project.
3. The project has undergone careful public review which has
identified no public health, safety or welfare hazards related to
this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of GTE Mobilnet /Cellu-
lar One for design review approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for building permit, three sets of complete
construction plans incorporating this resolution as a separate
page, shall be submitted to Community Development Department staff
in order to issue a zone clearance.
Respectfully Submitted,
George Wh' e
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Resolution DR -93 -029
2. Technical Report Written by Peter Polson PH.D dated 8/19/93
3. Correspondence
4. Negative Declaration
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
gte
File No.DR -93 -029
3. The maximum height above existing grade of any individual
antenna shall not exceed 40 feet.
4. Colors shall be as proposed and subject to final approval by the
Community Development Director.
5. It is the responsibility of the applicant to advise the City of
any technological advancements that may occur in the future -that
alleviates the need for, reduces the size, number and intensity or
that allows the replacement of these antennas. The Community
Development Director may, upon written notice to the applicants,
request an evaluation -of current available technology that is
compatible to the approved cell site. Pursuant to the advent of
this new applicable technology, the Community Development Director
may refer this item to the Planning Commission for review,
discussion and utilization of said technology.
6. 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 appli-
cant's project.
7. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to
estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation,
liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City
per each day of the violation.
Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section S. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution
to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the
Building Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. 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 .Commis-
sion, State of California, this 22nd day of September, 1993 by the
following roll call vote:
File No.DR -93 -029
AYES:, Commissioners Moran, Caldwell, Asfour, Jacobs, Murakami & Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: 0
Chairperson, Planning Commisfsion
ATTEST:
Secrethry, Plann g Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
Signature of Applicant Date
PETER POLSOH, PH.D.
Consultant
** Microwave Biological Effects ** Biomedical Engineering **
* *Instrumentation Development ** Signal Processing **
18985 Tuggle Avenue, -Cupertino, CA 95014 -3658 Ph. i Fax: (408) 257 -3376
August 19, 1993
Ms. Megan Mattheva
Matthews Land Company
(GTE Mobilnet representative)
74 River Street, Suite 206
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Mr. Michael Mangiantini
Mangiantini Real Estate Services
(Cellular One representative)
1999 South Bascom Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Matthews and Mr. Mangiantini:
Re: Proposed Saratoga co- location Cell Site Saratoga, California:
I am pleased to provide you with this letter report assessing the potential
for health effects from the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) that will be
emitted from the proposed cell site installation at 14471 Big Basin Way,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
SUMMARY
I have visited the site and obtained pertinent information about the
engineering design through GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One. From.the
engineering details, I have calculated "worst - case" RFR power densities in the
vicinity of the site and on properties nearby. The calculated power
densities are all low, less than approximately 30 microwatts (millionths of a
watt) per square centimeter. The most stringent exposure standard in the US
(based on a whole -body SAR limit of 0.08 W /kg) allows exposures of
approximately 540 microwatts per sq cm. Thus, the maximum worst -case
calculated values are approximately 68 of the allowed values. In practice,
experience shows that actual values will be about one -tenth of worst -case
values. It is my opinion that there is no hazard to people from the
radiofrequency radiation that will be emitted from this site under even its
maximum designed operating conditions..
1
1. CELLULAR SYSTEMS
Cellular telephone .sites are specifically designed to be relatively low -
powered. Their transmitted signals become too weak to be useful for
communications purposes outside the designed cell dimensions. The
communication role for a specific mobile -phone call moving out of the cell is
passed off to the adjacent cell. This enables reuse of cellular telephone
channel frequencies in nonadjacent cells. Each cell size varies with its
geographical location. It may be as small as a half -mile radius in a big city
with high- density cellular -phone usage to perhaps a fifteen -mile radius in
open country. Each cell site is therefore designed with specific operational
characteristics and capacities that depend on its location geographically, the
local cellular phone usage requirements, and the cell's function within the
overall cellular system.
The GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One cellular radio engineers for this particular
site have independently carried out the engineering designs for this site
based on numerous design requirements. The analysis below is based on design
information provided by them.
2. CALCULATED LEVELS OF RFR.
CELLULAR RFR
To assess the potential hazard, one first needs to know the levels of RFR that
will exist in the vicinity of this specific site as the result of operation of
the facility. These levels can be calculated from knowledge of the
engineering design details. GTE Mobilnet proposes to install nine antennas,
functionally arranged in three triplets. One antenna of each triplet will be
a transmitter and two antennas will be duplexed as receivers for spatial
diversity. one triplet will service a 120 - degree sector centered on 40
degrees True North (TN) (Sector 1). Another triplet will service a similar
sector at 160 degrees TN (Sector 2). The third triplet will service a sector
at 280 degrees TN (Sector 3).
Cellular One proposes likewise to install nine antennas, also functionally
arranged in three triplets. One antenna of each triplet will be a transmitter
and two antennas will be duplexed as receivers for spatial diversity. one
triplet will service a 120 - degree sector centered on 20 degrees True North
(TN) (Sector 4). Another triplet will service a similar sector at 140 degrees
TN (Sector 5). The third triplet will service a sector at 260 degrees TN
(Sector 6). The antenna sectors for both GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One are
shown in Fig. 3, above the Caribbean Cafe at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga.
All antennas will be identical and of a type and model commercially available
and well- characterized in terms of radiated -field properties (Swedcom. Corp.,
Model CTY 10510 -N). The horizontal and vertical radiation patterns are shown
in Figures 1 and 2. This antenna operates over the cellular telephony band
(approx. 800 -900 MHz). It has a horizontal 3 -dB beamwidth of 105 degrees, a
vertical 3 -dB beamwidth of 26 degrees, a gain of 10 dB re -a dipole, and a
front -to -back ratio of greater than 25 dB. .
2
The GTE Mobilnet system is planned to have a capacity of 30 channels, ten per
sector, at an effective radiated power (ERP) of 100 watts per channel. The
Cellular One .system is planned to have a capacity of 24 channels, eight per
sector, at an effective - radiated power (ERP) of 50 watts per channel.
All calculations of power densities are based on standard formulas for
calculation of free - space, far -field power densities from any antenna of known
radiation pattern_ To these formulas I have added a correction factor that
assumes 408 ground reflectivity of the E- field, as recommended by the Federal
Communications Commission' (FCC).
In the present case, I assume that all 54 channels are operating. This will
rarely be the case.' To do so, both systems would be operating at maximum
capacity. continuously, and therefore this represents a "worst -case" situation
that will rarely, if ever, occur. In fact, actual measurements around
existing cellular base stations indicate that actual exposures are between
one -tenth and one - hundredth of the calculated "worst- case ". values.
Calculated power density levels are given in units that are commonly used in
experiments on the biological effects of RFR and microwaves. The units are in
millionths of a watt per square centimeter of incident surface area,
abbreviated as microwatts per sq cm. A watt is a unit of power. It may be
helpful to give an idea of relative magnitudes of these units as they relate
to other items that most people are familiar with. Light bulbs are rated in
terms of power usage, e.g., 100 watts (or 100,000,000 microwatts). At a
distance of 6 ft from a 100 -watt light bulb, if half of the power consumed is
radiated as visible light, the power density of this radiated electromagnetic
energy is approximately 100 microwatts per sq cm. Also, sunlight (another
form of electromagnetic radiation), may reach power densities greater than
50,000 microwatts per sq cm on a sunny summer day.
Calculated maximum ( "worst- case ") power densities at various locations around
the site are as follows:
Location (see Fig. 6 for actual location)
1 (at coffee tables outside International Coffee
Exchange)
2 (on ramp outside International Coffee Exchange)
3 (all locations inside Caribbean Cafe)
4 (upper loft of Brenner Financial Services)
5 (main floor level of Brenner Financial Services)
6 (upper loft of.Posh Paws)
7 (main floor level'of Posh Paws)
8 (inside International Coffee Exchange)
9 (on the outside, upstairs rear deck of La Mere
1
microwatte /sg cm
12.7
7.2
2.5
1.8
0.42
0.60
0.59
0.01
9.2
Cleveland, R. F., Jr., "Evaluating Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation," OST Bulletin No. 65, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, October 1985. (NTIS PB86-
127081)
3
Michelle restaurant)
10 (at the front of La Mere Michelle restaurant)
11 (at the outside of The Echo Shop, nearest the
.Caribbean Cafe)
12 (inside The Echo Shop)
f3 (outside the Melton residence)
14 (inside the Melton residence, upstairs)
15 (inside The Inn, nearest the Caribbean Cafe)
16 (outside, location A in parking lf.,t -to south)
17 (outside, location B in parking lot to south)
18 (outside, location C in parking lot to south)
19 (outside, location D in parking lot to north)
20 (outside, location E in parking lot to north)
21 (outside, location F in parking lot to north)
0.01.
30.4 (maximum)
4.8
13.7
1.2
1.9
13.2
11.9
8.7
1.3
2.2
2.9
For levels measured inside buildings, there is an attenuation of between 6 and
8 dB for RFR passing through the roof and each wall. This attenuation has
been factored into the calculations in the above table.
3. ASSESSMENT
A considerable amount is known about the biological effects of RFR and
microwaves. There has been an active, coordinated research program for more
than 30 years in the USA and abroad. The list of published citations numbers
approximately 12,000' and the number increases by several hundreds every year.
The Bioelectromagnetics Society was founded more than 12 years ago to further
research in this area and to provide a focal point for publication and
communication of research results. These research efforts provide the basis
for the setting of scientifically based standards for human exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Three specific standards- setting organizations responsible for promulgation of
guidelines contained in such standards are:
a) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers .(IEEE).Standard
C95.1 -1991. (The functions and responsibilities of the former American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1 Committee were subsumed by the IEEE
Standards Coordinating Committee 28 (IEEE SCC 28) in 1988.)
b) The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP)
c) The American Council of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
The IEEE C95.1 and NCRP guidelines are two - tiered, providing one set of
guidelines for occupational exposures and another more stringent set for
general public exposures. The IEEE guidelines recommend general public
exposures not exceed 533 microwatts per sq cm at 800 MHz and 600 microwatts
per sq cm at 900 MHz. The NCRP guidelines recommend general public exposures
not exceed 540 microwatts per sq cm at 800 MHz and 640 microwatts per sq cm at
900 MHz. (The small difference between these values arises in the manner in
which the guidelines are defined in terms of slightly different straight -line
mathematical formulas over the frequency range of interest.)
2
Information Ventures, Inc, "EMF Database," Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993).
4
The ACGIH guidelines, 2,600 microwatts per sq cm at approximately 800 MHz
rising to 3,200 microwatts per sq cm at approximately 900 MHz, are for
occupational exposure, and are applicable to workers with access to the roof.
In 1991, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California issued an
Order Instituting Investigation (011 No. I.91 -01 -012), on the Commission's own
motion to develop policies and procedures for addressing the potential health
effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities. As a regulated
utility, cellular carriers were included in this 011. A copy of the Comments
of the Cellular Carriers Association (CCA) of California and the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in ,response to the 011 is
referenced herein because of the volums.of pertinent information it provides
with respect to general matters of cellular telephony and particularly with
respect to specific scientific research references and standards that have
been set by appropriate deliberative bodies in the USA over the past 20 or so
years.
The specific points to be highlighted from the above CCA /CTIA report are as
follows:
1. In recognition of the low power densities associated with cellular
communications, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has categorically
excluded cellular facilities from routine evaluation pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) of potential adverse effects on the
environment stemming from RFR transmissions. (FCC General Docket No. 79 -144,
"Report and Order," 100 FCC 2d 543, at 563 (1985).)
2. Calculations of worst -case possible exposure situations for this site,
above, are in agreement with the FCC conclusions. In particular, the maximum
RFR power density ,level to which people could be exposed is less than
approximately 30 microwatts per sq cm. Levels inside buildings are estimated
to be between 0.01 and 4.8 microwatts per sq cm.
3. There have been scientific studies published over the past 15 or .so years
that have claimed that certain effects may be caused by electromagnetic fields
amplitude- modulated at specific frequencies, so- called "window" effects. Such
effects have not been found for the type of modulation used by cellular
systems, which use frequency modulation, and in any event, there is
considerable debate in the scientific community as to whether such effects
actually exist at all, or are caused by artifacts in the experiment. Because
of the difference in modulation and the low levels of the fields from cellular
sites, there is no evidence for the existence of such effects here.
4. Based on a critical review of published epidemiologic studies involving
many tens of thousands of human subjects who may have been chronically exposed
to low -level RFR or microwaves, there is no convincing scientific evidence
that such exposures have been harmful to the health of persons so exposed.
.(It should be pointed out that this is in strong contrast with current claims
concerning exposure to powerline frequency electromagnetic fields that have
much different properties with respect to mechanisms of-interaction of such
5
fields with humans. These claims for powerline effects are also subject to
vigorous scientific debate.)
There was considerable attention in the popular media and on television early
in 1993 .about a Florida lawsuit claiming that use of handheld cellular
telephones had resulted in brain cancer in several individuals. As indicated
above, critical review of the scientific literature indicates that there is no
convincing scientific evidence for such a cause- and - effect relationship.
There are an estimated 10 million or more users of cellular phones in the
U.S.A. Brain cancer rates in the U.S.A. have been fairly constant or have
increased only slightly over the past several decades'. By using these rates,
it can be calculated that each year about 300 -400 new cases of brain cancer
would be expected to occur randomly among these 10 milion users of cellular
phones, without any cause - and - effect mechanism operating. It was also claimed
that relatively little research has been carried out specifically at cellular -
telephone frequencies (800 -900 MHz). While this is correct, a great deal of
research has been conducted at 915 MHz, the commercial and industrial
microwave -oven frequency, and the frequency commonly used for medical
diathermy treatments. Millions of people have received high -power treatments
with diathermy over the past 30 years with no scientific evidence that it has
in any way been detrimental to their health. In fact, the opposite has been
true. Clinical evidence is that such treatments are beneficial. To answer
the criticism of insufficient research, new research studies are planned or
under way for the cellular frequency band. Finally, even if it is argued that
some presently - unknown mechanism might be discovered to be acting to cause
cancer from hand -held cellular phones, the power density at the user's head
from such hand -held phones is thousands or tens of thousands of times higher
than the power densities to which people will be exposed from this cellular
base- station site. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any
quantitative hazard from operation of this site regardless of present media
controversy.
4. OPINION
Based on the. foregoing, it is my opinion that the cellular RFR that will be
emitted from the joint co- location site at 14471 Big Basin Way, Saratoga,
California, as designed and presented to me in the.information above, will not
constitute a hazard to human health.
This opinion is based on the calculation of RFR power densities in the general
vicinity of the site, under the maximum possible designed power transmission
situation, and takes, into consideration the recommendations of standards-
setting organizations in the U.S.A. and the form of modulation of the
transmissions. In my opinion, emissions from this site are safe and will not
pose a threat to the health of anyone in the vicinity.
Peter Polson, Ph.D.
3
American Cancer Society, "Cancer Facts and Figures -- 1993," (1993).
6
e�=1, t1�DVCR�
I
(I
dlloh� `
• FRI
� ,II � • � /' , III
�IIBI
II_ .
�.� ►��. cxu.uu��
N491ETN PkSY rL-PVATIvN
GO
s
HOP-TH WEST eLZVaTI0H
4/w14l'•vu
I y �our++�asr ���va�flaN
A.Z 1 /IL's -1i3On
�
/
| \
�
^
z�
|�
— .
'
|/
�
o' ..............
'
--~--- 8--
|
/
�
U !
i
� ^
~ J-
�F w
LA
t n
� | |
� | -
|
� .
O'. \d< ---^�
-w U
U U U
o A-t
-
/ | |
' / |
| '
/ | �
. | |
| '�|
| !
|
v /
|
' A '
| ' /
11\11 -13
| ^ /
LA
| � /
�d
| ` '
|
|
| | �
| ' |
' |
| |
| '
/
PETER POLSOH, PH.D.
18985 Tuggle Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ph. and Fax (408) 257 -3376
Date and Place of Birth: November 13, 1941, Adelaide, Australia.
(U.S. Citizenship, 1979)
-Education:
School Dates Degree Date Degree
University of Adelaide 1959 -64 B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) .1965
(South Australia). 1965 -71 B.Sc.(Physiol.) 1972
1965 -71 Ph.D.(Brain Rvch.) 1972
McMaster University 1972 Post Doc.
(Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
Specialized Professional Competence:
Biological effects of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. (Since 1973)
Biomedical engineering-- broad.expertise between engineering and various-life
sciences disciplines. (Since 1962)
Instrumentation conception and development. (Since 1962) (PC- and
microprocessor- based; analog, digital and video; hardware and software.)
Contract R &D /project management /proposal writing /R &D funding /small business
startup. (Since 1973)
Professional Employment:
Dates
1982 - present: Independent Consultant, Cupertino, California.
Clients include SRI International, Lockheed Space Station Division,
GTE /SPRINT, GTE Mobilnet, Satellite Business Systems, URS Corporation,
Food and AgroSystems, Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Chattanooga
Group, Inca
Accomplishments:
A comprehensive review and critique of approximately 600 scientific papers
from the literature on bioeffects of radiofrequency radiation (L. Heynick,
p.i.) for U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine; bioeffects sections
of Environmental Impact Statements for four PAVE PAWS radar systems, four
OTH -B radar systems, the Ground Wave Emergency Network and the Vertical
wind Profiler; expert speaker at various local and county public hearings.
Color -video rat- tracker construction and installation for the National
Institute of Mental Health; advanced exercise equipment for zero- gravity
bone and muscle deconditioning; acoustic - digital - signal - processing glass
and metal sorter prototype for food industry.
1986 - 1988: TherEx, Inc., Woodside, California.
Co- founder and Vice President.
Development of computer -based system for quantitative measurement of human
postural stability. Responsible for all engineering/
hardware /software /technology aspects of this small business startup.
1980 - 1982: NASA - -Ames Research Center, Biosystems Division
Moffett Field, California.
Assignments: Experiment Manager, SpaceLab Nonhuman Life Science
Experiments. Technical Support, Cardiovascular Research Laboratory.
Management Support, Soviet Cosmos Biosatellite Project. Technical.
1
Support, Vestibular Research Facility Project. Science and Applications
Space Platform (SASP) Life Sciences Study Team Member.
1973 - 1980: SRI International, Menlo Park, California.
Assignments: Senior Biomedical Engineer, Toxicology Laboratory (1978-
1980). Senior Biomedical Engineer, Environmental Physiology Program
(1975- 1978). Research Engineer, Electromagnetic Techniques Laboratory
(1973- 1975).
Representative research responsibilities: Development, promotion, conduct,
.and supervision of program of research on biological effects of .
nonionizing radiation. Project Leader, Principal Investigator, or Project
Supervisor on 15 contracts and grants on biological effects of
electromagnetic and ultrasound radiation.
1972 - 1973: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Postdoctoral
Fellow, Electrical Engineering Department. Bioengineering research on
application of electromyographic signals for control and communications
purposes for cerebral palsy patients.
1971 - -1972: .South Australian Institute of Technology, Adelaide, Australia.
Lecturer (U.S. equiv. assistant professor) in digital communications,
School of Electronic Engineerinc.
1965 - 1971: University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. Postgraduate
research student, Departments of Electrical Engineering, and of Human
Physiology and Pharmacology. Studies on the olfactory system of rabbits,
rats, guinea pigs and cats. Computer modelling of Hodgkin- Huxley
equations. Stereotaxic hardware design and construction.
Professional Society Membership /Committees :
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Member, Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR), 1973 -1986.
Member, Committee on Energy, 1978 -1980.
Member, Technical Program Committee and Session Chairman,
1975 International Microwave Symposium.
Session Chairman, URSI Bioeffects Symposium, Seattle, Washington,
1977.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Committee C95.4
"Nonionizing Radiation Peak -Power Hazards," 1978 -1986.
Bioelectromagnetics Society:
Member, Technical Program Committees, 1983 -4 BEMS Symposia.
New York Academy of Sciences.
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
American College of Sports Medicine.
American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
International Neural Network Society.
Marine Technology Society.
Associate Member: Society of Naval Architects and
Engineers; Acoustical Society of America.
Former member: Aerospace Medical Society; American
and Astronautics.
Special Activities:
Consultant, JASON Summer Study Program,
Research and Engineering), 1978.
Expert Witness for the Defendants, Cape
Marine
Institute of Aeronautics
(Deputy Director of Defense
Cod Environmental
coalition, et al., versus John C. Stetson, Secretary of the Air
Force, et al., U.S. District Court, Massachusetts Civil Action,
78- 533 -T, 1979.
Technical and Management Contract Support Services, White House
Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council ( ERMAC),
1975 -78.
Organizer, ERMAC Seminar, "Effects of RFR on the Immune System,"
Washington, D.C., 1976.
Scientific Publications:
1. "An Analysis of the Electrical Activity of the Mammalian
Olfactory System," Ph.D. Thesis, 600 pp., University of
Adelaide (1971).
2. "Microwave Interaction with Matter (U)," P. Polson and L.
Heynick, Classified paper, Electromagnetic Compatibility
Analysis Center Symposium, Annapolis, Maryland (1976).
3. "A Microwave Exposure System for Primates," L. Heynick, P.
Polson, and A. Karp, Radio Science, Vol. 12, No. 6S, pp. 103
-110 (1977).
4. "Biological and Behavioral Effects of Pre- and Postnatal
Exposure to 2450 -MHz Electromagnetic Radiation in the
Squirrel Monkey," J. Kaplan, P. Polson, C-. Rebert, K. Lunan,
and M. Gage, Radio Science, Vol. 17, No. 5S, pp. 135 -144
(1982).
5. "Cancer'Mortality and Air Force Bases: A Reevaluation,"
P. Polson and J. H. Merritt, J. Bioelectricity, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp.121 -127 (1985).
Contract Reports:
1. "Technical Report: Analysis of the Potential for'EM
Interference and Radiofrequency and Powerline Field
Bioeffects." (Wrote powerline bioeffects sections.) Central
Radar System, Over- the - Horizon Backscatter Radar Program.
Department of the Air Force, Electronic Systems Division.
(19.90)
2 "Plan for Directed - Energy Weapon Testing at Yuma Proving
Ground:" (Contributed to Appendix A, "Range Safety Test
Plan ", and Appendix B, "Environmental Assessment of HPM
Testing. ") Final Report, U.S. Army, Yuma Proving Ground,
Yuma, Arizona. SRI Project 6774. (1989)
3. "Preliminary Radiofrequency- Radiation Exposure Hazard
Assessment for the EISCAT Transmitter Site near Tromso,
Norway," P. Polson. Prepared for EISCAT Scientific
Association, Kiruna, Sweden. SRI Project 5009 (1988)
4. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Proposed Central
Radar System, Over - the - Horizon Backscatter Radar Program,
Part IIA and Part IIB." (Contributed technical responses to
public questions.) Department of the Air Force, Electronics
System Division. (1987x)
3
5. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Proposed West -
Coast Radar System, Over- the - Horizon Backscatter Radar
Program:" (Contributed technical responses to public
questions.) Department of the Air Force, Electronics
System Division. (1987b)
6. "Final Environmental Impact.Statement -- Proposed Alaskan
Radar System, Over- the - Horizon Backscatter Radar Program."
(Contributed technical responses to public questions.)
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1987c)
7. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Ground Wave Emergency
Network: Final Operational Capability." (Wrote Section
4.11, "Health. ") Department of the Air Force, Electronics
Systems Division. (1987d)
8. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- Proposed Central
Radar System, Over- the - Horizon Backscatter Radar Program."
(Contributed Section 4.14, "Human Health Effects. ")
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1986a)
9. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- Proposed Alaskan
Radar System, Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar Program."
(Contributed Section 4.14, "Human Health Effects. ")
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1986b)
10. "Critical Review of Selected Topics on Biological Effects of
Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR)," J. Krupp, L. Heynick, and P.
Polson. In "Proceedings of a Workshop on Radiofrequency
Radiation Bioeffects, NATO Defense Research Group, Panel
VIII, Westhoven, FR of Germany, 11 -13 Sept., 1984," John C.
Mitchell, Ed., US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine
Report USAFSAM- TP -85 -14 (1985a).
11. "USAFSAM Review and Analysis of Radiofrequency Radiation
Bioeffects Literature: Fifth Report," L. Heynick and P.
Polson. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas, Report SAM- TR -85 -7. (1985b)
12. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- Proposed West -
Coast Radar System, Over- the - Horizon Backscatter Radar
Program." (Contributed Section 4.14, "Human Health Effects. ")
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1985c),
13. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- South -East PAVE PAWS
Radar System, Warner- Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia."
(Contributed Section 4.14, "Human Health Effects. ")
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1985d)
4
14. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- South -East PAVE PAWS
Radar System, Warner - Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia."
(Contributed technical responses to public questions.)
Department of the Air Force, Electronics System Division.
(1985e)
15. "Draft Environmental Impact.Statement -- South -West PAVE PAWS
Radar System, Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas." (Contributed
Section 4.14, "Human Health Effects. ") Department of the Air
Force,-Electronics System Division. (1985f)
16. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- South -West PAVE PAWS
Radar System, Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas." (Contributed
technical responses to public questions.) Department of the
Air Force, Electronics System Division. (1985g)
17. "Environmental Assessment -- Vertical Wind Profiler." (Wrote
section on human health effects.) National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration. (1985h)
18. "Next- Generation Weather Radar -- Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement." (Contributed sections on "Human Exposure
to RFR.) U.S. Department of Commerce, NEXRAD Joint System
Program Office. (1984a)
19. "USAFSAM Review and Analysis of Radiofrequency Radiation
Bioeffects Literature: Third Report," L. Heynick and P.
Polson. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas, Report SAM- TR -84 -6. (1984b)
20. "USAFSAM Review and Analysis of Radiofrequency Radiation
Bioeffects Literature: Fourth Report," L. Heynick and P.
Polson. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas, Report SAM- TR- 84 -17. (1984c)
21. "Environmental Impact Statement Supplement -- East Coast Over -
the- Horizon Backscatter Radar System." (Contributed sections
on human health.) Department of the Air Force,.Electronics
.System Division. (1984d)
22. "Bioeffects of Radiofrequency Radiation: A Review Pertinent
to Air Force Operations," L. Heynick and P. Polson. USAF
School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air.Force Base, Texas,
Report SAM- TR -83 -1. (1983)
23. "An Assessment of the Potential Impact of Microwave Radiation
from a Solar Power Satellite," J.Krebs, L. Heynick, and P.
Polson, Contract 68 -02 -3210, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (1980a)
24. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Operation of the PAVE
PAWS Radar System at Beale Air Force Base, California."
(Contributed RFR Bioeffects sections.) U.S. Air Force
Systems Command Headquarters, Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland. (1980b)
5
25. "Public'Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Operation of the PAVE PAWS Radar System at Beale AFB,
California, and Air Force Response to the Public Comment."
U.S. Air Force Systems Command Headquarters, Andrews Air
Force Base, Maryland. (1980c)
26. "Potential Environmental Effects of 765 -kV Transmission Lines:
Views before the New York State Public Service Commission,
Cases 26529 and 26559, 1976 - 1978," B. Scott - Walton, P.
Polson, et al. Report DOE /EV -0056, U.S. Department of
Energy, Environmental Control Technology Division. (1979a)
27. "A rev::ew of the Existing Literature on Healt'.z Effects of
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane," D. Jones, J. Krebs, C. Tyson and P.
Polson. SRI Project LSU -8868 for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington,
D.C. (1979b)
28. "Consulting Report (Task 10): First Response to Allegations,
Paragraphs Sixteen through Thirty -One," P. Polson, J. Krebs,
L. Heynick, D. Jones, and R. White. U.S. Air Force Systems
Command Headquarters, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. (In
re: Cape Cod Environmental Coalition, et al., versus John C.
Stetson, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., U.S. District
Court, Massachusetts Civil Action, 78- 533 -T.) (19796)
29. "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Operation of the PAVE
PAWS Radar System at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts."
(Contributed RFR Bioeffects` sections.) U.S. Air Force
Systems.Command Headquarters, Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland. (.1979d)
30. "Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Operation of the PAVE PAWS Radar System at Otis AFB,
Massachusetts, and Air Force Response to the Public Comment."
U.S. Air Force Systems Command Headquarters, Andrews Air
Force Base, Maryland. (1979e)
31. "Peak Power Effects of RFR on the Blood -Brain Barrier of
Rats," L. Heynick and P. Polson. Contract F33615 -77 -C -0622,
U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB,
Texas. (1979f)
32. "Research'Program Definition for the Study of the Biological
and Ecological Effects of Energy Transmission by Microwaves -
Dosimetry Concept Development and Future Facility
Requirements," D. Jones, P. Polson, L. Heynick, and B. Holt.
ContractlNAS2 -9546, NASA -Ames Research Center, California.
(1978a)
i
33. "Response of Squirrel Monkeys exposed in utero to
Electromagnetic Radiation," J. Kaplan and P. Polson.
Contract 68 -02 -2248, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (1978b)
6
34. "Investigation of Ocular Effects of Chronic Exposure of
Primates to Microwave Radiation at 2 -.45 GHz -- Phase 1," L.
Heynick, P. Polson and A. Karp. Contract DAMD17 -74 -C -4135,
U.S.. Army Medical R &D Command, Washington, D.C. (1976a)
35. "Study to Determine Neurophysiologic and Social Behavioral
Response of Squirrel Monkeys Exposed to Electromagnetic
Radiation," J. Kaplan and P. Polson. Contract 68 -02 -1778,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. (1976b)
36. "Assessment of the Biological Effects and Potential Hazards
which May Be Associated vith the Use of Nonionizing
Electromagnetic Radiation," P. Polson and L. Heynick.
Contract TP6AC20, Office of Telecommunications Policy,
Executive Office of the President of the USA, Washington,
D.C. (1976c)
37. "Mortality in Rats Exposed to CW Microwave Radiation at 0.95,
2.45, 4.54, and 7.44 GHz," P. Polson, D. Jones, A. Karp, and
J. Krebs. Contract DAAK02 -73 -C -0453, U.S. Army Mobility
Equipment R &D Command, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. (1974)
7
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE EXCHANGE
14471 RIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070
CITY COUNCIL --
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE
SARATOGA CA 95070
City Council:
October 6, 1993
We are appealing the decision to approve DR -93 -029 without conditions
to protect the patio areas at the antenna building site as requested in my
letter of september 15,. 1993 to the Planning Commission.
The grounds for the appeal are as follows:
We learned at the hearing that only 200 .neighbors were informed about
the antenna project. As you know we serve a broad base of the population in
Saratoga and surrounding cities. The radiation exposure issue is far from
settled and in fact getting more controversial with a number of new studies
under way. Therefore, we feel that there was insufficient notice q_iven to
the public by GTE and Cellular One.
We also learned at the hearing that GTE and Cellular One are sharing
the physical site but not the antennas. This means that there are twice as
many antennas at that site as there would be if only one of the parties
were using the site. Additionally, the lower height of the antennas
requires stronger signals in order to,be effective.
We further learned that GTE's appeal to grant a permit for a site in
Los Gatos was denied on the basis of an incomplete Environmental Impact
Report. On this basis, we question the completeness of the information
provided to the City of Saratoga. Since the reports of the Planning
Commission meeting appeared in the press, both our employees and customers,
as well as other merchants, have approached us to express their own concerns
about their safety.
Thank you for your consideration,
Victor Amezc , Chairman
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE EXCHANGE
14471 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 55070
Paul Curtis, Planning Director
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE
SARATOGA CA 95070 September 15, 1 9453
Dear Paul:
As you requested in our recent telephone conversation, 1 am asF,ing
that you attach this letter to the Cellular Telephone Antenna Item of•the
anenda of the September cc, 1 °'13 Planning Commission Public hearing.
I want to mace ►mown the position of Internatiorial Coffee Exchange,
inc.. concerning the cellular teieonone antennas to De located in the
ouiidinn where we are currently tenants, namely, .the ouiloing located at
14471 Bic Basin Way in' Saratoga Village.
We are not opposed to the antenna project in principle, and we
appreciate its benefits to the City and all other parties involved.
However. there is a areat deal of controversy over the issue of the
Dozential harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro
magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time.
We have provided seating for our customers on the patio in tront of
the Coffee Exchange for eight years, and many of our customers utilize
this area on a daily basis. This seating has become a key element in the
successful operation of our business. Our patio is the only location
where people will be within direct view of the devices, in close
proximity to the radiation source, for extended.perioas of time without
the protection of a roof. We have a very realistic fear that a
sinnificant number of our customers will Delieve that there are seriously
harmful effects caused by the antennas. This will De very 0etrimental to
our operation.
We are requesting that approval of the installation of the antennas
be made conditional upon the provision of protection for all areas which
are vulnerable to radiation from the antennas. Covering the antennas
with a structure designed to hide them is not sufficient, because a
structure designed only for aesthetic purpses will be transparent to the
EMR. The GTE /Cellular One consultant has assured me that, while the
radiatioon cannot be attenuated at the source, it can be reduced by 90%
in selected target areas by a structure designed for that purpose. This
would not interfere in any way with telephone reception in the protected
areas, according, to the consultant.
Without this protection, we feel that our business, and ail of the
other businesses in the village which_ depend on the pull of our business,
will be seriously jeopardized by the installation of the antennas. We
respectfully request that you make approval of the antennas conditional
upon the installation of a structure designed to protect the outdoor public
areas located at 14471 big Basin Way by absorbing Electro Maonetic
Radiation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Victor Amezcua Chairman
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 17
Commissioner Jacobs acknowledged this explanation and withdrew his request.
THE MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Commissioner Asfour exr.- resawd concern with the proposed front /entryway addition
and its close proximity to one of the Redwood trees.
Chairperson Moran stated that although she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs with
regard to the entryway remodel and function as a visual break to the elevation, she is
in support of Condition #3 (in the design Review Resolution) and feels that a redesign
on paper where the entryway would not encroach any further would be beneficial.
CALDWELL /ASFOUR MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -93 -033 WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:
MODIFY CONDITION #7 TO REQUIRE THAT THE EXTERIOR
COLORS BE A MEDIUM EARTHTONE - A LITTLE DARKER
THAN THE COLOR PROPOSED - STUCCO FINISH AND TRIM,
REDWOOD DECKING AND BROWN COLORED TILE AS
APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR.
MODIFY CONDITION 9B TO CONTAIN LANGUAGE
REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE FOR OFF -SITE
REPLACEMENT OF EITHER OR BOTH TREES #4 AND 5 IF
REMOVED PER DIRECTOR APPROVAL BASED ON THE CITY
ARBORIST'S RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED THAT A POLICY
FOR OFF -SITE TREE REPLACEMENT IS DEVELOPED BY THE
CITY PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY OF THE PROJECT.
TREE #4 MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A BORING TEST.
THE MOTION PASSED 6 -0.
CALDWELL /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE LL -93 -005 PER THE STAFF REPORT.
THE MOTION PASSED 6 -0.
9. DR -93 -029 - GTE Mobllnet /Cellular One; 14471 Big Basin Way, request for
Design Review approval to install two cellular transmission arrays,
consisting of 18 individual antennas, on the roof of an existing
structure in the Commercial Historical (CH) zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project in accordance with the-provision of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 18
Community Development Director Curtis presented the Report dated September 22,
1993. He also answered general questions with regard to the project and noted that
the City had received a number of letters, many from local real estate agents, attesting
to the need for better telecommunications in Saratoga. He also stated that no letters
of opposition were received.
Commissioner Caldwell inquired if the City had received any letters from the applicants
expressing a need for better telecommunications within Saratoga.
The Director stated that no letters had been received from the applicants..
Commissioner Wolfe stated that the application for. such additional telecommunication
antennas could serve as the applicants' expression of need for better
telecommunications within Saratoga. Commissioner Wolfe also reiterated a point
made by the Director in the Staff Report that this application had been submitted jointly
by two competitive telecommunications companies seeking to improve the service they
provide. '
Community Development Director Curtis explained that technically the application is for
two different types of devices that would be placed at one location.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he was unable to use his Cellular phone within the
Saratoga area.
Commissioner Jacobs inquired if the Commission could approve the application with a
condition that would require the applicant to replace the original devices with newer
devices should technological advances produce less intrusive equipment.
City Attorney Riback explained that the Commission could condition the approval in a
way to allow the application to be called up by the Commission to review more
advanced equipment. At that time, Attorney Riback explained, the Commission could
decide whether to require installation of newer equipment.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she appreciated staff's investigation into potential
health hazards associated with such antennas. She inquired as to the action the City
could take should a health issue arise or proof of associated health hazards be found.
She also asked if there was any action that could be taken if and /or when the
application is approved that would protect the City in such a situation.
City Attorney Riback explained that if health, safety or welfare concerns associated
with this use arise the City can call up the application for review.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 19
Chairperson Moran asked about the length of time the specimen antennas have been
in place, if the sampling matched in number, color, amount of wiring and etc. as the
proposed, and about the number and nature of any complaints or comments received
regarding the replica antennas.
Community Development Director Curtis explained that the antennas have been up
since July and do accurately represent the proposed project. He stated that he had
talked to 3 or 4 people when they (the antennas) first went up and most people knew
the purpose of the antennas. He mentioned that most of the people were village
merchants.
Chairperson Moran inquired if the applicant had indicated whether a smaller or less
intrusive version of the antennas might be used at this location if the application is not
approved.
Director Curtis stated that this question should be directed to the applicant. He stated
that he had asked the applicants if the antennas could be brought closer together .
which would allow for the antennas, from a design stand point, to somehow be at
least partially screened. He explained that the applicant had responded by explaining
that the antennas needed to be spaced as they are now in order to be effective.
Chairperson Moran inquired about the process should this application be approved
and the antennas do not, quite do the job.
Director Curtis explained that it is the Commission's responsibility to review the
application from a Design stand point and let the applicant deal with the antennas from
a functional point of view. He stated that should the antennas prove to be insufficient
and need to be modified, a new review would need to take place and the applicant
may possibly need to seek a variance pertaining to the height.
Chairperson Moran acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Amezcua expressing
concerning regarding screening the antennas from his coffee shop patrons. She
asked if staff's understanding of Mr. Amezcua's concern, based on his letter and
discussions, had to do with aesthetics /design purposes or for health concerns.
Director Curtis indicated that this was his understanding of Mr. Amezcua's reasons for
requesting screening. He stated that staff has accepted the technical information that
screening was not necessary to reduce any kind of affect from the antennas.
Screening was only looked at for the purpose of hiding the antennas. He explained
that staff was of the opinion that the proposed antenna would not have a substantial
environmental impact that would warrant some type of screening device.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 20
Commissioner Murakami asked how the applicants came to choose the subject site.
Community Director Curtis stated that he was unsure and advised Commissioner
Murakami to direct his question toward the applicants.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she understood Mr. Amezcua's concern as
expressed in his letter, to be relative to his customers perceived health concerns
pertaining to the antennas. She pointed out that the Coffee Exchange is one of the
anchor businesses in the Village area. She noted that the Commission has tried, in
the past, to protect neighbors from all sorts of things and since this structure will be
located in the Village area which is upon economic straights, she wondered if staff had
given some consideration to this point with regard to requiring screening of the
antennas.
The Director explained that staff had given consideration to this fact and noted that if
the City tried to screen specific users the City may need to go around the entire
Village to make sure the project is screened from all businesses and sites.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt the letter was pretty clear in indicating that
screening of the antennas for aesthetic reason would not be enough and that Mr.
Amezcua was concerned with potential EAR transmissions.
The Director explained that his discussions with Mr. Amezcua indicated that his (Mr.
Amezcua's) concern had to do with the perception of his customers. Director Curtis
explained that based on the information submitted it is not necessary to do screen the
antennas for health reasons. The Director stated that his concern is that the City
would be requested to re quire screening such as trellises or patio covers throughout
the Village and that the City would be put in a position of expo facto conditioning
trellises and patios. He asked where would the line be drawn with respect to this
situation.
Commissioner Caldwell explained that typically with design review applications
neighbors are noticed and any (neighbors) with concerns come down to voice the
concerns and the Commission tries to workwith both the applicants and the
neighbors. She further stated that the Commission tries to. condition approvals to
ensure minimization of impact to the neighbors, but that the Commission does not
generally go out of its way to require extraordinary protection for everyone in the
neighborhood especially if they (the neighbors) have not voiced concern with the
project. She stated that the Commission usually takes into consideration the concerns
expressed (either verbally or written), the Commission then tries to mitigate those
concerns, adopts a resolution and that is usually the end of the matter. She stated
that she did not understand the Director's analogy with regard to the screening
requested by Mr. Amezcua.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 21
Director Curtis stated that this application is before the Commission for their review
and,that he (Curtis) in his explanation (above) was only anticipating someone else
asking why wasn't screening provided for them /their property. He stated that staff
does not feel the unscreened antennas (He noted that only about a half dozen are
vis!" le from Big Basin Way) are inappropriate otherwise the recommendation would
have been for denial.
CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M.
Mike Mangiantini, Bay Area Cellular One Telephone Company, provided background
information on the-project. He noted that this application was a combined effort of two
companies - Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet - to provide better telecommunications in
the Saratoga area. He explained that the companies have to meet certain FCC
regulations. He further explained that the applicants have tried to be sensitive to the
City's design standards and its setting. He noted that the applicants have put forth
much effort in locating an appropriate site for the antennas. He explained that roof -top
antennas (as the one proposed) tend to work well in a village setting as opposed to
introducing a free - standing antenna.
Megan Matthews, representing GTE Mobilnet, co- applicant, spoke in favor of the
project. She outlined the',details of the project with regard to the subject site and the
construction. She explained that there would be a 30 -day construction time line, no
new or additional lot coverage, no grading, no noise impacts, no interference with
other communications such as radio, television computers and etc. She stated that
the antennas would be unmanned, except for 2- 3 maintenance trips per month. She
presented a visual display and reported that the antennas would be visible from only 5
sites within the village area.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he understood that the antennas' effectiveness had
to do with the line of site to users. He asked how these antennas could be effective if
there is a limited line of sight.
Drew Davis, GTE Mobilnet radio engineer, stated that the. service in the area would be
restricted because of the limited line of sight, but that the service which the antennas
will provide to the area would be sufficient. He noted that the applicants had to
provide service to their customers,but at the same time work within the City's design
criteria.
Commissioner Murakami inquired about the necessary power hook -up.
Mr. Davis stated that the antennas would run off of a regular 220 power supply.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 22
Cgmmissioner Caldwell inquired about the events that have taken place since the
original application, its subsequent denial and the current proposal that consists of
much less intrusive devices. She wondered if there are currently device even less
intrusive than that proposed.
Drew Davis, explained that the original proposal was for a more powerful device. he
explained that because of the customer demand for service in this area the companies
were forced to take action to provide some kind of service. He further explained that
the service that would be provided by the proposed antennas would not be
considered "ideal"; but that it was better than no service to the area at all.
He explained that both companies are public communication services and are required
to meet certain standards. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Davis
stated that should this proposal not work up to the expectation they (the companies)
may look to other smaller units in other locations. However, he stated, the companies
were confident that this project would be sufficient to serve the intended area. With
regard to the site selection, Mr. Davis explained that the proposed site is the most
central and feasible site that would fit in with the existing telecommunications network
pattern.
David Hatch, Cellular One Real Estate Manager, presented transparencies depicting
the telecommunication coverage plot /pattern. He explained the ideal cellular service
pattern and compared it to the current telecommunication service /pattern in the
Saratoga area. He pointed out that Saratoga is one of the three most problem areas
of the entire telecommunication network. An assistant engineer for Cellular One also
assisted in explaining the transparencies to the Commission.
Dr Polson, 18985 Tuggle Avenue, noted his report included in the staff report which
indicates that there are no hazards to human health emitted from the proposed
devices. He also offered to answer questions from the Commission.
Peggy Owatha, representing GTE Mobilnet, spoke in favor of the application, provided
project background and discussed such issues as zoning restrictions, the original
application and design criteria. She stated that Saratoga is in dire need of cellular
coverage so much so that two competitive companies have come together in the
application to establish a shared site for their available devices. She stated that these
companies are required to meet certain FCC and California Utilities standards. She
stated that she feels this .is the best possible project (of this nature) that the
Commission will see in the village area. She stated that this proposal will provide a
great service to the community. In response the Commission with regard to the action
the companies would take if the project does not meet the needs of the community,
the speaker explained that the companies may need to seek another sight and come
back before the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 23
Jim Rosenfeld, owner of the building at 14471 Big Basin Way, (14219 Okanogan Drive,
spoke in favor of the application. He pointed out that he and Mr. Amezcua have had
discussion for the past two years with regard to erecting some type of coverage in the
courtyard area. He explained that there is n,.-.) room for such patio cover or that type
of accommodation. He stated that he felt Mr. Amezcua was using this proposal as an
opportunity to have this patio cover. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the patio area is only
20 feet wide and such a trellis structure would impact the property site line. He also
noted that 5 feet up is the next patio level and a such a patio cover would be
infeasible and an obstruction to the other patio. He also explained the there are three
other tenants in the building and that the patio area is common grounds and that any
type of structure on the patio are would be unacceptable and would result in his (Mr.
Rosenfeld's) approval of this project. He stated that he had no problem with
screening at the roof level.
Victor Amezcua, owner of International Coffee Exchange, expressed concern with
potential adverse health effects that the proposed antennas might have on his
customers. He also expressed anxiety with regard to the psychological impact the
antennas would have on his clients and how this may adversely affect his business.
He stated that if any other merchants were concerned about screening they should
come forward and state those concerns. He questioned why only 200 notices were
sent out when there is a City population of 30,000. He stated that he had been
advised that he could be held liable in the future for the health impacts the antennas
may have on his customers. He stated that he does not intend to squelch the project,
but would like to have some type screening erected between his, business and the
antennas.
Frank Patten, 12824 Carniel Court; asked how many Commissioner had a cellular
phones. He stated that there is a great community need for good phone service. He
stated that many people use car phones as a means of business and urged the
Commission to approve the application. He invited the Commissioners to use his car
phone to demonstrate the poor cellular phone service in the area.
Peggy, GTE representative, stated that the applicants had no further comments and
urged the Commission to approve the application.
ASFOUR /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M.
PASSED 6 -0.
Commissioner Murakami asked the City Attorney if it was his opinion that Mr.
Amezcua could be held liable for health conditions of his customers relative to the
proposed antennas and their proximity to his establishment.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of September 22, 1993
Page 24
City Attorney Riback clarified that he was not representative of Mr. Amezcua, but in his
(Attorney Riback's) opinion there is insufficient evidence to find Mr. Amezcua liable of
any health conditions of his customers relative to the proposed antennas.
Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had no problem with regard to the design. With
regard to health issues, Commissioner Jacobs stated that he feels that there is no
empirical evidence of adverse health effects. He stated that he could support the
application with an amendment to the conditions that would allow the Commission to
review the use and require installation of newer, smaller or visually less intrusive
devices that would provide equal service as made available through technological
advances.
There was discussion on who should be responsible for tracking and advising the City
of available equipment. it was the consensus of the Commission that the applicants
take the responsibility of advising the City of newer, less intrusive devises.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problem with the application and
expressed his preference not to require screening because of the insignificance of the
impact on the environment.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that there are no riskless technologies, but there are
acceptable risks and that he could support the application. He explained .that there is
currently no evidence of health concerns. With regard to the concerns of Mr.
Amezcua, Commissioner Wolfe stated that these are perceived concerns and may or
may not be real and may merely disappear. He stated that he felt the patrons of the.
Coffee exchange would continue to visit the establishment.
Chairperson Moran stated that she felt the proposed antennas would be reasonably
unobtrusive and the site is an acceptable one for this project. She stated that she
could support the application. She suggested that the 3rd "Whereas" in the resolution
include the specific number, color and height of the antennas.
WOLFE /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE DR -93 -029 WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY CHAIRPERSON MORAN (IMMEDIATELY ABOVE)
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDED LANGUAGE: THAT THE CITY RETAIN THE
RIGHT TO ASK TO HAVE THE APPLICANT REPLACE THE INSTALLATION_ IN
THE EVENT THAT ANOTHER INSTALLATION THAT IS SMALLER, LESS
INTRUSIVE OR SMALLER IN- NUMBER THAT PROVIDES EQUAL SERVICE
BECOMES AVAILABLE. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOTIFYING THE CITY OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH MORE ADVANCED
DEVICES. THE MOTION PASSED 6 -0.
MAMGIAMTIMI COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Tue Oct 26 1993 2:37 pm Page 1 of
10/26/1993 14:05 4082573376 POLSON /AUSA PAGE 01
PETSR POL60D, Ps.D.
Consultant
++ microwave Biological Effects ** Biomedical Pngineering *+
+ Xnatrumentation Development ** Signal Processing * *.
1e9e5 Tuggle Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 -3659 Ph. & Fax: (409) 257 -3376
October 26, 1993
Mr. Michael Mangiantini
Mangiantini Real Estate Services
1999 South Bascom Ave.
Campbell, CA-95008
Dear Mr. Mangiantini:
Rat Proposed Saratoga Cell Site, Saratoga, California:
Thank you for sending me a copy of Victor Amezcua's appeal of the Planning
comission's decision concerning this site.
It seems to me that the basis for the appeal is that the planning commission
did not require "conditions to protect the patio area" of Mr. Amezcuals
business. Mr. Amezcua's letter of September 15 specifies that the "patio is
the only location where people will be within direct view of the devices (base
station rooftop antennas), in close proximity to the radiation source, for
extended periods of time without the protection of a roof (my emphasis).„
In my report of August 19, 1993, I calculated power densities around the site.
For the patio area that Mr. Amezcua was concerned about, the worst -case
possible power densities in this area were 12.7 microwatts per eq cm. For
base station frequencies, the ANSI /IEEE C95.1 -1992 maximum permissible
exposure for the general public is approximately 580 microwatts per aq cm,
averaged over any,30 -min period. The maximum worst -case value for the patio
is therefore approximately 2.2% of the standard.
Such a.worst -case scenario will never occur unless artificially made to do so
by the combined efforts of GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One engineers, as it
requires assumptions such as: both the GTE Mobilnet and Cellular one
facilities will be operating at maximum channel capacity and all channels will
be operating at maximum power for extended periods, i.e., all mobile phones
are at the boundaries of these particular base stations. A more realistic
scenario, derived from real -life measurements, is that a practical, worst -case
situation will be approximately 10% of my original scenario, time- averaged
over any 30 -min period. In this case, the patio exposures are 1.3 microwatts
per aq cm, which is about 0•.2% of the standard.
The standard has been written as a "no- hazardous -ef- facts? standard. The
power - density values to which people will be exposed in the patio area are in
fact about 0.005% or less of values demonstrated to be potentially hazardous
to human safety. This is such a small value that it is difficult to conceive
1
MAMGIAMTIMI COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Tue Oct 26 1993 2:37 pm Page 2 of 2
10/26/1993 14:05 4082573376 POLSON /AUSA PAGE 02
of how some .structure at the subject property, as requested by Mr. Amezcua,
will further physically protect his clients.
As a further comparison, if one of Mr. Amezcua's clients were to use a hand-
held cellular phone while seated in the patio area, people within a.radius of
3 feet from the phone would likely be exposed to power densities of up to
approximately 40 microwatts per sq,cm, which is 3 to 30 times greater than
power densities from-the base station- emissions. °-Thum it is my opinion' that
there is no strict necessity to provide structural shielding to protect people
at the patio area of the International Coffee Exchange.
Mr. Amszcua's further contention is that "the radiation exposure issue is far
from settled and in fact [is] getting more controversial with a number of new
studies under--way." This may be the impression he gets from the news media,
but the scientific literature provides the opposite picture. And this is not
just my opinion. You may be interested to know that the Environmental
Protection Agency conducted a workshop review of the RFR biological effects
area in April of this year in Bethesda, Maryland. Based on that workshop and
an assessment of the proven hazard (or lack thereof) of RFR vis -a -vis all
other hazardous agents it has to consider, EPA has recently announced it will
curtail almost all of its efforts in the RFR area, so as better to be able to
address truly hazardous agents in the environment.
I.hope the above information is useful to you to counter the claims in Mr.
Amezcua's appeal.
Sincerely,
Peter Polson, Ph.D.
2
Al- - - M_ W. W, AT: .:.. RIAN
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company
Date: October 28, 1993
To: Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
Mobilnet
From: Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company&
GTE Mobilnet
Re: Cellular Telephone Facilities
Proposed for Saratoga Village
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At a public hearing last month Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company
(Cellular One) and GTE Mobilnet received unanimous approval from
the Planning Commission to install and operate cellular telephone
antenna facilities ( "cell sites ") in Saratoga Village. The
planning commission approval was appealed by Mr. Victor Amezcua.
With this submittal, we would like to highlight for you the
important elements of the project and address Mr. Amezcua's
concerns about the safety of the proposed facilities.
i
In February of 1991 the Council amended certain sections of the
City Code to allow cellular telephone antennas in the P -A and C
zoning districts. Under the amended ordinance, antennas not
exceeding 40 -feet in height are principally permitted uses in these
districts. With this in mind, Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet
located a site (14471 Big Basin Way) and designed facilities which
not only comply with the ordinance but also consolidate antennas in
one location in Saratoga Village. Furthermore, no freestanding
antenna towers have been proposed; the antennas would be mounted on
the roof of the building at the site, mitigating the project's
visual and aesthetic impacts.
Mr. Amezcua's primary claim is that the project would cause unsafe
radio frequency exposure conditions at the subject site, in
particular in the outdoor seating area at the front of the
building. However,: there is no evidence or data to substantiate
Mr. Amezcua's assertion that the proposed cellular facilities pose
a public health and safety threat. We have provided a site
specific report on this issue to the City, Mr. Amezcua, and the
neighbors. The report was prepared by Dr. Peter Polson, a leading
specialist in this field, who concluded that the proposed cell
sites would not cause unsafe conditions. In fact, in the worst
case scenario the exposure levels in the outdoor seating area
represent only 2.2% of the most stringent ANSI /IEEE safety standard
(which is a "no- hazardous - effects" standard). Mr. Amezcua asks
that structural shielding, in the form of a trellis or other
overhead cover, be provided to protect the seating area. The study
performed by Dr. Polson shows that this is unnecessary.
Members of the City Council
October 28, 1993
Page 2
The Council should note that Mr. Amezcua's request for a trellis
precedes this project. In fact, through discussions with the
property owner and Mr. Amezcua, we know that Mr. Amezcua has tried
for at least two years to get permission from the property owner,
his landlord, to erect such a trellis.
Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet are prepared to obtain a building
permit and to begin installation of the cell sites so that cellular
service may be improved in Saratoga Village and the surrounding
areas as soon as possible. We are asking the City Council to deny
the appeal and to uphold the planning commission's decision to
allow this project in the City of Saratoga.
Date Received: lV / I-3
Hearing Date: f l/ 3/1.3
Fee: $0 S (7 a a s
Receipt No.: i-Z70 tf
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: IC'mP— A M _F= -2GUA
Address: 14110 4S�ADOvU QAKS JA"C, 'SA4zATOG,A
Telephone: "BCC -4- 1444
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:--
Project File Number and Address: ' 3 - 02
Decision Being Appealed:
-��.1� ivy 15 - I Q v► vt ' V Comm c I,,,,
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): -
*Appellant's S' ature
*Please do not sign until application is.presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS 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. i.E. CUCT -4 °j3
.k
File No. D2- 13"(D2)
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the
above file.
Date: 1 9 signature:
Date: I o —3 1 --q, j
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
M
oI
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date: i D -3 I -- q 3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date:
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas. -
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
143 T6
Date: /0-3/-?3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date: 0 C'-�' 3 ) I / ? ?3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date: I0-303
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
04"A t�rv� (0/34 93
Date: 1 o/31/9
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards, 67�
Date: d Z)`3 , I 0y3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date:
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date: (b "31- 13
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
,4 . .4,V,f�
Date: 1'0-3'1,13
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
Date: (b 3 ( - q 3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
City Council
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
r
Date: (0 -31 -13
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
v�aa� T-AJL, NE
�tp�CC;q, cR 9SCm7
Date: ( b- 3 0 3
City of Saratoga - Planning Commission & City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: Planning Commission City Council
Sami Asfour
Meg Caldwell
Paul Jacobs
Marcia Kaplan
Gillian Moran
Henery Murakami
Donald Wolfe
Karen Anderson
Anne Marie Burger
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
You are hereby notified of our concern about the potential harmful effects of sustained and
regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time that will be
imposed on a broad base of the population who work and live around 14471 Big Basin Way in
Saratoga.
We request that the Planning Commission revoke the permit issued to GTE Mobil Net and
Cellular One. We request the City Council not give final approval but deny the installation and
operation of the cellular microwave antennas.
If you fail to revoke the permit and the cellular antennas begin operation, we will hold you
personally liable for any damages to our health & property values, and also for damages to
Saratoga Village businesses due to the public perception of danger from the antennas.
Regards,
W _..
AUG, G5 '53 10:46AM ALAIN PINEL. SARHTQGA P.1•'1
ALAINPINEL RECEIVED
AUG 251993
r L+NNING DEPT.
August 23, 1993
To: City of Saratoga _
Planning Commission
FX: 741 -1132
From: Brenda Lee Duc:hesne
Dear Sirs,
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones. -
As a resident of Saratoga working also in Saratoga, I heavily rely on my car
phone in my business. -My reception in Saratoga is the worst of any location on 12772 Saratnsu/
the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent "disconnects." I find Suite IWORoad
this extremely frustratir.:g and harmful to my business. Sar;ltogn.
California 95070
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in Saratoga
that might help alleviate this situation.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Lee Duchesne
Realtor Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
741 -1111, ext. 118
Office 4!1x.741.1 1 1 1
Fox 40$.741.1199
BRENNER FINANCIAL SERVICES JUL e 6 1993
Tax Planning and Preparation
14471 BIG BASIN WAY, SUITE D
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 741 -5059
FAX (408) 8676031
Karen Tucker, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
July 23, 1993
RE: CELLULAR ANTENNAS-LOCATED AT'14471 BIG BASIN WAY
Dear Ms. Tucker:
I fully support the effort to placed cellular antennas on the roof
directly above my office.
As you may know, the cellular reception within the downtown and
surrounding area is pitiful. This has been extremely frustrating
for our clients who are seeking directions or calling because they
are running late for their appointments. Furthermore, when we have
lunch with clients at many of the restaurants along Big Basin Way
we can pretty much forget about their effort to make or accept
urgent calls.
I realize that installation of the antennas is not an ultra -
critical requirement. It merely allows greater convenience to
residents and visitors to our city.
Personally, I believe that the antennas do not detract from the
surrounding beauty of the downtown area. Actually, they blend in
quite well and give us a Silicon Valley "high tech" look. If
anything, it states that the city of Saratoga is considerate in
providing for the convenience and safety of it's residents and
visitors within the downtown and surrounding hills.
yr y Yours,
.,Horst R. Brenner
AUG-06 -1993 1529 FROM F&C SARATOGA /PROSPECT TO 7411132 P.03
FOX & Better
CARSKADON ome
1 � Inc! Ciacdcn% �
]FAX
To: -`-'JeARe N �Tv C K tZ
Fox & Carskadon/BH &O
Saratoga - Prospect Office
Fax #09 Fax # (408) 996-0849
Subject:_
Date:
Number of pages sent ' t din cover sheet %
Message:
-9
i transmission • •• 18 996-1100
12029 Sar�v(wyy$ynnyYa1r R.L. SdralorW, CA 95070 TFLEPHONE (408) 996-1100
TOTAL P.03
AUG-06 -1993 1526 FROM F&C SARATOGA /PROSPECT TO
To: ANq
Fax # 7�/-
Subject:_ AN *rM0UAJ,1
Date:
7411132 P.02
FOX & JoBefter
CARSKADON omes�
+ 1 � and c,ardrlu
Fox & Car ; kadon /BH&G
Sa=ga-prospect Office
Fax 1(408) 996.0849
Number of pages sent jUjuding cover sheet
•
i
CL.
Lab
If you experience transmission s
problems 0: 00
I?0?9 S.st.ticx ,iu�Yrd,• R.I., tiew1cxw. CA M70117LrPHONr (408) 99&t100
AUG -06 -1993 15:28 FROM F &C SARATOGA /PROSPECT TO
7411132 P.01
FOX & Better
CA RSKA DON & h Better
YRA
To. KARE k nl E'. SoN
Fax t &I 7 /— // � g
Subject: Aiu
Date: '
FOX & CLr.Jcadon/BH&G
Saratoga - Prospect Office
Fax # (408) 996-0849
C. ct-"04 OqX
Number of pages sent n • cover
0
i
r
Q
* ote:
If you experience transmission problems please call (408) 996-1100 / A&Z-4,
12029 Saratwo%unnyvak- k.l., Sdraloqu. CA 9,070 TrLr. MONK (408) 9%1'100
AUG 19 '98 11 :52AM ALAIN PINEL SARATOGA P.1 /1 '
August 17, 1993
re: CELLULAR PHONE ANTENNA INSTALLATION
ATTN: Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga and its environz are long overdue for decent cellular service.
I am a.iong -time resident of Saratoga and work in town as well. I rely on my cellular
phone to remain in contact with my family and clients. My phone is often completely
inoperative in the Saratoga ato
a Village as well as areas between Saga and Los Gatos,
where most of my business is conducted.
It is frustrating that I receive calls with no problem when I am hundreds of miles from
home, and yet I often cannot successfully place a call en route from home to office.
I favor a safe installation as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
C--r
Caroly G' ens
AUG 23 '93 06:41PM 070ALAIN PINEL LG
RECEIVED
AUG 2 41993
PLANNING DEPT.
August 23, 1993
To: City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
FX: 741 -1132
Dear Sirs,
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones.
As a resident of Saratoga working also in Saratoga, I heavily rely on my car
phone in my business. My reception in Saratoga is the worst of any location on
the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent 'disconnects." I find
this extremely frustrating and harmful to my business.
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in Saratoga
that might help alleviate this situation.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brian Kessler
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
358 -1111 ext. 133
P.1 /1 ._
SILIOONIX TEL:408- 988 -1458
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave..
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Attention:
Aug .03,93 17:58 No .006
Howard T. Miyata
12207 .Xolinda Circle
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Honorable Karen Tucker, Mayor
Mr. Paul Curtis, Planning Department
To whom it May Concern:
August 3, 1993
In the recent issue (July 28, 1993) of the Saratoga News, I
read an article referring to construct a cellular phone antenna
In Saratoga is being considered by the city council. As a
residence and a cellular phone--user for both commercial and
personal use I would Like to see an increase of phone service in
this area. I have purchased a second phone for my wife for both
safety and security reasons..
Just recently we had two occasion of which the cellular
phone assist and did not on a minor emergency.
Occasion 11:
My wife was driving up from Los Angeles, when she had a flat tire
in the parking lot of the San Luis Dam information building late
one Sunday evening. She called me on the cellular phone and in
turn I called Los Bano's CSAA road service to assist her. She was
back on the road within hours.
Occasion #2:
Just the other day I was on an errand into Downtown Saratoga when
I was paged by my companyle security department. I tried to
return the call but due to lack of cellular phone services I
could not get through. I had to hunt down a payphone (which are
scarce) to make my contact. Lucky this was just an information
call of a ruptured nitrogen line which was being tended to.
The increase of cellular phone service should benefit all
parties who utilize this service. As far as the EMF (Electo
Magnetic Field) scare I have no problem with it to me it's just
a scare the cellular phone service all use very low frequencies.
If there is any questions please do not hesitate to call me
(408) 970 5258 (day phone) and (408) 446 2317 (home phone) or
(408) 221 5952 (cellular phone).
Yo rs truly
Howard T. M yata
RECEIVED
August 24, 1993 AUG 2 5 1993
To: City of Saratoga PLANNING DEPT.
Planning Commission
Re: Cellular Tower in Saratoga.
Fax Number: 741 -1132
Dear Sirs:
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near
future the possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga
vicinity, to help with reception on car phones.
I sell real estate and am often working in Saratoga. I rely a -great deal .
on my car phone in my business. My reception in Saratoga is very poor
- especially on Hwy 9. In fact the reception is so poor it may well be
the worst reception of any location on the Peninsula.
If I have trouble, I can imagine that all cellular users have a great deal
of trouble also and are avoiding Saratoga during the lunch and dinner
period. Especially;if they must be in touch with the office or clients. I
know as of now ...'I do.
I sincerely hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in Saratoga
that might help this situation. ( I love the restaurants in Saratoga!'.!)
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Midge A. Moser
Broker
Alain Pinel Realtors
358.1111.118
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MESSAGE:
RECEIVED
AUG 18 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
AFFINITY
S O F T W A R E
FAX
Saratoga Planning Commission, 741 -1132
Mark Richards
8/18/93
NO. OF PAGES: 1
(including cover sheet)
I am writing to register my concern over the reception of cellular phones in
the Los Gatos - Saratoga area. I understand you are in the process of
evaluating a new antenna installation in the area that would improve this
important service.
As the technology supplier to Alain Pinel Realtors and several title
companies, my company does much of our business in this area. Much of
the time my cellular phone, a 3 watt model, is either useless or has very poor
reception. This issue will become even more critical as we move our
software products for real estate agents towards mobile technology using
cellular modems.
I look forward very much to any improvements your decisions could enable.
Sincerely,
Mark Richards, President
If you incur any problems receiving this complete fax, please notify sender
at (408)741 -1111. Our fax number is (408)741 -1199
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, California
Dear-Commissioners,
My wife Gail and I are Realtors with Alain Pinel Realtors in
Saratoga, we have lived here for 10 years. We each have portable
cellular phones. The reception is generally poor in Saratoga.
Some areas are worse than others, the Village area and along
Saratoga/ Los Gatos Road are particularly bad.
I do not know how,many local users there are but 1 am sure there
must be several hundred phones in use from Realtors that work
in Saratoga. Add to that other business people who work and live
in Saratoga and I would imagine it could be quite a number.
Our request is that'you approve as many sites as is practicle to
serve the needs of our community. These sites are for our use,
people who live and work here. The growth in the use of cellular
phones is incredible, clellular phone rates are decreasing all the
time, it will not be long before most people will have there own
personal cellular phone.
It only makes sense that Saratoga the community where many of
the people responsible for the elecronics era live should be
looking to the future with them in providing approriate cellular
cites.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Tim and Gail Evjenth
12553 Woodside Dr.
Saratoga, California 95012
(408) 996 -8838
AUG 23 '93 05 :30PM 070ALAIN PINEL LG
AL _
A w -
ALAIN PINEL
Date: August 23, 1993.
To: City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
From: Donna Skwarzynski - Alain Pinel Realtors
P.1 %1
RECEIVED
AUG 2 4 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future
the possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help
with reception on car phones.
As a resident of Saratoga working also in Saratoga, I heavily rely on my car
phone in my business. My reception in Saratoga is the worst of any locatioq,4 5+,ratoga Ave
on the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent "disconnects. "L-- C --
I find this extremely frustrating and harmful to my business. California 95030
I would very much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in
Saratoga that might help alleviate this situation.
Sincerely,
Donna Skwarzynski
Mgr.
Alain Pinel Realtors
358 -1111
Office 408.356.1 11
Fax 40M.359.1 l!
23 August 1993
Saratoga Planning Commission
Please vote -FOR a cellular antenna installation in Saratoga.
For those of us in business in this area, it would be extremely
helpful.
Thank you very much.
Nancy Carlson, Saratoga Resident
RECEIVED
AUG 241993
PLANNING DEPT
August 23, 1993
To: City of Saratoga
- Planning Commission
FX: 741 -1132
Dear Commissioners,
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing the possibility of a
tower to be constructed in downtown Saratoga to improve the reception on
cellular phones phones.
We have lived and worked in Saratoga for 9 years, our children go to School in
Saratoga.
We need better reception for a large number of users that live and work in
Saratoga. Cellular phones are becoming very affordable. It will not be long before
an even larger number.of people in Saratoga will have them for personal as well
as business use. We own two cellular phones.
Our request from the Planning Commission is to approve what ever sights are
needed to improve the reception in Saratoga now and into the future. We have
experienced very poor reception, including being cut off and static. these
improvements are needed for the people of Saratoga.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim and Gail Evjenth
12553 Woodside Dr.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
741 -1111 ex 152
RECEIVED
AUG 2 4 1993
PLANNING DEPT
August 23, 1993
To: City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
FX: 741-1132.
From: Mark Wilkinson
Dear Sirs, --
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones.
As someone who serves the people in Saratoga in my business and is active in
the Chamber of Commerce to develop business in Saratoga, I think it is critical
that we have a working system in Saratoga. I rely heavily on my car phone to.
stay in touch with my clients. My reception in Saratoga is the worst of any
location on the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent
"disconnects." It is exacerbated by the uneven topography and the number of
overhead power lines. When driving down Coxs, Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Sobey or
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road I can hardly finish a phone call. This may sound like a
"rich persons" problem however, I assure you this is not the case. My car phone
is as essential in my business as a copy machine or fax machine in any other
business.
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed it Saratoga
in whichever location the experts say will alleviate this situation even if that might
be in the Village. I do believe that an inconspicuous spot can be found.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Mark Wilkinson
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
741 -1111, ext. 125
RECEIVED
AUG 2 41993
PLANNING DEPT.
August 23, 1993
To: City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
FX: 741 -1132
From: Melanie Kemp
Dear Sirs, _
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones.
As a resident of Saratoga working also in Saratoga, I heavily rely on my car
phone in my business. My reception in Saratoga is the worst of any location or,
the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent "disconnects." I find
this extremely frustrating and harmful to my business.
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in Saratoga
that might help alleviate this situation.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melanie Kemp
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
741 -1111, ext. 117
RECEIVED
AUG 241993
PLANNING DEPT,
August 23, 1993
To:. .City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
FX: 741 -1132
From: Lynn Mirassou
Dear Sirs,=
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones.
Working in Saratoga, I heavily rely on my car phone in my business. My
reception in Saratoga is the worst of any location on the Peninsula with either
static reception or very frequent "disconnects." I find this extremely frustrating
and harmful to my business.
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be.placed in Saratoga
that might help alleviate this situation.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,.
Lynn Mirassou.
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
741 -1111, ext. 139
RECEIVED
AUG 2 41993
PLA liuv ; VOL
August 24, 1993
To: City of Saratoga
Planning Commission.
FX: 741 -1132
From: Susan Fagin
Dear Sirs, - —
I understand the Planning Commission will be discussing in the near future the
possibility of a tower to be constructed in the Saratoga vicinity to help with
reception on car phones.
As a resident of Los' Gatos working almost exclusively in Saratoga and Los
Gatos, I rely heavily on my car phone. My reception in Saratoga is the worst of
any location on the Peninsula with either static reception or very frequent
"disconnects." I find this extremely frustrating and harmful to my business.
I would VERY much hope that you would allow a tower to be placed in Saratoga
that might help alleviate this situation.
If you'd like to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Fagin
Broker Associate
Alain Pinel Realtors
358 -1111, ext. 109
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE EXCHANGE
14471 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070
Paul Curtis, Planning Director
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE
SARATOGA CA 95070
Dear Paul:
SEP 16 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
September 15, 1993
As you requested in our recent telephone conversation, I am asking
that you attach this letter to the Cellular Telephone Antenna Item of the
agenda of the September 22, 1993 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
I want to make known the position of International Coffee Exchange,
Inc., concerning the cellular telephone antennas to be located in the .
building where we are currently tenants, namely, the building located at
14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village.
We are not opposed to the antenna project in principle, and we
appreciate its benefits to the City and all other parties involved.
However, there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the
potential harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro
Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over extended periods of time.
We have provided seating for our customers on the patio in front of
the Coffee Exchange for eight years, and many of our customers utilize
this area on a daily basis. This seating has become a key element in the
successful operation of our business. Our patio is the only location
where people will be within direct view of the devices, in close
proximity to the radiation source, for extended periods of time without
the protection of a roof. We have a very realistic fear that a
significant number of our customers will believe that there are seriously
harmful effects caused by the antennas. This will be very detrimental to
our operation.
14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741 -1185
t
We are requesting that approval of the installation of the antennas
be made conditional upon the provision of protection for all areas which
are vulnerable to radiation from the antennas. Covering the antennas
with a structure designed to hide them is not sufficient, because a
structure designed only for aesthetic purpses will be transparent to the
EMR. The GTE /Cellular One consultant has assured me that, while the
radiatioon cannot be attenuated at the source, it can be reduced by 90%
in selected target areas by a structure designed for that purpose. This
would not interfere in any way with telephone reception in the protected
areas, according to the consultant.'
Without this protection, we feel that our business, and all of the
other businesses in the village which depend on the pull of our business,
will be seriously jeopardized by the installation of the antennas. We
respectfully request that you make approval of the antennas conditional
upon the installation of a structure designed to protect the outdoor public
areas located at 14471 Big Basin Way by absorbing Electro Magnetic
Radiation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Victor Amezc Chairman
14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741 -1185
Date: September 21, 1993
To: Members of Saratoga Planning Commission
From: John Brady
14287 Chester Avenue
Saratoga, CA
4OWS67 -6676
It is with increasing frustration that I send this letter requesting your timely approval of
steps that can be taken to provide reliable cellular transmission in the City of Saratoga.
Ironically, cellular transmission in Saratoga, in my experience is the least reliable in the
entire Bay Area.
The benefits of reliable cellular transmission are as follows:
1. Increased safety.
2. Improved business communication.
3. Improved communication and convenience within our families.
A key residual benefit to an improved and reliable system will be the reduction of
automobile traffic on Saratoga streets.
Please consider .the above comments and my request for reliable cellular
communication.
Thank you.
/jb1620
99/21/93 15:0c $ 408 879 0202 MANGIANTINI CRES P.02
GYRATION
August 25, 1993
Ms. Karen Anderson
Mayor
City of Saratoga
204060 Saratoga /Los Gatos Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Madam May-or:
The purpose of this letter is to highlight the public safety need of a cellular phone
site in the Saratoga area. As an officer of a company located in the Saratoga area, 1
have had many occasions to use my car phone for personal, business and public
safety reasons. I am very concerned that the hysterical clamor raised by the
opposition to this cell site is endangering public safety and inhibiting the 'business
environment in Saratoga.
Early this year I. was the sole witness to a broadside. collision at the intersection of
Highway 9 and Fruitvale. A young lady from out of town ran the red -light on
Highway 9. Her car broadsided the car ahead of me as it pulled into the
intersection when our light turned green. I attempted to reach 911 but was unable
to due to the poor reception of the GTE system in the area. We had to wait until
someone drove up and they agreed to drive down to the sheriffs substation to
summon assistance. Fortunately, no one in this accident was injured - just badly
shaken up. I cannot stress to you how frustrating this incident was for me. I had
the ability and the need to contact emergency help but was foiled by the fact that
the City of Saratoga would not allow a cell site to be located in the area!
The use of cellular telephones for business communication has grown dramatically
in 'the past few years. As a business consumer, my ability to stay in touch with the
office, customers, vendors and investors is crucial to. my success. Unfortunately,
most areas in Saratoga are inaccessible by cellular phone and, thus, this makes the
business climate very difficult (even if one is passing through from one side of the
Valley to the other on Highway 9). 1 recognize that Saratoga wishes to remain a
quaint small town, but providing cellular service is not going to change this image.
I appreciate your consideration of my position with regards to the pending permit
application filed by GTE and Cellular One.
L Respect llyyours,
omas E. McCullough:T�
Vice President of Business Development
cc: Megan Mathews
,•,n�nc�i,•• nom,. ±+ + n+ +n+���•,^ r^ c1 „a n�+r^c. ��,. �cr)• -n
Nov. 3, 1993
City Council
City Hall
Saratoga, CA
David Z. Associates, Appraisers & Consultants
David Zaches, M A
of Saratoga
95070
Dear Councilmembers:
IN
RECEIVED
NOV 3 1993
rui►v►v►►v(; DEPT.
Regarding: Microwave Equipment or Antennae on Big Basin Way
above International Coffee Roasting
I wish to add my voice and support to the Saratoga merchants' and
citizens' requests to provide shielding both to minimize stray
microwaves and to visually shield the microwave dishes and
equipment in an aesthetically pleasing way.
Whether the microwaves or other radiation from these devices is
harmful to people in long run or short run is not the point. The
recent Los Gatos Fisher School decision proves that people are
worried about the radiation. Businesses on Big Basin Way don't
need the handicap of worried customers.
I hope the City Planning and Design Review functions will assure
that the equipment and shielding is of the best design to control
stray microwaves, and is aesthetically appealing. I hope the
Council will also reserve the right to require any improvements in
the installation in future years when any improved methods or
equipment may become available.
Sincerely yours,
David Zaches
DZ /jj
19000 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, (408) 741 -5930
Joseph C. Masek
14467 Big BAsin Way
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
The Honorable Council,
City of Saratoga.
RI E Po E � u Eff
NOV 2 1993
CiY L u.,PP SA!- Ari10GX
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
October 23 1993.
Re: GTE MOBILNETI CELLULAR ONE
A.P.N.: 503 -24 -066
Speaking for myself as well as for the tennants of the apartment at 14467
Big Basin Way, Saratoga, we wish to ask the council to deny the approval
to install two cellular, transmission arrays consisting of 18 individual
antennas on the adjacent building at 14471 Big Basin Way.
Our request is based on not only the visual appearance of the proposed
structures , but also on the. fact that the tennants appartment is located
within 20 feet of the nearest proposed antenna. Second , there is no
scientific proof that the tennants exposure to the electro - magnetic output
of the antennas would not be harmfull.
Thanking you for your, consideration, i remain,
sA
0•0 Illi�
KAISER PERT MENM
•! k+ - /`�-��PI, /fir,
Kaiser Permariente Medical Center
Department of Pediatrics
900 Kiely Boulevard
Santa Clara, California 95051 -5386
The Honorable Karen Tucker - Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga Ca. 95070
Mrs. Tucker:
Kenneth P. Kentrh
HospitaVHealth Plan Administrator
Christopher Chow, M.D.
Physician -in -Chief
Donna Young
Medical Group Administrator
I am writing this in response to the upcoming hearing at the Saratoga Council session
to be held Wednesday, 4 November,, regarding the installation of Cellular Telephone
receiving equipment on the roof of the Clef House Shopping complex at 14471 Big
Basin Way.
I am a physician, and have resided at 14696 Bougainvillea Ct. for the past 17 years.
use a Cellular Phone in my automobile, and can verify that there is a "dead reception
zone" from Highway 9 where it intersects Tollgate Rd. and continuing through Big
Basin Way. The reception becomes clear when I turn onto Saratoga Ave. from
Big Basin.
The use of a car telephone is most important to me, as I'm sure it is to other
professionals, and the fact that there is a dead reception area in part of Saratoga, and
particularly in the Village,: is most disturbing.. It is with this in mind that I strongly
support the proposed installation of Cellular receiving equipment at the Clef House
complex. I also know of no studies showing that this equipment poses a health hazard
due to radiation, and any argument to the contrary is without merit unless someone
can demonstrate to you a well- documented scientific study showing that such dangers
exist. Thank you
-Yours Truly
I. MEYER HELLE M.D.
'. 4dYrCrceeLe�
!A,
4 `74 1
fts
As a S a - v. +J.cl a _-, s d;l t 1; urge the Countj
4.
j�lz a. ln.�l y c v eme n t o f t he cel' U
-OW aLr 3W`1111'N3 V.e'
have cam t c., a p a -n d upon a s a progressive
societw. It' Is nconsistai.it '1-hai_- we sho-cild not
r rec-ives
en-joy the pl, J eges t% C-01*1 '-I ar use
:xn narts I` a n. Jose.
n c_ e y
At
N,
I-4olj-ozl-1993 17:09
40a 741 •727 P. 002.'002
I I.Trae.- Llhe o. --ity C
t •12 ) c' w -LjTq"
ce-llular serNickn
i.
call.s. to
Tv be r v. " d-'
er. jo., tL
• i n P
of Sran jooe
J,
TOTAL P.002
408 741 2727 F'.00 '002
n
As a Saratoga resident,
I urge the Cit
to allow improvement of y Cuncil
the cellular service we
have come to depend upon as a progressive
society- It is inconsiStant that we should not
enjoy the Privileges a cellular user receives
in parts of San Jose.
Sincerely,
Ti-,T,L11 E: i-,t7i7f
17: OG
408 741 "2727 P. 001/0,32,
C-t 7-/
As a Saratoga resident, I Urge the City Councl
'�-O allow improvement of the
have c -1
Ome to cellular service we
society. It is depend upon as a progressive
enjoy the privileges
Inconsista t
a ce n that we should riot
in Parts of San Jose. Ilular Use I r receives
Sincerely,
PI) !�� IN e 5;5eS
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
t K\ CHAfi /�
540 SA N3(OCY
Ad, /14 11111,
,1;7/34111
—S"6 7` 7,-�;-1
/tiioki &--
7� - yea tJ
W�7 50- c a
�� 7 -1� �t
�. • M
WeSa Q&6VL& I 'Af4(o -6 91 G Wx 033 3
AN 1(i V13 14 Z &u 4 y 23
PETITION
�uSr,vBSSe, S
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
PRINT ADDRESS ,
TELEPHONE
SZ2L
ie y4CVO ( asp
z c�
-oil
0 3
7Y/ -as—OL
IVJ oiy
s •
•
PETITION fv- �Sk bvs 1
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
/ym m� S 6 -(o �
/441( 67,40 5-4 i< '(
KOM, NMI
'jam &sn6-N
L -')Iel fee_
IAJ
U -5V a "^i !�
�sCc7 7 7
iVe iJCh�poritp�
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
gfSCU
.01m K"' 1",
7VI -57�
��
7 -.2-7 -
7Vl - s5yli�
_�A -YT_? '� ufv\)o (q P(3 S'��Z� , ,� A'y A0 —x(02
wee, & /?z
LT-ICA VvAtio
/13 7v ar, n ,rte l:
f IV
s67 -"ems
&—I — (DIOZ
Wcuamn= 144 36 1 SPy " -y c l -o 5"o Z
i
J'10 %� ��� Z s iii n r ,�}✓� -p ZED
Cam' 6G7 4r9i�
►�I (�iS C� m1Gk 0 7i� UQ-
,�. t:t�(�►� eS {�, 1 e Y� h C� �j I i w a� -� c� �i; 7 -q S�
Ne 1�`KLAOIS5
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
S12C 7 027
�Ut<,
7ql 3�Z
�06 7 - 6 q Vp
,►
•
IMI-MAM Jill,
I
J67 -_1bi Z
f r 4
'-13400
WA
N 2 (AOA0045
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potentiai harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
u (4r1 143Sa ,4
a� v
11:
/7z
x'76 2is _1z
Zzi
/4( 57
_ 0-6_74
Il is ° Wn 0 RUA-Q Q-kv— , �7 -10 ( 7
►� -� C•,
142 ,0 CWe, , %7- 01 '*—�
)qago -PHUL 70 ova i
� O V_rz
f6'
- - F, a, E, 0, "I'm®r,
a,
91 Owl I
Ne (Aoori ."Px
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
( ��� 60S� 5 EVcNi m+rt vyA 1 U 2Z.1 -fcu•e_ ae, G-ux B3& 7 �� 83
A) e- 113 IkorAOV J5
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential harmful effects of
Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to determine the effects of sustained
exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request that approval of the cellular telephone antennas to
be located at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga Village be denied.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
�Y / - S -C/ Z
IV
ter_
7¢/
7
Src- `1- k 23 1
een A�-F- 14zgk Gl v a Ave- 55� --7 �Z.�
7-4�� J, &Z _Vs-
DETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
P'AA d- "41
•
_� A . ,, , ,
HAS PRATH E R
Lc-6 %le : /1-/eXP �
Ade Dw"—
,,T Hti/ //A L-Co,&J
FP
/y537 O Ak s-T,e , sA t
X67 -S77p
/Soao �.eu:n�gc.E /,1v�, She
7yi S'o��
((43q L.►- c.} �7- Fa (�/
7Y /' °��'�
1--017L4fT R/GC &f
3�r1�o�
2.0261 � t= t2CE eZfl
d� 61 -4 �� �
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
I mxlw��
.,
PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
------------------ - - - - -- ----- 1------------ t------ - - - - -- ----------
OiVALL- E k F Lam �9-47- qG S-4
a� S kA'V, ex ' % " %,'/�z
neQ� ritr¢
�M �
' • �/
I �
tjON - ' •
a►�► -auk •
�:.
Zlo� Srs�•Qa %l'�� �o�
�U _fq7U
(f,4, 0
F�-7 �C
)ETITION
[n view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
iarmful effects of Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), and that no studies have been done to
ietermine the effects of sustained exposure to low -level EMR, we, the undersigned, request
:hat approval of the cellular telephone antennas to be located at 14471 big basin Way in
iaratoga Village be denied.
UGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
1_
&7 7 9-s�
71-1 �
�/ -d33 Z.
,,T- P6? -5-;?
(c.,7 3 ( YmY Pr (-,-e s'- pr
- <Ss -8'6Gq
%yob t .h(C lywC,y
YGVYI 511 e,� �Di 67P/ 9d/ n (LtAz —
;Tu ) iC' - rc)+4o V_(_
C
126 2 ()C6
etc$
1973 1 He Cbio wqw &7_ i2.,,� 3
7 -L
eV,6, 3/ ice ee67Q( z 72
20532 � I Aof�d � C %
X19 3!
OIL
FIN
r �'I..�Y I FARM
i mam
®! % %� /` -�' / • i � i - /ter/ -
.99L- 0m92 .
C6 7-0f4,5"
%�� -�3�Z
14 (e-7 -x4!14
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
------------------ - - - - -- - - - - - --
TELEPHONE
W6 j s.
y E Us
L c. g_ct, 4 sq",r -
&CE DNai�,
TaSa tJ � /LJ
�I1 Y lt�I S�'z
i
�lisl�k�'l -. �flchvrW�
-��- --
.Susark D. An LrS0
;1�2,�
V Mw
ll
i • MW I •
C F
g5� o
l►�5b bpij b
Zo KibAId- t -.
ff� LN rd M.'a F, I Wa
-2Ll t 'ps"
i
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
------------------ - - - - -- - - - - - --
TELEPHONE
W6 j s.
y E Us
L c. g_ct, 4 sq",r -
&CE DNai�,
TaSa tJ � /LJ
�I1 Y lt�I S�'z
i
�lisl�k�'l -. �flchvrW�
-��- --
.Susark D. An LrS0
;1�2,�
V Mw
ll
i • MW I •
C F
g5� o
l►�5b bpij b
Zo KibAId- t -.
ff� LN rd M.'a F, I Wa
-2Ll t 'ps"
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
OS+
S+��t
NN
P rV.
.4f saPffi
�. ,
t %,-
'�-o � 5 r _ So t� /os
62 yojll/� ,,,qe _Cy?-
3 1 57-7ae-
jw
/273 ✓yv�, �d �oY 2 Y7�t
r, �Jib>
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be.conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
.
r
------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------
J a
-7
.?n>,-7i ()tu.r Qc Ste. W-V7 -'s-z 3
N6� 4 p
I r,�
C4-
i • � rlr •
il/:/ I. A
raw
�� •ti . / i
J�PI
i /j
FA
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditia provision of protectio or he pa is areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, aV e g WnPre T re I oc .
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS , TELEPHONE
k'A b0n� C q�ca
MOCWr 5-1 r►E shnn yfu '
10 E et I G— /4a9LIV0J ALAP" lb S4. 5i'S C—A I S/ 17
I
6 #4e&—A),e7N414q1W
/r Q a
�prN1�A 17t��'
1G 33S _AlV j6aA^) x>-kVic 47o G19'
.old
... 11
2D0IZ C�U►tCrS Cr fJ'�7� y6� ��' �%'iy
�a F3 LW 5� ��� U 7- -•ZO75
� `S71 -5 o
�Z�-73 -JZti
950� X08
6(,2® t—)II& a i �, � �L'� 3?/ -09
I� $rage way >rmr�L3/
cnc
if
P TITION O
oO
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
W
.1m I � /FA
41
PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
eAM &) - Va22&t12_ /
5&a&'e_ 0
.a�
- 2� _,�
`• /ice • i/ �lr�1 '
a
I
i
�i I . /. 1. _ / _6_ ' f wk 6! '
--e�L MPC�ON ►► . •
I �
v •
Z_ ore IA116
i
• '
Q
e 7) ezg i it' '. iL ::
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of ttle'ootential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
AckaJ
TELEPHONE
---------------- - - - - -- -- -- - --
m2-6 IAAA!�g , CA
867 -110 Z.
` ,7(7q
997 - tio3�
t-74-
Alnx- xQxkW ooD 2 oL1 c-{i� W T L -z hm s AUf • �8-50
C3- Ct1g-r'z'
1 i r
�XA�LC� AZA NA l
�`��yU J2rZ ✓��'*i Y) �s �0-1 -LS`(;
h N
<7tw �---
7 -S
'j
-
MWe ME
997 - tio3�
t-74-
Alnx- xQxkW ooD 2 oL1 c-{i� W T L -z hm s AUf • �8-50
C3- Ct1g-r'z'
1 i r
�XA�LC� AZA NA l
�`��yU J2rZ ✓��'*i Y) �s �0-1 -LS`(;
h N
<7tw �---
7 -S
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a meat deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
�Acj�i? So�c,L .
01 . �► •
e!W1
rZ
'3o4_g_
TELEPHONE
,-2osao 7qf 1 050
UP_ so-Q,<
Z-0('0 2
0 L97 cy
Ave, ,
ZGZ2S fK-K .1Q )Ut
_i i' 31 �vllnvll1ea� fix. -�1TcS
S-N - V17 5a-
3s6=
34S qZ /7
-'6,L
7- -9/�S
-:1110
ie 6: 603 0 (o
S2 4 `7z-11 - 02 0/0
L « '� ►�� �s�! old flee W,_ P67
;PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
Z ��i�
fi
MAR
MAWORP
PRINT NAME
o�
>
; ��5 y
z
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
------------------------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
--- - `'17
1'7qe 3 V i p,Q
�(,,q c44
„�o, ).'��✓� JAS C�G,A1'fn,�O
TT
/y y 3 6 C STS 2 C c r ¢�—c %
-5y? J iL..,, 61151
20s-co Yf 6 S-( - 867- 61to
s C S 86 ? -55�iS
7 n r O Q �a isa,
�9 ?
-P r t�s G S u�af 8'G -7,
oil
1071 l ,MK, pt- C,-es 6q
V413 rn oh raw fC or _j -I y3
/arna1.7a �G7 =/ieZ_
,r
;PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
r A .WAG FO WAVVE M-
.,
OW
00 19 ".1% W 0 1, M''
oa _
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
_� I ►c a' _'Ci •
-2e> � I-, c-` A � '> F->-} LCXJ��4
C, LL�LS ( r
3?V ---)OZJ
7 `r ss -�zo3 7
G'4
-ZZ / —fl f/
W
(4 I o (tiff�rt��►� ► �,
�h q I PAAO-&, CY(tAvxu e kJ 55,Y
T—
i toggs 6o►tmAil FD 8'(0 7 -3 l3�
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue.of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to tKe antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ------- - - - - -- ADDRESS TELEPHONE
------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------------------------------ ---- - - - - --
'Zoa Cc�k 1 tY�--
Cl�s
/ g s j O Co `J Fi�S ..ate I
13C
imgr-6-Ve Ln S�
• /� /,m
1 � �
11" Ww'.5V Fra'= ROW,.
/-/Ic z9 7y
3Sb -76 n
315'9 f1��l i r r� � u� s✓ , �. - �/9 �
l9j 3l �7u s C.T. `fy6 7.2
-23
T
s1 41AW10141 t-er
7Y9-CW
26tA
�
J-2
9
JETITION
0
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
?xtended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
------------------ - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - - --
57
Poe Ai /9 z eAt) 16 0 6 D n k rg !� L—k
58r-) 'gb 764—.
TELEPHONE
-� -b60 a
7 1 3
0/177-- 3Sf 7
�� -1oD3
7 393
29S
LA&ia Jo C—V.` r5/ S-' s
Lct l "Iq- 910 i' z X93
or-
.
PETITION
,In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be 'conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNgZURE - - -�� - - - -1 PRIN_f -NAME - ADDRESS TELEPHONE
- -� - -- -- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - --
6'7
ssb -
ar��l C' tnco�_,�e . gg80�
6K o Ave, 7ySD
J 60SO� ,-4 (ZJ,- 2 b 2-00 f
15A 71N t46A 1 ` \cs�rr n� N0> 1 L431 S (�u ,rJ
4*at 495-a�t Zt'17-- 41V-79=,e% C-41
K T 4L-ee�o KIA)6 o�08�b C' row v�� D2 5 &7 -9.277
�rp r+2/.� /��C aar�o rrbn roe S� .#►�v3 �i k�f -717-:�
EWA
/ - ► - / ..
w
MAW; W.4
V100"INNIZA N
� r
i
IN09 •
1
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a Qreat deal.of controversy over the issue of the potential
-iarmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the.provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas.are located.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
■FiTIiFal ON ERM ■
�s
ADDRESS
Cd,
v►L.:
L+ns LWIS(Y n
Tt4 sc. �,
� cyO.CTi�
Jk) C c oS
�s� W ►�
v 01CM
/ ?7 Lax Nrk C /J " 67
i ` /
TELEPHONE
r_
XS -2 7u -L
JI �
(-(-�- 374 -r2Y7
4-60 (00i✓7ESS CL &Z, ZS7- S %JO
3
Wu, Si :208 L -Q
0
6 F
t:'!—zQ aralt-
2- 1T)o . Vt'c. Qe5%:
k if
F6 A- 6
►�/ � -.� cis
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversv over the issue of the potential
harmful effects.of sustained and regular exposure to Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME
iAIR _!�' -#a
''
10! 'P"
• 1 r
ml-
[ 1� tft1'
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
�-
I'f 3
116 �r� �'a•�
c p- 5
IC46 (0�16S4-
L. � � ■l � `1 � if /J/
R
11 M-1
.: •
I yq V/fi57/gD s7-6-
-
8
DENIMS
FAvE (3o
ml-
[ 1� tft1'
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
�-
I'f 3
116 �r� �'a•�
c p- 5
IC46 (0�16S4-
L. � � ■l � `1 � if /J/
R
11 M-1
.: •
I yq V/fi57/gD s7-6-
-
8
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned-, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
960MUNKFIN
Wa
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
------------------------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
L�
/56� sY
_AIX
X555 Pr 2
ILx BI ,ZY3P'
i I I
Fjr
at =00IRM111
LA u ic.l.
I k
do
C4 y SC7
tM(L 64 _
POUR. l s
4Y�E�
�--
1
6KR � P2.
�i p
/(is
2D23z- 1
L-0 q�5-7
Z3 S— G✓ 17-
- 0¢3
l �o o lC.�/a fir✓ �2� ✓�'
Nll��-7 bo�/L '' V
)ETITION
[n view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
iarmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
?xtended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
;elephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
►re directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
iIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
169DE S D rY
_ —mo d.
kj�OrWAtiKd 14111 irea /J44 -Wo
X, [c r Z- F,>.A y 5 Ti
l Act
44 7'),--9'V. J � I �r3 a 3 -W9
/a - e Gyi
IeAA) lik=V ""at 2o 76& # �A-0few S i % — 0 3,5 S
e
• i��! •. �' �� 'ice
75,-13 i Q �f% ✓..1 Sri c;�P�sejAryf
497L- EI rrmwood 0r. SO-Owe- 37g- 3 60
il 7 K
�637
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation-(EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
167 114-7-1
los
zz
i
' I
MJF
�Wtpj�44#f :T- W1
Rum
I F AM Wi4l., f INA
Lill
MAP WW15
EMS"G ► tj
8'A' AL LLP-B \ �R zGS
TL�!!A S�u Ar\ Itz aw l(ea s t .
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly xpo ed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATUR � j PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
1
MR
------------------------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
a y
/ 71 iCh 1tg- a -C e. fifA'�k AvLa Las Q 1 S 366 - 4YV
ZSS8441
Nfib;e`'
Ioo 930 to
UMRS& / �..
YU\D C'�
t6 3s�
)/5 G-A-
,y •
r+ �
Zb'f�n IJ$1 hv`7 *dt
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversv over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
------ li.c�------ - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - --
5621�ff7gwl
0000092 MINE 81515310�12911 21A,
11SW Wo"'N I M VERMITAY"NOWMIM101 milut M W Al Z C RA
V
,T / —2921 0,4.E Jr,
tJf'F-fJ � � )2,
L -ec"C' re Rs / yti :7 o
r �i's FreS'1QK ter lq to e fi,,,,A- ✓�
X5612
If
i
•
z*A ems, Cam,�-31
Z-3 crrE -r, ,A 14 ya.
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
i
.�Giv. • �
- -- rd _
HIM,,
i V
Cito�F 1���0�
1�
FT4 z
141 �(
t /L•
L,-?- Lq3,�c� a_
/I
7 --o5G5
VC 2
a.LNP L, lr+re aJ'd-�D�6
Po gox 3a g S! =mac, 9'7
//9A/ -0,0" 4a C--
/A1 W /
)ETI T I ON
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
iarmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS
-- --- - - - - --I�--- - -,�- - -- ------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - --
+Aj
rw
TELEPHONE
F[ 'A
�5qn CL4nA
F� `�►fl� 17 L BE NF.) 9 o o 11 EYVEi2 -srzr, c Lni #9 Z b7
X4
\l
LV A l k �Ag lilt t�lz
Jf-) 4a., LA r-Lo
Ar
�tia - /sir
X07 �7o0.
S;67 -7KO7
P7qq s o_
Snw<�i c� l'1-RP
r_5S Keus�v�c (�uc Z2 z-4 �_ f31o39
13�� �tfu..•f D1�7" �E
�.3.�Z� lzacv�►�b �,�— �r�21�
_ (3 ) go CA. -6 ylc
A
6
1p
Ze4(W 22
zo_ 2- 71'`7
Sit► KArITh . —
( 4311 E W A- A��_
4 -1
Nu Nrl
pW 21 POp Elz
G4 9E
Ot ar l otte Treacrv� ��o�
1&�q Pers r mn�n
Pi 5 T.
.252-0341
L 15A -Thv �v
l '� I11 r+b�h
��k
7�l
PETITION.
In view of the fact that, there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned or, the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
if 111111111111111111111111 11111111 l� 11111111
All
1 �� / / .ar.t r
• %I�i 1
i
" W212
IS
ELI
lorkil �Iyuk' Y7
�7
MID
I
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a ureat deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR)'Over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS >
I<Cls'
Co �a
N' AMA
�LffL MCL. Cf�IkJ
/- ij-A 1
vw
i
�uL Cf C, �3i�+�pt�Zc5
TELEPHONE
_�__L��?
e 7 55�
� G _� n— c
as 3_ 3o't
Ck�
z
*t 3 o Vouqr-,4ss c- Ic)
(fj Wr
L- -77 o��
?AM CL �� � bhe,� f1 �� aka i Rol. �. G � 0(P
e
eta i •i �' � � .• �� .
h I i �Z
3 C'" re- C/
17M
it
PETITION
r
In view of th -a—great deal ot controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at the building where the antennas are located.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
j0 k Pt C Vv C. -
u._,1
I-4 IC
6;� 6 cr LZ , 2
Gio ryl
TELEPHONE
'Y l 7
(77b 6 V&�M Ste._— (7C-7)64 ?Co
— Lo3 --f� CsS�— Ott
&- 'i3
�l 4 fi
0 -1. &W9. fag0 -
PETITION
In view of the fact that there is a great deal of controversy over the issue of the potential
harmful effects of sustained and regular exposure to Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) over
extended periods of time, we, the undersigned, request that the approval of the cellular
telephone antennas be conditioned on the provision of protection for the patio areas, which
are directly exposed to the antennas, at, the building where the antennas are located.
NATURE
: :J •.
PRINT NAME
I �C9tf &s CSI C'm W
QUA,
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
----------------- Z, --------- ----------
I (wr t SOO t Elk ( A) cb '
Nall, , �f
`Y•i i
U
arf�2o c)Ccie LA s% f' n S+'-Z r —
tf ew
330 Q 1 -tos+ ST
�� N• l� .5�, s. 3: X93 ���7
!9S& Iy . 1-4-19 Srt .515.
L, (,os ki�s fhl(s
s7W ,u.' -cam CA-
5D
w•rw#- Lod'4405
tS flare ►M,fd-& 11 3441
ZoL MoNKE B,- u; -s�
W� L.skj d,llo �L o ho 3
C J�
rT�
X•0
1 1,
KAISER PERMANENTE
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
Department of Pediatrics
goo Kiely Boulevard
Santa Clara, California 95051 -5386
The Honorable Karen Tucker - Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga Ca. 95070
Mrs. Tucker:
Kenneth P. Kentch
HospitaVHealth Plan Administrator
Christopher Chow, M.D.
Physician -in -Chief
Donna Young
Medical Group Administrator
I am writing this in response to the upcoming hearing at the Saratoga Council session
to be held Wednesday, 4 November, regarding the installation of Cellular Telephone
receiving equipment on the roof of the Clef House Shopping complex at 14471 Big
Basin Way.
I am a physician, and have resided at 14696 Bougainvillea Ct. for the past 17 years.
use a Cellular Phone in my automobile, and can verify that there is a "dead reception
zone" from Highway. 9 where it intersects Tollgate Rd. and continuing through Big
Basin Way. The reception becomes clear when I turn onto Saratoga Ave. from
Big Basin.
The use of a car telephone is most important to me, as I'm sure it is to other
professionals, and the fact that there is a dead reception area in part of Saratoga, and
particularly in the Village, is most disturbing.. It is with this in mind that I strongly
support the proposed installation of Cellular receiving equipment at the Clef House .
complex. I also know of no studies showing that this equipment poses a health hazard
due to radiation, and any argument to the contrary is without merit unless someone
can demonstrate to you a well - documented scientific study showing that such dangers
exist. Thank you
,Yours Truly
I. MEYER HELLER M.D.
Joseph C. Masek
14467 Big BAsin Way
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
The Honorable Council;
City of Saratoga.
a Es
D
NOV 2 1993
C l 1 UP ; SAf', ►i`OuA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
October 23 1993.
Re: GTE MOBILNET/ CELLULAR ONE
A.P.N.: 503 -24 -066
Speaking for myself as well as for the tennants of the apartment at 14467
Big Basin Way, Saratoga, we wish to ask the council to deny the approval
to install two cellular transmission arrays consisting of. 18 individual
antennas on the adjacent building at 14471 Big Basin Way.
Our request is based on not only the visual appearance of the proposed
structures , but also on the fact that the tennants appartment is .located
within 20 feet of the nearest proposed antenna. Second , there is no
scientific proof that the tennants exposure to the electro - magnetic output
of the antennas would not be harmfull.
Thanking you for your consideration, I remain,
CA
lll3k�
,j
47
i
elt
, r��e-w
fil
�, xI-
��-i _
Zoe-
David Z. Associates, Appraisers & Consultants
David Zaches, M A I
Nov. 3, 1993
City Council of Saratoga
City Hall
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
RECEIVED
NO V 3 1993
ruhivivlfyG DEPT.
Regarding: Microwave Equipment or Antennae on Big Basin Way
above International Coffee Roasting
I wish to add my voice and support to the Saratoga merchants' and
citizens, requests to provide shielding both to minimize stray
microwaves and to visually shield the microwave dishes and
equipment*in an aesthetically pleasing way.
Whether the microwaves or other radiation from these devices is
harmful to people in long run or.short run is not the point. The
recent Los Gatos Fisher School decision proves that people are
worried about the radiation. Businesses on Big Basin Way don't
need the handicap of worried customers.
I hope the City Planning and Design Review functions will assure
that the equipment and shielding is of the best design to control
stray microwaves, and is aesthetically appealing. I hope the
Council will also reserve the right to require any improvements in
the installation ink future years when any improved methods or
equipment may become available.
Sincerely yours,
David Zaches
DZ /jj
19000 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, (408) 741 -5930
1117
ALJ /BDP /tc9 Mail&c
"AR 3 0199'
Decision 90 -03 -080 March 28, 1990
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
order Instituting Rulemaking on the )
Commission's own motion to develop )
revisions to General Orders and )
Rules applicable to siting and ) R.90- 01-012
environmental review of cellular ) (filed January 9, 199G)
mobile radiotelephone utility )
facilities. )
Y.YY�' �Y • � •
On January 9, 1990, we instituted this rulemaking to
determine the need for revisions to the Commission's General Orders
applicable to siting and environmental review of cellular
radiotelephone facilities. A proposed General Order (GO)
prescribing Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of
Cellular Radiotelephone Cell Sites and Switches Located in
California was appended to the rulemaking. The proposed rules
were mailed to the cellular utilities, counties, and local planning
agencies shown on Appendix B. Written comments on the proposed
rules and other issues identified in the rulemaking were invited by
March 2, 1990. Comments were received from several parties.
Workshops to review the proposed. rules were - held in -six cities in
California during March 1990.
In the order instituting this rulemaking,-we discussed
the problems with the current procedures which prompted the need
for this rulemaking. In particular-, - ve-observed- that the cellular
radiotelephone industry was expanding much faster than projected
and the lack of environmental review and public noticing of
expansion and in -fill sites had denied the opportunity for public
comment and local government review in some cases.
- 1 -
P_90-01-C!2 AL7 /BDP /tcg
We are aware of at least 20 new cellular radiotelephone
sites proposed for construction in the near future. There are
probably many more of which we are not aware since many cellular
radiotelephone utilities are not required to notify the Commission
of expansions of their systems. McCaw Cellular Communications,
Inc. (McCaw) is required to file additional environmental
information on new sites. Consequently, McCaw recently filed
supplemental environmental information on approximately 19
additional antenna sites which would increase capacity and improve
transmission quality on its systems. McCaw claims that these
additional sites will not* expand its service territory and argues
that it consequently is not required to submit environmental
information to the Commission prior to construction of these
additional antenna sites. McCaw goes on to state that it filed
this additional environmental information with the Commission for
informational purposes only.
In addition, two formal complaints have been filed
recently with the Commission. In Case (C.) 90 -02 -019, County of
Monterey vs. Salinas Cellular Telephone Company, et al.,
Complainant alleges violations of the California Coastal Act and
local ordinances and requests the Commission order the removal of
certain cellular radiotelephone related facilities. In
C.90 -02 -020, Boron et al. vs Cellular• one, complainants allege that
CEQA requirements were not followed and request that towers
improperly located in their residential neighborhood be moved to
more appropriate locations.
It is clear that-the pace- -of-cellular radiotelephone
expansion has quickened even beyond our expectations when we issued
the rulemaking. Indeed, the issuance of the rulemaking may have
contributed to this increased activity. In our opinion, the need
for immediate action to bring order and proper environmental
scrutiny to this activity outweighs the immediate need for
additional cellular radiotelephone facilities which may be
- 2 -
f
^.90 -01 -012
nL7 / BD?; tcg * *
t d without such review.
We believe that there is an
construc e
immediate need for some rules to be prescribed on an interim basis
until we devise permanent rules.
Following review of the written comments submitted on the
proposed generall order that was mailed to the parties,
we concluded
that major changes were necessary. Our concern was that the
proposed rules superimposed two separate regulatory processes for
approving cell sites, one before local authorities and a second
repetitive one before the Commi lion_��we. concluded that this was
wasteful and such duplicative procedures should be avoided.
Therefore, we are now adopting revised rules which have
the effect of relying on local review processes in those cases
where disputes over siting and design are resolved amicably at the
local level. The Commission would then be required to intervene
only in a minority of situations where irreconcilable differences
or intolerable delays arise.. Adjacent property owners in AU cases
would be assured of advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Where technically possible, we would like to encourage
cellular carriers to share common sites. While the revised rules
do not provide an explicit treatment for such cases, we believe
there are incentives to promote site - sharing: First, an expedited
procedure is provided for approving construction that is minor in
nature, including the addition of*new antennas to' existing
procedures. Some site- sharing may qualify under this procedure.
Second, the revised rules' focus on local permitting authorities
will allow them to encourage site - sharing through their approval
processes. We hope that these incentives will focus the attention
will be
of the cellular utilities on site - sharing, and we ,,-
considering this question carefully when we promulgate our final
rules in a subsequent decision.
Accordingly, we will adopt on an interim basis the rules
Appendix A and re qu ire immediate compliance with
attached herein!as App
these rules prior to the construction of additional cellular
- 3 -
R.90 -01 -012 A:_.7 /BDP /tcg *
radiotelephone facilities. Upon written request by any of. the
respondents to this proceeding, the commission will consider
reopening its Investigation R.90 -01 -012 to examine whether this GO
has served its stated purposes and to consider whether this GO must
be revised to reflect technological changes in cellular facilities.
Findings of Fact
1. On January 9, 1990, the commission instituted a
rulemaking to determine the need for rules for the siting and
environmental review of cellular radiotelephone facilities.
2. A problem cited in the rulemaking was the lack of
environmental review and public noticing of cellular radiotelephone
expansion and fill -in sites.
3. The pace of cellular radiotelephone antenna proliferation
has increased dramatically recently with at least 20 additional
radiotelephone cellular sites proposed for construction in the near
future.
4. It is likely that few, if any, of these proposed sites
will be subject to the normal environmental review process.
5. Two formal complaints have been filed recently with the
commission alleging inadequate environmental review and requesting
the removal of certain inappropriately sited cellular
radiotelephone facilities.
6. Immediate action is-needed-to-require-proper
environmental review prior to the construction of additional
cellular radiotelephone facilities.
7. The need for environmental review outweighs the need for
immediate construction of additional cellular radiotelephone
facilities that may be constructed without such review.
c:
Conclusions i ens of Lail
1. The rules proposed in this proceeding should be adopted
on an interim basis.
- 4 -
0
R.90 -01 -012 ALJ /BDP /tcg **
2. Immediate action is needed to provide proper
environmental review prior to the construction of additional
cellular radiotelephone facilities.
3. The adopted rules defer to local authorities wherever
possible; assure notice to the public in all cases ---and avoid
unnecessarily duplicative approval procedures before both the
Commission and local agencies.
4. This order should be made effective on the date hereof.
IT IS ORDMED that:
1. The General Order prescribing Rules Relating to the
Planning and Construction of Cellular Radiotelephone Cell Sites and
Switches Located in California attached to this order as Appendix A
shall become effective on an interim basis as of the effective date
of this order.
2. As of the effective date of this order, no cellular
radiotelephone utility shall begin construction of any cell site or
switch without first complying with the provisions of the General
order adopted.in Paragraph 1.
- 5 -
P..90 -01 -012 ALJ /BDP /tcg
3. Upon written request by any of the respondents to this
proceeding, the Commission will consider reopening its
Investigation R.90 -01 -012 to examine whether this Go has served its
stated purposes and to consider whether this GO must be revised to
reflect technological changes in cellular facilities.
This order is effective today.
Dated March 28, 1990, at San Francisco, California.
G. MITCHELL WILK
President
FREDERICK R. DUDA
STANLEY W. HULETT
JOHN B. OHANIAN
PATRICIA M. ECKERT
Commissioners
C:
- 6 -
R.90 -01 -012 /A:.; /BDP /`cg *
APPENDIX A
Page 1
GENERAL ORDER 159
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RULES RELATING TO THE.CONSTRUCTION
OF CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA
March 28 _►
1990 =e'ctive March 22 _ , 1990.
Decision 90 -03 -080 , R.90 -01 -012.
SECTION I - GENERAL
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 451,-701, 702,
761, 762, 762.5, and 1001 of the Public Utilities Code:
TT IS EMMy ORDERED that except as specifically provided
herein, no cellular radiotelephone utility, now subject, or which
hereafter may become subject, tact on in tsdiction of any cellular
Commission, shall begin const
facilities without this Commission's having first authorized the
construction of said accordance with the
and rulespareisetns
of this General Or der
forth below.
0
R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tCg **
APPENDIX A
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
1
I•
G .............................. ...........
3
II.
ORDER .... .........
PQFtPO SE OF THIS GENERAL .......•.
4
FOR comnSSION AUTHORIZATION .......•••••••" "
III.
NEED
4
A.
.....
Generally ...... ... .........................
4
System- �'aciies- -r+�r* • y .........
B.
C.
_Initial
Facilities Not Included in the Utility's
Certificate of Public Convenience and
4
........ .........I. ..............
Necessity .. "
4
D.
.• ,,,,,
Exemptions ........................... .....
and Repair Work ....
4
•(1) Minor Maintenance
5
.........
(2) Emergency Construction ..................
5
(3) Temporary Facilities ...................
FOR POST -CPC&N
IV.
AUTHORIZATION PROCEDMM
7
FACILITIES.... ....... ...............................
A.
Standard Review (Advice Letter) .............•..
B.
Application for Preemptive Authority
to Construct ........................
LE'T'TER) .... • •.• .. •
8
v.
STANDARD
REVIEW PROCEDURE (ADVICE
8
A.
....
Filing Requirements ..............••••••••••.•••
8
B.
Notice Requirements ....•••- ••••••••" " " " •• .•
g
C.
Protest Procedure ..........................
Consideration of Advice Letters Seeking..
9
D.
Authority to Construct ...................•••••'
10
of Construction ...................
E.
Commencement
PRMWIIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
11
vI.
APPLICATIONS
FOR
-
A.
.................... ..
Filing Requirements ..........................
,..
11
B.
Notice Requirements .............. .........
12
Review of Application for Completeness ..•.....•
12
C.
D.
Request for Public Hearings .•......•••••••" '
12
E.
........
Time Limits ..... .......................
13
F.
Commencement of Construction ..........
14
VII.
CEQA
COMPLIANCE ............................... ,,.,.
15
ON COMPLAINTS .•.••••••••.••.••...........
VIII.PROCEDURE
15
,
IX.
REVIEW
.. ........
OF THIS GENERAL .............
?.90-C1 -012 /AI_J /aDP /tcg
APPENDIX A
Page 3
SECTION II — PURPOSE OF THIS GENERAL ORDER
The Commission is adopting this General Order to ensure that:
- the potential environmental impacts of all cellular sites
are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act
- affected local citizens, organizations, and jurisdictions
are given - reasonable- -sot4ee and epportimities- for- input
into the review process,
- the public health and welfare, and zoning concerns of
local jurisdications are addressed
- cellular companies are not unnecessarily delayed by,site
review.
The Commission has found in numerous decisions
authorizing specific cellular systems that construction of cellular
systems generally serves the public convenience and necessity.
This General Order is intended to balance this statewide interest
with local concerns regarding the siting, design and construction
of cellular facilities. The procedure described herein is intended
to be applied uniformly on a statewide basis.
The Commission recognizes that due to local concerns
local agencies occasionally may seek to balance local and statewide
interests in a manner that significantly impedes,statewide goals of
having reliable and widespread cellular telephone service. The
Commission will not lightly preempt local jurisdictions.in.their
permitting processes. The Commission recognizes that the impacts
of cellular facilities are highly localized and that local citizens
and governmental agencies are often in a better position than the
Commission to measure local impact and to identify alternate sites.
Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to
regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local
agencies, except in those instances when there is a cl(sr conflict
with statwide interests. In those instances, the Commission will
review the need to preempt local jurisdiction, allowing local
agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions.
The cellular utility will have the burden of proof to demonstrate
that accomodating to local agency requirements for any specific
site would frustrate the Commission'.s objectives. If the cellular
utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will preempt
local jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under Article XII,
Section 8.of the California Constitution.
x.90 -01- 012 /ALJ /BDP /tCC
APPENDIX A
Page 4
SECTION III - NEED FOR COMnSSION A=ORIZATION
A. Generallv
Except as provided herein, a cellular utility must obtain
authorization from the Commission prior to the construction of
cellular facilities. For the purposes of this General Order,
"construction" includes the construction of any new cellular
facilities or the modification of, alteration of, or addition to an
existing cellular facility. — — — -- -
B. Initial System Facilities
For the construction of cellular facilities which are
part of a cellular utility's initial system configuration, the -
cellular utility shall file for authority to construct in
conjunction with its application for a certificate of-public
convenience and necessity in accordance with section 1001 of the
Public Utilities Code, 'Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, and existing Commission procedures. Once
the Commission issues a decision granting the cellular utility
authority to construct, the cellular utility may commence
construction of the facilities.
C. Eacilities Not Included in the Utility's Certificate Of Public
Convenience and Necessity
A cellular utility seeking to construct a cellular
facility not described in its application for a certificate of,
public convenience and necessity must obtain additional
authorization from the Commission•in accordance with Section IV of
this General Order unless such proposed facilities is exempted
under subsection D. below.
D. Exemptions
(1) Minor Maintenance and ReRair Work
For purposes of this General order, . "constriction" does
not include any maintenance, repair or replacement of existing
facilities; any alteration of or addition to equipment within an
existing structure, any installation of environmental monitoring
equipment, any soil, geological or site survey investigation,, any
work to determine feasibility of the use of the particular site for
the proposed facility; or any other like work where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the work in
question may have a significant effect on the environment. The
types of work described in the preceding sentence may be performed
P.90 -01 -012 /AIJ /BDP /tcg
APPENDIX A
Page 5
without further Commission authorization. The utility must still
comply with local permitting requirements, if any.
(2) Emergency Construction
This General Order does not require that cellular
utilities obtain Commission authority prior to maintaining,
repairing, restoring, demolishing, or replacing cellular facilities
damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster. This exemption
shall be of the same scope as the exception for emergency projects
in the_ CEQA. Guidelines- . - -14 -- Cai-.- Code -R -§15' 9 - -This
exemption does not extend to the construction of new cellular
facilities to expand the service area or the volume of traffic that
can be handled in an existing cell site absent a finding by the
local permitting jurisdiction that such construction is needed to
provide emergency services associated with the disaster.
Whenever possible the cellular utility shall orally
notify the Director of the Commission Advisory and Compliance
Division ("CACDN) of the proposed emergency construction prior to
the construction thereof. In all cases of emergency construction,
the utility shall, as soon as practicable, provide the CAM with a
letter outlining the construction it performed and how such
construction was necessitated by the emergency condition.
(3) Te=orary Facilitie$
(a) For the purposes of this.General Order, "temporary
facilities° are defined as a cellular telephone
facility which:
(i) is no larger than a trailer twenty -eight (28) ..
feet in length, twelve (12) feet in width and
twelve (12) feet in height with no appurtenant
structures other than a roll -up standby power
generator;
contains no more -than the following equipment:
cell site electronics, two (2) air conditioning
units, a fire suppression.system,`a DC power .
plant, and a gasoline powered generator that has
critical silencing of the exhaust.system and the
generator itself;
includes no more than six (6) antennae' and one
(1) microwave dish not exceeding four (4) feet
in diameter. Such antennae may be placed on the
temporary facilities itself, on an adjacent
existing structure, or a portable, extendable,
nonpermanent support structure, not exceeding 2.5
R.g0 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg **
APPENDIX A
.Page 6
feet in height, provided that the antennae shall
not extend more than twelve (12) above the
topmost portion of the temporary facilities or
structure;
!iv) is not placed on a parcel zoned for residential
uses; and
(v) is deployed for the purpose of replacing
existing damaged or malfunctioning facilities;
meeting unanticipated, rapid increases in
customer demand; or providing initial-service
pending the• Commission'-s- consideration of an
advice letter or application filed pursuant to'
this General Order. However, the cellular
utility must still comply with local permitting
requirements, if.any.
(b) A cellular utility which has a CPC &N to serve the
area surrounding the proposed temporary facility may
deploy such a facility on a temporary basis without
additional authorization from this Commission. with
However, the cellular utility must still comply
local permitting requirements, if any.
(c) Except when deployed pending the processing of an
advice letter or an application for preemptive
authority to construct, temporary facilities deployed
pursuant to this section may be in place for 120 days
"in a single location. Within 100 days.from the date
the temporary facilities were originally deployed,
the cellular -- utility shall send - the-CACD a letter
either confirming that it will remove the-temporary-
facilities and restore the site within the next
twenty (20) days or requesting that it be allowed -to
maintain the temporary facilities in their current
location for an additional 120 days. The utility
.shall provide a* copy of this- letter 'any'affected
local agencies. The CACD has discretion to grant or
deny the utility's request for an extension. If the
utility does not receive a letter from ':he CACD
within twenty (20) days from the date of its request
granting the extension, the utility's request for
extension shall be deemed denied and the utility
shall immediately remove the temporary facilities.
For the purposes of a temporary facilities, a'single
location" is defined as the parcel of property on
which it is initially deployed or any other parcel
within 200 yards of that parcel. Temporary
facilities deployed pending the processing of an
R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tCg **
APPENDIX A
Page 7
advice letter or application pursuant to this General
Order may be in place for up to 120 days after the
effective date of the Commission's ruling with regard
to such advice letter or application or as otherwise
provided in such decision.
SECTION IV - AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES FOR POST -CPC&N FACILITIES
A cellular - util- ity-- neediTtg-anth6rization- -to -construct or
modify cellular facilities shall file for authority to construct
under this section. Depending upon-which criteria are applicable,
a cellular utility will either file an advice letter as described
in the subsection (A), or an application for preemptive authority
to construct as described in the subsection (B).
A. standard Review (Advice Letter)
A cellular utility may file an advice letter requesting
authorization to construct in cases in which:
(1) the cellular utility has received all of the permits and
approvals for the proposed construction, if any, required
by any local governmental agency which has jurisdiction
over the proposed construction or would have jurisdiction
over the proposed construction absent the Commission's
preemption; or
(2) no local permits are required, and the proposed
construction is minor in.nature. For the purposes of
this General Order, construction which. is .. "minor. _in :.. .
nature' is defined as:
(a) the addition of antennas (other than a microwave
antennas) or cell enhancers to existing structures,
such as towers_ or_ buildings, -- provided ..that .such
additions do not rise more than twelve (12) feet
above the topmost portion of the existing structures
or any appurtenances thereto, and that -the existing
structure is located on a parcel currently zoned for
nonresidential uses; or
(b) the placement of cellular facilities (other than
standby power sources containing a combustion
engine) in existing structures, provided that such
facilities are placed wholly within existing
structures and are located on a parcel currently
zoned for nonresidential uses.
R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg
APPENDIX A
Page 8
B. Application for Preemptive Authority to Construct
A cellular utility shall file an application for
preemptive authority to construct a cellular facility
notwithstanding the lack of one or more local permits by
application when the cellular- utility can demonstrate that it has
provided the local agency with two or more acceptable sites, but
the cellular utility is unlikely to obtain a permit for either site
which will provide adequate coverage of the cell. To demonstrate
that it is unlikely to obtain the needed permit, the cellular
utility must show that:
(1) one or more local agencies- have•denied- the-utility's-
application for a permit, or
(2) one or more local agencies have granted the utility a
permit but with conditions as to location or configuration
which the utility believes makes it infeasible to provide
adequate coverage of the cell, or
(3) one or more local agencies has Se_ facto denied the
utility's application (by zoning ordinances, resolution,
unreasonable delays, etc.)
McqUblirp
U
All requests for Commission authority to construct under
the Standard Review. Procedure. shall- be•- filed•by-advice letter with
the CACD in accordance with Section V of General- Order -No ;*96 -A:, -
Advice letters shall contain the information described in Appendix
A to this General Order.
B. Notice Reauirements
(1) On the-date the advice letter is filed, the utility shall
serve a copy of the advice letter and accompanying tariff
pages, if any, by mail on those parties required to be
served with advice letters by Section III.G of General
Order No. 96 -A and on other parties having requested such
notification.
(2) In the case of "minor construction"' in an area where no
local permits are required, the utility shall post the
notice in at least three (3) public places in the area
surrounding the proposed construction site, including one
public place on or near the proposed construction site.
R.90- 01 -C12 /ALJ /BDP /tcg *
APPENDIX A
Page 9
Said notice shall be posted no later than five (5) days
after the date the advice letter was filed. Said notice
shall include the following information:
(a) a general description of the proposed construction.
and its location;
(b) instructions on obtaining a copy of the advice
letter;
(c) the applicable -ground
s—amd- pracedure -for protesting
the advice letter; and
(d) the date the protest period expires.
C. Protest Procedure
(1) Any person may filed a protest to the advice letter in
accordance with Section III.H of General Order No.
96 -A.
The protest shall be filed with the CACD not-later than
twenty (20) days after the date on which the advice letter,
was filed. The protestant shall serve a copy of
the protest
protest on the subject utility on the same.day P
is filed with the CACD.'
(2) A protest may be made by letter, telegram or telefax and
shall comply with Rules 8.1 -8.8 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure.
(3) The utility shall respond in writing to a protest within
ten (10). business days after its.receipt and shall serve
copies of its responsa by mail on each protestant•and. the
Commission.
D. Co Advice Le rs Seeking Authority to Construct
(1) If no protest has been •tiled,- - the-•- Executive Director shall
issue an order approving the advice letter no later than
thirty (30) days from the date the advice letter was
E.
filed.
(2) If a protest has been filed, the Commission shall issue a
resolution approving the advice letter hall reject date the
advice letter no later than sixty (6 0)
the advice letter was filed. The Commi da s
from
shall
determine whether to approve or reject the advice letter
in accordance with the following standards:
(a) if the protest does not present a prima facie
showing, the advice letter shall be app r
R.90 -01 -012. /ALJ /BDP /tcg *
APPENDIX A
Page 10
(b) if the protest presents a prima facie showing, the
advice letter shall be approved only if the cellular
utility demonstrates conclusively that it has all of
the requisite permits and approvals or that the
construction is minor in nature; otherwise the advice
letter must be rejected.
(3) Commission or Executive Director approval of advice
letters under the Standard Review Procedure is.an exercise
of ministerial authority that is exempt from application
of CEQA pursuant to section 21080 of the California Public
- 'Resources Code: If *an order or resolution approving the
advice letter I is issued, - the - Commission staff shall also
file a Notice of Exemption from CEQA with the office of
Planning and Research.
(4) If the advice letter is rejected, the utility may file an
application for preemptive authority to construct.
E. Commencement of Construction
(1) If the utility has received all requisite permits or
approvals in accordance with this section, the utility may
commence construction upon receipt of an order of the
Executive Director or a Commission resolution' approving
the advice letter;
(2) If the utility has asserted in its advice letter that its
construction is minor in nature and no local permits are
required, the utility may commence construction upon
receipt of an order of the Executive Director or a
Commission resolution - approving. the. advice letters.
(3) A cellular utility may construct cellular. facilities, at
its own risk, upon filing an advice letter with the
Commission under the Standard Review Procedure. If,
however, the Commission or Executive Director rejects the
advice letter, the- •utritty-Wi1'1- -be - required -to •cease * `
operation of the facilities immediately, to remove the
facilities and to restore the construction site to its
original status. To guarantee removal of the - .facilities
and restoration of the construction site, the utility
shall provide the CACD with an undertaking in a form
specified by the Commission signed by an officer of the
utility.
P.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg *
APPENDIX A
Page 11
SECTION VI - APPLICATIONS FOR PREEKPTIVB AUTHORITY'TO CONSTRUCT
This section describes procedures a utility may use to
seek authority from the Commission to construct a cellular facility
when the conditions of Section IV.B. of this General Order apply.
If the Commission agrees to approve such an application, that
Commission decision preempts local. regulation of the facility to
the extent described in the Commission's decision.
A. Filing Reauirements- - -. _-
A cellular utility must file for authority to construct
by application. All applications for preemptive authority to
construct
rocedure Nos. 2ctthroughl81, 15, Rules of and
.Procedure
information described in Appendix B.
B.
Notice Requirements
on the day the application is filed, Applicant shall mail,
notice of the filing of its application for preemptive
authority to construct to the, agencies with jurisdiction
over, the construction but for the Commission's preemption;
to all owners of the real property on which the proposed
facilities will be constructed; to all owners of real
property, as shown on equalized assessment the roll, within
300 feet of the real property on which
facility will be constructed (if the number of owners of
real property within 300 feet is greater than 1000, in
lieu of mailing the notice may be posted in three public
places in the area surrounding the proposed construction-
site, including one public place on or near the proposed
construction site) ; to adjacent and competing utilities.;
and to other parties having requested such notification.
A declaration of mailing shall be filed with the
Commission no later than- - ;he- {.10 -)- •days. after the. day. on
which notice of the application is mailed.
(2) The applicant shall also post the notice in .:t least three
(3) public places in the area surrounding the proposed
construction site, including one public place on or near
the
posted proposed
laterconstruction
five (5)site.
daysSuch
afternotice shall
be
the date the
P
application was filed.
(3) The notice required by subsections (1) and (2) above shall
contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1)
R.90- 01-012 /AiJ /BDP /tcg *
APPENDIX A
Page 12
(a) a general description of the proposed construction
and its location;
(b) instructions on obtaining or reviewing a copy of the
application; I
(c) the applicable procedure for protesting the
application; and
(d) the date the protest period expires.
The - applicant shall- provide a -copy of= its application for - -- - --
authority to construct. to any - person upon- request,
C. Review of Application for Completeness
No later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the
application, Commission staff shall review it and notify the
utility in writing of any deficiencies in the submitted information
and data. The utility shall correct any deficiencies within 30
days thereafter or explain in writing to the Commission why it is
unable to do so. Any such explanation shall include an estimate of
when the utility will be able to correct the information
deficiencies. Upon correction of any deficiencies in the
application, any public hearings which are necessary may be held on
the application. The Commission shall issue a decision no later
than eight months after the acceptance of the application as
complete, or at such later time as is mutually agreed upon by the
applicant and the Commission.
D. Reauest for Public Hearings
Those to whom notice has been sent-as specified in
Section IV and any other person entitled under the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure to participate in a proceeding for
an authority to construct may, within thirty days after the notice
was mailed and published, request that the Commission hold hearings
on the application. -Any such -request-zh%=1- d-include• the -reasons
therefor. If the Commission, as a result of its preliminary
investigation after such requests, determines that public hearings
should be held, notice shall be sent to each person whc. is entitled
to notice or who has requested a hearing.
E. Time Limits
(1) If the proposed facility -does not require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and a hearing is
not held, the Commission shall issue a final decision
regarding the proposed facility within the time periods
_90-01-012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg
APPENDIX A
Page 13
specified in Government Code § §65951 -52 (180 days from the
date on which the application was accepted as complete).
(2) If an EIR is prepared by the Commission, then the
Commission shall issue s final decision regarding the
proposed facility within the time periods specified in
Government Code §§65951 -52 (one year from the date on
which the application was accepted as complete).
(3) If the Commission uses a Negative Declaration or EIR
prepared by a local agency -or• another state agency, then
the Commission shall issue a final decision regarding.the
proposed facility within the time periods specified in
Government Code §65952..
(4) In- addition, if the proposed construction will result.in
the addition or relocation of the utility's transmission
facilities or an alteration of the utility's service area,
the Commission's decision shall include authority for the
utility to file an advice letter on five days' notice
revising its tariffs in accordance with the decision.
F. commencement of Construction
(1) No local permits are required.as a prerequisite to
construction, except as specified in the Commission order.
Once the Commission issues a decision authorizing the
proposed construction, the utility may commence
construction; provided, however, that prior to.the
commencement of construction, the utility shall present
its building plans for the proposed construction to the
local agency which would have had jurisdiction over the
proposed construction absent the Commission's preemption,
for the local agency's review of compliance with local
building and electrical codes ("Building Plan Check,). If
the local agency refuses to perform a Building Plan Check
or fails to complete the plan check within four (4) weeks
of the date of the decision was issued, then the utility
may commence construction of its facilities in accordance
with building plans.stamped by a state- licensed engineer
certifying that said plans comply with local building and
electrical codes. The utility shall file a copy of these
plans with the CACD prior to construction.
(2) During the proposed construction, the utility shall either
comply with applicable local inspection procedures or, if
the local agency refuses to provide inspection services,
shall hire an independent building inspector who shall
inspect the facilities as they are being constructed and
shall certify, upon completion of construction, that such
p,.90-01-012 /ALj /3DP /tcg **
APPENDIX A
Page 14
facilities were constructed in accordance with the,
building plans stamped by the state - licensed engineer of
record. The cellular utility shall file a copy of the
independent building inspector's certificate with the CACD
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such certificate.
(3) Telephone and electric utilities subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission are hereby ordered to turn
on utility service to cellular facilities constructed
pursuant to this General Order upon presentation by the
utility of a copy.. of ,a..comMiss,i,on. decision. authorizing the
proposed construction and a certificate from an
independent building inspector- -certifying- that the--
electrical system as installed complies with the building
plans stamped by the state - licensed engineer of record.
SECTION VII - CEQA COMPLIANCE
A. For all issues relating to the siting, design, and -.construction
of cellular facilities which are part of the initial
configuration described in an application for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity, the Commission will be the
Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(- CEQA").
B. For advice letter filings under the Standard Review Procedure,.
the Lead Agency.will be the most appropriate local or other
state agency unless a different designation has been negotiated
between the local agency and the Commission consistent with
CEQA Guidelines - § §15051{b)(d).
C. For applications for preemptive authority, to construct, the
Lead Agency will be:
(1) the local or other state agency in those cases where one
of them has issued a Negative Decla=ation;-Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or EIR, even if this document
identifies an alternate site or configuration as
environmentally preferable, unless*a different: designation
has been negotiated between the local agency and the
Commission consistent with CEQA Guidelines § §15051(b) -(d).
The Commission will function as a Responsible Agency.
(2) the Commission when:
(a) a local -or other state agency has not begun the CEQA
process.
R.90 -01--012 /AIJ /EDP /tcg **
APPENDIX A
Page 15
(b) a local agency has denied the applicant's permit
applications without issuing a Negative Declaration
or EIR.
(3) negotiated between the local agency and the Commission
- consistent with CEQA Guidelines § §15051(b) -(d), when the
local 'agency has started but not completed the.,CEQA
review process, and the applicant alleges that the local
agency has de facto denied its permit application.
SECTION VIII PROCEDURg ON- COMPLAINTS
Complaints may be filed with the Commission for
resolution of any alleged violations of this General Order pursuant
to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 9
through 13.1.
SECTION IX - REVIEW OF THIS GENERAL ORDER
Upon written request by any of the respondents to this
proceeding, the Commission will consider reopening its
Investigation No.IR.90-01 -012 to examine whether this General order
nsider whether this General
has served its stated purposes and to co
Order must be revised to reflect technological changes in cellular
facilities.
9
F
R.90-01-012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg **
APPENDIY A
Page 16
VWUNZ111W
INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN ADVICE LETTER FILING FOR
AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
1. A description of the proposed construction, including the
equipment to be installed; the tower design, appearance and
height; the building sizes; and the lot location;
2. -- A street -map showing the- - propose&- ocati=r_of --'the construction_.
and the relationship of the proposed location to residential or
scenic areas within 1,000 feet of the proposed location;
3. Tariff sheets reflecting the addition or relocation, if any, of
transmitting facilities and the changes, if any, to a utility's
service area map;
4. A copy of the notice of the advice letter to be provided in
accordance with this General Order;_
5. An explanation of the Standard Review Procedure, including the
grounds for protesting an advice letter filed under this
procedure and the date of protest period expires;
6. A list of all governmental agencies (with the exception of the
Commission) which have jurisdiction over the proposed
construction or would have jurisdiction over the proposed
construction absent Commission preemption;
7. A declaration, signed by an officer of the utility, attesting
either that:
(1) with respect to each agency listed in subsection-6 above,
all necessary permits or approvals have been obtained; or
(2 ) none are required ..from - that — agency -- and the .. proposed . .
construction is minor in nature. All such declarations
must state the bases for the utility's conclusion with
particularity and be signed under penalty of perjury.
R.90 -01 -012 /AL7 /BDP /tcg **
APPENDIX A
Page 17
INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN APPLICATION FOR ,
PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
1. A description of the proposed construction, including the
equipment to be installed; the tower design, appearance and
height; the building sizes; and the lot location;
2. A street map showing .the. proposed_ location. -of the construction
and the relationship of the location to residential or scenic
areas .within 1,000 feet of the proposed location;
3. An explanation of why it is necessary for the Commission to
preempt local jurisdictions in this case;
4. Copies of all denials of permit applications and
correspondence with the agency denying the permit;
5. Copies of any notices or other documents issued by -the
applicant or any local or state agency in compliance with
CEQA regarding this proposed facility;
6. A list of the owners of real property, as shown on the latest
equalized assessment roll, within 300 feet of the property on
which the facilities will be constructed;
.7. A list of all the permits which the utility understands would
be required by any local agency for the proposed construction,
absent the Commission's preemption of the agency's permitting
authority;
8. A list of the permits which the utility understands are
required by any federal, state or other non -local agency for
the proposed construction;
9. The proposed schedule for the provision of notice pursuant to
this General Order and for the construction, and commencement
of operation of the facility;
10 a copy of the notice of the application to be provided in
General Order;
11. a statement of compliance with this General Order and
applicable Commission Rules; and
12. draft tariff sheets reflecting the addition or relocation, if
any, of transmitting facilities and the changes, if any, to
the utility's service area map.
?.90 -0!_-012 /ALJ /BDP /-cg
APPENDIX A
Page 18
13. The application must state whether:
(a) it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the proposed facility may have a
significant effect on the environment, or
(b)" the proposed facility is statutorily or categorically
exempt from CEQA,
If so, the application shall state this conclusion or cite to
the exemption(s), if any, which apply_ to. the proposed facility
and shall include any additional explanation or information
necessary to support an independent assessment- by -the
Commission of the utility's assertion.
14. If neither of the statements in section 10 above apply, then
the application shall contain the following:
(a) reasons for the adoption of the selected site, including
comparisons with alternative sites; and
(b) a Proponent's Environmental Assessment ("PEA19 or
equivalent information on the environmental impact of the
project in accordance with CEQA and -this.commission's
Rules 17.1 and 17.3. If a PEA is filed, it may include
the data listed in sections 1 -10 above.
15. An application for authority to construct need not include a
detailed analysis of purpose and necessity, a detailed
estimate of cost and economic analysis, or a detailed
description of construction methods beyond that information
required for--CEQA compliance: -- •
16. A certificate of service stating that the application with
attachments had been sent to all local agencies whose
authority the applicant requests the Commission preempt.
Approved and dated-March'28, '1990, -at* San Francisco,
California.
PUBIlIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ST OF CWFORNIA`
,Sli�
By N 1 J. Shulman
Executive Director
(END OF APPENDIX A)
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 17, 1993, CONCERNING CELLULAR ANTENNA
Monia: (A paragraph from Order 159) says "In our opihion," this
is reading from the order, "the need.for immediate action to bring
order and proper environmental scrutiny to this activit outweighs
the immediate need for additional cellular radio telephone
facilities which may be constructed without review." And it
specifically says environmental concerns should outweigh something,
and the input we got from you was no, it has nothing to do. with the
environment, it has to do with design review..
Riback: No, what I said was that the environmental issues were in
the context, were dealt with in that order in the context of
aesthetic issues. That was the overriding concern, was aesthetics,
that the Public Utilities Commission was dealing with. The history
of that order is that the Public Utilities Commission had this
matter brought to it by the various cellular phon4 companies
because they were being denied the opportunity to construct antenna
towers in various communities in.northern California, robably in
the entire State, primarily on the basis of aesthetic issues. And
the various communities are saying, we need to be able require
environmental review. And the companies went to the PUC and said
look, this isn't appropriate because we have our approval from the
PUC, we have our permit to go ahead construct this, and the PUC has
said this is an important area of communication and it is necessary
to foster cellular communication throughout the State of
California. What occurred is that the PUC came back and said yes,
the local agency's right to require environmental review is more
important than the issue of cellular communication, (in essence,
but it was in the context and the entire document Iwas in the
context, of aesthetics. It doesn't mean that other environmental
issues would not be considered with an environmental �eview. Of
course, they.would be considered. But the question that was asked
was whether or not, and I think Peggy Laughlin expressed it
correctly, that the issue. that is being considered has its genesis
in aesthetics. That's where the issue originally arose with the
Public Utilities Commission, before "the Public Utilities
Commission. That was the issue that was of primary concern to the
cellular companies and to the agencies that wrote to the Public
Utilities Commission and when comments were requested prior to this
order being promulgated. Those were the issues. And the
environmental review was in fact conducted here in this community
on this particular matter.
Monia: If I may. I have gone back and I have carefully read the
staff report and I will give you a very good example.i I find no
environmental review in the staff report. None. I find lots of
comments and studies and remarks about the design review. For
instance, we go into detail in the staff report to say Y ow far away
the cellular antennas are going to be from the street, how far away
they're going to be from, the view or the basic views�ed, but if
we're really concerned about the environmental impact on people,
why didn't we at least say how far away these antennas are from
I
houses?
Tucker: We did.
Monia: It doesn't.
Tucker: Yes it does.
Monia: Doesn't.
Riback: May I respond to that?
Monia: That isn't the point. My point is, our who
environmental review from the perspective of visual
doesn't go to - -no -- (unintelligible) came forward fr
doctor about what this antenna, whether or not th
emitted from this antenna, whether it meets a particu]
or is safe, but it didn't go to this specific site, ar
didn't use that to justify exceptance from environment
Riback: If I may just very quickly respond, I certainly
to get into a debate on this issue, but the environme
was conducted, and it was in the form of Negative Decla
accompanied the staff report that the staff prepared. Z
Declaration was prepared by the staff after their detern
discussion between the staff and myself over whether c
were unique circumstances relating to the site. The
these antennae. that would require or at least
environmental review to take place rather than statin
particular site on this particular project is categoric
from any environmental review. We determined that
categorically exempt because there were unique ci
relating to this particular site. And these unique ci
involved the proximity of the antenna to Big Basi
proximity of the antenna to businesses within the
buildings, commercial buildings—
Anderson: Visual impact?
Riback: No. We are talking about potential hazards
might cause, and it was because of that that tl
Declaration was prepared and the result was that the
the applicant's expert that was reviewed by sta
determination was made that it was not likely.that the
any adverse environmental impact resulting from this
project. There was
review was conducted
because of.the unique
particular array of
a full environmental
information that was
an environmental review. The er
because of the potential for he
circumstances involving the locai
antennae and the determination wa
impact report was not necessary be(
provided in the report from Dr. F
Monia: I'll follow that when we come to it.
e study of
impact. It
m the good
radiation
it standard
I the staff
it review.
don't want
ntal review
ration that
he Negative
dnation and
r not there
location of
allow an
that this
ally exempt
it was not
rcumstances
rcumstances
Way, the
cluster of
that these
Le Negative
report from
ff that a
re would be
particular
vironmental
filth hazard
ion of this
made that
:ause of the
olson.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 3, 1993, CONCERNING CELLULAR ANTENNA
.Anderson: I want to make a request, please. City Attorney, have
you had an opportunity to .look at the materials that Mr. Whetstone
brought with the court case and the PUC and what have you?
Riback: I have looked at the PUC Order Number 159 previous to this
evening. Yes.
Anderson: So you are familiar with all the material $ that's in
here?
Riback: Well I have read it over. Not recently. I read it over
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this matte I think
I have a general understanding of it.
Anderson: OK. I guess my question to you then is, if you don't
feel entirely comfortable, if you would rather review it, then I
would ask - -we're going to have to have a break sometime tonight.
I would ask to have a break and have you review and then I would
like .. to know where the City of Saratoga stands !as far as
environmental review is concerned based on this information that's
contained here. So that we know if we are on solid legal ground
when we proceed.
Riback: I'll be happy to.
Anderson: Or if you feel you are prepared to answer hat now we
can wait for the break until after this hearing is o er - -I mean
after this motion is over.
Riback: Well, I think the environmental review requirement is --
what the order is basically saying is that it is deferring to local
agencies the right to conduct some environmental review on a
cellular antenna application. And if the local agencies deny a
site, out of two sites, then the applicant has the right.to go to
the PUC and request.'a pre - emption, in effect. That t e PUC pre-
empt the local agency and take over the question, assuming the
jurisdiction of the question whether or not there should be a
cellular antenna site at one of two locations within that
community. The question insofar as specifically as to the
environmental review, I think the applicant's attorney is correct.
The environmental review really in that context is speaking of the
aesthetic issues. It's not speaking to the safety issues.
Anderson: Is that correct? Is the City Engineer still here? I
don't see him, but he may be back someplace. He didn't go home,
did he?
Monia: I have a question, Mr. Riback. (Asked question about Los
Gatos denial.)
� o� SAlg9
�O
ilFOO g�
0911TT o2 0&MZUQX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
M E M O R A N D U M victor Monia
Karen Tucker
I,{/ FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director
DATE: January 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Cellular Antennae Approval
At a recent City Council meeting, Staff was requested to provide a
copy of the application and Resolution for the cellular antennae
Design Review approval (14471 Big Basin Way).
Attached is City Council Resolution No. 93 -053 denying the appeal
and affirming the Planning Commission approval. Included in the
Resolution are the conditions of approval. Also attached is the
application form and supplemental information submitted for the
project. I did not attach the site plans which are on -file in the
Community Development Department.
I have sent letters to both GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One
representatives outlining the specifics of the approval and what
will be required should the project be.changed in the future.
These letters are attached for your information.
cc: Larry Perlin, Acting City Manager
Printed on recycled paper.
RESOLUTION 93 - 053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPELLANT VICTOR AMEZCUA; APPLICANT,
GTE /MOBILNET /CELLULAR ONE; 14471 BIG BASIN WAY
DR -93 -029
. WHEREAS, GTE Mobilnet /Cellular One, the joint applicant has
applied for design review approval to install two cellular
transmission arrays, consisting of 18 individual antennas, on the
roof of an existing structure at 14471 Big Basin Way; and
WHEREAS, on September 22,.1993, the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga.held a duly noticed public hearing on said
application at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and
following the.conclusion thereof the Planning Commission voted to
grant the design review approval and approved the negative
declaration; and
WHEREAS, Mr Victor Amezcua has appealed the approval of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS,.on November 3, 1993, the City Council conducted a
de novo public hearing on the appeal at which time any person
interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission
relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence .
presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to
the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga'as follows:
1. By split vote of the City Council (Councilmember Monia
voting in opposition and Councilmember Tucker being absent) the
appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby denied and the
action of the Planning'Commission is affirmed, to wit: The
applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the
application for the installation of the cellular transmission
antennas and the following findings have been determined:
a. That the project is visually and aesthetically
acceptable in that the adequate setbacks from surrounding uses,
the distance from the pedestrian environment along Big Basin Way,
1
and the color, size, number and height of the proposed antennas
combine to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts.
b. That the project has been reviewed according to
the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
to identify any potential significant environmental impacts and
that pursuant to Section 15300.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the
City has prepared an initial study which identified no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, the negative declaration
prepared for chis project is hereby approved.
C. The project has undergone extensive public review
which has identified no public health, safety or welfare hazards
related to this project. More specifically:
(1) No empirical evidence has been submitted to
the City Council supporting the contention that the radio
frequency radiation (RFR) that will be emitted from the cellular
antenna installation will create a health or safety hazard to any
persons.
(2) The uncontroverted empirical evidence
submitted by Peter Polson, PhD. and Wi 11 iam F. Hammett, both
recognized experts in the field of radio frequency radiation,
establishes that, considering the level of RFR emissions from the
cellular antennas and the proximity of the antennas to the
pedestrian environment along Big Basin Way, to the other users of
the building located at 14471 Big Basin Way and to the nearest
residences, the RFR emissions from the antennas will not create
any health or safety hazards to any persons.
2. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, reports, plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of GTE
Mobilnet /Cellular One for design review approval be and the same
is hereby granted.subject to the following conditions:
a. The development shall be located and constructed
as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated herein by reference.
b. Prior to submittal for building permit, three sets
of complete construction plans incorporating this resolution as a
separate page, shall be submitted to Community Development
Department staff in order to issue a zone clearance.
c. The maximum height above existing grade of any
individual antenna shall not exceed 40 feet.
d. Colors shall be as proposed and subject to final
approval by the Community Development Director.
2
e. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
advise the City of any technological advancements that may occur
in the future that alleviates the need for, reduces the size,
number and intensity or that$allows the replacement of these
antennas. The Community Development Director may, upon written
notice to the applicants, request an evaluation of current
available technology that is compatible to the approved cell
site. Pursuant to the advent of this new applicable technology,
the Community Development Director may refer this item to the
Planning Commission for review, discussion and utilization of
said technology-.
f. 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.
g. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this
permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City
and other governmental entities must be met.
5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to
each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the
Building Division when applying for a building permit.
3
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of November
1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Burger, Kohler, and Mayor Tucker
NOES: Councilmember .Monia
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clem
mnrsw \273 \res \dr93- 029.msr
4
Mayor
�4
@�
atom 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9507( )
(408) 867.3438
a ° COUNCIL MEMBERS:
PLANNING SERVICE REQUEST Karen Anoerson
Martha Clevenger
Flle No • (S) D2 G ?� - 0!19 Fee: �` l • CM 4 Willem Kohler
Victor Monra
Date Submitted: S 3 Receipt No. Francis Sturzman
Design Review
[ ] Administrative Design Review
[ ] Variance Approval
[ ] Use Permit Approval
[ ] Temporary Use Permit
[ ] Second Unit Permit
[ ] Sign Permit
[ ] Fence /Soundwall Permit
[ ] Administrative Structure
Permit -
[ ] Modification of Approved
Project.
[ ] Tentative Map Approval
[ ] Building Site Approval./
Exemption
[ ] Lot Line Adjustment
{ ] Site Modification
[ ] General Plan Amendment
[ ] Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Environmental Assessment
[ J Geologic Review,
Authorization
[ ] Horticultural Review
Authorization-
( ) Fire District Review
[ ],Extension of Approved [ ] Other:
Project
[ ].Heritage Preservation Received by:
Review
Address of Project: (4-+? 1 61Cx &ASId WAY
Assessor's Parcel No.: 701 - 14 47
7 >t O b$
Name of Lega1 Property Owner: TAME � (ZVS9I FCLp
Owner's Mailing Address: 14-11q OKA�06►An QV , SAtATOGA , CA 95070
Telephone No. Home: W1 Work: 4-01 gio7_ 37Z 1
Agent's Name: 6AY AAA CELLULAR. TELEPHok CvAVA �Y
o MIKE MA#IarAfJTijli 1114. S•5ASCoM AWcr tilTe 7001CAMPBE" CA gS008
Address: GTE A4015 i LNET Phone No.:
Dnntea on recyciea paper C40 Mt(,rA IJ MATTI40VJ S 74 A 6Q ST SviTE 24b, SANTA CRUZ LA CK06 0
List the names, addresses (including zip code) and phone numbers
of persons to receive copies of staff report and /or agenda i.e.,
applicant, architect, engineer, contractor:
MIKE MJ%8J6ri*#JTi+Ji f g99 S. SASGoM Avg., SU iTE 700 CAMPU LL GA q5008
ME &Ar MA-r -r gW4 7+ pjVgA. St2E8T r 4 rE yob+ SkrJTA CAUL GA 45M
(TiM /A0.�GrJ& %LDS�NF(s1.p 14�Iq OKAtJ0fAg ORiJE , "SARA -rokA, GA g5070
Provide a brief description of the project (inc,luding square
footage, existing and proposed uses and structures).
(SAY IkR9A GELLULAK 78WHoNE C:OMP*?JY Acs p Wre Mo61 LNgT nOPOSg
TO i0rk w, k D MPLA-re H clo w, SiTFt ## AT AclJ EX'; STi lJ6r TI-10- LEVEL
C-4MMCRGikl. �eFFr G& 6,V'L D1d6r LOGkTEb kT 4471 816 (SASil WAY.
Is the residence hooked up to sewer, or proposed for hookup?
M$ 81AT AJOY46 AXQJiQVD FOR T149 GILL SiTE.S .
IMPORTANT
PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THE FOLLOWING UNTIL APPLICATION I8 PRESENTED
AT THE CITY OFFICES.
being duly sworn., deposes
and says: That the facts, maps and documents submitted herewith
are true, correct and accurate to the best of his /her knowledge
and belief. If application is granted, the undersigned agrees
that the provisions of law, City and State, will be complied with
and the conditions, if any, upon which the application is grant-
ed, will be carefully observed. -
WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto.set my hand this day
of , . 19.
(Property owner or authorized agent *)
Signature:
Address: ( l� Z "1 G �ti c�G A�,' S Q1 kA'-('0 &-h
Phone Res. oR ) S26 l _ 6 O Z Bus.
Done before me for the Secre-
tary the City of ara a Planning Commission, this ,?-e-� day
of , 19
iner�,i !yof �Sar�ato&`a��
*Submit letter of authorization
GW /PLRQUEST
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITIES
14471 BIG BASIN WAY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company ( "Cellular One ") and GTE
Mobilnet, the two cellular telephone service providers in the
greater San Francisco Bay Area, are proposing to install and
operate cellular radiotelephone transmission facilities ( "cell
sites ") at 14471 Big Basin Way. The facilities would be used. as
part of both companies' networks for providing cellular telephone
service to the public, and would improve the quality of cellular
service in Saratoga Village and the surrounding areas.
14471.Big Basin Way is a two - level, 7,100 square foot commercial/
office building. The joint facility would consist of a small
equipment room, located in existing storage space on the lower
level of the building, together with an antenna array located on
the roof of the building. Minor remodeling of the storage .space
would be required for the equipment room,. which accommodates the
electronic radio and telephone equipment necessary for the
operation of the sites. The facilities would be unattended except
during times of routine maintenance which occurs two or three times
per month. .
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION:
National Interest:
As cellular telephone carriers, Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company
and GTE Mobilnet are duly certificated public utilities, licensed
by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular
telephone service to the public. The FCC authorized cellular radio
to help alleviate the nation's spectrum and communications
shortage. Because cellular handles so many calls so efficiently,
it makes possible more effective emergency radio services and other
frequency uses. It serves the national interest and directly or
indirectly benefits all members of the public.
Local Interest:
Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet own and operate independent cellular
telephone networks; competing against one another in the San
Francisco - Oakland -San Jose metropolitan service area. Both
companies are currently providing service in Saratoga Village and
the surrounding areas at levels which are below their respective
systemwide standards. We are proposing to consolidate facilities
in one location because we felt that the City would prefer one site
to two in Saratoga Village.
Design Review Application
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company
GTE Mobilnet
Page 2
Businesses, local government, and emergency service agencies in the
Bay Area have all expressed interest in the uses of cellular
technology. The cellular system is of great benefit to emergency
and disaster relief efforts. This became evident during the
aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake and the Oakland- Berkelay
Hills fire, when.many emergency relief and rescue services relied
heavily .upon cellular communications. Cellular telephones are also
in widespread use in the private sector for reasons related to
personal safety and emergency preparedness, and to maintain
communications in circumstances were conventional land lines are
not available.
PROJECT IMPACTS:
The environmental impacts of this project would be minimal. Cell
sites are unattended, and do not create odors, noise, traffic, or
other hazards. No water or sewer services would be necessary. The
project would not interfere with the daily routine of the property
owner, other tenants at the building, neighbors, or the general .
public in the surrounding area. No interference with broadcast
radio or television, other telecommunications activities,
computers, or other electronic equipment operating in the vicinity
would occur.
In the past, Saratoga has been concerned with the visual appearance
and the safety of our facilities. Visual impacts would be
minimized to the extent possible by utilizing the roof of the
building to support the necessary antennas, which would be painted
to blend with the background. No new freestanding antenna towers
would be required. Cellular telephone signals are very low powered
signals, and the combined radio frequency output of the proposed
cell sites would be less, than that allowed under the most stringent
national safety standards for human exposure to radio frequency
emissions.
We are pleased to submit this project to the City for approval
because the site we have selected meets our engineering
requirements, complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance
relating to cellular telephone facilities, and is designed to
minimize.its impact on Saratoga Village.
f
ley ad _i-4
Environmental Information
zoning:
APN# : 503 -14- 0 67 0 b 8
General Plan: C
Existing land use: (4AA1AVRGI A DFF j GE
Surrounding land uses: North COMAiIERCr A L South COM M F R6 k L AI S; 0E14i k L
East 4M41 A.6 kl. West GRECK /0.ES; Dfdri/kL
Parcel size (in sq. ft. or acres) 0.7" AC. Natural features &
vegetation: Typ; &AL OF DBVELlP6D VrLt-k &E SITES Ah7ftf0r To SkRATO&A CACOK
Slope at building site: OA Average site slope: d/A
Grading required: cut: AIJA Cu.Yds. Cut depth: AI/A
Fill: R 1A Cu.Yds. Fill depth: A
Architectural Details
Proposed setbacks: Frnt Iz0 f Rear %0- 100 "L. Side 74! R. Side I Z '
r
Height: 4-0 ft. Impervious Coverage: d1A sq.ft.
Size of structure(s):
Existing Proposed
First (lower) floor (incl. garage): s.f. s.f.
Second (upper) floor: Ala s. s.f.
Other structures: s.f.
TOTAL: s.f. s.f.
Materials & colors proposed: *Al f f� d A S TD 8f PA-r TED 0 2
50L9090 kS AEaVE(TVD 4y ITV.
Proposed new landscaping:
NOTES: 00 AJ610 G04TILVV710n IIJ✓OL ✓Cb .; T-F�A -r IMP1Lof9MEPJT5 OIJL`/
1
PETER POLSOH, PB.D.
Consultant
**
Microwave Biological,Effects ** Biomedical Engineering **
* *Instrumentation Development ** Signal Processing **
18985 Tuggle Avenue, -Cupertino, CA 95014 -3658 Ph. & Fax: (408) 257 -3376
August 19, 1993
Ms. Megan MatthevB
Matthews Land Company
(GTE Mobilnet representative)
74 River Street, Suite 206
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Mr. Michael Mangiantini
Mangiantini Real Estate Services
(Cellular One representative)
1999 South Bascom Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Matthews. and Mr. Mangiantini:
Re: Proposed Saratoga co- location Cell Site. Saratoga California:
I am pleased to provide you with this letter report assessing the potential
for health effects from the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) that will be
emitted from the proposed cell site. installation at 14471 Big Basin Way,,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
SUMMARY
I have visited the site and obtained pertinent information about the
engineering design through GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One. From the
engineering details, I have calculated "worst -case" RFR power densities in the
vicinity of the site and on properties nearby. The calculated power
densities are all low, less than approximately 30 microwatts (millionths of a
watt) per square centimeter.- The most stringent exposure standard in the US
(based on a whole -body SAR limit of 0.08 W /kg) allows exposures of
approximately 540 microwatts per sq cm. Thus, the maximum worst -case
calculated values are approximately 68 of the allowed values. In practice,
experience shows that actual values will be about one -tenth of worst -case
values.. It is my opinion that there is no hazard to people from the
radiofrequency radiation that will be emitted from this site under even its
maximum designed operating conditions. '
1
1. CELLULAR SYSTEMS
Cellular telephone sites are specifically designed to be relatively low -
powered. Their transmitted signals become too weak to be useful for
communications purposes outside the designed cell dimensions. The
communication role for a specific mobile -phone call moving out of the cell is
passed off to the adjacent cell. .This enables rouse of cellular telephone
channel frequencies in nonadjacent cells. each cell size varies with its
geographical location. It may be as small as a half -mile radius in a big city
with high- density cellular -phone usage to perhaps a fifteen -mile radius in
open country. Each cell site is therefore designed with specific operational
characteristics and capacities that depend on its location geographically, the
local cellular phone usage requirements, and the cell's function within the
overall cellular system.
The GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One cellular radio engineers for this particular
site have independently carried out the engineering designs for this site
based on numerous design requirements. The analysis below is based.on design
information provided by them.
2. CALCULATED LEVELS OF RFR.
CELLULAR RFR
To assess the potential hazard, one first needs to know the levels of RFR that
will exist in the vicinity of this specific site as the result of operation of
the facility. These levels can be calculated from knowledge of the
engineering design details., GTE Mobilnet proposes to install nine antennas,
functionally arranged in three triplets. One antenna of each triplet will be
a transmitter and two antennas will be duplexed as receivers for spatial
diversity. One triplet will service a 120- degree sector centered on 40
degrees True North (TN) (Sector 1). Another triplet will service a similar
sector at 160 degrees TN (Sector 2). The third triplet will service a sector
at 280 degrees TN (Sector 3).
Cellular One proposes likewise to install nine antennas, also functionally
arranged in three triplets. One antenna of each triplet will be a transmitter
and two antennas will be duplexed as receivers for spatial diversity. One
triplet will. service a 120- degree sector centered on 20 degrees True North
(TN) (Sector 4). Another triplet will service a similar sector at 140 degrees
TN ( Sector 5). The third triplet will service a sector at 260 degrees TN
(Sector 6). The antenna sectors for both GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One are
shown in Fig. 3, above the Caribbean Cafe at 14471 Big Basin Way in Saratoga.
All antennas will be identical and of a type and model commercially available
and well - characterized in terms of radiated -field properties (Swedcom Corp.,
Model CTY 10510 -N): The horizontal and vertical radiation patterns are shown
in Figures 1 and 2. This antenna operates over the cellular telephony band
(approx. 800 -900 MHz). It has a horizontal 3 -dB beamwidth of 105 degrees, a
vertical 3 -dB beamwidth of 26 degrees, a gain of 10 dB re a dipole, and a
front -to -back ratio of greater than 25 dB.
2
'r
The.GTE Mobilnet. system is planned to have a capacity of 30 channels, ten per
sector, at an effective radiated power (ERP) of 100 watts per channel. The
Cellular One _system is planned to have a capacity of 24 channels, eight per
sector, at an effective radiated power (ERP) of 50 watts per channel.
All calculations of power densities are based on standard formulas for
calculation of free- space, far -field power'densities from any antenna of known
radiation patterns. To these formulas I have added a zorrectic,n factor that
assumes 40% ground reflectivity of the E- field, as recommended by the Federal
Communications Commission' (FCC).
In the present case, I assume that all 54 channels are operating. This will
rarely be the case. To do so, both systems would be operating at maximum
capacity.continuously, and therefore this represents a "worst -case" situation
that will rarely, if ever, occur. In fact, actual measurements around
existing cellular base stations indicate that actual exposures are between
one -tenth and one - hundredth of the calculated "worst -case" values.
Calculated power density levels are given in units that are commonly used in
experiments on the biological effects of RFR and microwaves. The units are in
millionths of a watt per square centimeter of incident surface area,
abbreviated as microwatts per aq cm. A, watt is a unit of power. It may be
helpful to give an idea of relative magnitudes of these units as they relate
to other items that most people are familiar with. Light bulbs are rated in
terms of power usage, e.g., 100 watts (or 100,000,000 microwatts). At a
distance of 6 ft from a 100- watt light bulb, if half of the power consumed is
radiated as visible light, the power density of this radiated electromagnetic
energy is approximately 100 microwatts per sq cm. Also, sunlight (another
form of electromagnetic radiation), may reach power densities greater than
50,000 microwatts per sq cm on a sunny summer day.
Calculated maximum' ("worst-case") power densities at various locations around
the site are as follows:
Location (see Fig. 6 for actual location)
microwatts /scr.cm
1 (at coffee tables outside International Coffee
12.7
Exchange)
2 (on ramp outside International Coffee Exchange)
.7.2
3 (all locations inside Caribbean Cafe)
2.5
4 (upper loft of Brenner,Financial Services)
1.8
5 (main ,floor level of Brenner Financial Services)
0.42
6 (upper loft of Posh Paws)
0.60
7 (main floor level of Posh Paws)
0..59
8 (inside International Coffee Exchange)
0.01
9 (on the outside; upstairs rear deck of La Mere
9.2
1
Cleveland, R. F., Jr., "Evaluating Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation," OST Bulletin No. 65, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, DC, 20554, October 1985. (NTIS PB86-
127081)
3
Michelle restaurant)
10 (at the front of La more Michelle restaurant)
11 (at the.outside of The Echo.Shop, nearest the
Caribbean Cafe)
12 (inside The Echo Shop)
13 (outside the Melton residence)
14 (inside the Melton residence, upstairs)
15 (inside The Inn, nearest the Caribbean Cafe)
16 (outside, location A in parking lot to south)
17 (outside, location B in parking lot to south)
18 (outside, location C in parking lot to south)
19 (outside, location D.in parking lot to north)
20 (outside, location E in parking lot to north)
21 (outside, location F in parking lot to north)
For levels measured inside buildings, there is an
8.dB for RFR passing through the roof and each
been factored into the calculations in the above
3. ASSESSMENT
0.01
30.4 ( ma_x mum )
4.8
13.7
1.2
1.9
13.2
11.9
8.7
1.3
2.2
2.9
attenuation of between 6 and
wall. This attenuation has
table.
A considerable amount is known about the biological effects of RFR and
microwaves. There has been an active, coordinated research program for more
than 30 years in the USA and abroad. The list of published citations numbers
approximately 12,000' and the number increases by several hundreds every year.
The Bioelectromagnstics Society was founded more than'12 years ago to further
research in' this area and to provide a focal point for publication and
communication of research results. These research efforts,provide the basis
for the setting of scientifically based standards for human exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Three specific standards- setting organizations responsible for promulgation of
guidelines contained in such standards are:
a) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard
C95.1 -1991. (The functions and responsibilities of the former American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1 Committee were subsumed by the IEEE
Standards Coordinating Committee 28 (.IEEE SCC 28) in 1988.)
b).The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP)
c) The American Council of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
The IEEE C95.1 and NCRP guidelines are two- tiered, providing one set of
guidelines for occupational exposures and another more stringent set for
general public exposures. The IEEE guidelines recommend general public
exposures not exceed 533 microwatts per sq cm at 800 MHz and 600 microwatts
per sq cm at 900 MHz. The NCRP guidelines recommend general public exposures
not exceed 540 microwatts per. sq cm at 800 MHz and 640 microwatts per sq cm at
900 MHz. (The small difference between these values arises in the manner in
which the guidelines are defined in terms of slightly different straight -line
mathematical formulas over the frequency range of interest.)
2
Information Ventures, Inc, "EMF Database," Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993).
4
7
The ACGIH guidelines, 2,600 microwatts per sq cm at approximately 600 MHz
rising to 3,200 microwatts per sq cm at approximately 900 MHz, are for
occupational exposure, and are applicable to workers with access to the roof.
In 1991,. the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California issued an
Order Instituting Investigation (OII No. I.91 -01 -012), on the Commission's own
motion to develop policies and procedures for addressing the potential health
effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities. As a regulated
utility, cellular carriers were included in this 0II. A copy of the Comments
of the Cellular Carriers Association (CCA) of California and the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in response to the OII is
referenced herein because of the volume of pertinent information it provides
with respect to general matters of cellular telephony and particularly with
respect to specific scientific research references and. standards that have
been set by appropriate deliberative bodies in the USA over the past 20 or so
years.
The specific points .to be highlighted from the above CCA /CTIA report, are as
follows:
1. In recognition of the low power densities associated with cellular
communications, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has categorically
excluded cellular facilities from routine evaluation pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) of potential adverse effects on the
environment stemming from RFR transmissions. (FCC General Docket No. 79 -144,
"Report and Order," 100 FCC 2d 543, at 563 (1985).)
2. Calculations of worst -case possible exposure situations for this site,
above, are in agreement with the FCC conclusions. In particular, the maximum
RFR power density level to which people could be exposed is less than
approximately 30 microwatts per sq cm. Levels inside buildings are estimated
to be between 0.01 and 4.8 microwatts per sq cm.
3. There have been scientific studies published over the past 15 or..so years
that have claimed that certain effects may caused by electromagnetic fields
amplitude- modulated'at specific frequencies, so- called "window" effects. Such
effects have not been found for the type of modulation used by cellular
systems, which use frequency modulation, and in any event, there is
considerable, debate in the scientific community as to whether such effects
actually exist at all, or are caused by artifacts in the experiment. Because
of the difference in modulation and the low levels of the fields from cellular
sites, there is no evidence for the existence of such effects here.
4. Based on a. critical review of published epidemiologic studies involving
many tens of thousands of human subjects who may have been chronically exposed
to low -level RFR or microwaves, there is no convincing scientific evidence
that such exposures have been harmful to the health of persons so exposed.
(It should be pointed out that this is in strong contrast with current claims
concerning exposure to powerline frequency electromagnetic fields that have
much different properties with respect to mechanisms of interaction of such
ki
fields with humans. These claims for powerline effects are also subject to
vigorous scientific debate.)
There was considerable attention in the popular media and on television early
in 1993 about a Florida lawsuit claiming that use of handheld cellular
telephones had resulted in brain cancer in several individuals. As indicated
above, critical review of the scientific literature indicates that there is no
convincing scientific evidence for such a cause - and - effect relationship.
There are an est.'.mated. 10 million or more users of cellular phones in the
U.S.A. Brain cancer rates in the U.S.A. have been fairly constant or have
increased only slightly over the past several decades'. By using these rates,
it can be calculated that each year about 300 -400 new cases of' brain cancer
would be expected to occur randomly among these 10 milion users of cellular
phones, without any cause - and - effect mechanism operating. It was also claimed
that relatively little research has been carried out specifically at cellular -
telephone frequencies (800 -900 MHz). While this is correct, a great deal of
research has been conducted at 915 MHz, the commercial and industrial
microwave -oven frequency,. and the frequency commonly used for medical
diathermy treatments. Millions of people have received high -power treatments
with diathermy over the past 30 years with no scientific evidence that it has
in any way been detrimental to their health. In fact, the opposite has been
true. Clinical evidence is that such treatments are beneficial. To answer
the criticism of insufficient research, new research studies are planned or
under way for the cellular frequency band. Finally, even if it is argued that
some presently - unknown mechanism might be discovered to be acting to cause
cancer from hand -held cellular phones, the power density at the user's head
from such hand -held phones is thousands or tens of thousands of times higher
than the power densities to which people will be exposed from this cellular
base- station site. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any
quantitative hazard from operation of this site regardless of present media
controversy.
4. OPINION
Based on the.foregoing, it is my opinion that the cellular RFR that will be
emitted from the joint co- location site at 14471 Big Basin Way, Saratoga,
California, as designed and presented to me in the information* above, will not
constitute a hazard to human health.
This opinion is based on the calculation of RFR power densities in the general
vicinity of the site, under the maximum possible designed power transmission
situation, and takes into consideration the recommendations of standards -
setting organizations in the U.S.A. and the form of modulation of the
transmissions. In my opinion, emissions from this site are safe and will not
pose a threat to the health of anyone in the vicinity.
Peter Polson, Ph.D.
3
American Cancer Society, "Cancer Facts and Figures -- 1993," (1993).
6
It
11
11
m
• ' LJ
1
�.
if
1 r i
c4 I
A�Fit� ItD�GR! _ rcrFF
14 G3
GMA
r
T>< 1•m �--- 1
KI GNF.FJ I ��. u a �► __ _:
son
Ali
t-IQ
Hor-TH WEST eLZWTIOH I y �ouY++�ast ���Ya'rldM
F
r
fit!
- - -Ii
• `•y%a• . ............... ....; I.Jr
r
r
r
r - a.
r
r �
r N )
I
i
II 1 U
m
S ((-- ".I r'1
I
J
•t
t (l�
rJ 7f
�Jll�r
I
i
tj
i I
£ LV
;am
i I
I I N
QA- 14s94
•
(
u
r
fit!
- - -Ii
• `•y%a• . ............... ....; I.Jr
r
r
r
r - a.
r
r �
r N )
I
i
II 1 U
m
S ((-- ".I r'1
I
J
•t
t (l�
rJ 7f
�Jll�r
I
i
O
U 'ia
r.
1'
9L1F p1��
(59UT oCq 0&MZUQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
January 24, 1994
Ms. Peggy O'Laughlin
Matteoni, Saxe and Nanda
1740 Technology Drive
Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
Subject: Approval of Cellular Antennae Site
DR -93 -029
Dear Ms. O'Laughlin:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mahe Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
On November 3, 1993, the City Council denied an appeal and
confirmed the decision of the Planning Commission approving the
installation of a� cellular antennae site at 14471 Big Basin Way,
Saratoga. This was a joint application with Cellular One. This is
to confirm the scope of the project as submitted to and approved by
the Planning Commission.
The Design Review was approved for an application submitted with
supporting documentation including a site plan and a report
prepared by Dr. Peter Polson, dated August 19, 1993.. The
application and any supporting documentation describing the project
becomes the basis of approval. That is, while the application
itself may not specify the number of antennae or other technical
data, the supporting documentation (e.g. site plan and report) is
considered part of the application. Therefore, the project was
approved based on the "total package" of information submitted with
the application.
The following is 'a confirmation of what was approved by the
Planning Commission and affirmed by the City Council upon denial of
the appeal:
• A total of 18 antennae (9 each for GTE Mobilnet and
Cellular One) are permitted to be placed on the roof of
the building.
• Each antennae for Cellular One may have a maximum of 24
channels and for GTE Mobilnet a maximum of 30 channels.
• The antennae are to be painted a- "forest green" subject to
approval by the Community Development Director.
Printed on recycled paper.
Page 2
Ms. Peggy O'Laughlin
January 24, 1994
Any change in the scope of the project will require a new
application and public hearing by the Planning Commission. For
example, if the number of antennae or channels is increased, a new
public hearing will be required.
If you have any questions regarding the :application appr .3-/al and
conditions or the process required for changes, please do not
hesitate to call me at (408) 867 -3438, ext. 231.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Curt s
Community Development Director
cc: City Council
Mr. W.D. Whetstone
Mr—David Hatch
0
I
P =.
C�B�� 04 BOO C�r�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mane 6urap
January 24, 1994 Wl,Prn Konler
V;cicr A?onia
Mr. - Davld Hatch - Karen Tucker
Real Estate Manager
Cellular One
651 Gateway Boulevard
Suite 1500
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Approval of Cellular Antennae Site
DR -93 -029
Dear Mr. Hatch:
On November 3, 1993, the City Council denied an appeal and
confirmed the decision of the Planning Commission approving the
installation of a cellular antennae site at 14471 Big Basin way,
Saratoga. This was a joint application with GTE Mobilnet. This is
to confirm the scope of the project as submitted to. and approved by
the Planning Commission.
The Design Review was approved for an application submitted with
supporting documentation including a site plan and a report
prepared by Dr. Peter Polson, dated August 19, 1993. The
application and any supporting documentation describing the project
becomes the basis; of approval. That is, while the application
itself may not specify the number of antennae or other technical
data, the supporting documentation (e.g. site plan and report) is
considered part of the application. Therefore, the project was
approved based on the "total package" of information submitted with
the application.
The following is a confirmation of what was approved by the
Planning Commission and affirmed by the City Council upon denial of
the appeal:
• A total of 18 antennae (9 each for GTE Mobilnet and
..Cellular One) are permitted to be placed on the roof of
the building.
• Each antennae for Cellular One may have a maximum of 24
channels and for GTE Mobilnet a maximum of 30 channels.
• The antennae are to be painted a "forest green" subject to
approval by the Community Development Director.
Printed on recycled paper.
Page 2
Mr. David Hatch
January 24, 1994
Any change in the scope of' the project will require a new
Application and public hearing by the"Planning Commission. For
example, if the number of antennae or channels is increased, a new
public hearing will be required.
If you have any questions regarding the application approval and
conditions or the process required -for changes, please do not
hesitate to call me at (408) 867 -3438, ext. 231.
Sincerely,
7
Paul L. Curtis
Community Development Director
cc: City Council
Mr. W.D. Whetstone
Ms. Peggy O'Laughlin,.Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda
t
FA
/1 rS z �
Matteori
Saxe
Nan
L A W Y E R S
Kodak Center
1740 Technology Drive
January 27, 1994 Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
408 441 -7800
Honorable Mayor and FAX 408441 -7302
Members of the Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue NoAllan nE.MatSaxe
Saratoga, CA 95070 etEcke Nande
Margaret Ecker Nanda
Peggy M. O'Laughlin
Re: GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One Debra L.Cauble
Cellular Facility in Saratoga Village Judy C. Tsai
Bradley M. Matteoni
Dear Mayor Tucker and Members of the Council:
It has come to my attention that certain persons are
claiming that I, on behalf of my client, GTE Mobilnet, made
false statements to the City Council regarding GTE Mobilnet
and Cellular One's proposed cellular facility to be located in
Saratoga Village. The purpose of this letter is to assure the
City Council that at no time did I make any false or mis-
leading statements to the Council or Staff pertaining to this
use permit application.
First, as GTE Mobilnet's legal counsel, I have had
many opportunities to review and use Public Utilities Commis-
sion (PUC) General Order 159. My statement to the City
Council that General Order 159's reference to environmental
review as being related to the siting of cellular facilities,
focusing on their aesthetic impact to the community is, in my
opinion, a correct reading of General Order 159. Further,
there is nothing in General Order 159 referring to environ-
mental review on the basis of radio frequency radiation.
General Order 159 reads in part:
"We are now adopting revised rules which
have the effect of relying on local
review processes in those cases where
disputes over siting and design are
resolved amicably at the local level.
The Commission would then be required to
intervene only in a minority of situa-
tions where irreconcilable differences or
intolerable delays arise."
An Association Including a Professional Cmp.
City of Saratoga January 27, 1994
Page Two
General Order 159 allows the cellular companies to
petition the PUC for exemption from local zoning control in
certain situations where the cellular companies and the local
agency cannot reach agreement on the siting of cellular
facilities.
Also, as I informed the Council, the PUC was the
lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act for
the siting, design and construction of GTE Mobilnet's first
twenty -five (25) cellular facilities in the Bay Area. These
cellular facilities were a part of the initial configuration
described in GTE Mobilnet's application for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity. In 1984, the PUC, acting as
the lead agency for these initial cellular sites, granted a
negative declaration, finding no significant environmental
impact.
For the GTE Mobilnet /Cellular One cell site in the
City of Saratoga, the lead agency is the City of Saratoga.
The City of Saratoga did abide by the California Environmental
Quality Act and conducted a proper environmental review which
resulted in the adoption of a negative declaration.
There is nothing in General Order 159 requiring the
City of Saratoga to require GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One to
prepare an environmental impact report on issues related to
radio frequency radiation. In fact, as I have stated before,
there is nothing in General Order 159 addressing environmental
review on the basis of radio frequency radiation. CEQA, not
General Order 159, governs the City of Saratoga's decisions
regarding environmental review.
Lastly, I would like to bring to the Council's
attention another decision reached by the Public Utilities
Commission arising out of a complaint by neighbors in Almaden
Valley in San Jose challenging the construction of two
cellular facilities of Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet. The
neighbors protested, among other things, that the cell sites
may produce adverse health effects and thus must receive CEQA
review. The Commission rejected the neighbors' protest,
stating:
City of Saratoga
January 27, 1994
Page Three
"At this time, although the CPUC is
investigating possible responses in the
event a future determination shows that
adverse health effects can be produced by
cell site transmitters, no Commission
decision has determined that such a
hazard may exist. Hence, protestants
raised no valid issues affecting the
Commission's responsibilities." (Public
Utilities Commission Resolution T- 14803,
June 3, 1992.)
If I can be of any further assistance to the
Council, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me.
I hope this letter puts to rest the false allegations of
certain residents of Saratoga regarding my own involvement and
statements regarding this project.
Very truly you s,
PEGG O'LAUG IN
PMO:md
cc: Howard Richard, GTE Mobilnet
David Hatch, Cellular One
Mike Riback, City Attorney
Paul Curtis, Planning Director