03-26-03 Minutes - GPCTOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, MARCH 26, 2003 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chair Mike Burke.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Mike Burke, Josh Bacigalupi, Sandy Decker, Phil Micciche, Joe Pirzynski,
Lee Quintana, Mark Sgarlato, Mark Weiner, Jo Zientek
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Tom Williams,
Assistant Director of Community Development; Suzanne Davis, Associate
Planner; Orry Korb, Town Attorney; Deborah Ungo-McCormick, contract
planner; Erica Viola and Chris Anderson, LRC Communications (Town
consultant).
Others Present: Tim Boyd; Laura Crowe; Ray Davis; Egon Jensen; Casey, Jeff &
Marianne Larson; Larry Paulding; Steve Richard, PG&E; Luke Stamos,
John Tice, Barbara Trese, Lucille Weidman, Victoria Willcox, AT&T
Wireless.
Verbal Communications:
None
ITEM 1: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE
Tom Williams provided background and noted that Chris Anderson from LRC Communications
is present tonight in the event there are any questions. Tentative meeting dates are Planning
Commission, April 9, 2003 and Town Council May 5, 2003. The intent is to try and beat the
July 1, 2003 moratorium expiration date.
Joe Pirzynski said the Council is interested in understanding what parameters the Town must
abide by. The intention is to protect the neighborhoods. The moratorium was imposed to allow
adequate time to research the matter and develop an adequate ordinance. There is an interest in
providing complete coverage, but the primary interest is in protecting neighborhoods and the
public. The moratorium date should not affect the language if is not ready to go and needs
further development.
Sandy Decker added that the moratorium also allowed time to look at where antennas are going
up, and to gain more information on existing facilities and their impact.
Chris Anderson, LRC Communications provided general information on coverage and how it
would affect the Town. The way the Town is laid out and the topography affect location.
Existing providers also affect location. Most provide corridor service (along the freeway).
With the topography of the Town, it looks like several locations would need to extend into the
residential area to achieve complete coverage. Regarding height, things like freeway overpasses
affect service. Regarding how antennas work, there are several types and patterns that are put in
place at different angles to maximize coverage and limit the number of locations that are needed.
There are a lot of variables. Service providers have a master plan and will try to maximize
frequency. Sometimes a site up on a hill will interfere with other lower facilities.
Sandy Decker said she is very excited about having concentric circles to show coverage. She
would like to have existing facilities and coverage considered. Tom Williams noted that
telecommunications companies all have the opportunity to provide service in the Town under the
1996 Telecommunications Act. The Town cannot limit the number of companies in Town.
Sandy Decker said that a baseline would be helpful so that it can be determined if updating
equipment and sharing of locations will reduce the number of antennas/facilities.
Mark Weiner asked if new providers coming in can use the same tower. Tom Williams said that
co-location will be encouraged.
Phil Micciche asked about stealth technology and if it can be required of all new facilities.
Chris Anderson said yes, if it doesn’t become infeasible cost-wise. Tom Williams clarified that
yes, it can be requested of every applicant.
Mike Burke asked about a provider coming off a coverage plan. Tom Williams said the plan
will be used as a management tool for location, not as an absolute mandate. It will need to be
demonstrated that the site is necessary and that location elsewhere and/or use of different
equipment would not accomplish the same coverage.
Joe Pirzynski noted that we don’t know what technology is in place now. The intention is to
require upgrades to the latest technology, and that on-going review that is external to providers
be done to find out what is there, what has become obsolete. It is important for the Council to
know where the areas of incomplete coverage are. The Town is driving this, not the providers.
This is an empowering type of ordinance. He is hopeful that LRC will be able to help assist the
Town in getting the best language.
Jo Zientek clarified that the Town can only require providers to upgrade and/or add on to a
facility when an application is being considered..
Public Comments:
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 26, 2003
Page 3 of 5
Larry Paulding said that assuming a telecommunications company can propose a facility in a
residential area, this is a non-ordinance. Basically it says that all a provider has to do is put up a
fence and do some landscaping. The ordinance needs to be looked at from the perspective of
the residents. It needs work, and an opportunity for people who are concerned to study and go
over it.
Lucille Weidman said she is also speaking on behalf of her husband Sam Weidman, and neighbor
Richard Zai. She read a written statement and provided a copy to Committee members. The
concerns they have are as follows:
· The draft ordinance includes only a modicum of prescriptive language.
· There is too much discretionary power given to one individual.
· The draft ordinance is unlike other Town ordinances in that it is made up of two separate
documents.
She asked that the Town please allow the residents the opportunity to be heard.
Bud Lortz said that there are a number of ordinances in the Town that have an ordinance with
supporting documents. For example, the BMP Ordinance. An administrative process is
proposed to provide an incentive. Standards are set by Town Council and can only be amended
by the Council.
Egon Jensen said that he lives in Live Oak Manor. About two years ago some backflow pipes
were installed at the shopping center along Carlton Avenue. He found that a permit was issued
by the Town allowing illegal installation. He is concerned about this type of thing occurring
again, and likened the occurrence to what could happen with telecommunications antennas.
Laura Crowe, 120 Lester Lane, applauded Joe Pirzynski on his comments on the Council’s
direction. The draft includes seven goals. She feels the wrong goal has been placed first. The
ordinance appears to provide more protection to providers than residents. The ordinance reads
like a manual of how to locate an antenna in the Town of Los Gatos. The document referenced
by Lucille by Miller and Van Eaton shows that all providers do not have to be accommodated by
the Town. She questioned why there are two documents. She does not see the need for that.
She would like to see the ordinance made stricter.
Tim Boyd, 120 Lester Lane, said this whole process has been very unnerving to him. He does
not feel the residents’ concerns and input are being taken into account. He asked why the
consultant has not completed studies when the ordinance is getting ready to move forward.
Neighbors have spent hours on this, and their concerns have not been taken into account.
Ray Davis speaking in the public interest, said the draft ordinance is an insult to the people of
Los Gatos, but it is typical. The Telecommunications Act was passed six or seven years ago.
He feels this is being done in a loosy goosy fashion. He has only been here three years, but he
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 26, 2003
Page 4 of 5
attends all the meetings. He believes staff does not want to serve the people of this community.
The people come second. He noted that adopting an ordinance by resolution is a watering down
of the law.
John Tice asked why the people on the other side (telecommunications companies) are not being
heard. People are asking for facilities to be provided at any cost. People have views of power
lines, telephone poles and other such items in the name of the public good. He thinks that the
Town staff should be commended for taking up the call. He knows that a great deal of energy
has gone into writing this ordinance, and that the Cupertino ordinance that was referenced is not
as good because it does not allow for a two-step process. He suggests that in the future, the
Town try and get the word out to the public.
Committee Discussion:
Mark Weiner said that given the volume of public comments, he would like to see this item
continued to the next meeting to allow members and residents to give it further consideration.
Joe Pirzynski said there is merit to the motion. He would like to see editing based on comments
from the public and from the Committee. He does not want the termination point of the
moratorium to drive the process. There appears to be good cause to take another look at this.
We want to do this right on the front end. There will be time at Planning Commission and
Council level to discuss this, but it could be discussed further by the Committee.
Bud Lortz said that as much direction as can be provided by the Committee is desirable.
Sandy Decker said that she is upset about the adversarial relationship that we have come to.
There has not been any intent to not cooperate and work with residents. She asked residents to
be as clear and succinct as possible as to what you want. She would like to avoid the negative,
finger pointing types of meetings.
Tom Williams said that comments can be provided in writing (e-mail is fine) or verbally. He
feels that staff has listened to residents. The Town cannot have an all out ban in residential
zones, but we can make it very difficult to locate there. Staff is here to listen and follow
direction. We are also here to provide advice as to what is appropriate and how to avoid
lawsuits.
Phil Micciche clarified that a CUP is required when a facility is proposed in a residential zone.
Mike Burke apologized for having to cut people short. He asked if the Committee can start the
next meeting earlier to allow more time for citizen input. He suggested that the neighborhood
groups provide a single set of comments if possible to help move this forward.
Bud Lortz said the next meeting will be on April 9, and he requested that information be
submitted by April 1 in order to get it in the April 3 packet to the Committee.
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of March 26, 2003
Page 5 of 5
Lucille Weidman asked about the interpretation of the attorney’s letter on prohibition of towers.
Tom Williams said that the interpretation is that the Town can make it very difficult to locate in
residential zones, but cannot completely ban them. Mrs. Weidman referred to remarks made by
Circuit Judge Boudin, Amherst v Omnipoint, and said that her understanding is that they can be
restricted. She would like to see the moratorium extended for 90 days.
Mike Burke said there is consensus to continue this discussion. He asked if it should be pushed
further out than the next regular meeting date. Lee Quintana suggested pushing it out a week
further to April 16, 2003. It was decided to replace the April 9 meeting will be replaced by a
special meeting on April 16, 2003, and will be a two hour meeting, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. April
7, 2003 is the deadline for submittal of information by the public.
ITEM 2 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Joe Pirzynski nominated Mike Burke to remain as chair. Mark Weiner seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously.
Mike Burke nominated Phil Micciche as Vice-Chair. Sandy Decker seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
ITEM 3 NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-COMMITTEE
Mark Weiner volunteered to sit on the sub-committee and the other members all agreed to his
appointment.
ITEM 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Phil Micciche moved to approve the minutes of February 26, 2003. The motion was seconded
by Sandy Decker and was approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm by Chair Mike Burke.
Prepared By:
___________________________
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GENPLAN\GPC\2003Minutes\GPC-3-26-03.wpd