Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-2000-43 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF <br />COMMUNICATIONS, AS FILED UNDER CASE PDR-26/PV-14 <br /> <br />NEXTEL <br /> <br />Nextel Communications has applied for design review to allow a wireless <br />communications facility (including antennas and equipment) to be located <br />on .the roof of an existing building located at 7399 Johnson Drive (the <br />Dublin San Ramon Services District property), and for a variance from the <br />Pleasanton Municipal Code to allow the wireless communications facility <br />to be located closer to residential and park areas than allowed per the <br />Code; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is P (Public and Institutional) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />at its duly noticed public heating of August 9, 2000 the Planning <br />Commission considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and <br />recommendations of the City staff concerning this application; and <br /> <br />actions of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of <br />the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no <br />environmental document was prepared for this proposal; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that: <br /> <br />Adherence to the 300 foot set back requirement of the Municipal <br />Code is important because the set back requirement was the result <br />of input and compromise from residents, industry representatives, <br />and other interested persons who balanced the needs of industry to <br />have antenna sites versus concerns about property values, <br />aesthetics, and the incompatibility of commercial uses by non- <br />commercial areas. <br /> <br />Adherence to the 300 foot set back requirement is important <br />because if a variance is granted under these facts, whleh were not <br />found to be compelling, this would open the way for future <br />variances. <br /> <br />the Planning Commission also noted concerns regarding the visual <br />impacts of the proposal and the impact on property values of nearby <br />residential properties. <br /> <br /> <br />