Laserfiche WebLink
<br />plan. She reported that Mr. Peter Hilliard from Nextel is present, as well as a representative of <br />~ SCI Manufacturing, the firm that will be constructing the monopole. <br /> <br />Peter Hilliard, 1255 Treat Blvd., #800, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, represented Nextel. He <br />reiterated the cooperation that Sprint and Nextel have had in bringing this project forward and <br />requested that this item be placed on the earliest agenda possible for resolution and approval. He <br />noted that Thierry Joux is present to answer any questions related to technical information <br />concerning this proposal. <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />Bobbi Troia, 6820 Inglewood Court, advised that she lives in the residential neighborhood next <br />to the sewage treatment plant and Lock It Up Storage. She reported that she has been working <br />hard with the City staff and Park and Recreation Department to build a City park in this area. <br />She stated that she would like to know what dangers are associated with this type offacility. <br />Commissioner Roberts advised that this proposal is over 300 feet from residences and the park, <br />and the previous proposal on top of the DSRSD building was not allowed. Ms. Eisenwinter <br />advised that the FCC has looked in-depth into this issue and there is a ruling by the Federal <br />Communications Commission that local governments are not allowed to regulate personal <br />wireless facilities based on perceived health effects from wireless antennas. She further noted <br />that the research in this area is fairly inconclusive. Ms. Seto advised that the FCC has <br />established industry-wide standards for radio frequency emissions. She reported that Sprint and <br />Nextel will have to submit information to City staff, as a requirement of this application, to <br />verify their facilities will fall at or below the FCC limits. She noted that these facilities are <br />usually at a very low level. She further noted that a peer review will be done on this information. <br />Ms. Eisenwinter advised that every three years the wireless carriers will be required to provide <br />additional information regarding whether they are meeting the FCC requirements, and in <br />addition to that, the approvals for these facilities only last for five years and then they have to <br />reapply. <br /> <br />Ms. Troia asked that during the review of the proposed flagpole, consideration be given to the <br />fact that this is exactly where the entrance to the new park will be. She noted that there are plans <br />for some sort of flagpoles at this park entrance and this could be too many flagpoles for the area. <br />She also stated that she wants to be sure that the colors of the tree pole will not fade over time. <br /> <br />Barbara Benda, 6554 Inglewood Drive, advised that she is a resident in the Val Vista <br />neighborhood. She noted that she thought that this communication tower was not going to be <br />located here. She advised that they are fighting to maintain neighborhood ties. She commented <br />on the uses surrounding her neighborhood, noting that they are being assaulted on all sides. She <br />stated that she feels this tree pole will be eyesore, as will the flagpole. She stated that she <br />already has a lot in her backyard and she suggested the antenna be put in some else's backyard. <br />Chairperson Sullivan provided clarification regarding an earlier application to place a personal <br />wireless antenna closer to Ms. Benda's neighborhood, and the Commission asked that it be <br />moved further away from her neighborhood and the park. He noted that this proposal meets the <br />setback requirements stated in the City's ordinance. He also noted that the Commission shares <br />her concerns about the visibility of the tree pole. <br /> <br />..- <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />August 22, 2001 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />