PC 111302 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Mr. Iserson replied that all testimony made would be on record. He pointed out that while these parties would not need to attend the next meeting, it would be advisable for the applicant and persons interested in the matter to be present. Mr. Iserson then presented the staff report. He stated that the stealth panel antennas would be visually blocked by fiberglass screens similar to the existing roof screens on the building. He continued that in terms of noise, there would be no back-up generators and that the air conditioners would operate only when in hot weather conditions. He added that the site is approximately 350 feet from nearest residential neighborhood and pointed out that the appellant's residence is approximately 700 feet from the facility. He further indicated that staff worked extensively with Cingular Wireless to look for another location but was unsuccessful in terms of the comparability defined by the Ordinance. - Mr. Iserson also summarized the history of the Wireless Communication Ordinance, which was adopted by the City Council in May 1998. He indicated that the Ordinance was the result of the work of a citizens committee formed under the direction of the Council and consisting of representatives from the wireless communication industry, concerned residents and neighbors, specialists and experts in the field, and staff. He stated that the Committee had to work out several issues within various constraints, the major one being the Federal Communications Commission legislation, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which greatly limited the City's ability to regulate wireless communication facilities. He added that the Committee had to balance the residents' concerns versus the rights of the facilities under the law, including the right to achieve maximum coverage for the area and for the City not to make rules that are easier for one company but not for the others. He noted that one of the major features of the Ordinance is the requirement that wireless communication facilities be located at least 300 feet from sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks, to minimize any negative impacts including noise, property values, and land use compatibility. He indicated that as a result of a lot of give-and-take from all the members, the Ordinance set certain standards, requirements, and procedures which have been successfully implemented over the past four-and-a-halfyears in terms of allowing these facilities in parts of town where facilities can achieve their coverage without being close to neighborhoods. r- Mr. Iserson stated that staff approved the application based on the determination that it was in compliance with the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance and that Mr. Cazinha subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision, the first formal challenge to the Ordinance. He noted that prior to staff approval, Cingular Wireless held a neighborhood meeting regarding the project, at which meeting the appellant was not in attendance. He added that staff has had several discussions and meetings with the appellant during the process. He stated that the appellant expressed concerns about the negative impact of the facility on the value of his property as well as the possibility of other wireless communication facilities installing antennas on the same location and proposed that wireless facilities be allowed only in industrial areas. In response to these concems, Mr. Iserson pointed out that all negative impacts should be mitigated with the facility being set back 300 feet from the residential area and that the value of Mr. Cazinha's property 700 feet away from the facility should not be impacted. Mr. Iserson further noted that up to three wireless communication carriers are permitted to locate on one site if they meet the standards of the Code. Finally, Mr. Iserson pointed out that Hacienda Business PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2002 Page 4