PC 092210 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

“Explaining our concerns to the Verizon representative, we asked if the company had explored other more suitable options, like the nearby Zone 7 water treatment plant where aesthetics, safety, and property devaluation would not likely be concerns. Mr. Lobaugh had not known of this property or its close location. He seemed singularly focused on our site, expressing that he had put in a tremendous amount of time with the City already. He declined to show us other options that had been considered or where other sites were active already. We understood that his company wanted a line of site [sic] along Interstate 680 within a 5 mile range south from the 580/680 junction. He explained that our area was considered a ‘dead/drop’ zone for Verizon calls and the company wanted to address this need though a new tower. As a significant number of us living in the area are also Verizon customers, we noted there was no dead or drop zone in this area for any of us and are puzzled with such company information. “We now understand that Verizon has requested an appeal to your denial of their application. Currently, that appeal is scheduled to be heard at your September 22 meeting. “We would like to formally present our opposition to this appeal. To summarize our concern, we believe this cell tower is not appropriate in this location for reasons of safety or health risks, property devaluation, and poor aesthetics. A more detailed list of neighbor concerns is included. “Most importantly to us is the safety of our families, children, and visitors. While long-term radiofrequency (RF) safety is still under debate, we are pleased to note that our City has established cell tower location limitations for childcare facilities, schools, homes and parks.Our neighborhood court is a key access point to the Arroyo del Valle Centennial trail. The proposed cell tower will be placed within line of sight to several of our residences and within the zoning prohibition for city parks. We ask the commissioners to consider the trail and the court access point as an informal park for our neighborhood. In addition to hiking and biking activities, many of our children and their friends spend hours after school playing or fishing in the arroyo. This youthful activity would place our children at risk to daily RF exposure. “Aesthetics are another significant concern for our neighbors. No matter the promises of the contractor, a fate tree looks false in geometry, coloration, and appropriateness. Aging will only exacerbate these distinctions as dirt sticks to painted and metal surfaces differently than on real leaves and branches. We are proud to be Pleasanton residents and enjoy the zoning restrictions to keep our neighborhoods of high quality. This “fake tree” will take away from the quality look of our area. “Lastly, as concerned citizens, we have been made aware by real estate professionals that the proximity of the cell tower would be considered a ‘material fact’ and must be disclosed upon selling our property. We find this requirement to be a negative feature to any future homeowner and expect that home sales would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 6 of 23