PC 092210 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

undergoing economic hardship and a significant drop in property value could put them in a possible short sale situation. Mr. Metzler stated that if he were a project manager looking at an alternative site where his competitors already have towers, he would try to find out in detail all he could about his competitor’s site so that he would have a definite answer rather than just a guess. He added that there are also health risks that could be associated with this project that could affect adults, children, and animals in the area. He stated that he felt there were viable alternatives that should at least be investigated and information provided in detail before a decision is made. Lori Hansen stated that her home is the most southwestern home in the tract, is the closest home to the tower, and is currently for sale. She expressed concern that anyone living on the court already has a disadvantage with selling their homes due to the freeway, and she hates the idea of having another obstacle for the sale of her home. She added that she took on the disadvantage of living by the freeway when she bought the home; however, she did not take on the cell tower. Ms. Hansen stated that the picture Verizon provided of the court was from her home. She noted that although the cell tower cannot be seen from that point, the cell tower can be seen from all of their bedroom windows along the trail as well as from those residences across the street on the north side from their second stories. She agreed with her neighbors that the trail should be considered a public park as it is used every day by people walking their dogs along the trail and kids play on it. She requested, if the trail is not considered a park because it does not fall under the guidelines for parks, that there be a motion to consider the trail as a public venue. Ms. Stern clarified that the 300-foot prohibition between cell phone facilities and residential area and parks is somewhat unique to Pleasanton and that there are cities where cell towers can be placed within residential areas. She indicated that the 300-foot City prohibition was related more to aesthetics. Chair Olson asked the applicant if the tower could be placed farther back on the property along the tree line and still get the coverage. Mr. Lobaugh replied that some neighborhoods across the freeway farther to the northwest would be affected if the tower is moved farther south on the property. He indicated that the more it is pushed south, the less coverage they would get because of the line of trees along I-680. He noted that it could probably be shifted slightly by 10-30 feet but not to the other side of the parcel. Commissioner Pearce noted that the Zone 7 water treatment plant was brought up and inquired if this was considered as an alternative location. Mr. Iachella stated that he was not sure where the site was located. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2010 Page 8 of 23