PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

restrictions in the ordinance. She added that the 300 feet was just the number the Task Force came up with and was not based on anything other than what felt appropriate. Commissioner Ritter inquired if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recommends any distance. Ms. Harryman replied that the FCC does not have any distances. She stated that the Telecom Act of 1996 indicates that the radio frequency (RF) cannot be regulated but that there are no distance requirements. She added that she thinks the distance requirements that were put in place, as shown in case law, had to be based on aesthetic reasons; for example, an easy argument can be made that a residential neighborhood might want a buffer zone so residents are not staring at a cellular tower, even perhaps a camouflaged tower, because, even though these faux trees are looking better and better, residents do not necessarily want one of those 100 feet behind their backyards. Commissioner Ritter noted that by lowering the distance, more things might be able to be concealed without camouflage. He gave an example that, say, at 100 feet, a carrier could find a spot and have everything concealed; there would never be an aesthetic issue, and it would not affect the safety of the populace. Ms. Harryman stated that she recalls a specific example that City staff has worked on over time. She agreed that without the 300 -foot distance requirement, the carrier would have been able to completely conceal the facility. She indicated that it was going to be 298 feet away from the nearest property line. Commissioner Ritter thanked Ms. Harryman for the clarification. He then disclosed that he is an electrical engineer and has taken fields and waves and can confirm what Ms. Harryman's stated. He indicated that one could get more damage from holding a phone next to one's ear than from standing 50 feet from a cell tower. He added that he has some friends in the industry who have told him the same thing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Brad Hirst commended staff for a terrific job and indicated that he is in support of staff's proposal. He stated that he would like to speak from the perspective of why these changes benefit the City rather than why the changes should be made because the Federal government says the City cannot continue what it has been doing since 1998. He stated that when that 1998 amendment was made, the residents of Ruby Hills at that time were up and screaming because they could not get cell service. He added that the area around Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue has had a very difficult time getting cellular service. He noted that these changes will correct a lot of those adverse situations. Mr. Hirst stated that another additional benefit that was not mentioned that he has heard from police officers and which affects the quality of life is that newspaper carriers who are out very early in the morning see a lot of things going on that residents wish were not going on and the newspaper carriers are able to communicate immediately with the Police PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 43 of 50