CCMIN042198 - Laserfiche WebLink

with the FCC regulations. GTE has no plans within the next two years to build a facility in Pleasanton within 300 feet of a daycare center, private school, residence or senior care facility. She believed the ordinance was sending out a wrong message that personal wireless facilities pose a health threat. GTE's representative that participated in the workshops was concerned about the discussions regarding perceived health effects. She wrote a letter on October 28 to the City Attorney and City Manager expressing GTE's concerns with the direction the workshops were going. She said the Planning Commission did recognize that the Telecommunications Act restricted its ability to site the facilities based on health effects and for that reason the buffer restriction was deleted in regards to private schools, daycare centers and senior care facilities. GTE can accept this compromise. She said the staff report tonight deleted all reference to health effects but instead lists other reasons to support the restrictions against day care centers, private schools, senior care centers. But she felt these restrictions are still based on health effects. There is no safety, security, noise, or property value issue in regards to these specific uses. These facilities are secured, fenced and locked. In the ten years that she has been GTE's real property attorney she has never experienced a problem regarding damage or liability from a facility. The sites are visited once or twice a month to be maintained. She believed there was no validation for property value loss. The reasons for the restrictions are for the perceived health effects. Another portion of the ordinance refers to antennae pattern overlap. There is a restriction on antennae pattern overlap and the reasoning is control pattern densities based on health effects. GTE asks that Council follow the Planning Commissions recommendations. She believed the City did not want to pass an ordinance subject to challenge under the Telecommunications Act. Mark den Broeder, 4279 Barbara Court, believed the process that the Council set forth was a success. He said many compromises were made in order to come up with something everyone could live with. He was comfortable with making the non-substantive changes that the Planning Commission recommended but was not comfortable with removing the prohibitions that are being suggested. The ordinance as presented strikes a delicate balance and to remove a portion would be damaging. There are other health and safety concerns besides RF exposure. For example having barbed wire on the top of the fences is a safety hazard. The property value concern is very real and is supported by a number of real estate agents. The visual aesthetics and noise issues are also a concern. The prohibitions are consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Municipal Code. He stated that at the February 18 meeting the carriers stated that it would be okay with them not to allow antennae on senior care facilities if they were permitted on hospitals. The representative from GTE stated GTE would be willing to make a compromise on schools. The issue on overlapping antennae patterns is also a concern because if a number of antennae are added in one spot it will be difficult to mitigate the visual effect. In closing he asked Council to honor the process that was set in motion and support the ordinance. He appreciated being on the Committee. He asked if the removal of the tower in McKinley Park could be expedited. Brad Hirst, 1811 Santa Rita, representing Sprint PCS, requested the adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The goal of the wireless service providers is to serve optimally the 30-40,000 wireless accounts in Pleasanton. On September 2 Council directed staff to come up with a siting policy. During this process it was learned that there will be many antennas of all different shapes and sizes located throughout the United States. He believed the Pleasanton City Council 12 4/21/98 Minutes