CCMIN042198 - Laserfiche WebLink

real issue should be how these antennae will be located in an aesthetically pleasing manner and should not be health issues. The telecommunications industry is the largest growing industry in Pleasanton, but the wireless service providers do not feel very welcome. Sprint PCS would like the Council to adopt an ordinance tonight so it can provide optimal service to the City of Pleasanton, particularly the eastern and southern sides of the City. Sprint PCS can support a majority of staff recommendations but would prefer the Planning Commission's recommendations. He said the city owned towers are not subject to the ordinance. This creates a double standard. How does a public antennae continually provide emergency service, where the wireless service do not? During the Oakland Hills fire the only form of communications was through the wireless telephone providers. Also, even though other agencies, (East Bay Regional Parks and Alameda County Fairgrounds) have expressed the desire to cooperate they do maintain their own sovereignty regarding cellular antennae. He showed slides of Mr. and Mrs. den Broeder's property which is the most impacted by the City owned tower, which is not regulated by the ordinance. In closing, he asked Council to adopt the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Ayala asked which ordinance did everyone agree on at the last committee meeting. Mr. Hirst said the committee only had staff's ordinance to look at. GTE's representative said it could not support any ordinance that did not meet the FCC requirements. He said the other representatives preferred not to have staff's conditions but could live with them. Michael Hopfe, 5685 Paseo Navaro, said cellular communications have played the most vital part of emergency operations responses. He said emergency command centers use them on a daily basis. As a police officer he has received numerous cell phone calls from concerned residents. He supported the use of cellular phones and urged Council to make the best decision that will benefit the community. Cindy Mackey, 4260 Mirador Drive, showed a picture of the equipment shack for the cellular tower at McKinley Park. She said the reasons for objecting to this cellular tower are aesthetics and property values. The tower is close to property lines and is a safety hazard with the barbed wire around the top. She said it is not appropriate to have towers near homes, schools, or senior citizen centers. Joan Tenbrink, 4265 Mirador Drive, asked the senior citizens who might be watching tonight to look at their right not to have these uses in their neighborhood. She agreed that them have been compromises. She said at the last minute a letter was presented by John T. Newman regarding the tower issue. She did not feel this was appropriate. She said it was brought up at the last Council meeting that the tower was not within 45 feet of a residence. But when she measured the distance, it was 15 feet from the first back yard. She showed pictures of the ruts caused by the maintenance trucks servicing the antennae. She feels that an industrial permit in a residential area is inappropriate. She said the 300 foot buffer was a big compromise. Also she would like the subcontractors who service the facilities to wear uniforms or have some sort of identification. She said the General Plan states the City of Pleasanton will preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods. This tower should not be in a residential area. She supported the ordinance with staffs recommendations. Pleasanton City Council 13 4/21/98 Minutes