CCMIN050598 - Laserfiche WebLink

position was clearly stated in a letter dated April 27 and at the meetings of April 28 and April 29. Sprint's preference is that Council pass the ordinance recommended by staff with the three changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Council's approval of the ordinance tonight will allow Sprint and Cellular One to drop their applications for McKinley Park and proceed with applications for 450 Main Street. He recommended three changes: 1) in Section 18.110.050, location of standards, please do not restrict commercial application on commercial properties, specifically agriculturally zoned land, child care centers, and pre-schools and senior facilities; 2) Section 18.110.060, under co-location, please add economic continuum to structurally and technically possible; 3) Section 18.110.130, antennas and facilities permitted, please provide an escape clause from the artificial restriction. The primary consideration should be for aesthetics rather than arbitrary numbers. Sprint would like the flexibility of more locations on larger buildings. He asked that Section 18.110.260, preexisting uses and nonconforming sites, be reviewed. He commended the staff for the deletion of amortization and elimination in Section 18.110.280. Otherwise Sprint PCS supported staff's recommendations. Ms. Ayala asked about the co-location restriction. Mr. Hirst said the proposed ordinance only allows three facilities on one building. For example, the PeopleSoft building, a very large single building, might have three transmission facilities on the north end and one or two on the south end. He wanted the flexibility to have more than three facilities if they were aesthetically acceptable. Ms. Ayala asked staff what the reasoning was for limiting the number of facilities. Mr. Swift said there were a number of issues that came into play. One had to do with the activity at the base of the facility where the other equipment is located and stored and the ability to build a stealth tower when there are more than three facilities operating from the same tower. Ms. Michelotti asked how it could be worded to include flexibility. Mr. Swift said the words "unless found by the Zoning Administrator ... not to cause objectionable aesthetics .... could be added. The aesthetics considerations would apply not only to the tower itself, but also the area it is in and the building where the towers are to be located. Mr. Roush said Condition No. 3 could be rewritten to give discretion to the Zoning Administrator to make a finding if there would be aesthetic or other reasons to permit more than three towers on a facility. Pat Sausedo, Cellular One, 2911 Queens Estate, San Jose, supported the comments made by the previous speaker. Cellular One appreciated everyone's efforts to this point in time. Cellular One supported co-location and that the wording "economic and structural feasibility" should be added in order to support co-location. Cellular One also had concerns in regards to Pleasanton City Council 26 05/05/98 Minutes