CCMIN050598 - Laserfiche WebLink

the maximum number being three carriers per site. The discussion that just took place would help alleviate that concern. Cellular One believed that the intention of the Ordinance will cause some de facto regulations of the private sector, in regards to senior housing, senior care facilities and private schools. These are normal business and siting decisions that are left up to the private sector, as long as they meet the zoning requirements. She felt doing a de facto moratorium was not in the city's best interest. Overall, Cellular One accepted the ordinance. Peter Maushardt, GTE, 121 Madrid Way, Sonoma, said he was a member of the; committee. He said the committee did its best to cooperate and compromise wherever possible. GTE's only concern was the three users at one site. He felt this had been addressed already. He did not want the ordinance to violate the FCC regulations. He felt the Planning Commission recommendation was something everyone could work with. Karen Vernetti, Nextel, 2906 Bayview Drive, Alameda, thanked staff for the changes that were made. Nextel had a concern with the 300' buffer and still maintains that. In order to bring the ordinance in compliance with federal law, that buffer should be deleted. However, in the spirit of compromise Nextel agreed to it and can work with it. The major concern was with co-location and asked that the language be deleted limiting the number of carriers at any given site. She felt roof mounted antennas could be hidden and therefore more should be allowed. Nextel can work with the changes suggested. She mentioned the memento that staff gave Nextel for its work on the committee. She thanked staff and Council for its hard work. Brenda Weak, 5995 Cone Venado, asked that the Ordinance be passed with staff's recommendations. She said after the last meeting, a meeting was held to consider Pacific Bell's request and there were lawyers from three other carriers. At this meeting the carriers continued to ask for more changes. She said the citizens still have concerns but they did not ask for those to be relooked at. She did not support having more than three carriers at one location. She said under the proposed Ordinance McKinley Park will be non-conforming and asked if the tower there could be removed quickly. Mark den Broeder, 4279 Barbara Court, asked that the Ordinance be approved as staff recommends. A consensus was reached and changes should not be made. At the last City Council meeting it was voted unanimously to support the proposed ordinance. Also at that meeting staff was directed to look at only the issues raised by Pacific Bell. He asked that Council uphold its agreement and support the staff. All the prohibitions that are stated in the Ordinance are supported by staff. He recapped the minutes of February 18 where carriers said it would be okay not to have antennas on senior housing facilities if they were permitted on hospitals. This ordinance is a delicate balance and believed it supported the process that was set in motion. By passing this Ordinance the Council supported the community. In closing he asked that the antennas be removed as quickly as possible from McKinley Park. Pleasanton City Council 27 05/05/98 Minutes