Laserfiche WebLink
There were no further speakers. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6h <br />PAP-49 (PDR-259, Verizon Wireless) <br />Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for design review to <br />construct one 60-foot tall monopole with three wireless communication antennas and <br /> <br />related equipment inside a storage building at 3470 Boulder Street. (SR 03:135) <br /> <br />Brian Swift presented the staff report on this item. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman said her concem was that there had been no discussion about what could <br />develop on this comer in the future. She did not want a future Council to be constrained in what <br />it could approve for the location. If the existing poles are removed in the future, she wanted <br />Council to be able to remove all poles. She was happy with the condition added to this <br />application. <br /> <br /> Jim Heard, One Post Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, representing Verizon Wireless, <br />stated his belief that Verizon has a valid final approval for the project as originally conditioned. <br />He did not think a valid appeal had been filed and objected to any efforts to overturn the <br />approval or to add any conditions. He believed the additional condition mentioned was <br />unnecessary because one of the original conditions states the permit will be reviewed after five <br />years and he felt that was the appropriate mechanism for dealing with changing conditions. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked why the antenna is necessary in this location. <br /> <br /> Eric Angstadt, 2001 Omega Road, Suite 201, San Ramon, consultant for Verizon <br />Wireless, indicated the antenna was needed to fill a coverage hole in the area and would assist in <br />completing coverage for the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico believed Council had followed established procedure for appeals and asked <br />for the City Attorney to comment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed the appeal was timely. Historically, when appeals are filed, staffhas <br />not required the appellant to state specific grounds for the appeal. Proper notice was given to the <br />applicant. The concerns of Ms. Hosterman have been met and he believed it was proper for <br />Council to take action on this matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell referred to the five-year review and asked if a future Council can remove <br />the pole or change conditions? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the review would be a complete new review by the Zoning Administrator <br />and Council could appeal whatever decision is made. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 8 05/20/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />