CCMIN100504 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mary Smith, 4241 Cabemet Court, said she became interested in the issue because of the ugly tower in McKinley Park. It is an eyesore and should be dismantled. She felt the original ordinance has worked well and she opposed reducing the park and residential setbacks. She felt if this is allowed, there would be increased pressure to eliminate setbacks altogether. Richard Sites, 4266 Barbara Court, strongly urged the City not to reduce the setbacks. He is a real estate broker and believed it would decrease property values. Robbin Masiewicz, 4683 Chabot Drive, representing Sprint, indicated wireless carriers are sometimes fomed to use less desirable locations resulting in less desirable coverage; therefore potentially requiring more sites to cover the same area. She related an incident near the Sports Park, where there is no coverage. She said there have been many studies that indicated property values are not affected by the antennae. The FCC prohibits health issues to be used in making these decisions. Mr. Brozosky indicated other carriers do have coverage in the Sports Park and inquired why Sprint does not. Ms. Masiewicz responded that there is not a Sprint cell that covers the area. Mr. Brozosky asked if antennae could be added to existing sites, could that solve the problem rather than changing the buffer zone? Ms. Masiewicz felt the technology for each carrier was different and believed other carriers would be interested in more coverage. Ms. Ayala asked where Sprint wanted to place its antenna near the Sports Park. Ms. Masiewicz believed it was on one of the commercial buildings near the Sports Park. Mr. Brozosky noted the shopping center includes La Petite Academy and asked if an antenna would be prohibited because of the childcare center. Mr. Iserson said there is a small area that would meet the buffer requirements. Gregory DuPuis, 6836 Payne Court, said he lived near the DSRSD area and 250 people have signed a petition not to decrease the buffer zone. He felt there is a good plan that should not be altered. The Planning Commission felt the changes would benefit the wireless carriers but recommended against changing the buffer zones. The zoning ordinance is to protect real property values and to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City. Amending the buffer zones would allow wireless company encroachments, which are difficult to reverse. People can change their cell phone provider, but he would still live near a tower. He urged Council to protect the parks and homes and to preserve the buffer zones. Mark denBroeder, 4279 Barbara Court, presented a petition from property owners to urge Council to uphold the wireless ordinance without amendment. Wireless carriers should work within the ordinance and only when all options fail should they apply for a variance. He believed the wireless ordinance should be reviewed in the future only Pleasanton City Council 8 10/05/04 Minutes