CCMIN100504 - Laserfiche WebLink

when technology demands it. He believed the current review was to move away frem antenna and toward satellite technology. He wanted to find a way to remove the tower frem McKinley Park. He believed it was illegal when it was built, even before the ordinance was adopted. The amendments do not clearly solve any specific preblems and do not offer anything new. The same things were proposed for the original ordinance and there were good reasons not to include the provisions. There are studies underway and it may not be known for twenty yeare what the exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones will cause. He again stated there was no reason to amend the ordinance unless it was to improve the quality of life of the residents. Not every carrier must cover every area of Pleasanton. He again stated his objection to the tower facility in McKinley Park. Nancy denBroeder, 4279 Barbara Court, did not believe the wireless ordinance should be amended when the issues regarding the tower in McKinley Park have still not been addressed. She is concerned about the harmful effects of the tower. Cingular has stated it no longer needs the tower and is contemplating selling to another carrier. She believed the tower should not be used by another company and should be removed. Linda Sprenz, 2101 Omega Road, representing Verizon Wireless, indicated Verizon has no active sites in Pleasanton, however, based on customer demands additional capacity and sites will be necessary. People are relying more on technology and less on landlines. The original ordinance was based on concerns and reactive to the McKinley Park tower. She noted many communities have cell cites in parks and she felt that was a compatible use. There are health studies for the sites. She said the reason the FCC limits city discussions on health effects is that when it drafted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it relied on information from the American National Standard Institute for Safety. All cell towers fall well below the ANSIS standards. Cell sites put out far less than overhead power lines. Since 1996, property values have gone up and there is no evidence that cell towers have caused values to go down. She believed many residents want the service. Jeff Renholtz, 7489 Aster Court, presented the physics regarding the towers and said people on the ground would not be affected by the fields. He understood the aesthetic objections to the towers and suggested using the camouflaged towers like the fake pine tree on 1-680 near Castlewood in town. If there are many towers radiating at lower levels, the amount of emissions are less and there is greater redundancy to the network in the event of one tower failing and there are more cell sites for subscribers. He felt more towers at Iow levels were better than a few with higher emissions. Ellen Magnie, 2275 Tanager Drive, representing Cingular Wireless, said there is a consultant who would be willing to present the health aspects of the antenna. She noted telephones and radios have been around for a very long time. Everyone seems to have a cell phone and people expect them to work. There was a tower in McKinley Park used by the City and Cingular replaced the tower with a City-approved design. Many things could be done to improve the looks of that site, but it cannot be removed or they would lose customers in that area. She said there is a preposal to remove the tower and place the antenna on the water tank, but the site will still have an antenna. Ms. Hosterman asked what can be done about the tower at McKinley Park. Pleasanton City Council 9 10/05/04 Minutes