PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Barker asked whether the cemetery was subject to the 300-foot setback. She noted that in Greensboro, New York, the setback was even greater for cemeteries, but she is not sure why, especially since there would be no health effect on a cemetery. She feels that by applying the setback to cemeteries, it may have a greater chance of standing any legal challenge. She, therefore, recommended that the cemetery be included as a sensitive azea. Mr. Iserson stated that the setback is based on zoning and not necessarily land use, and since there is not normally a residential azea in a cemetery, it could be a permitted use. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Peggy O'Laughlin, attorney for GTE, 1740 Technology Drive, Suite 260, San Jose, addressed the Commission. She stated that this ordinance sets a very dangerous precedence and clearly violates the Telecommunications Act. She quoted portion of the Act. She stated that after reviewing the proposed ordinance and listening to discussions tonight, she saw nothing to support that it was drafting according to the Telecommunications Act. In addition, she feels that the 300-foot buffer is based solely on health effects and that, in itself, is in violation of the Telecommunications Act. She further stated that staff is wrong in believing that since it applies only to perceived health effects it does not violate the Telecommunications Act. Ms. O'Laughlin further stated that if staff had established the 300-foot buffer based on visual impacts, then it would not violate the Telecommunications Act. She fiirther reported that GTE participated in the group meetings and felt they compromised on many issues. However, with the 300-foot buffer issue there is no room for compromise because she believes the ordinance violates the Telecommunications Act. She pointed out that the Federal Govenunent tried to eliminate such issues by enacting the Telecommunications Act. In addition, she noted that the FCC has adopted the ANSI standards which protect and control public health and, therefore, there is no need for local governments to get involved. In summary, she reminded the Commission that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes this type of ordinance based on health effects. Commissioner Kumazan stated that the purpose of having antennas in the City of Pleasanton is for vehicles or PCS uses to have access to telecommunications while they are in within the City. Given that purpose, he asked Ms. O'Laughlin whether she is suggesting that the sites identified by staff are inadequate to accomplish that mission. She responded that she was trying to communicate something different, nothing that GTE does not have any pending applications in the City of Pleasanton. However, they are so concerned by the City interfering in an area that has been preempted. She stated that the amount of the buffer is not the issue, but the buffer itself, because it sets such a dangerous precedent. In response to a question by Commissioner Barker regarding the noise coming from the facilities, Ms. O'Laughlin stated that the only noise she is aware of is sometimes caused by anair-conditioning unit or an emergency generator if the power goes down. However, she pointed out that there are ways to control that noise. On this point, she commented that the staff report noted occasional nighttime maintenance noise. She does not understand that contention because the maintenance technician only visits a facility one time per month for a few hours. Mary Smith, 4241 Cabernet, identified herself as a member of the study group. She directed the Commission's attention to an "eight-inch" stack of documents that she reviewed during the process. She Planning Commission Page 10 March 25, 1998