PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

stated that she was astonished to learn that GTE was now not supporting the ordinance since they were involved in the compromise. She feels strongly that the ordinance should be adopted in its entirety for safety reasons as well as visual impacts. Commissioner Wright asked Ms. Smith how the study group arrived at the 300-foot setback requirement. She stated that when the committee first met, the residents wanted the setback to be 1,000 feet, but 300 feet was a compromise. Commissioner Wright clarified his question, noting that he wanted to find out the committee's criteria for the setback, noting that health effects and RF emission cannot be a parameter for distance. Therefore, the only parameters left aze property values and visual impacts. Ms. Smith explained that when the group initially proposed the 1,000 foot setback, it found that there were not enough areas for the facilities to locate and, therefore, the setback had to be reduced. Finally, Ms. Smith noted that the health effects are just beginning to be studied in detail and, in the coming yeazs, evidence will surface that will justify consideration of health effects. Peter Maushardt, 121 Madrid Way, Cinema, participated in the group process. He noted that the group put in a lot of time and effort in coming up with a workable solution. He reiterated that throughout the process, he repeated that GTE wanted an ordinance that would test the standards of the law. He stated that he advised staff that he would agree to the buffer restriction as long as the language referring to the health effects was removed. However, staff was not prepared to remove that language without recommendation from the Commission. He also stated that facility maintenance is done in the middle of the night inside the facility, and there is no noise associated with that. Mr. Maushardt also noted for the record that under Section 18.110.070, Stealth Techniques, he had requested that personal wireless services be located to minimize their visibility. He feels that the discretion exercised by staff was somewhat arbitrary and that the existing non-conforming uses provision of the ordinance will interfere with existing sites. Joan Tenbrink, 4265 Mirador Drive, reported that she was involved in the study group. She distributed a document to the Commission that had been signed by members of the group. She stated that the group put a lot of time and effort into the ordinance and feels it should be adopted. She noted that they did a lot of compromising and the group feels very strongly about its recommendations. She also pointed out that she has lived in her house for over 23 years, and is very disappointed that she was never given a choice as to whether a facility could be stationed in her neighborhood. Ms. Tenbrink also reported that zoning is one reason for the 300 foot setback. She stated that she lives in an R-1 zoned residential district and does not want any commercial businesses in her residential neighborhood. She further reported that there is a facility neaz Kottinger Street that is considered out of compliance with the City code. In addition, she stated that on numerous occasions there have been unmarked and unidentified vehicles at that facility for up to eight hours. She noted that this is a very big issue for her because she and her neighbors want to know who is coming into her neighborhood. Ms. Tenbrink further reported that the FCC is not a public health agency, although it has restricted health issues from being included in locationa] decisions. She cited situations where things were once considered safe and the government later says it's unsafe and harmful. In addition, she reported that the San Francisco School District has banned the use of all cellular phones because of the perceived health _. risk. Planning Commission Page 11 March 25, 1998