PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson noted that the process recommended by Ms. Vemetti relating to committee input in selecting a technical expert under the Revocation of Approval section is consistent with the City's customary practice. He also noted that the City has procedures for due process in terms of notification and working to resolve issues before permits are revoked. He stated that such wording could be included in the ordinance, but it is not really necessary. Cindy Mackey, 4260 Mirador Drive, thanked the Planning Department for their cooperation throughout the review process. She stated that he main concern was originally with aesthetics. However, over the last ten months, the more she learned about EMF, the more frightened she has become. She reported attending a recent seminaz where the danger were discussed. She now believes that all stop lights, power poles, etc. that emit EMF aze dangerous. She related that she expects the City to protect the health of the residents as well as the aesthetics of their neighborhoods. Chair Cooper asked Ms. Mackey if the ordinance did not in any way mention health effects, but accomplish the same goal, whether she would be satisfied. She pointed out that health is her main issue. However, she would consider a change to the ordinance if it ensured that wireless facilities would be prohibited in residential neighborhoods. Mark den Broeder, 4279 Barbara Court, thanked staff and the carriers for attempting to compromise and help. He wants to see the ordinance adopted as submitted. He stated that if it's modified in any way, it changes the balance the was struck. He also noted that a petition signed by area real-estate agents stated that a home seller is required to disclosure the presence of any known property hazard to a buyer. He stated that he knows there are people who have been unable to sell their houses because of their proximity to an antenna. In addition, he reported that he has read a lot of medical research suggesting that children should not be exposed to EMF. Finally, he presented an enlazged photograph of an antenna behind his back yard and expressed concern that his children play back there. Sandy Reyes, Cellular One, 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500, San Francisco, thanked staff for their work on this issue. She agrees with GTE that the ordinance is not entirely in conformance with the Telecommunications Act. Under Section 18.110.020, Approval Process, she suggested that staff streamline the process so that only one application needs to be submitted for all sites. She suggested that the language under section 20.B. on page 20 be included at the beginning of Section 18.110.020. Ms. Reyes stated that if there is a little more flexibility built into the ordinance, then Cellular One would be willing to work with it. Mr. Iserson commented that if a provider feels it would be more efficient to provide all information up front, then staff could just keep the information on file and request additional information as needed. Ms. Reyes referred to page 4 of the staff report under "Project Description" noting that she has never read a proposed ordinance where even new facilities were to be based on perceived health effects. She noted that it would be difficult for the facilities described in the paragraph to design their buildings. Mr. Iserson reported that the intent was to limit or avoid situations where existing antenna facilities would become non-conforming if a school, childcare center, etc. moved within 300 feet of it. Chair Cooper commented that that pazagraph casts some doubt that health effects are not part of the ordinance. John D. Newman, 703 Mazket Street, #1910, San Francisco, reported that he is outside counsel for - Pacific Bell Mobile Services. He thanked staff for a comprehensive effort with the ordinance. However, he feels the entire ordinance is insufficient and does not comply with the Telecommunications Act. He Planning Commission Page 13 March 25, 1998