PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staff feels that the ordinance is supportable and hopes it will provide the residents with a comfort level and the providers with what they need to conduct business in Pleasanton. In response to a question by Commissioner Kumaran, Mr. Iserson and Ms. Eisenwinter agreed that the key point of the ordinance is the 300-foot buffer where an antenna could not be located. At the request of Commissioner Kumazan, Ms. Eisenwinter clarified the areas where wireless facilities would be permitted. She also advised him that the clearance to the nearest home is at least 300 feet and, in some azeas, it would be even greater. Commissioner Kumazan commented that it appears that the majority of the azeas where wireless facilities would be permitted aze areas that have no surrounding homes. He commended staff and the group for the decision on that issue. Commissioner Wright asked whether other cities that have passed similar ordinances have used the same criteria as far as the economic consequence and not the health consequence and, if so, whether they have stood legal challenge. Mr. Iserson answered that many of the other communities have based their ordinances on visual and aesthetic concerns. But, there have been other communities that have used property values as a basis, as well. Larissa Seto stated that because this is such a new area of law, with the Telecommunications Act being passed in 1996, there has not been a lot of litigation before the FCC regarding certain types of regulations. She feels that based upon the residents' and/or buyers' perceived ideas about impact on property values, there is enough evidence to support the ordinance as presented. Mr. Iserson commented that the visual impact is also addressed in the ordinance and that the entire group agreed that antennas should be designed to blend in or be hidden in reduce negative visual impact. Ms. Seto further reported that the ordinance is very detailed in terms of design and siting because the process foresees that these facilities would be permitted uses rather than conditionally permitted uses. Each case would be handled through the regulations and the requirements set forth in the ordinance rather than having each application go through the use permit process. Mr. Iserson added that public notification would still occur with design review. Chair Cooper expressed concern about setting a precedent by basing an ordinance on perception unsupported by science and asked Ms. Seto to comment. She responded that the documents provided to the Commission are just a sample of the types of documents that were reviewed by the group. She stated that staff could provide additional documents and studies to the Commission for review relating to scientific methodology and the perceived health effects and potential impacts on property values. Chair Cooper asked whether perception of diminished property value was a valid basis for the ordinance. Ms. Eisenwinter identified some articles and documents that were reviewed by the group relating to perceived health effects. She noted that the courts have ruled that the perception of a health risk can decrease property values, and they required cities to provide reasonable compensation to affected owners. Chair Cooper stated that the City should regulate all RF sources including power poles, walk signs, etc. He also feels that the height limitations set forth in the ordinance act contrary to the health effects and if they would required to be higher, there would be less exposure. Mr. Iserson stated that the 65-foot restriction was removed and there is now no height limitation. The height is based on what is necessary for a particular antenna. Chair Cooper supported the exclusion ofnon-commercial radio amateur antennas from the ordinance. Planning Commission Page 9 March 25, 1998