My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
121608
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2009 1:08:23 PM
Creation date
12/10/2008 5:09:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/16/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
few steps back than that of the existing tower. She inquired if these were accurate <br />visuals or photo simulations that seem to be minimizing what the tower would look like. <br />Chair Blank agreed and stated that it seems odd that the applicant would not use the <br />same picture in both cases. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that all the elements look identical and dimensionally the <br />same except for the tower, which looks narrower in the proposed picture. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Jacob Reeves, T- Mobile, thanked staff for its presentation of the proposal and stated <br />that T- Mobile originally looked back in 2006 to put coverage in the area and <br />acknowledged that they were trying to raise the original design to 11 feet to get <br />coverage. He pointed out that there is an issue with coverage between Stanley <br />Boulevard and two miles in both directions toward the residential area. He indicated <br />that they are here because of the public's need and that the proposed tower can house <br />eight antennas. He added that if they only have two or three antennas at this time, they <br />would need to come back in the future and ask for another site to make up for the <br />capacity issue. <br />Regarding the photo simulations, Mr. Reeves stated that it is the exact same picture <br />and that the same person took all the pictures. He indicated that he understood the <br />Commission's concern and that they have gone back and forth with the plan, <br />re- submitting three or four times. He noted that an 11 -foot tall pillar did not look good, <br />and McDonald's showed them the proposed smaller tower design from another site. <br />Commissioner O'Connor said from a reception standpoint, he does not know of any <br />antenna that is enclosed. He questioned if this would impact the reception. Mr. Reeves <br />said no. He indicated that the material used is fiberglass with stucco to match the <br />building and that the signal goes right through it. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if this design with a capability for eight antennas would <br />basically take care of T- Mobile's needs in Pleasanton. Mr. Reeves said no. He noted <br />that this site covers only a specific range and that T- Mobile has another site in <br />Pleasanton. He added that they reuse signals so they do not shoot up everywhere and <br />interfere with one another. He noted that many companies are now using 4th generation <br />antennas and that they should be expected to eventually return to the City for more <br />antennas. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if a warning needs to be posted for employees working in <br />structures that house cell phone towers. Mr. Reeves replied that they do post warnings, <br />as governed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He added that a <br />radio frequency report is also submitted and that their eight antennas are .03 percent of <br />what is allowed by FCC standards. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 4 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.