My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
25
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
081611
>
25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2011 1:54:51 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 1:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/16/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
25
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
Ms. Harryman replied that there may be some cities that do that but that she will not say <br /> whether that is lawful or not until it gets challenged. She added that she is not aware of <br /> any court cases on this in particular. She indicated that her observation is really the <br /> intent of the ordinance, and the City's Code, as written, is good one. She noted that the <br /> City would like to see agreement, but if there is none, the City needs to apply its zoning <br /> ordinance, and private parties will have to settle their differences and work things out <br /> however they choose. <br /> Chair Narum requested clarification regarding if approving this application would <br /> preclude installing a wireless facility. <br /> Ms. Harryman stated that she cannot comment on Jack Balch's particular email <br /> regarding this matter. She explained that the wireless ordinance actually uses 300-foot <br /> radius maps, and the Code actually works in the reverse: one would need to know <br /> where the wireless facility is locating and ensuring it is 300 feet away from the property <br /> line of a child care center. She stated that she was not certain, but it appears based on <br /> the maps that Jack Balch may already have a conflict, and under the City's current <br /> ordinance, he cannot have a wireless facility there. <br /> Ms. Harryman pointed out that the ordinance includes language that the Council should <br /> update the ordinance every five years; the ordinance was adopted in 1998 and it has <br /> not been reviewed since. She noted that this area is constantly evolving, technology is <br /> evolving , case law changes regularly, and other areas surrounding wireless is <br /> constantly changing. She indicated that staff has begun to work with Planning staff to <br /> look at the wireless ordinance and will be making some recommendations, including <br /> ones which may affect this 300-foot radius provision. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor commented that as the ordinance exists today, when the <br /> Commission approves a school or child care facility, whether as a conditional approval <br /> or straight zoning, it could have some effect on whether someone could put a wireless <br /> facility. <br /> Ms. Harryman said yes. She added that conversely, if an applicant is trying to put a <br /> wireless facility on a building, a childcare facility, public or private school, or park cannot <br /> be located within a minimum of 300 feet from the property line. <br /> Commissioner Blank commented that many years ago an applicant was trying to open a <br /> child care center and claimed to be licensed by the State but could never produce the <br /> license. In this regard, he suggested that, with respect to Condition No. 6, the City be in <br /> receipt of the approval as opposed to having a letter from the applicant indicating <br /> approval. <br /> Ms. Harryman stated that this topic was discussed with the Planning Commission and <br /> the City Council with respect to what to do with these types of uses and how far the City <br /> could go about putting its own requirements. She noted that the City is starting to get <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 8, 2011 Page 12 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.