CC Min 1986-02-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 2 (continued) Report of City Manager and Community Development Director 1/27/86 In response to question, Community Development Director Schroeter said that three alternatives for placement of the 12 -foot antenna exist with the appellant preferring to place it on top of the 173 -foot building, or on the side of the building, rather than inside the tower as recommended. In further response to question, Mr. Schroeter said that his concern is the possibility of establishing precedent with regard to allowing similar types of antenna facilities for other companies in the competitive communications industry. Mayor Britschgi declared the hearing open at 7:40 p.m. Francis Fruzzetti, AT&T Communications, 5925 W. Las Positas, Pleasanton, described the proposed antenna and its planned use and distributed information. Mr. Fruzzetti replied to questions, stating that AT &T's objection to the staff recommendation is because of the $55- 60,000 cost to locate the antenna within the existing tower. He suggested that if the antenna is placed near the center of the tower roof, it will not be visible. Ron Murphy, AT &T Communications, 5925 W. Las Positas, Pleasanton, replied to questions regarding operation of the antenna with regard to possible interference closer to ground level. In further response to question, Mr. Murphy said that the service would be of benefit to all Peninsula cities south of Burlingame, but did not know what Redwood City businesses might benefit. John Paquette, Paquette & Associates, San Francisco, engineer employed by AT &T, suggested the antenna would only be visible on the tower roof from four or five blocks away. He said that while it could probably be accommodated inside the tower, a structural problem would be presented because of the need to relocate the stairs and ducts inside. Mr. Paquette observed that the service provided would be for the entire Peninsula. In response to questions regarding notice of hearing, Mr. Schroeter said that he mailed notice to some 45 property owners within the usual 300 feet of the tower. City Clerk Hildebrand reported that her office was advised that no notice was required, and it has not been given. Senior Assistant City Attorney Case said that the Code does not require notice, but that in recent weeks because of certain court decisions, her office has recommended notice be given with regard to hearings of all appeals. CONSENSUS: Mayor Britschgi determined it to be the consensus of Council that publication and mailing of notice be given in accordance with usual notice requirements and that present proceedings be closed at this time. MEMO 2/14/86 M /S: Chandler /Claire to close the subject hearing. Carried unanimously by voice vote and hearing closed at 8:27 p.m. Mrs. Hildebrand said that the hearing will be scheduled for March 3, 1986. MINUTE BOOK NO. 46 Page No. 168 Reg.Mtg. 2/10/86 page 2