AgdaPkt 2005-05-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� i,B- 3 1. At the public hearing, and in documents submitted by the applicant, the applicant stated that the area to be serviced includes Alameda De Las Pulgas, EI Camino Real, Farm Hill Road, Roosevelt Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood; that said facilities will close a significant gap in � service coverage; that services to be provided include wireless cellular calls, computer coverage, text messaging, email and emergency 911 servi�es; that said location is a desirable and viable location due to its elevation; and it would be a co-location site. At the public hearing, appellants did not provide nor were they able to credibly demonstrate that the proposed facilities would not provide necessary wireless services in this neighborhood. Following further questions by the City Council, the City Council determined that the written and oral information provided was persuasive and objectively verified, and did establish that the proposed facilities will meet the community's needs. Consistent with this finding, and based on the evidence presented and information contained in the application, the City Council further determined that approving the decision of the Zoning Administrator by its Notice of Official Action dated November 5, 2004, would provide for the personal communication needs of residents of the City and region, and of local business and government, while minimizing adverse visual and operational effects of such facilities through the appropriate design, siting and screening as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee on October 26, 2004. 2. The public testimony at the public hearing, and the public documentation submitted in support of the appellants' objections to the Zoning Administrator's decision did not address any visual blight for the neighborhood that would be caused by the proposed six (6) panel antennae and three (3) equipment cabinets to be approved and installed. 3. The public testimony at the public hearing and the public documentation submitted in support of the appellants' objections to the Zoning Administrator's decision did address noise that might be generated by the proposed equipment to be approved and installed. However, there was objective testimony that the equipment would produce sound emissions with a maximum of 60 dBa which would be mitigated by distance from adjacent properties and public areas, and by the equipment being located within cabinets which in turn would be placed within sound attenuating enclosures. 4. The appellants failed to show that the proposed antennae and equipment would not fill an existing need for wireless telecommunication services or that the proposal would not be the least intrusive way to provide necessary services. A;ty/Agenda Reports/ZA Appeal 2325 Euclid 3