pages: CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-05-19 | 8 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether non-AT&T customers would benefit from the new tower, to which Mr. Mintz responded non-customers would not benefit directly; the availability of roaming service could be a benefit for non-AT&T customers. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether non-AT&T customers would have degraded service; to which Mr. Mintz responded in the negative; stated the beach area is covered by the Shoreline Avenue towers; service is not limited to just residents; people passing through the area would also have service. Mr. Mintz continued his presentation. Bill Hammet, Hammet and Edison, gave a brief presentation on radio frequency (RF) Emissions. Stated Alameda is a safe environment for families and cell towers have a bad effect on people: Ania DeJesus, Alameda student. Urged Council to honor the School Board ban of cell towers and deny the proposal for 1777 Shoreline Drive: Sarah Cruz, Maya Lin School. Stated the location is wrong; it was disrespectful for AT&T to move just next door: Jessica Reed, Alameda. Stated conditions should be imposed on property owners who have a cell tower; he owns the building adjacent to 1538 Saint Charles Street and believes the cell towers are a safety issue: Lester Cabral, Alameda. Stated wireless systems in homes are closer and have higher RF; people are no longer using home phones; that she supports upholding the Planning Board decision: Anne Debardeleban, Alameda. Stated legislation should be drafted regarding cell towers in residential areas: Dennis Wong, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog stated a member of the community asked for 1777 Shoreline Drive to be reviewed; the matter is large and complex in terms of science and federal laws; the federal government process is good discussion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the public's concerns as well as the federal law; she was told that AT&T was to consider a possible alternative location on Shoreline Drive; if the site is feasible and criteria has been met, the Planning Board decision should not be overturned. Mr. Mintz stated Kitty Hawk was the alternative location on Shoreline Drive; an evaluation determined the location was very constrained; issues included a 16% Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 19, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf |