2006-02-03 TCellco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the fact that somebody doesnt like the way something looks built next to them is to be completely disregarded in the special permit process. Thats totally, totally, 100 percent wrong. He says that it doesnt affect the surrounding property, it only affects the feelings of the people who live on the surrounding property. Almost everything we say -. We have to consider the commonly held opinions of people as to whatthey like to have in their neighboring property. You know, theres a general feeling, I think, its not an odd-ball feeling shared by only a very few people that you would rather not look at, say, a 100-foot high cell tower right out your back yard. I mean, that doesnt mean that you wouldnt approve it, it doesnt mean that it couldnt have a special permit. But it is, that opinion is entitled to protection in the process of a special permit. And I completely, absolutely disagree with the way the Hearings Officer approaches this. And, as I say, we had this argument before. Youre right that we should have some criteria -. Apart from saying that there should be some substantial screening of something like this from the neighboring property owners, we dont have asetcriteria.Itwouldbeusefultohaveit. ALAMEDA:CommissionerGraham.Thatsgood-? GRAHAM:Thankyou. ALAMEDA:Okay.Otherquestionssothatwecouldeithermoveforwardonthe Hearings Officers report or make a motion? But you wanted to clarify the Hearings Officers report? LEITHEAD-TODD:Yeah, what I wanted to do in regards to what the Director just said was bring your attention to the Hearings Officers Report on page 14, Conclusion of Law No. 4 and that that Conclusion of Law should probably have a couple of sentences removed from it, particularly in the first paragraph, the sentence, I guess youd call it the third sentence. It says The inquiry is not into the effect that the desired use will have on the subjective feelings of the surrounding property owners. We think that that should be deleted. Further down in the last paragraph, the second sentence that also says that you shouldnt be looking at the subjective feelings, that that should also be deleted. And, similarly, on the top of page 15 the last sentence there, in either case that subjective feelings are beyond the limits of inquiry, that that sentence should be deleted from the conclusions of law. Because the way you do measure impact to some extent is based on the subjective feelings of the surrounding neighbors. Its whether something is ugly, whether its going to impact their viewplane. Those are all kinds of subjective impacts. Imeantheresalittleimpactintermsofwhetherthepoleisthere.Butintermsofhow somebody interprets that pole there and its impact on the neighbors, which is subjective, thats a legitimateinquiry. ALAMEDA:AnyobjectionstothosemodificationstotheHearingsOfficersreport? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Well, I, for one thing, subjective feelings seems a bit redundant. I mean, arethereanyotherkind?ButImissedthepart,thefirstonethatyousaid.Igottheoneatthe bottom and the one on the top of page 15. I missed the first one. Where did, Im wondering -? 12EXHIBIT B