BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

be modified. And I think in practical terms you can’t undo a cell tower that’s already there and so the only 1 modifications that have been proposed are unrelated to the telecommunications tower. It’s my 2 understanding that what staff is saying here is that they’re maintaining their position throughout this 3 application that because it’s not recommending any telecommunication facility being added that this is the 4 reason for their non-applicable finding. However, there is evidence within the record that this information 5 was provided at some time. 6 7 Barry Katz: In this document? 8 9 Samantha Cabe: I have noted from Michael’s testimony pages 205 to 240. 10 11 Barry Katz: Yeah, ok. 12 13 Susan Halkiotis: In essence we can change the finding… Is that what you’re saying? 14 15 Samantha Cabe: We could, or we could find that it’s not applicable because there’s no telecommunication 16 facility proposed… 17 18 Barry Katz: If we were to change this to yes, would this oblige the applicant to take any action? 19 20 Samantha Cabe: No, I don’t think so. I don’t know what the rest of the Board thinks, I think it’s just a finding 21 that yes or no. 22 23 MOTION made by Barry Katz that the finding meets submission requirement on page 112. Seconded by 24 Susan Halkiotis. 25 VOTE: Unanimous 26 27 Samantha Cabe: On page 112, the Board has found that the existing cell sites to which this proposed site 28 will be a handoff candidate was provided in pages 205-240 of the supplemental information packet.. We are 29 making the finding the information provided in the supplemental packet meets this submission requirement. 30 31 On page 113, this is the submission requirement that propagation studies of the proposed site and showing 32 all adjoining planned proposed in service or existing sites were provided. Again, staff is recommending the 33 finding that this provision is not applicable as there is no telecommunication facility proposed as part of this 34 application. Additionally, it should be further noted that state law no longer requires the submittal of 35 propagation studies for telecommunication facilities. So I believe this was one of the ones that we are 36 actually in agreement on. Do I have a motion with regard to… 37 38 MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt findings recommended by staff on page 113. Seconded by Susan 39 Halkiotis. 40 VOTE: Unanimous 41 42 Samantha Cabe: On page 114 of attachment 4 with regard to those findings of fact there is no dispute 43 between staff and legal counsel with regard to those findings. They’re both suggested findings of yes. Do I 44 have a motion to adopt… 45 46 MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt findings recommended by staff on page 114. Seconded by Karen 47 Barrows. 48 VOTE: Unanimous 49 30