Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> <br />3) The tower's height and structure pose potential hazards to adjacent development in the <br />event of earthquake or extreme weather conditions. <br />4) The height and industrial appearance of the so-called monopine is compatible with <br />aesthetic character of the area. <br />5) The tower will interfere with Mr. Russo's right to construct an intended residential <br />mixed-use project. <br />6) The tower is not eligible for a CEQA small structure exemption. <br /> <br />In short, the tower “conflicts with the city's housing objectives and [imposes inappropriate] <br />impact on adjacent properties.” <br />This letter provides additional detail concerning several of the issues identified in the <br />appeal notice. In order to assist the Council, I retained Robert C. Ross of Center for Municipal <br />Solutions, a telecommunications expert who is the outside reviewer of wireless facility <br />applications for multiple cities, to provide an opinion regarding the application. His report is <br />included as Attachment A. <br />I. Mr. Russo’s due process rights were violated by failure to provide him notice prior to <br />the Planning Commission hearing. <br />The application materials show Mr. Russo’s property as within 500 feet of the project site but <br />it does not include a proof of service or list of the addresses to which notices were sent. Mr. Russo <br />never received any notification regarding the original application but only discovered by chance <br />after the Planning Commission had issued its decision on November 7, 2024. As a result, he did <br />not have an opportunity to participate in the Planning Commission hearing and is engaging with <br />the City now at the earliest practical moment. Given the impact to his property from the RF <br />emissions in his airspace exceeding FCC levels , as well as other issues, that interfere with <br />Att B - Page 22 of 46