Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> <br />10 <br />While the application site owner can accept this short-sighted devaluation, it is not appropriate to <br />impose similar impacts on 523 San Leandro Blvd. and 695 San Leandro Blvd. It will be detrimental <br />to properties in the vicinity and will frustrate General Plan goals for Mr. Russo’s property by <br />locking in the low-value land uses that exist there presently, preventing high-quality, dense, transit- <br />oriented in-fill development. <br />As discussed in Mr. Ross’ report, the applicant’s EME Report demonstrates that RF <br />emissions will exceed FCC limits well within Mr. Russo’s property line and below the 65-foot <br />maximum height allowed in the D-2 zone. It is rare for a site design to project FCC-exceeding <br />levels of RF into buildable areas of a neighboring property. The reason for this occurring here is <br />partly because FirstNet facilities operate “at the highest allowable power levels (Power Class <br />1).”11 Such towers are not appropriate in all locations. The current tenants on Mr. Russo’s <br />property have month-to-month leases and Mr. Russo’s plans, unless the tower prevents this, to <br />move forward in the near future with the project. The tower would render infeasible the mixed- <br />use condominium project described in the appeal letter.12 <br /> <br />10 Application, Attachment 5, p. 19. <br />11 https://www.firstnet.com/coverage/band-14.html. <br />12 Mr. Russo’s design is preliminary and he commits to working with the City to obtain relevant input and <br />meet the applicable policies and goals of the General Plan. <br />Att B - Page 27 of 46