Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br /> <br />plans and specifications do not describe the tower meeting these standards. If the City is to approve <br />the tower, it should require that it be constructed to meet the standards applicable to the purpose <br />for which the applicant asserts it is intended. <br />VI. Placement of the tower on the north end of Mr. Russo’s parcel would avoid the most <br />severe adverse impacts. <br />The applicant claims that it contacted the owners of several industrial parcel owners near the <br />northern edge of Mr. Russo’s parcel. For instance, it claimed that placement in the Sempre Verde <br />Park or Road Bear RV Rental & Sales would not meet coverage objectives but that the issue with <br />Evergreen Nursery was that the owner was not interested.15 Given the close proximity of all <br />these parcels to one another and to the proposes site, it is not self-evident who the rejected sites <br />were not feasible. <br /> <br />AT&T does not demonstrate that it offered commercially reasonable terms to the property <br />owners. It also does not discuss if the “feasibility” issue was the specific height to which the <br />tower could be built on those locations. AT&T should provide examples of the coverage that <br /> <br />15 Application, Attachment 7, Alternative Site Analysis, p. 3. <br />Att B - Page 30 of 46