Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> <br />could have been obtained from these industrial-zoned areas where new towers are allowed <br />without a CUP.16 <br />It is also inappropriate that AT&T did not approach Mr. Russo about using his property for the <br />tower. While Mr. Russo objects categorically to the proposed tower and believes it must be denied <br />as incompatible with the City’s General Plan, he would be willing to host a macro tower on the <br />northern edge of his property if there is no other feasible location in the vicinity and the applicant <br />offered commercially reasonable terms and a sensible design. <br /> <br />That location would be sufficiently distant from the buildable portion of his lot and also avoid <br />projecting RF emissions on to any other buildable parcel and would focus more of the visual impact <br />on industrial parcels. As I was only retained late last week, I left a voicemail message and sent an <br />email to the applicant on Friday seeking to discuss a potential resolution but have not heard back <br />as of submittal of this letter. The City should not approve a tower in the proposed location in light <br />of an unconsidered, far superior feasible alternative. <br />VII. Declaring no “LTE 700” does not demonstrate a lack of LTE service to <br />AT&T/FirstNet customers. <br /> <br />16 See San Leandro Municipal Code § 4.04.376, Table 1. <br />AT&T should have <br />considered putting the <br />tower in this narrow area <br />instead of on the property <br />line. <br />Att B - Page 31 of 46