Laserfiche WebLink
18 <br /> <br />in the surrounding area. They are not small within the environment but instead tower over <br />it.37 <br /> <br />The court also specifically pointed out that “residential and commercial structures listed in the <br />guideline are subject to applicable zoning requirements, which ensure their height will be generally <br />consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.”38 Here too, surrounding structures are limited <br />while the cell tower is not.39 While AT&T’s 80-foot tower is slightly shorter than 90 feet, it has <br />the potential to grow 20 feet under federal law (as discussed above). <br />When a project entails a “feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class” it <br />does not qualify for the exemption.40 The excessive height of the AT&T facility in this specific <br />zone and diesel generator makes this project clearly ineligible for the Section 15303 CEQA <br />exemption. <br />XI. Conclusion <br />As described in Mr. Russo’s notice of appeal, the report by Mr. Ross and this letter, the <br />application is deficient in many serious respects and the proposed macro tower will detrimental <br />to two adjacent properties and inconsistent with the goals and polices of the General Plan. The <br />City Council should uphold the appeal and deny the application. <br /> <br />Respectfully, <br /> <br />_____________ <br />Ariel Strauss <br />Cc: Richard D. Pio Roda, City Attorney (RPioRoda@sanleandro.org) <br /> <br /> <br />37 Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2022) 85 Cal. App. 5th 1063, <br />1072-73 (later ordered depublished). <br />38 Id. at 1072 <br />39 San Leandro Municipal Code § 4.04.376(C)(1) (“The height limitations applicable to buildings and <br />structures shall not apply to wireless telecommunications facilities.”). <br />40 Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105. <br />Att B - Page 38 of 46