"The giant telecom provider says it needs the tower to provide adequate service to its customers in the area, where T-Mobile and Verizon have reliable service, but AT&T doesn't. Company representatives say they looked all over for other sites, but nothing worked out, so they chose a spot on the grounds of the Police Academy. Mandelman admitted that the pole will be big and unsightly."
"But he said the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the ability of cities to reject even pretty monstrous cell facilities as long as the provider has made an effort to seek alternatives. In this case, AT&T admits that it did not look at alternative technologies, such as distributed antennas. But that, Mandelman concluded (and the city attorney agreed), was not required under the law."
San Francisco supervisors voted to deny neighborhood appeals and allow AT&T to install a 100-foot cell tower on the edge of Glen Canyon Park, with only Sup. Connie Chan siding with neighbors. AT&T said the site is needed because its service is inadequate in the area while competitors provide reliable coverage, and the company reported unsuccessful searches for alternate sites before selecting Police Academy grounds. Supervisors cited the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as limiting municipal authority to reject facilities when providers have sought alternatives, even though AT&T did not pursue alternative technologies. Conditions include Fire Department approval and arborist review; similar approvals have been granted elsewhere in the city.
Read at 48 hills
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]