Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Leandro council upholds permit for 80‑foot monopine at 440 Peralta over neighbor’s appeal
Summary
The City Council rejected an appeal and approved a conditional use permit for an 80‑foot “monopine” cell facility at 440 Peralta Ave., with conditions requiring RF testing and mitigation if nearby development would cause exceedances of FCC limits.
The San Leandro City Council on Jan. 21 rejected an appeal of the Planning Commission and approved a conditional use permit (PLN 23‑31) to allow construction of an 80‑foot high monopine telecommunications tower at 440 Peralta Avenue.
The permit would allow AT&T’s FirstNet broadband antennas to operate on a faux pine tree structure and provide capacity for future colocations; council members approved the measure with conditions requiring radio‑frequency (RF) testing within 30 days of activation and annual testing for five years, plus additional analysis if neighboring development above 30 feet is proposed.
Why it matters: The item split residents, landowners and public‑safety interests at a public hearing that ran more than an hour. Appellants and neighbors warned the tower’s location and power could render adjacent parcels difficult to finance or develop for the mixed‑use housing the city’s general plan encourages. Staff and the applicant said federal law limits local regulation of RF levels and that the application included an alternatives analysis showing a coverage gap the facility would fill.
Staff presentation and legal constraints Planning Division Manager Waylon Lee told the council that staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission’s approval, noting both state and federal limits on local action. “Federal law preempts the ability of cities to regulate wireless facilities based on radio frequency, or RF, emissions,” Lee said, and added the applicant provided documentation showing operation below federal emission limits. He also noted the application included an alternatives analysis and that staff had strengthened conditions to require testing and mitigation if development next door would cause exceedances.
Appellant’s concerns Ariel Strauss, attorney for the appellant, argued the RF study shows levels that would exceed FCC limits in the buildable airspace of neighboring parcels and that the Planning Commission’s record did not sufficiently consider the city’s general plan goals for transit‑oriented mixed‑use development. “This is not a practical solution to this problem. It is a paper solution to this problem,” Strauss said, arguing the tower’s placement could make adjacent land effectively undevelopable and impair lenders’ willingness to finance housing.
Applicant and public‑safety testimony Representatives for the applicant and supporters including local fire officials said the site fills a coverage gap and that the project includes mitigation. Mike McLaughlin, who spoke for the project team, said the applicant agreed to the additional testing and monitoring conditions adopted by staff. “We willingly agreed to that as part of the conditions of approval,” McLaughlin said. Alameda County fire representatives said improved FirstNet coverage would support first‑responder communications in the area.
Council action and conditions After questions and rebuttals the council voted to accept staff’s recommendation and deny the appeal. The council adopted conditions of approval that require: an RF compliance report within 30 days of activation; annual RF testing for five years; and additional RF testing and remedial action when an adjacent development application proposes structures taller than 30 feet. The resolution directs that, if testing shows future development would cause exceedances, the wireless provider must resolve the conflict (which could include antenna adjustments, power reductions or, if necessary, relocation or removal of equipment).
Votes at a glance - Conditional Use Permit PLN 23‑31 (440 Peralta Ave., monopine 80 ft): Council rejected the appeal and approved the permit; vote recorded as passing with six council votes in favor and one recusal (Council Member Bolt recused). The approval includes the RF testing and mitigation conditions described above.
What comes next The resolution places the testing and mitigation obligations on the facility owner; any future development on adjacent parcels that raises RF issues will trigger additional testing and remedial requirements. The council record shows staff and applicant materials, the Waterford EME RF report, and the Planning Commission record will be used to monitor compliance.
