San Leandro Council Upholds Planning Commission, Approves 80‑foot ‘monopine’ at 440 Peralta

The San Leandro City Council on Jan. 21 denied an appeal and approved a conditional use permit to allow construction of an 80‑foot wireless telecommunications “monopine” at 440 Peralta Avenue.

Planning Division Manager Wayland Lee told the council the application (conditional use permit PLN 20331) was approved 7–0 by the Planning Commission and that the applicant provided an alternative‑sites analysis and documentation showing the facility would operate below Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF‑exposure limits. Lee said staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission and approving the permit and noted staff added conditions requiring RF testing within 30 days of activation and annual testing for five years, plus additional testing if a proposed adjacent structure would exceed 30 feet in height.

Appellant’s counsel Ariel Strauss of Green Fire Law argued the application’s alternative‑sites analysis was deficient and said the EME (RF) report showed exceedances in buildable airspace on neighboring parcels and on parts of 440 Peralta. Strauss told the council those projected exceedances, combined with the tower’s placement at the parcel boundary and an 80‑foot height, could render substantial portions of adjacent sites undevelopable or impair their ability to obtain conventional financing. Strauss said that, in his view, the project conflicted with the city’s general plan goals for transit‑oriented mixed‑use infill and housing‑element policies.

The applicant’s representatives, including Mike McLaughlin (Western Fire Chiefs Association, speaking for the applicant) and a FirstNet advocate present at the hearing, said coverage maps and propagation analyses submitted with the application demonstrate a localized coverage gap that the proposed facility would address. The applicant said it had agreed to the additional testing conditions and to mitigate RF exposure if a later‑proposed adjacent development would create a conflict.

Council members asked about the mechanics and timing of post‑activation testing, whether prior‑installed towers undergo periodic assessment, and what would happen if testing after an adjacent project showed RF limits would be exceeded. Planning staff responded the conditions require a report within 30 days of operation and annual tests for five years; if a later‑proposed adjacent building would create an exceedance, the wireless provider must resolve the conflict, which could include adjusting antennas or, if necessary, relocating or removing antennas or the facility.

After public comment both for and against the project — which included health concerns, alternatives suggestions and support from public‑safety representatives — the council voted to accept staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and approve the conditional use permit. The motion passed 6–0–1, with Council Member Bolt recused.

The council’s approval includes the added conditions of approval described in staff materials: (1) RF compliance measurement within 30 days of activation; (2) annual testing for five years; and (3) a requirement for additional testing and analysis whenever a proposed adjacent structure greater than 30 feet is submitted, with the facility operator responsible for resolving noncompliance.

The Planning Division Manager said the effective date and expiration provisions referenced in the resolution will be aligned with the City Council’s action (the resolution clarifies those dates will reflect council approval, not the Planning Commission action). The council did not adopt additional substantive modifications to the resolution at the Jan. 21 meeting.

Votes at a glance: the council recorded the final vote as “motion passes unanimous 6‑0‑1 with Council Member Bolt recused.” No individual roll‑call vote record with member‑level yes/no was provided in the public transcript; the clerk recorded the final tally and noted the recusal.