Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Telecom topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones hearing on 80-foot cell tower at 440 Peralta after appellant counsel raises compatibility and RF concerns
Summary
The council pulled the Planning Commission appeal for an 80-foot wireless tower at 440 Peralta Avenue to allow further review after the appellant’s counsel raised concerns that the structure could impede transit‑oriented infill and expose adjacent parcels to radio-frequency levels that the appellant says the FCC would consider unsafe.
The San Leandro City Council postponed consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval for a conditional use permit to install an 80-foot wireless telecommunications facility at 440 Peralta Avenue.
Mayor Gonzales announced at the start of the meeting that item 8A would be pulled from the evening’s agenda and continued to the council meeting on Tuesday, January 21, to allow staff time to analyze a letter submitted by the appellant’s legal counsel. "I am pulling item 8A ... to be heard on Tuesday, January 21st ... to allow for analysis of a letter by the appellant's legal counsel," the mayor said.
During public comment on the item, Ariel Strauss, counsel for the appellant, previewed arguments opposing the tower. Strauss said the property is zoned for transit‑oriented mixed‑use infill and described neighboring parcels as "prime opportunities for infill development close to BART and adjacent Sempra Verde Park." Strauss argued the tower’s placement and height would impede dense mixed‑use development and said AT&T projections indicate nearby development could be exposed to levels of radio‑frequency emissions that the speaker characterized as exceeding FCC guidance for safety. "AT&T's own projections show that large parts of the buildable airspace of both the neighboring parcel will be exposed to levels of radio frequency emissions that the FCC considers unsafe," Strauss said.
Strauss asked the council not to approve the item on January 21 without further analysis and indicated she would work with staff. City staff had not yet presented technical analyses in the hearing; the council’s action at this meeting was to postpone the appeal to give staff time to review the appellant’s submission.
The council provided no final decision on the permit at the meeting; the agenda item remains scheduled for the January 21 council meeting.
