8A Public Hearings - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

File Number: 25-020 can access that area. This may involve adjusting the antennas, moving where they are located on the monopine, or removing the monopine completely. The applicant is required to submit a new Radio-Frequency Compliance Report to confirm the adjustments result in continued compliance with the FCC’s RF standards. Separately, the applicant is required to submit a new Radio-Frequency Compliance Report demonstrating that the facility meets the FCC’s standards for radio-frequency emissions once the monopine is installed, and annually for five years after facility is installed. These requirements are memorialized as conditions of approval 57-59. Third, the proposed facility in no ways limits how Mr. Russo can develop his property. To the extent Mr. Russo is concerned about the RF emissions from the facility, those concerns are addressed above and by conditions of approval 57-59. Mr. Russo also states that the existence of a wireless facility next door will deter future residents of any potential development. However, this is not a compelling argument. The Zoning Code permits many different uses of property; if residents of an adjacent property may prefer some uses over others is not a deciding factor. Similarly, if Mr. Russo submits an application for a proposed use of his property, how potential future residents of adjacent properties might perceive such a proposed use will not be determinative. Furthermore, since the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility is necessary to close a significant coverage gap, federal law does not allow the City to consider Mr. Russo’s future plans for his property or the project’s impact on property values when considering the proposed facility. Fourth, the applicant has submitted Photo Simulations (Attachment C - Attachment 4), with vantage points from within Siempre Verde Park, and Park Street demonstrating that the monopine would not create any negative visual impacts. Although the monopine will be taller than adjacent buildings, it will be adjacent to the elevated BART rail lines. Those existing rail lines created a visual impact, which the proposed facility will not increase significantly. Furthermore, the applicant submitted an Alternative Sites Analysis (Attachment C - Attachment 7), which demonstrates that 80 feet is the minimum height needed to provide effective wireless service in the target coverage area and close the significant coverage gap. Accordingly, the City is prohibited from denying the proposed monopine unless it can show the alternative sites analysis is incorrect. Fifth, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the proposed facility’s height and structure pose potential hazards in the event of an earthquake or extreme weather conditions. The facility will be required to comply with the California Building Code, which establishes requirements to ensure the safety of structures constructed in California. Sixth, there is no need to prepare an environmental impact report for this project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 exempts the new construction of small structures from further environmental review. Courts have previously held that this exemption may be used for new wireless facilities similar to the proposed project where the facility fits within its setting. (Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 338.) In contrast, the exemption may not be used when a cell tower will far exceed the height of every structure or tree within its vicinity. Here, the proposed cell tower fits within the setting. Although the monopine is not immediately adjacent to another structures or tree, it does not stand out in the visual setting. The proposed monopine (which has the appearance of a tree) is visually similar in height to trees located on the other side of the BART tracks. In addition, the elevated BART tracks are very prominent in the Page 7 City of San Leandro Printed on 9/4/2025