8A Public Hearings - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6 Additionally, specifically for wireless communication facilities, it is appropriate for the City to consider “Visual and other potential impacts to surrounding land uses.”8 The construction of the macro tower in this location is not “in accord” with the purposes of the transit-oriented mixed use district because it interferes with “high-intensity land uses.” It is also contrary to Housing Element policies to support “accommodate[ing] an increased supply of housing units.” Even if 440 Peralta, in theory, can still be built with the number of dwelling units forecasted by General Plan, the tower renders large swaths of that property, the appellant’s property, 523 San Leandro Blvd. and 695 San Leandro Blvd., the current self-storage site nestled within the “L” of the project site,9 essentially unbuildable above approximately three or four stories. It makes it impossible to “maximize[] th[ier] potential for transit-oriented infill development.” It does not “encourage infill development on . . . underused sites” such as tow yards and self-storage. For basic safety and physical placement reasons, developers now have to design not around the natural site constraints and opportunities but to contend with an 80-foot industrial obstruction and its emissions. Note how the EME Report shows future development on subject property shoved into the corner, with significant “dead space” between it and the tower, to avoid unsafe levels of RF: 8 Id. § 4.04.376(K). 9 See Application, Attachment 5, p. 15, showing the nearby 10-foot-tall roof of 695 San Leandro Blvd. at 9.7% of allowable RF exposure. Because the inverse-square law governs radiation power, tripling the height to even 30 feet will increase RF exposure many-fold, likely placing it in excess of safe levels for occupants. Att B - Page 26 of 46