[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6636942,"mediaKeyId","2600899-070f6ccc3f26a51ec4fe9e8d31634346","parentId",2600899,"title","Commission upholds Public Works approval for 401 Dorchester small-cell permit, denies appeal 4-1","audioSeconds",3035,"startMs",7870000,"endMs",10905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2600899-070f6ccc3f26a51ec4fe9e8d31634346&start=7870&end=10905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2600899-070f6ccc3f26a51ec4fe9e8d31634346/thumbnail_7870000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6636942/San-Mateo-City/San-Mateo-County/California/Commission-upholds-Public-Works-approval-for-401-Dorchester-small-cell-permit-denies-appeal-4-1","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636942-cb3e8a185badfb4dd58768f34be9cd11/orig.mp4?Expires=1775364120&Signature=hZwSqNEDSE8NbxickfOD5tb0MOd4mfA2dRfgCbJI4vRfhsXk38l0XfUKXZx7~ETp2P3cfQhzl2a24JHJgA77Ky~XBhiZEEUJr437JEbM~C0D-agUAdtRLuV86f6owkdwqcXviHsuR39bq1IeqLIJJc2Unibfgk3zlg151IeiPIuMzK-RcQ52fHHpQZkKe-liV~C1mpagwum0Zs-T8relFOYR2cuWCIV0jWwvhEWxdeX7KxKRoDMsXHmjRAOz2erWH7MAg~181oUNKGx00ASVx~hib7-Bb94eTzjU5v5kp~53oaOyMGYWuyGpFf~KT089EwESgL2Vt45BXBSJ51l7KA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CityOfSanMateo","date","2025-03-13T07:53:51.373Z","article","The San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted 4-1 on March 12 to deny an appeal against the Public Works director's conditional approval for a Crown Castle small-cell wireless installation at 401 Dorchester.

Public Works staff presented the application as a top-mount canister on a replacement wood pole and said the parcel-specific alternative-site analysis showed the proposed site was the only technically feasible location. Staff said the application complied with the 2021 wireless design standards and that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.

Appellant counsel Ariel Strauss argued the replacement pole was taller than necessary and the height had not been minimized as required under Design Standard 2. Strauss also questioned the sufficiency of the applicant's alternate-sites analysis and said the application lacked site-specific evidence justifying why nearby poles were infeasible. \u001cThe pole is quite tall,\u001d Strauss said; \u001cthere is a requirement \u0014 that the height be minimized.\u001d

Crown Castle's consultant, Tyler Reester, told the commission the company had submitted the required project purpose and technical objectives and that the configuration proposed would meet the company's coverage and capacity goals for that location. \u001cOur objective is to densify the network and add capacity in this area,\u001d Reester said.

Public comment included the property owner at 401 Dorchester, Sam Schenk, who said the replacement pole and antenna would be \u001ca big monstrosity on the street\u001d visible from his balcony and garden. Schenk urged commissioners to weigh visual impacts and nearby uses in their decision.

Staff and Crown Castle representatives explained why other candidate poles in the immediate area were ruled infeasible: some had transformers or other utility gear that precluded additional attachments under CPUC General Order 95; others were embedded in tree canopies that would require significant trimming; and some would have required ground-mounted meters or cabinets on street frontage, which can be more obtrusive. Public Works said it consulted a third-party RF and technical reviewer and PG&E guidance in its feasibility assessment.

After discussion, commissioners voted 4-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the conditional permit. Roll call: Commissioner Robbins, aye; Commissioner Rubenski, aye; Commissioner Kranz, no; Vice Chair Michaels, aye; Chair Narita, aye.

The commission directed staff to finalize the written statement of decision documenting the bases for the ruling and return it for formal adoption. The ruling does not prevent the applicant from pursuing alternative designs or locations that comply with local standards and applicable state and federal law.

Why this matters: The decision demonstrates the commission's role in weighing city design standards against applicants' stated technical objectives and state utility pole-clearance rules (General Order 95). The case highlights technical and procedural questions that frequently recur in small-cell reviews: how applicants define coverage objectives, how staff evaluates CPUC clearance constraints, and how visual/land-use impacts are balanced in dense urban corridors.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission Regular Meeting 3/12/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted 4-1 on March 12 to deny an appeal and uphold the director's conditional approval of a replacement wood-pole top-mount small cell at 401 Dorchester after staff said other candidate sites were technically infeasible under General Order 95 and the 2021 design standards.","taxTitle","San Mateo City, San Mateo County, California","taxId",3865,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6636946,"Commission upholds appeal, denies Crown Castle permit for small cell at 16 Baldwin",2550,5112000,7662000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2600899-070f6ccc3f26a51ec4fe9e8d31634346&start=5112&end=7662","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2600899-070f6ccc3f26a51ec4fe9e8d31634346/thumbnail_5112000.jpg","/articles/6636946/San-Mateo-City/San-Mateo-County/California/Commission-upholds-appeal-denies-Crown-Castle-permit-for-small-cell-at-16-Baldwin","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636946-15860239c1c1e584483d4541e09f269c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775364120&Signature=CGw-vUgfOvshHjsW6Gm7BwmNdppzsHbi4LwKtWlgz16kk3Ssd8htwYy~bdbeYxg1d4Rb9lxqC6Nfg5XFGiVpBN3uL205GNrFWgBDWkHU~XG~SZkL5O4mPH~bO5WX3IFHRQMYbTsfPX37F1IdsUTdxj~UFbeRaa2gWkmzYaMx58SmJ5YcZKIZC9lBIiJv5v9ChU3gOBx8ZumUGNss1peUIbhp0va-H7kDVDWJArxMya-1I8A3nJ3otSxkWqWCQ~FDUQiZGZzxfKF41kXyJaC7Wix4uG0VsDuYH4l3LN5gdOxYPKgbd2-4PyUILH6cpEfy3pIxIjoeBz-qb0qnAqn9bA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted 4-1 on March 12 to uphold an appeal and deny a conditional approval for a Crown Castle small-cell wireless permit at 16 Baldwin Avenue.

The vote came after appellants and several residents told the commission the applicant's alternate-site analysis and technical documentation were incomplete and relied on an arbitrary \u0012200-foot\u0013 range of service. Staff had recommended denying the appeal and upholding the director's conditional approval, saying the application complied with the city's 2021 wireless design standards and municipal checklist.

Appellants' attorney Grace Holbrook told the commission the application lacked the site-specific technical detail required by the design standards and the applicant had not shown \u001cthat these alternative sites are infeasible\u001d with the level of clear and convincing evidence the code requires. \u001cThe applicant has clearly failed to establish with clear and convincing evidence as required by the design standards that these alternative sites are infeasible,\u001d Holbrook said.

Crown Castle's consulting engineer, Tyler Reester, countered that the company had met the city's application requirements and that the technology being used shows meaningful dropoff in service beyond about 200 feet in the configuration Crown Castle would deploy. \u001cThe coverage and service drops off dramatically after that 200-foot range,\u001d Reester said, describing the company's technical objective as \u001cto densify the network and add capacity in this area.\u001d Public Works senior engineer Jason Hilari had briefed the commission that staff's technical consultant concurred with the city's conclusion that the proposed location met the design standards and that the application was categorically exempt from CEQA under the sections noted in the record.

Residents and local organizations who spoke during the public-comment and appeal portions emphasized the location's proximity to a school, a church playfield and a retirement facility. Episcopal Day School head Quincy Grieve said the playfield is the school's only regular outdoor recreation area and told commissioners, \u001c300 children play there every day.\u001d Parent and school trustee Catherine Collins said the proximity to the field had not been adequately weighed in staff's assessment.

Commission discussion focused on whether staff and the applicant had shown, through site-specific facts and analysis, that the chosen location was the least-obtrusive feasible option under the design standards. Commissioners who supported the appeal said Crown Castle's alternative-site analysis was conclusory for many candidate sites and did not provide the site-specific technical evidence needed to demonstrate infeasibility. Commissioners who opposed the appeal emphasized deference to the city's technical review and the director's findings.

The motion that carried found the application did not meet Design Standard 1 (least obtrusive) as applied to this specific location and ordered that staff prepare a statement of decision reflecting the commission's findings. Commissioners voted as follows: Commissioner Robbins, yes; Commissioner Rowinski, no; Commissioner Kranz, yes; Vice Chair Michaels, yes; Chair Narita, yes.

What happens next: staff will draft the written statement of decision reflecting the commission's ruling; the city indicated it will return the statement for adoption at the next available Commission meeting. The applicant may reapply or pursue other remedies allowed under state and federal law.

Why this matters: San Mateo adopted detailed small-cell design standards in 2021 to limit visual and land-use impacts while complying with federal telecommunications rules. The commission's decision shows how local review can hinge on the depth of site-specific technical evidence applicants provide when seeking limited exceptions to local design standards.

","The San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted 4-1 to uphold an appeal and deny a conditional approval for a Crown Castle small-cell wireless permit at 16 Baldwin Avenue after residents and appellants argued the company's alternative-sites analysis and technical evidence were insufficient.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission upholds Public Works approval for 401 Dorchester small-cell permit, denies appeal 4-1

Commission upholds appeal, denies Crown Castle permit for small cell at 16 Baldwin