[{"_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",6622009,"mediaKeyId","2788920-bc8a2f90013420860d4dc986f2e4f3ea","parentId",2788920,"title","Commission affirms permit for Crown Castle small‑cell at 721 Edgewood after contested hearing","audioSeconds",3990,"startMs",10828000,"endMs",14818000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2788920-bc8a2f90013420860d4dc986f2e4f3ea&start=10828&end=14818","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2788920-bc8a2f90013420860d4dc986f2e4f3ea/thumbnail_10828000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622009/San-Mateo-City/San-Mateo-County/California/Commission-affirms-permit-for-Crown-Castle-smallcell-at-721-Edgewood-after-contested-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622009-b9217410e5b990d6dacb050f7d54e84d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196273&Signature=JfuKZYT6UTym6nuDCiQi1kfeJFMXYPCLsafLrAtbWz9LDYxtlth3abHNT7j2DYn1WNZlhdkH3YdK6QoZcyM9TPvc~XhEMaBmHHUybgsIkcR1dj6yGzZ8kflrEBwkOPuW~ElGYH67Aa6-LdMege64TC-vxJ-IUAa3kbHJc~715haraYZ-GL2bd56Pdd0j71rGJ~tgx~dLZ8KA2K0OuOsC94kDgeQD-xQuQzV2Ra0AxGgupZvgykT7YlUHSC3WKe5itY-e1537ICeGfDciJPqGEbU0Mco5DrrVhw5M8zSCA16Bz1JpjdkkRsalFh8oQ~EZztVjbuGl3XyRTDkjCYnJ7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CityOfSanMateo","date","2025-03-27T06:29:54.12Z","article","San Mateo’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission on March 20 denied an appeal and upheld the Public Works director’s approval of a small‑cell wireless permit at 721 Edgewood, with a 4‑0 vote after the vice chair recused herself for a financial conflict.

Staff again told commissioners the application complied with the city’s 2021 wireless design standards, that GO95 clearance and PG&E constraints left the proposed pole as the only technically feasible existing support structure for the provider’s stated objectives, and that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The commission voted to deny the appeal and directed staff to draft a statement of decision.

In staff’s presentation Jason Hilari and engineering manager JU described the same analytical framework used earlier in the meeting: review of technical objectives, a 200‑foot modeling radius used to identify feasible candidate poles, and GO95 and PG&E criteria to rule out poles within that radius when electrical or communicationsclearances or equipment would prevent the required side‑arm or top‑mount installations. Staff concluded the application satisfied the municipal code and design standards and that any limited exceptions granted were warranted.

The appellant, represented by counsel Ariel Strauss, said the proposed pole and canister were not the least obtrusive option and offered alternatives — including sites the appellant said could be made feasible through pole replacement or wire rearrangement. “There is no need for a new site at all,” the appellant said, noting personal experience of acceptable 5G service and arguing the applicant’s alternative analysis was inconsistent across resubmittals and sometimes contained errors in pole heights and addresses. The appellant also argued the city must require a demonstration that alternatives are infeasible or that replacement poles were truly infeasible under the design standards.

Crown Castle’s consultant Tyler Reester and counsel Liz Wensell reiterated the application met the code and the director’s determination that the application was complete. Reester said staff and the applicant cooperated through multiple resubmittals and that the director’s conditional approval — issued as the FCC shot‑clock was expiring — was well founded. Wensell summarized the legal standard, emphasizing the FCC’s 2018 small‑cell order and the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of that order.

Public commenters again urged tighter scrutiny of vendor distance estimates, questioned whether marketing materials could be used as evidence, and urged the commission not to be influenced by the applicant’s notice of “deemed approval” under shot‑clock rules. Staff said PG&E had granted structural approval for the proposed pole and that the fire marshal had not raised additional fire‑safety concerns for small‑cell installations.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about GO95 clearances, pole condition and structural certification, tree impacts, pole replacement versus using existing poles, and the visual profile of the proposed canister versus a tapered shroud. Staff explained it had balanced the design standards and concluded the cylindrical shroud chosen minimized obstruction and visual impact without increasing height beyond GO95 and PG&E constraints; staff also noted that pole replacement is not a preferred first option when a technically feasible existing pole can be used.

Vice Chair Michael recused herself from the hearing before it began because the site was within 400 feet of property in which she has a financial interest; the final vote to deny the appeal was 4‑0. The commission directed staff to prepare and circulate a written statement of decision for adoption; the commission later approved that statement during the meeting.

The decision allows the applicant to proceed under the director’s conditions and the city’s wireless design standards. The hearing again underscored recurring tensions in San Mateo’s small‑cell reviews: RF‑engineering constraints asserted by applicants and the applicant’s consultants, GO95 and utility attachment rules, and neighborhood concerns about visual impacts and alternative siting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission Special Meeting 3/26/25","oneSentenceSummary","After a contested appeal and public comment, San Mateo’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted 4‑0 to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s approval of a small‑cell wireless permit for 721 Edgewood; vice chair recused.","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},6622014,"San Mateo commissioners uphold permit for small-cell installation at 724 West Poplar",9314,99000,9413000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2788920-bc8a2f90013420860d4dc986f2e4f3ea&start=99&end=9413","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2788920-bc8a2f90013420860d4dc986f2e4f3ea/thumbnail_99000.jpg","/articles/6622014/San-Mateo-City/San-Mateo-County/California/San-Mateo-commissioners-uphold-permit-for-small-cell-installation-at-724-West-Poplar","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622014-d8a206e11dd1df58f0a8d0b8bd5b2b2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196273&Signature=IUyw6pUWuJHgncK0unENSEbjoyzuw0kde-3jooQ3McmV4DnAe3o~ulgmaoKLHDE2xkC6UwhGxt6y3U~c-59d4Sn6HZG7jOdJ8i8zaGNqHIiktCgeQpL~mi5Q4nQBCHo2YjOcPfLp0UYdTSQj3NHqVgCVfKyom2MnYjurvXjQGhCexIArB5u1OPxTtj8o8ds3i9sfZp1I0X31SZc6ynwFNQsSJ7~9evVC~Z8BT60asLBvHV4nGHmexZrZG6XEC1V5DRGY1gXIht-W0eZUdP0j8RO1lXnNHvz0Lv2DhvSrlHOIlAxmx3pyaKrIBoExhNJxbiywmo6PNzsxMt7yzYdaUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Mateo’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission on March 20 denied an appeal and upheld the city staff’s approval of a wireless‑permit for a small‑cell installation on an existing wood pole at 724 West Poplar.

The commission’s decision follows staff findings that the proposed pole attachment met the city’s 2021 wireless design standards, that it was the only technically feasible existing support structure within the applicant’s engineering constraints and that the permit is categorically exempt from CEQA. The motion to deny the appeal passed 5‑0.

Staff said the applicant’s technical objectives and third‑party RF review justified using the proposed pole. “Staff recommends denial of the appeal and adopting a statement,” Public Works senior engineer Jason Larey told commissioners during the hearing. Larey and other staff explained that poles outside a roughly 200‑foot radius were considered infeasible for the provider’s stated coverage objective, and that poles inside that circle were often infeasible because of CPUC General Order 95 (GO95) clearance rules or existing equipment (transformers, communications boxes, guy wires) that prevent side‑arm or top‑mount placements.

The applicant, represented by civil engineer Tyler Reester and Crown Castle counsel Liz Wensell, reiterated that the application complied with the municipal code and the city’s design standards, and said the director correctly deemed the application complete. “We believe that the director’s decision to approve this facility was proper,” Reester said, adding that the project complies with applicable RF emission rules and PG&E structural review requirements.

The appellant argued the site was not the least obtrusive, saying a slimmer shroud or other nearby poles could achieve the provider’s objectives with less visual impact. Appellant counsel questioned the city’s reliance on a 200‑foot equipment limitation and urged more detailed alternative analyses and utility coordination for potential pole replacements or wire re‑arrangements. Staff and the applicant responded that the record includes iterative resubmittals and third‑party verification used to rule other poles infeasible under GO95 clearances and the provider’s technical parameters.

Public commenters raised concerns about company stability, fire risk and the accuracy of vendor distance estimates; commenters also argued vendor marketing materials and vendor CEO statements can reflect real‑world ranges for equipment. Staff said the city relies on the applicant’s technical submittals and its consultant review to determine feasibility and that PG&E has approved structural attachment for the pole.

Commissioners asked technical and procedural questions about GO95 clearances, tree impacts, pole condition and shroud sizing. Staff said the proposed cylindrical shroud was chosen because it was the least visually obtrusive option that accommodated the antenna configuration without requiring pole extensions or creating GO95 clearance conflicts. The commission declined to require a different shroud design in this case.

The commission then voted to deny the appeal and direct staff to prepare a written statement of decision; the motion passed 5‑0. The written statement of decision was prepared and adopted after the hearing.

The permit approval allows Crown Castle to proceed under the conditions documented in the director’s decision and the city’s 2021 wireless design standards; the record reflects ongoing public interest and technical disagreement about siting, pole replacement feasibility and preferred shroud appearance.","The Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission denied an appeal and upheld a director’s approval for a small-cell wireless facility proposed for a wood utility pole at 724 West Poplar, finding staff and applicant analyses sufficient and concluding no technically feasible existing alternatives were shown.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission affirms permit for Crown Castle small‑cell at 721 Edgewood after contested hearing

San Mateo commissioners uphold permit for small-cell installation at 724 West Poplar