Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless‑permit‑appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission Upholds Wireless Permit at 205 North Claremont After Appeal; Vote 5‑0
Summary
After hearing appellants and the applicant, the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission voted unanimously to deny an appeal and uphold staff’s approval of a Crown Castle small‑cell permit at 205 North Claremont (Monte Diablo).
The Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission unanimously denied an appeal to a wireless permit at 205 North Claremont and upheld the director’s approval, concluding the applicant and staff met the city’s design standards and technical submittal requirements.
Staff presented a detailed alternatives analysis and the reasons it found the proposed replacement pole at the site to be the least obtrusive feasible option, citing PG&E safety restrictions, CPUC General Order 95 clearance requirements, and RF equipment limitations used by the applicant to define a 200‑foot technical objective for feasible sites.
Jason Lehi, senior engineer for Public Works, summarized the record and staff’s findings: staff concluded the application met the 2021 wireless design standards, the proposal complied with FCC RF limits, and alternative sites either failed PG&E clearance, were more visible to nearby residences, or fell outside the applicant’s technical objective. Lehi noted the proposed replacement pole sits adjacent to an empty lot and along the railroad right‑of‑way, and that the site is offset from nearby residential windows by about 59 feet — farther than several other alternatives that would place antennas directly in front of second‑story windows.
Appellants — represented in the hearing by local advocates from the group referenced as No Sellouts and by residents — argued the applicant failed to list or evaluate every existing pole within the required 500‑foot study radius, specifically citing a metal streetlight between alternatives the appellants said should have been considered. Appellants also echoed concerns about notice and urged the commission to require a fuller alternatives analysis or have the applicant refile under the new city standards.
The applicant, Crown Castle, through Tyler Reester (engineer) and counsel Liz Winsell, said staff had thoroughly reviewed the application, that required notices and technical exhibits were provided, and that the director correctly concluded the application satisfied the municipal code standards. Winsell reiterated that federal law constrains local action where denial would materially inhibit a provider’s ability to introduce or improve service.
Public commenters urged the commission to evaluate the application de novo and recommended the commission apply the code and standards consistently across neighborhoods; speakers raised equity concerns given the proximity to family housing and a daycare parcel (comments contradicted staff’s description of the immediate parcel configuration). Staff and the applicant disputed that the parcel in front of the pole was an active daycare yard; staff said the proposed pole is adjacent to a nonresidential storage/vehicle yard and offset from residences.
Commissioners questioned technical assumptions (the basis for a 200‑foot limitation), PG&E clearance requirements for meter placement and driveway clearances, and the city’s preference ranking for site locations (multifamily vs. single‑family). Staff explained why several median and curb‑ramp sites were infeasible, why some poles could not meet GO 95 clearances, and why the proposed replacement pole produced the least residential visibility among feasible options.
Following discussion, the commission moved to deny the appeal and uphold the director’s approval. The recorded vote was unanimous (5–0). Staff will draft the statement of decision to memorialize the findings and the vote.
