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

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.