San Mateo rejects small cell wireless facility application

In November, the city finalized a new policy that imposes more restrictions on small cell placement, which includes mandated setbacks within a certain distance of housing units, day care facilities or school structures. 

But Crown Castle, the primary small cell provider in the area, submitted applications prior to the city’s adoption of the new regulation and were recommended by city staff for approval; however, several residents submitted an appeal opposing the proposed locations, which was heard by the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission March 12. 

The appeal argued that the proposed site for the facility, on the east corner of El Camino Real and Baldwin Avenue, is not in the “least obtrusive location” possible, one of the design standards outlined by the city’s previous guidelines. 

Supporters of the appeal included many residents who noted that the proximity to areas servicing vulnerable populations, including St. Matthew’s Episcopal Day School’s play area, was a concern.

“This field … is immediately adjacent to where this proposed wireless facility would be located and is a critical and highly-used space by our students and our programs,” said Kathryn Collins, a San Mateo resident who is also on the Board of Trustees at St. Matthew’s. “What about how this impacts the children that are in this adjacent play space day in and day out that aren’t protected by the physical shelter of a building?”

The 2021 standards, which were the basis for the Baldwin Avenue assessment, did not specify that the small cell facilities should be a certain distance from schools.

Residents made health-related arguments, especially as it relates to radiation emitted from the facilities; however, local jurisdictions tend to have little to no control over rules that dictate facilities’ radiation frequency levels. 

“If you have an issue with [radiation], you need to talk to the federal government, not us. It’d be like complaining about the interest rate you’re getting at your bank. The [Federal Reserve] sets the rate, not the bank, so it’s hard to hear sometimes about radiation,” Commissioner Rich Kranz said. 

Alternative sites in and around the intersection were also analyzed, with the proposed location further from the nearest building, at 125 feet. Other alternatives would have been located anywhere from 34 to 90 feet from the nearest structure. 

The commission voted 4-1 not to approve the application, siding with the appellant, stating that Crown Castle only took into account the distance to the nearest building in determining “the least obtrusive” option, not other factors like the use and amount of time patrons spend in or near the buildings. 

“The staff, particularly in looking at the least obtrusive and alternative site analysis, used purely feet-from-buildings, and didn’t take into account … the actual impact on where people are,” Commissioner Cliff Robbins said. “In this case, it’s a playground. It isn’t a building, and I think the design standards and the code would have allowed them to have done that and they didn’t.”  

Crown Castle must now resubmit an application, which will be subject to the new regulations. 

During the meeting March 12, the commission also heard another appeal for a small cell facility proposal at 401 Dorchester Road, which was denied, meaning the Crown Castle application can move forward.