Presentation — San Mateo City Council, November 18, 2024

2024
Wireless Ordinance and
Policy Update
Public Works Department
Jay Yu P .E., Engineering Manager
City Council
11/18/2024
1 2 of 42

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background
II. May 2024 City Council Direction
III. October 2024 SIC Feedback and Comments
IV. Summary of Changes
V. Compared to Encinitas
VI. Public Comments
VII. Staff Recommendation
VIII. Next Steps
IX. Questions
3 of 42
Staff Recommendation
 Public & industry input obtained
 City Council direction received in May 2024
 SIC recommends (4-0) to move the
proposed Ordinance and Policy to City
Council

STAFF RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL

1. Adopt a resolution approving a City Policy establishing procedural and substantive rules for “small wireless facilities” in the public right-of-way; • Effective immediately Sections 2–6, 9-13

2. Introduce the proposed ordinance amending SMMC Chapter 17.10 “Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way” • Adoption 12/9/2024
• Ordinance and Full Policy Effective 30 days after adoption  Ordinance & Policy Updates proposed
 These updates are defensible and
responsive
4 of 42
I. BACKGROUND
5 of 42
Ordinance History
2018
First application
for small cell
received
2019
FCC 18-133
“Small Cell Order”
2020
Development of
Wireless Small Cell
Design Standards
and Ordinance
(Update)
2021
Adoption of New
Design Standards
and Ordinance
Nov 18, 2024
City Council
Meeting
1st Reading
2018
Adopted first
Wireless
Ordinance
(17.10)
2021 - Jan 2024
Large influx of wireless
small cell applications
• Internal Process
• Industry Standards
• Constructability
• Community Feedback
May 6, 2024
City Council
Study Session
Oct 23, 2024
SIC SS
Proposed
Draft
Ordinance
and Policy
Dec 9, 2024
Ordinance
Adoption
6 of 42
Update Approach
City Community Industry
2024 Updated
Wireless Small Cell and Design
Standard and Ordinance
7 of 42
Community Feedback Outreach
+ +
Community Meetings Email Letters
8 of 42Summary of Community Feedback (June 23 – April 24) Restrictions on Residential Land-Uses
Gap In Coverage
Appeal Process
City Internal Review Process
Public Notices and Outreach
Definitions and Clarity
Post Construction
Required Facility Separation
Pole Options
Conformance to Other Regulations
Technical Installation Standards
Application Requirements
MORE

RESTRICTIVE
LESS
RESTRICTIVENEUTRALIndustryCommunity
9 of 42
II. MAY 2024 City Council Direction
10 of 42
May 2024 Council Study Session – Direction (I)
Definitions and Clarity
Conformance to State Regulations
Appeal Process
Objective Standards
Public Notices and Outreach
Facility Separation
Pole Options
Post-Construction

COUNCIL DIRECTIONTOPIC
Explore objective design standards for less intrusive installations Comply with state-mandated batch processing rules
Use hearing officers for appeal arbiter and extend appeal window Define “technically infeasible,” remove conflicting requirements, and clarify design cases
Make notices more visible and multilingual and use informed delivery Increase separation requirements while maintaining flexibility Expand pole options and include discretion to use freestanding poles Require applicants to submit annual RF compliance
11 of 42
May 2024 Council Study Session – Direction (II)
Installation Standard
City Review Process
Conformance to Other Regulations
Appeal Cost Recovery
Application Requirements
Residential Category
Review City of Encinitas Ordinance
Restrictions Instead of Preferences

COUNCIL DIRECTIONTOPIC
Explore options to reduce number of meter pedestals in ROW Explore options to use third-party experts
Amend the design guidelines to be consistent with other requirements
Adopt an appeal fee that is minimal and not cost-prohibitive Revise application requirements to require all relevant information upfront
Consolidate the definition of residential
Inquire what issues the City of Encinitas has encountered Explore restricted areas instead of only site preferences 12 of 42
III. OCTOBER 2024

SUMMARY OF SIC FEEDBACK
13 of 42
• Commission voted 4-0 in favor of recommending the proposed ordinance and Policy to City Council
• Understands the exception process is necessary to comply with federal requirements and will require additional staff time to review associated documents.
• The proposed draft ordinance and policy is well balanced • Recommend reorganizing portions of the Policy to minimize potential confusion
• Expand the definition of “technically infeasible” to include safety limitations and other law/requirements.

Oct 2024 – SIC Summary
14 of 42
IV. SUMMARY OF CHANGES
15 of 42
Cannot adopt
regulation that
“effectively prohibits”
providers from
providing service.
47 USC § 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II)
Things to Remember
The City can require
and ensure compliance
with FCC’s limits on RF
emissions.
47 USC 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv)
16 of 42
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS – NEW PROPOSED

NEW PROPOSED
Specific Submittal Hours
Designated days for submittal
Antenna Height
Window, minimum 18’
Pre-Approved Designs
City Policy
for new Small Cells in ROW
Batching Allowed (AB965)
Appeal Fees
$565 appeal fee
Annual RF Compliance
Setbacks “Restricted Sites”
300ft, Residential dwelling unit,
daycare, & school
17 of 42
Setbacks

1. Any location within a residential or mixed-use zone

2. Any location within 300 feet from a residential dwelling unit

3. Any location within 300 feet from a daycare facility or school structure

4. Any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone 300-ft Setback 300-ft Setback Any Zone
• Applicants may request an Exception to install within Restricted Sites • Exceptions shall demonstrate “effective prohibition” to be granted • Granted Exceptions may result in SWFs within Restricted Sites setbacks SETBACKS “RESTRICTED SITES”
18 of 42
Application Submittals
 Mon-Tues (non-holiday) @ 9am-4pm
 Specifies when applications are
submitted to staff
 Allows staff consistency on when to
expect applications and when
response is due
 Applicants may submit up to 50
projects within the same application
 Projects must be substantially similar
to be batched

SPECIFIC SUBMITTAL HOURS BATCH APPLICATION
19 of 42
Antenna Heights
 Min Height = 18-ft
 Cannot be same elevation as
nearest building windows
Min = 18-ft
Not at window elev
Buildings within 50-ft
Antenna Height
20 of 42
Appeal Fees
 Processing & prep = $1,164
 Hearing Costs = $ 668
 Total PW staff cost = $1,832
 Does not account for CAO
 Per Matrix study 2023-24
SWF Appeal Costs
 Proposed Fee = $565
 Cost Recovery = 30%
 Master Fee Schedule FY24-25
 City Clerk = $565
 Code Enf. = $565
 Planning = $565
Other City Appeal Fees

APPEAL FEES
21 of 42
New Policies
 Requires PW Director adoption
 Only for Preferred Locations:
• No noticing requirements
• Only Applicant may appeal
 Annual affirmation from qualified
RF-engineer
 Submitted every January
Pre-Approved Designs Annual RF Compliance
22 of 42
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS - CHANGES (PART 1 of 3)

EXISTING
Location Preferences
Zoning only
Frontage PUEs
Does allow
Preferred Structure
Existing poles
Public Notice
“Spam” mail & letter-size

PROPOSED
Location Preferences
Street, zoning, & clearances
Frontage PUEs
Not allowed
Preferred Structure
Farthest from residential
Public Notice
Postcard mailer & poster notice
23 of 42
Public Notice
 Currently, letter size prints taped to
proposed pole and nearby poles
 Site Posted Notices will be printed
large poster-style on A-Frames

SITE NOTICE
 Currently, basic envelope
 “looks like spam mail”
 New standard is a postcard mailer
 USPS Informed Delivery required

MAILED NOTICE
Public Notice
24 of 42
Location Preferences
 Based on zoning land use

CURRENT LOCATION PREFERENCES
 Based on street class, zoning, &
clearance to residential/other antennas

PROPOSED LOCATION PREFERENCES
Location Preferences
25 of 42
Location Preferences

1. Manufacturing

2. Transportation Corridor or TOD

3. Executive

4. Central Business

5. Commercial

6. Agricultural & Open Space

7. Shoreline

8. Residential Multi-Family

9. Residential Single Family

CURRENT LOCATION PREFERENCES PROPOSED LOCATION PREFERENCES MOST to LEAST Preferred
“Preferred Locations”

1. Non-res/mixed-use zone along arterial

2. Non-res/mixed-use zone along collector

3. Non-res/mixed-use zone along local

4. Within 300-ft of another SWF

5. Within 300-ft of res/mixed-use zone*

6. Res/mixed-use zone along arterial*

7. Res/mixed-use zone along collector*

8. Res/mixed-use zone along local*
*These tiers fall under “Restricted Sites”

CURRENT LOCATION PREFERENCES PROPOSED LOCATION PREFERENCES 26 of 42
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS - CHANGES (PART 2 of 3)

EXISTING
Mounting Preference
“Top of pole” only
Alt Sites Analysis
500-ft,
Render only for proposed site
Director Findings
4 broad findings
Existing Pole Options
Utility & streetlights

PROPOSED
Mounting Preference
Top -> Pole -> Side
Alt Sites Analysis
300-ft,
Render for all feasible sites
Director Findings
9 specific findings
Existing Pole Options
Utility, streetlights, & signals
27 of 42
Mounting Preferences
Pole-Top Pole-Mount Side-Arm
Mounting Preference
28 of 42
Director Findings

1. Applicant and SWF comply with SMMC 17.10 and
Design Standards and App Requirements

2. Application deemed complete by Director

3. Application complies with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws

4. Application demonstrates compliance with FCC
rules for RF emissions

CURRENT REQUIRED FINDINGS

1. Project qualifies as “small wireless facility” as defined by FCC

2. Application meets all design requirements of Muni Code and City Policy
(complies with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws)

3. Project in Preferred Locations, most-preferred location, or granted exception

4. Project on most preferred structure or granted exception

5. Project not on a prohibited structure

6. Applicant has demonstrated it can obtain service
connections and provides plans showing proposed
service connection route

7. Applicant demonstrates compliance with FCC rules for RF emissions

8. All required public notice has been given

9. Applicant has paid all fees/deposits or enrolled in
quarterly billing

PROPOSED REQUIRED FINDINGSCURRENT REQUIRED FINDINGS PROPOSED REQUIRED FINDINGS 29 of 42
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS - CHANGES PART (3 of 3)

EXISTING
Appeal Window
5-days
Appeal Authority
Sustainability & Infrastructure
Appeal Basis
Anything not RF related
Build-Out Period
1yr w/ (1) optional 1yr extension

PROPOSED
Appeal Window
10-days
Appeal Authority
Hearing Officer
Appeal Basis
Limited to Director Findings
Build-Out Period
1yr w/(1) optional 6mo
extension
30 of 42
V. COMPARED TO ENCINITAS
31 of 42
Compared to Encinitas – SAME (Part 1 of 2)
Voluntary Meetings
“Technically Infeasible”
Email Notifications
Section 6409 not in Policy
City of
Encinitas
32 of 42
Compared to Encinitas – SAME (Part 2 of 2)
Annual RF affirmation
Pre-Approved Designs
Exceptions Process
1 Year Buildout Period
City of
Encinitas
33 of 42
Compared to Encinitas – DIFFERENCES (Part 1 or 2)
Batched Applications
Up to 50 projects
Submittal Notices
Applicant mails notice
Appeals
10-day, Hearing Officer
Application Submittals
Email Submittal Window
Batched Applications
Up to 5 projects
Submittal Notices
Encinitas mails notice
Appeals
7-day, City Council
Application Submittals
In-Person Appointment
City of
Encinitas
34 of 42
Compared to Encinitas – DIFFERENCES (Part 2 of 2)
Coverage & Capacity
Required
Fire Department Review
No
Antenna Height
Min height, not window elev
Restricted Sites
300-ft to Res/Day/School
Coverage & Capacity
Not Required
Fire Department Review
Yes - Encinitas FD
Antenna Height
Max 5-ft over support
Restricted Sites
500-ft R/D/S, coastal, historic
City of
Encinitas
35 of 42
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
36 of 42
General Public Comment Summary
Community Industry
Not in favor of restricted areas and exception
process
Not in favor of all reviews being done by
consultants
Does not want RF Annual Affirmation
Summary: The industry thinks our
policy and ordinance is too restrictive
and burdensome.

Location and design standards are too restrictive
and may lead to reduction in small cell
investments in San Mateo
Not in favor of height restrictions (i.e., Window)
Want to default all reviews to consultants
Expand ASA to 500 feet. More public input on
location selection
Want “stealthing” design requirements
Appeals to remain at SIC
Summary: The community thinks the
proposed policy and ordinance
should be more restrictive.

Want the new policy and ordinance applied ASAP
37 of 42
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
38 of 42
Staff Recommendation
 Public & industry input obtained
 City Council direction received in May 2024
 SIC recommends (4-0) to move the
proposed Ordinance and Policy to City
Council

STAFF RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL

Senior Engineer
Public Works
Katherine Sheehan, P .E.

Deputy Director
Public Works
Matt Fabry, P .E.

Director
Public Works
Prasanna Rasiah
City Attorney
City Attorney Office
Tripp May
Managing Partner
Telecom Law Firm

San Mateo City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

San Mateo City Council
November 18, 2024