CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
April 17, 2025
6:30 PM
City Hall, Council Chambers
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rob Newsom Jr.
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
April 17, 2025
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 867 6743 5013 Passcode: 358804
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Request and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of these items. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
(One case)
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
(Five cases)
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
1 of 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 4
From:
Ariel Strauss <[email protected]>
Sent:
Thursday, April 10, 2025 4:23 PM
To:
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]> Cc:
'Irena Mavridis' <[email protected]>; 'Jeff Adams' <[email protected]>; 'Sam Shank' <[email protected]>
Subject:
Need for the City Council to restore resident's legal rights Good afternoon,
Thank you both for your concern with issue of small cell deployments in San Mateo.
I am reaching out because
Crown Castle’s February 17th deemed approval letter is depriving residents of their usual constitutional and statutory rights to redress.
Normally, a resident would have the right to go to court and have a judge decide whether Crown Castle’s claims are valid and sufficient, or if the City used the correct appeal process.
But, state law dictates that the
deemed approval letter finally approves applications, apparently regardless of the any errors or deficiencies, so long as the City does not contest it by April 21st. Protecting the residents’ right to challenge the permits is solely in the City Council’s hands since only the City has standing to contest the letter under the statute.
This principle alone should motivate the City to sue.
The issue is not moot.
Crown Castle already obtained their
wins at the S&I Commission level.
If they are really “participating in good faith”, as they claim, they should let the process play out all the way in court too.
If they are correct, they should prevail there also.
The City should push them
on this and sue them if they do not rescind the letter.
On the substance, I think the City has good arguments that it acted within a reasonable amount of time given how little time elapsed between the Director approvals and the final S&I decisions, and Crown Castle even extended the lawsuit filing date to allow the appeal hearings.
I think you should also know, paradoxically, the staff actually reduced the amount of time it had to act based on
a misreading of the FCC regulations.
According to the Crown Castle letter, the City agreed on November 22, 2024, to “extend” the 60-day shot clock to January 31st for several applications. However, for 205 N. Claremont (#239) and 401 Dorchester (#213), the FCC shot clock was not 60 days for antenna attachments to “an existing structure”, but 90 days for a “new structure” because Crown Castle was using new poles for these sites.
As a result, the City should have had
until February 13th to make a decision but, apparently, reduced this time by agreement with Crown Castle.
The City’s miscalculation of deadlines was obvious.
Even before Crown Castle sent its deemed approval letter, staff used the below slide at an S&I Commission meeting, where you can see from the yellow box at the bottom that staff stated that the entire process had to be completed within the applicable period.
That is the plain reading of the
FCC statutes and applicable case law.
It is obvious recklessness to fail to make a decisions promptly.
I am in conversation with my clients about suing the City for diminished property value if the City does not convince Crown Castle to rescind the letter.
Typically, residents would not have any right to damages from the City for discretionarily issuing a permit, even if they are unhappy with the result.
Their only remedy is to seek to have it revoked
in court.
But that changes when it is the City’s own negligence that deprives residents of the ability to prevent the permit through the usual legal process.
If a court finds that Crown Castle was not entitled to the permit (e.g., because it did not comply with the ordinance, did not prove effective prohibition or the appeal to the S&I Commission was invalid under the new ordinance) but that it cannot be remedied on account of staff negligence, the plaintiff would be entitled to whatever diminished property value could be proven, which can be considerable for unique and expensive homes in the San Mateo Park area.
In my experience, telecom applicants have a lot of bluster but are actually not willing to risk creating negative legal precedent in the courts, or perhaps harm their reputation with other cities.
Surely, if San Mateo staff had heard of
Crown Castle pulling this stunt in other cities, they would not have given them so much leeway.
There is a good chance
Crown Castle would fold if you sue.
I urge you to convene a closed session meeting to authorize a lawsuit against Crown Castle by April 21st in the event that it does not agree to rescind the letter.
Sincerely,
3 of 4
Ariel
Ariel Strauss
310-709-1213
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 310-709-1213, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
4 of 4