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,
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.