My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2011-07-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
AgdaPkt 2011-07-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2011 9:40:02 AM
Creation date
7/11/2011 9:34:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
7/11/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
219
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT of U UNFIDENTIAL <br />6.1.1. -Page 4 �V 11 <br />This is an advanced copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on <br />May 19, 2011. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, <br />department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents <br />of the report prior to the public release of this report. <br />MAY 17 2011 <br />CITY OF REDWOOD CITY <br />Cell Towers CITY CLERK <br />Public Opposition and Revenue Source <br />Issues <br />Do cities and the County of San Mateo (the County) have effective governing policies and/or <br />ordinances for cell tower installations that provide the public with a clear understanding of how <br />applications are adjudicated?' Are cell tower installations a source of revenue for cities and the <br />County? <br />Summary <br />There are more than 450 cell tower installations in San Mateo County. Although people want <br />reliable cell phone reception, community opposition to cell towers is common. The County and <br />18 of 20 cities reported public opposition to a cell tower application within the past 5 years. <br />The County and 12 of 20 cities generate varying amounts of revenue from cell tower <br />installations, primarily from the leasing of public lands. Although it may not pose a large <br />source of revenue, cities that are not already taking advantage of lease agreements as a steady <br />revenue source should negotiate such agreements with service providers in the future. hi <br />addition, any new leases should require service providers to maintain existing structures, remove <br />unused or obsolete equipment, and replace structures with newer low profile structures as they <br />become available. <br />Improving information available to the public and providing clearer communications can <br />improve public response to future cell tower installation applications. <br />Background <br />While there is universal public demand for improved and more reliable cell phone transmissions, <br />there exists a "not in my backyard" approach to having cell tower installations in close proximity <br />' For purposes of this report, "cell towers" refers to any wireless conununications facility or structure erected for <br />purposes of transmission on either public or private property. <br />z Only two cities, Cohna and East Palo Alto, did not report incidences of public opposition. <br />3 Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San <br />Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.