AgdaPkt 2011-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.1. - Page 5 This is an advanced copy of a Grand Jury report that will be publicly released on May 19, 2011. Penal Code section 933.05 (f) prohibits any officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency from disclosing any contents of the report prior to the public release of this report. to residences or commercial establishments. This statement is based on survey data and the number of incidences of public opposition recorded in local news articles or communications collected by members of the grand jury over a seven -month period in Fiscal Year 2010 -2011. At least 8 of the 20 cities in San Mateo County had newspaper articles or communications of overt public opposition to cell tower applications during this timeframe. Public opposition occurs most often from individuals living in close proximity to a proposed cell tower site. Individuals or homeowner associations may make their own case to the city or form new groups for the purpose of galvanizing opposition. These new groups typically exist only until a final decision is rendered, making it impractical for the grand jury to interview representatives. Data shows opposition is typically based on perceived health risks such as electromagnetic radiation. To date such concern is regarded as scientifically unproven and has not been a legal basis for permit denial in accordance with provisions in the (federal) Telecommunications Act of 1996 5 An appellate court ruling in 2009 supported the decision by the City of Palos Verdes Estates in Southern California to deny the installation of cell towers on the basis of aesthetics alone. Service providers had argued that there must be a compelling "substantive" reason to deny an application or it must be approved in favor of communication expansion. The appellate court ruled that aesthetics were a valid reason to deny a cell tower application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that cannot feasibly be addressed by altematives. Federal law governs some cell tower decision- making authority. For example, each application by a service provider to install a cell tower must be considered on an individual basis, and a government entity cannot favor one telecommunications provider over another under protections provided by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Thus opposition is targeted to a specific application for cell tower installations. Cell phone vendors compete for improved range, clarity of reception, and a reduction of dropped calls. Some cities report that cell tower installations have been increasing over the past five years to meet these demands. ° Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos, South San Francisco. $ Peter M. Degnan et al, The Telecommunications Act of ]996:§704 of the Act and Protections Afforded the Telecommunications Provider in the Facilities Siting Context, May 18, 1999, pps. 7 -8. 6 No. 05 -56106 — Sprint PCS Assets PCS LP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, argued and submitted July 6, 2009 — October 14, 2009. 7 Degnan et al., op. cit., p. 5. s Belmont, Brisbane, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, South San Francisco. 2