AgdaPkt 2011-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.1. - Page 6 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. Investigation The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury collected information about cell towers via a survey sent to city managers and planning directors, or their counterparts, in the County and each of the 20 cities (see Attachment). Online research was conducted, including a review of excerpts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit decision in the Sprint PCSAssets PCSLP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates. Newspaper articles and communications from neighborhood groups regarding cell tower placement were collected and reviewed. Discussion The County and 15 of 20 cities in San Mateo County have ordinances in place related to cell tower installation. These ordinances vary considerably in scope and comprehensiveness. Whether or not the County or a particular city has an ordinance governing cell tower installations does not seem to insulate it from public opposition. Service providers must make application to the County or cities whether or not there is an ordinance in place. The County and 6 of 20 cities reported public opposition to cell tower applications occurred more frequently than once a year. 10 The primary opposition came from individuals living in close proximity to the proposed installation site. The most frequent reason cited for such opposition was public safety such as perceived health risks from electromagnetic radiation, although it is not a valid basis on which the County or city can deny a permit. Visual or aesthetic impacts, which are a valid issue upon which to base a decision regarding denial or modification of a cell tower application, were less frequently mentioned. In the County and 7 of 20 cities, service providers have withdrawn applications for cell tower installation due to public opposition. 12 In 2008 (referred to as the "2007 decision "), a service provider filed a lawsuit against the County because of a denied cell tower renewal application subsequent to an appeal filed by residents which overturned the initial approval. There have been no incidences of litigation reported by cities because an application for cell tower installation was denied. 'Belmont, Brisbane, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside. 10 Belmont, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Carlos, Sprint PCS Assets PCSLP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, op. cit. 'Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Hillsborough, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Carlos. 13 Litigation pending; case no. CV 110056 Sprint v. County of San Mateo et al, amended complaint filed Jan. 6, 2011, U.S. District Court of Appeal, Northern District of CA.