Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.1. - Page 7 <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 />The County and 12 of 20 cities generate revenue from cell tower installations, primarily from the <br />leasing of public lands. t" In most cases, revenue is deposited to the general fund with no specific <br />use indicated. The revenue is paid by service providers in addition to application or permit fees. <br />Costs to file an application vary widely, with many cities requiring a deposit toward staff time. <br />Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove installations <br />when they are no longer used, become obsolete, or the permit expires. These provisions are <br />important because wireless technology continues to innovate and may in the future be replaced <br />by devices significantly smaller with improved range. 15 <br />Findings <br />The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that: <br />1. There is no apparent correlation between the existence of policies and /or ordinances <br />regarding cell towers and the likelihood of public resistance to an application. <br />2. Locating applicable cell tower ordinances and policies on County and city websites is <br />cumbersome. <br />3. Federal law recludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an <br />application , visual or aesthetic impacts are a valid reason to deny or modify an <br />application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that <br />cannot feasibly be addressed by alternatives. <br />4. Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove <br />installations when they are no longer used, become obsolete, or the permit expires (see <br />Attachment). <br />5. The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower <br />applications (see Attachment). <br />6, The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell <br />tower lease agreements (see Attachment). 18 <br />1" Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San <br />Carlos, San Mateo, San Francisco. <br />1$ Svensson, Peter AP Technology Writer, Wireless Advances Could Mean No More Cell Towers, February 12, <br />2011, and Bloomberg Businessweek, Alcatel- Lucent's Tiny Cell Tower, February 28 -March 6, 2011. <br />6 Telecommunications Act of 1996. <br />"No. 05 -56106 — Sprint PCSAssets PCS LP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, op. cit. <br />ie Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San <br />Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco. <br />H <br />