San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source Issues | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations |
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
There is no apparent correlation between the existence of policies and/or ordinances regarding cell towers and the likelihood of public resistance to an application.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Review and revise, if needed, the current fee structure to recoup staff costs for processing cell tower applications. Implemented: The City ofMenlo Parkfullyrecovers the cost toprocess use permit applications for cell tower installations. In rare cases, ifan application is appealed to the City Council costs of processing the appeal may not be fully recovered. The City re-evaluates its fee structure annually to maximize costrecovery.
F2
TEL.650.330.6670 FAX650.327.5382 Locating applicable cell tower ordinances and policies on County and City websites is Planning cumbersome. TEL650.330.6702 FAX650.327.1653 The City ofMenlo Park partially agrees with thisfinding. City websites arefilled with current Police TEL650.330.6300 andhistorical information, creating a struggle to highlight “important”information to the user FAX650.327.4314 searchi.ng for very specifi.c information. We continue to work to develop our website to enhance its usability to the online user. Cityordinances relatedto utilitytransmissionfacilities, TEL6503306770 FAX650.327.5497 as well as noticing, staffreports, and minutesfrom publicmeetings are availableforinterested parties on ourwebsite. Finding#3 Federal law precludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an application; visual or aesthetic impactsare a valid reason to deny or modify an application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that cannot feasible addressed by alternatives. The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding to the extent that Council actions should conform tofederalandstate law. Finding#4 Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove installationswhen they are no longer used, become obsolete, orthe permit expires. The City ofMenlo Park agrees with thisfinding to the extent that itis within the capacityofthe City to control the maintenance and removal of existing installations. The City has authority over cell towers on private and public property through the use permit and encroachment permit processes, as well as through lease agreements on public property. The City does not have any regulatory authority concerning cell antenna on public utilities. The City includes provisionsformaintenance andremovalin lease agreements. Finding#5 The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower applications. The City ofMenlo Park agrees with thisfinding in that ourfees are set tofully recover the cost ofprocessing the applications, and itmay be that other cities have not adopted thatsamecost recoverymodel. Finding#6 The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell tower lease agreements. The CityofMenlo Park agrees that as with any individualnegotiated agreement, revenues may vary depending on a number offactors such as the location of the property, the term of the agreement. and the availability of information regarding similar leases in surrounding jurisdictions. The City would agree that the City should achieve the best value possible. The City didseek out comparable informationfrom otherjurisdiction when negotiating the existing lease that we hold with Cingular, in an effort to achieve afair market rentfor those types of facilities at the time. Finding#7 Five cities which have cell towers on public property are not charging service providers for land use; three cities do not currently have cell towers located on public property. The City of Menlo Park agrees with the intent of charging for the use of public land or infrastructure, although Menlo Park is notone ofthe eightcities referredto above. GrandJury Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Negotiate lease agreements for future installations on public land that generate revenue or othertangible benefittothe community. Implemented: The City of Menlo Park will continue to require revenue generating lease agreementsfor use ofpublicland. Recommendation#3 Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City of Menlo Park currently requires the removal of the “communication facility” at the end of our lease agreement. Our practice has been to incorporate such requirements into new agreements or leases rather than adopting ordinances which are cumbersome to modify. Incorporating controls into the actual lease agreement enables the City to be more nimble in incorporating new requirements into new or renegotiated agreements. The City will also consider incorporating this recommendation as a condition ofapproval in use permits. Recommendation#4 Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring service providers to install newer technologyas it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint ofcell towers. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City of Menlo Park agrees to study the inclusion of this requirement into our use permit process when an update of our process is undertaken. It should be noted that the City does not maintain any “cell tower technology experts” on staff. As a result, there may be an inherent lack of expertise in recognizing that newertechnology is available for installation to reduce the footprint oftowers. Recommendation#5 Develop a webpage within County and city websites which clearly posts local ordinances, policies and procedures as well asfederal regulations related to cell tower installations The City of Menlo Park agrees with this recommendation in concept but it requires further analysis. If achievable, the suggested changes will be incorporated as future website improvements occur. The City currently posts City ordinances related to utility transmission facilities as well as ordinances, guidelines and application submittal information for use permits. Federal Regulations are not within the purview ofthe City, and are typically complex, requiring some expertise in their interpretation. The City Council and staff acknowledge that planning applications are often complex, and in the case of cell towers, controversial. We appreciate the time and effort of the San Mateo Grand Jury in scrutinizing the issues involved. Glen Rojas, City Manager
F3
Federal law precludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an application16; visual or aesthetic impacts are a valid reason to deny or modify an application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that cannot feasibly be addressed by alternatives.17
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements;
F4
Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove installations when they are no longer used, become obsolete, or the permit expires (see Attachment).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring service providers to install newer technology as it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint of cell towers; and
F5
The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower applications (see Attachment).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Develop a webpage within County and city websites which clearly posts local ordinances, policies and procedures as well as federal regulations related to cell tower installations. The Grand Jury further recommends the City Councils of Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside pursue new or amended leases for existing cell towers on public property that are not currently generating revenue or other community benefits. Cell Tower Cities and County Survey Responses Number of Number of Does the city Does the city's Is there a Is there a Have you had What is the current cost to Does the city If yes, what is If yes, how is cell towers cell towers have codes code/ordinanc provision provision applications file an application or permit generate revenue the a average revenue on private on public or ordinances e cover both requiring requiring withdrawn by for a cell tower structure? paid by service annual generated by property property governing public and service service service providers in addition revenue paid cell towers cell towers? private providers to providers to providers due to application or by service used by the property? maintain cell remove cell to public permit fees from cell providers to city? towers? towers if resistance? towers installations?the city that is obsolete or a generated use permit from cell ends? towers? AAAAtttthhhheeeerrrrttttoooonnnn 3 0 NO N/A N/A NO NO C p o l n u d s i t $ io 2 n ,0 a 0 l 0 u s d e e p p o e s rm it i - t $ - 3 F , e 9 e 1 9 $ 1 to ,9 ta 1 l 9 NO N/A N/A Fees: -complex project fee $13,272 (deposit) BBBBeeeellllmmmmoooonnnntttt 18 7 YES YES NO YES r 2 e 0 f v f r 0 o i o Y e 9 r m E w , w S n s a i o t . f p h r w P p d o u l r m w i a b c w a a l 2 ic i n a 0 t i t l n 0 . g 7 -$2 -n , - 6 E e 9 - w n f 1 i v r c e i o r o o r f n e n $ s e m 1 t r , f e u 7 o n c 0 r t t 4 a o p io l n l ( a n e r ly e n q e ) v u c n ie i h g p w e i m n c e f e k e e n e $ r t i 2 n $ c 6 g 5 h 8 4 a fe 7 n e g e Y p E u c S b e . l l i l c T t c h o p i e w t r y o r e e p h r e s a a r l r p l t e , i l e a e l s e c tc a e ( . p s d a e o r s k n f s o , r Unknown ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a -county recording fee $50 -3rd party review of RF exposure study (deposit during review). BBBBrrrriiiissssbbbbaaaannnneeee 15 3 YES YES NO YES NO $2, $ 6 8 9 5 8 1 - p -a la d n m n i i n n i g s t c ra o t m iv m e i p s e si r o m n i t u . se YES, land lease $1,500/month gen D e e r p a o l s fu it n e d d f t o o r a permit variety of uses BBBBuuuurrrrlllliiiinnnnggggaaaammmmeeee Unknown Unknown NO N/A NO NO YES, once (2010) Depends c o u s p t o o n f l i e n v s e ta l l o la f t i r o e n view and wh Y e E r S e is . c l O i i e n ty a n s s l t o y a e w l i d l n a n f t e i o i n o d r s n t t p a h r n e o c p e e s r ty $ p i 2 n u 5 s b , t l 0 a o ic 0 l n l a 0 p o t r i ( n o o b e p n a e s o r e n ty d ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a CCCCoooollllmmmmaaaa 4 0 NO N/A NO YES NO Minor use permit $905 NO N/A N/A DDDDaaaallllyyyy CCCCiiiittttyyyy 45 15 YES YES YES YES YES, once (2010) $3,700 NO N/A N/A YES standard Staff level-minor cell tower cost- EEEEPPPPAAAA Unknown Unknown YES YES YES condition of NO $667. Conditional use permit-major NO N/A N/A approval cell tower cost-$3,862 The City receives approximately FFFFoooosssstttteeeerrrr CCCCiiiittttyyyy 26 6 NO N/A YES NO NO per A m rc it h $ it 2 e 0 c 0 tu d ra e l p r o e s v i i t e . w A p $ p 2 l 0 ic 0 a . n U t s p e a ys YES $ in 9 6 r , e 0 v 0 e 0 n u p e e r f r y o e m ar gen D e e r p a o l s fu it n e d d f t o o r a for cost to process the leasing of 4 variety of uses sites for cell towers HHHHMMMMBBBB 2 1 NO N/A Y o E f S C a D s P a a c p o p n r d o i v ti a o l n Y o E f S C a D s P a a c p o p n r d o i v ti a o l n NO de $ t 1 e , r c 3 m o 0 i m 0 n e p d d l e e p b te o y s p t i i r t m o ( c e a e c r s t e u s q a in u l g i c r ) e o d s t t o NO N/A N/A The town collects HHHHiiiillllllllssssbbbboooorrrroooouuuugggghhhh 0 11 YES YES YES YES Y (2 E 0 S 0 , 6 o /0 n 7 ce ) $2,500 YE p S ro , p if e r le ty a s is e n o e f e p d u e b d lic a si n t $ e n 1 s u 6 . a 2 ( l $ l , y 1 1 2 f , o 9 0 r 3 0 7 ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a monthly per site.) MMMMeeeennnnlllloooo PPPPaaaarrrrkkkk 39 9 YES p N ro O p , e p rt r y iv o a n te ly NO NO NO U to t s i m e h o e p u e e r r l x m y p b i e t i n l d li d e n e p g d o r s a to i t t e w is s a $ f r o d 1 r , t 5 h a 0 e c 0 t u p s a ro u l j b s e j t c e a t c ff t s a Y i g t E e r S e s in e u . m b C th j u e e e r c n r t P t e t w n u o t b i l t a y l h i c o l t e h n R a e l O y s e C W o i n t y e is . s $ t u 2 h b , e 5 a j e 0 g o c 0 r n t e / e m t e o c m o e a n e l l t l n e h s t a i f t s o e e r ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a MMMMiiiillllllllbbbbrrrraaaaeeee 14 5 YES YES YES YES NO $7,000 on p o ri n v a p t r e o p p e ro rt p y erty; $2,000 YES. o L n e c a i s ty e s p r f o o p r e fa rt c y ilities $1 fa 5 c ,0 p il 0 r i o t 0 y p / o y e e n rt a y c r i t p y e r ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a PPPPaaaacccciiiiffffiiiiccccaaaa 40 0 YES p N ro o p , e p r r ty iv a o t n e ly YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n $3,750 NO N/A N/A PPPPoooorrrrttttoooollllaaaa VVVVaaaalllllllleeeeyyyy 5 5 YES YES YES YES NO $ $ 4 7 2 , 0 5 / 0 fe 0 e / ; NO N/A N/A Deposit RRRReeeeddddwwwwoooooooodddd CCCCiiiittttyyyy Unknown Unknown YES YES YES NO NO 1 I / f 4 p a ro c p re e r $ ty 1 k > fo f 1 r o / u r 4 s A a e r c c p r h e e . r $ P m 5 e i k t rm d i e t, p $ o 2 s , it 8 ; 3 < 0 Y i o s E r o S y n e . a c O r it n l y y e t l l h a e c e n a e d s c ll e ; it i n y a is s m t p a o a ll n a id t t h io t l o y n $1k - m $1 o , n 6 t 6 h 6 per ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a SSSSaaaannnn BBBBrrrruuuunnnnoooo Unknown Unknown YES YES YES YES Ye o s, n o e n o m cc o a r s e i o th n an Ad U m s in e A pe p r p m ro it v : a $ l 2 : , $ 1 1 4 , 5 320 o Y w E n S e t . d a O n p k n a , l r y p c i e a f l r b k ( u e , i . e l g t t . c o , . n ) w c a i t t e y r $24 o , n 0 0 a 0 v e p r e a r g y e ear ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a $2,000- SSSSaaaannnn CCCCaaaarrrrlllloooossss 9 3 YES YES YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n $5,660.00 YES. La p n r d o p le e a rt s y e of city $ $ 3 2 ,0 4 0 ,0 0 0 /m 0- o ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a $36,000/yr. If in parks, used for SSSSaaaannnn MMMMaaaatttteeeeoooo Unknown Unknown YES not specific YES NO NO NO u D lt e im po a s te it l y a m be o u m n ti o t m r o e e f b $ a 2 s ,0 e 7 d 9 o ; n c o s u ta ld ff eq Y u E ip S m . i R s I e f O n n i W n e t/ g p c o o o it t n l y i e a s c p te , i a t d y a rk l s e a o s r e T ne h f g e ir o s c t t i i t a l y e t i a i n s s g e s i t t i s ll pu p r P p o P u o le a b s s r e l k i , c s u & . W s I e f R o d o e r n k c fo s c r i ty purposes SSSSSSSSFFFF Approx 30 Approx 8 YES YES YES YES NO Use permit application - $4,070 fr Y o E m S m $ . R o , n e 5 t v 0 h e 0 p n -$ e u 3 r e , s 0 r i a t 0 e n 0 g p e e s r $ A 1 p 6 p 8 ro ,0 x 0 im 0/ a y t e e a ly r ge v n D e e e r r i p a ty o l s f o u i f t n e u d d s e f t o o s r a WWWWooooooooddddssssiiiiddddeeee 6 9 YES YES YES YES NO $1,790 for CUP f a e n e d s Building permit NO N/A N/A CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttyyyy 71 42 YES YES YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n Varies - generally about $7,813 oc f C r r a c e o a Y o l a v m s n u E s i o C e d n i S o c w o r t B a n . e y u r a A c b u n ( r e R l y i i d t l l e y y d i m e v t r h i P s r e a n i e e n s l r g l q o o i P P s r u D p c e r t l i a e r o a e v r a e t r p n e p e t t d e y i n n t d v . r i u i e n s t T o e y g n h ) e Un B t P o k $ u l n a t 6 i h l o n d 0 e w n i 0 n i C n n g to o g a D u t m a h e n n e o p ty d u t . . n t r C e t o v h R A u b i e e R e n u d t w v P o e a t i m y l e s d v l l h l a n i o e u i n a o n n u c n n i l w g n s l e a u k o t i t n e n r D c t i e a t o o g a e d f t i w o i t s p t a v e h r n t e n d . e d a t o s 6
F6
The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell tower lease agreements (see Attachment).18
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Five cities which have cell towers on public property are not charging service providers for land use19; three cities do not currently have cell towers located on public property.20 Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that: The County and most cities have governing policies and/or ordinances that prescribe cell tower installations. Having an ordinance in place does not reduce the likelihood of public opposition to a cell tower application. The County and cities need to balance public desire for improved wireless reception with local concerns regarding health, aesthetics, and property values while recognizing the rights of service providers under federal law. Telecommunications Act of 1996. No. 05-56106 – Sprint PCS Assets PCS LP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, op. cit. Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco. Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside have cell towers on public property and do not receive revenue for land use. Atherton, Colma, and Pacifica do not currently have cell towers located on public property. The County and cities which have cell towers located on public property should establish lease agreements with service providers to generate revenue to the general fund. The County and cities have varying cell tower application fees for recouping staff costs in processing these often complex applications and use permits. There is no standard way of ensuring that cell towers are maintained or removed when they are no longer used or the permit expires. Cities which do not already have maintenance and removal provisions required of service providers may be responsible for cell tower maintenance and/or removal on public property. Educating the public about applicable governmental regulations may help to alleviate some of the angst generated by cell tower installations.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 4The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that: The County and most cities have governing policies and/or ordinances that prescribe cell tower installations. Having an ordinance in place does not reduce the likelihood of public opposition to a cell tower application. The County and cities need to balance public desire for improved wireless reception with local concerns regarding health, aesthetics, and property values while recognizing the rights of service providers under federal law. 16 Telecommunications Act of 1996. 17 No. 05-56106 – Sprint PCS Assets PCS LP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, op. cit. 18 Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco. 19 Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside have cell towers on public property and do not receive revenue for land use. 20 Atherton, Colma, and Pacifica do not currently have cell towers located on public property. 4 The County and cities which have cell towers located on public property should establish lease agreements with service providers to generate revenue to the general fund. The County and cities have varying cell tower application fees for recouping staff costs in processing these often complex applications and use permits. There is no standard way of ensuring that cell towers are maintained or removed when they are no longer used or the permit expires. Cities which do not already have maintenance and removal provisions required of service providers may be responsible for cell tower maintenance and/or removal on public property. Educating the public about applicable governmental regulations may help to alleviate some of the angst generated by cell tower installations.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
San Mateo County District Attorney
Elected County Office
San Mateo County Sheriff
Elected County Office