COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

 

DATE:

October 26, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 9, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 ft.

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

   

FROM:

Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director

   

SUBJECT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Reconsideration of a Use Permit Renewal to allow the continued operation of a cellular communications facility consisting of one 13-foot tall monopole and one equipment enclosure measuring 18 feet by 15 feet located in the rear yard of the residential property located at 1175 Palomar Drive in the unincorporated Palomar Park area of San Mateo County.

   
 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Use Permit Renewal, County File No. PLN 2000-00497, by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval at the end of this report.

 

BACKGROUND:

The permit holder (Sprint Spectrum LP) is requesting reconsideration of the Board’s decision to deny renewal of its use permit for an existing wireless communications facility located in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence at 1175 Palomar Drive. The system presently consists of two monopoles and one equipment cabinet enclosure. The cellular antennas are presently attached to the two 13-foot tall monopoles located on the southeast and northwest sides of the parcel. The equipment cabinet is located in the rear portion of the yard, adjacent to an existing T-Mobile cellular facility. The total area of the cabinet enclosure is 270 sq. ft., and is surrounded by a 6-foot high chainlink fence with green plastic slats. The applicant has, as part of a settlement of pending litigation with the County over prior denials of this permit appeal, agreed to modify the plans for purposes of this appeal to remove one of the monopoles and to consolidate the antennas onto a single monopole. The single-monopole facility plan has not previously been before the Board for consideration.

 

DISCUSSION:

At the public hearing on December 18, 2007, your Board denied the appeal of this permit, in effect revoking the use permit. Your Board took this action after consideration of the alternative site study submitted by the permit holder. On January 8, 2008, the permit holder (Sprint Spectrum) filed suit in the United States District Court in Oakland, alleging permit denial was not based on substantial evidence and violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by effecting a prohibition of wireless services. The County answered the lawsuit, denying all claims. On March 31, 2009, your Board authorized a settlement of the litigation by agreeing to hold a new public hearing to consider additional evidence presented by the permit holder. After a public hearing on September 15, 2009, your Board again voted to deny the appeal, which caused the applicant to continue to pursue the litigation and to file a new action against the County alleging that the denial of the permit renewal violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

 

In support of the prior September 2009 hearing, the permit holder submitted a revised alternative site study, which considered four different locations within the project area. No one site was identified as ideally suited to replace the existing Palomar Drive site. Each of the alternative sites would provide only limited coverage within the project area and present potentially significant visual impacts to surrounding areas.

 

In connection with this reconsideration, the applicant proposes to reduce the number of monopoles from two to one, and proposes the relocation of the northward-facing antenna panel to the other remaining monopole at the southeast side of the parcel. If the permit renewal is granted, the facility will be modified consistently with the revised plans as described.

 

Renewal of this use permit, to allow continued operation of a wireless communications facility, contributes to the 2025 Shared Vision outcome of a livable community by providing cellular coverage for both convenience and emergency situations.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.