COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

 

DATE:

July 25, 2011

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 9, 2011

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

   

FROM:

David S. Boesch, County Manager

   

SUBJECT:

2010-11 Grand Jury Response

 
 

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept this report containing the County’s response to the following 2010-11 Grand Jury report: Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source.

   

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The County is mandated to respond to the Grand Jury within 90 days from the date that reports are filed with the County Clerk and Elected Officials are mandated to respond within 60 days. To that end, included is the County’s response to the report titled: Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source, issued on May 19, 2011.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Net County Cost associated with accepting this report.

 

Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source

 

Findings:

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 1. 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.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple jurisdictions within San Mateo County. County staff does not dispute that this finding may be true based on the results of the Grand Jury’s survey of multiple jurisdictions.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 2. Locating applicable cell tower ordinances and policies on County and city websites is cumbersome.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple municipal jurisdictions within San Mateo County. Again, County staff does not dispute that this finding may be true for other municipal jurisdictions within the County. However, the County’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance for unincorporated areas is posted clearly on the Planning and Building Department’s webpage.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 3. Federal law precludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an application; 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.

 

Response: Staff agrees with this finding. The County’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance includes language addressing this federal regulation.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 4. 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.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple jurisdictions within San Mateo County. County staff does not dispute that this finding may be true based on the results of the Grand Jury’s survey of multiple jurisdictions. However, the County’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance for unincorporated areas does contain cell tower maintenance and removal provisions.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 5. The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower applications.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple jurisdictions within San Mateo County. County staff agrees that this finding is true based on results of the Grand Jury’s survey.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 6. The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell tower lease agreements.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple jurisdictions within San Mateo County. County staff agrees that this finding is true based on results of the Grand Jury’s survey.

 

Grand Jury Finding Number 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.

 

Response: This finding is based on a survey of multiple jurisdictions within San Mateo County. County staff does not dispute that this finding may be true based on the results of the Grand Jury’s survey of multiple jurisdictions.

 

Recommendations:

 

The 2010-11 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:

 

1.

Review and revise, if needed, the current fee structure to recoup staff costs for processing cell tower applications.

     
 

Response: The recommendation is in the process of being implemented. Planning and Building Department staff is currently in the process of reviewing the Department’s overall fee structure, including possible cost-of-living adjustments. Staff will be briefing the Board on this matter at an upcoming hearing. Current fees range from approximately $4,000 and up for the renewal of a cell tower permit to approximately $5,500 and up for a new cell tower, depending on the level of environmental review and the complexity of the project and application. In general, staff believes that the current fees for cell towers cover the cost of time that County staff spends processing permits for cell towers.

   

2.

Negotiate lease agreements for future installations on public land that generate revenue or other tangible benefit to the community.

   
 

Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Historically, the County has negotiated and entered into leases with service providers for the use of County owned property and charged providers fair market value for that use. Fair market value is determined by the Information Services Department based on standard radio site equipment rates at comparable properties in the area. The County continues to enter into new agreements and renewals of existing agreements and generates considerable revenues through these agreements.

   

3.

Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements.

   
 

Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Historically, the County has negotiated and entered into leases with service providers for the use of County owned property and required providers to maintain towers and equipment and remove them at the end of the lease term if not renewed. The County continues to enter into new agreements and renewals of existing agreements and will continue to require carriers to maintain equipment and remove it at the expiration of the lease if not renewed. The County’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 2008, contains cell tower maintenance and removal provisions for all facilities.

   

4.

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.

   
 

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The County will draft appropriate language requiring service providers to install newer technology as it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint of cell towers. This language will be inserted into all future agreements and amendments of existing agreements with service providers.

   

5.

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.

   
 

Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Planning and Building Department webpage has for several years contained a link showing the local ordinances, policies and procedures for cell towers. Staff recently also added a link to federal regulations related to cell tower installations (the Telecommunications Act of 1996).