.
Feedback

County Responds To Cell Phone Tower Concerns

As prompted by Grand Jury report, county and Board of Supervisors consider adjusting fees for cell tower applications.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and county staff are considering amending the rules that regulate cell phone towers, as recommended by a county Grand Jury report.

County Manager David Boesch has authored a response to a report from the Grand Jury that the Board of Supervisors is set to approve at its meeting tomorrow morning in Redwood City.


The county is considering revising its fee structure in order to recoup costs related to processing applications requesting to either build a new cell tower or renew the permit for an existing one, according to a report detailing the county's response to the Grand Jury report.

Companies wishing to renew the permit for an existing tower must pay about $4,000, and approximately $5,500 in order to build a new cell tower, according to the county's report.

These fees may fluctuate depending on the complexity of the application, according to the county's report.

But according to the Grand Jury, those fees not be enough. Its report recommends that, if necessary, the county may need to increase fees in order to recoup cost for staff to review the applications.

And though, according the county's response, the feeling is that the current fee level is justified, the county's Building and Planning department is considering implementing an additional cost of living expense to applicants.

The proposed additional cost of living increase is to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting.

Cell phone towers have become a hot button issue locally, as portions of communities across San Mateo County have protested their introduction into local neighborhoods amidst concerns regarding health and complaints of visual blight.

Tension surrounding the issue heightened when Sprint filed a lawsuit against the county over the denial of an effort by the cell phone service provider to renew a permit for an existing cell tower in a residential neighborhood in unincorporated San Mateo County.

The Board of Supervisors justified its decision to reject Sprint's application to renew a 10-year permit by siding with residents in the neighborhood surrounding 1175 Palomar Drive who disliked the 28-foot tower.

The lawsuit is still ongoing. It was discussed at a Board of Supervisors meeting in closed session last month, but no reportable action was taken.

Last week, T-Mobile elected to discontinue its attempt to build a cell phone tower in San Bruno after residents near the proposed location raised concerns about potential health risks caused by exposure harmful radio frequency emissions.

More than 400 people signed a petition brought forth by one San Bruno resident who opposed the tower being built in his neighborhood.

According to findings by the Grand Jury, there are more than 450 cell towers in San Mateo County. And towers in 18 of 20 cities in the county have face opposition of some sort from communities surrounding their location since 2006.

However, the same report finds that 12 of the 20 cities have benefitted from receiving leasing revenues related to cell towers.

The Grand Jury report said that though most local residents appreciate the increased level of cell phone service that can be produced by upping new cell towers, most do not want them built in their neighborhood.

The report describes such attitude as a "not in my backyard" approach.

The county's response to the Grand Jury report agrees that there is no correlation between any existing policy or ordinance and the likelihood that any local community would resist the application to build a cell tower in a nearby location.

The county's response to the Grand Jury report is set on the meeting's consent agenda, which means it will not be discussed before being approved unless a member of the Board of Supervisors or a resident requests it be addressed at greater length.

The San Mateo County Board Of Supervisors meets at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the County Government Center in Redwood City.

To receive news feeds about Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Coastside between Montara and Pescadero, visit Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook and "like" us here. Follow us on Twitter here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
Chris Vance March 23, 2013 at 03:00 pm
What are you doing with the excess Undaria pinnatifida that is found? Can we get some of it for ourRead More compost piles at the Pacifica Sanchez Library Garden?