HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 052-2011RESOLUTIONNO. 59_9073
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO
2010-2011 SAN MATEO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED
"CELL TOWERS: PUBLIC OPPOSITION AND REVENUE SOURCE"
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2011, the 2010-2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
issued a report entitled "Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source", which contains
findings and recommendations pertaining to the City of Burlingame; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is required under Penal Code section 933 to respond
to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations in said report; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has prepared appropriate responses to the Grand
Jury's findings and recommendations and intends to transmit them to the Presiding Judge of the
2010-2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury as required by law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BURLINGAME AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council approves the responses to findings and recommendations of the 2010-2011
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report entitled "Cell Towers: Public Opposition and
Revenue Source" pertaining to the City of Burlingame, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and transmit said responses to the Presiding Judge
of the San Mateo County 2010-2011 Grand Jury, in accordance with State law.
E�k
Terry Nag 1, Ma r
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame
City Council held on the 1 e day of July, 2011, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: COArleihnembeIS BAYLOCK, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, KEIGHRAN, NAGEL
NOES: Councilmembers: NONE
ABSENT: Councilmembers: NONE
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source
(Adopted by the Burlingame City Council on July 18, 2011)
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CITY OF BURLINGAME's RESPONSES TO THE GRAND
JURY'S FINDINGS REGARDING "CELL TOWERS: PUBLIC OPPOSITION AND REVENUE
SOURCE":
Finding: 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: Partially agree. Further refinements to City policies and procedures are warranted,
though limited procedures currently exist, as described below.
Chapter 18.18 ("Radio and Television Antennas') of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC)
includes provisions regulating the placement of radio and television antennas; absent specific
provisions that address the placement of cell towers upon private property, the City has
historically applied the standards and procedures outlined within this chapter to cell tower
installations. The chapter provides specific development standards that direct the installation of
such towers, including setbacks from property lines/roof edges (for rooftop installations),
screening from adjacent properties, and height. Additionally, the chapter imposes a finish
standard (non -reflective material and/or paint) that is intended to further reduce impacts upon
adjacent properties.
In instances where an applicant for a permit to install a cell tower cannot meet the standards of
Chapter 18.18 of BMC, approval of an "antenna exception" may be sought. Applications for
antenna exceptions are processed as a discretionary permit in a manner that mirrors the public
noticing requirements of a conditional use permit application — mailed noticing is provided to
owners of all property lying within 300 -feet of the site in question. This procedure provides an
opportunity for expression of public resistance to a proposed installation in instances where an
exception to standards is proposed.
With respect to cell towers installed upon City rights-of-way, the City of Burlingame's
Department of Public Works has adopted "Permit, Location, Design and Public Notification
Requirements Associated with Telecommunications Provider's Placement of Facilities on Utility
Poles Located within City Right -of -Way" policy and procedure document that includes criteria for
design and placement of cell towers (and other telecommunications equipment) within the public
right-of-way through issuance of a "special encroachment permit". The adopted procedure
requires notification to owners of property lying within 300 -feet of a proposed installation,
providing details of the proposed installation. Property owners are provided 21 -days to provide
comments/express concerns regarding a proposed installation prior to administrative approval
of any application. The procedure provides for a dialog between property owners, the City and
the utility provider to address concerns raised during the public comment period. Approval of a
1 of 5
CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source
(Adopted by the Burlingame City Council on July 18, 2011)
special encroachment permit is appealable to the City's Planning Commission within ten (10)
days following the date of approval. On appeal, the Commission will provide opportunity for
public input through a formal public hearing process prior to issuing its determination. All
actions of the Planning Commission are further appealable to the City Council.
Finding: Locating applicable cell tower ordinances and policies on County and city websites is
cumbersome.
Response: Agree. The City of Burlingame's website does not include easy -to -find links to
applicable regulations applicable to the installation of cell towers within the community.
Finding: 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: Agree. Chapter 18.18 ("Radio and Television Antennas") of the Burlingame
Municipal Code (BMC) includes development standards that have historically been applied to
the installation of cell towers. The standards are silent relative to perceived "health risks" and
speak strictly to design, finishing and placement of such installations. The Department of Public
Works"'Permit, Location, Design and Public Notification Requirements Associated with
Telecommunications Provider's Placement of Facilities on Utility Poles Located within City
Right -of -Way" policy and procedure document is similarly crafted to address only aesthetic
matters.
Finding: 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: Partially agree. Further refinements to City policies and procedures are warranted
in this area.
Chapter 18.18 ("Radio and Television Antennas") of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) is
silent regarding maintenance and/or removal of cell towers. In the event that an "antenna
exception" application is submitted for consideration by the City's Planning Commission,
appropriate conditioning may be included that would address this finding as part of a
discretionary approval.
The Department of Public Works"'Permit, Location, Design and Public Notification
Requirements Associated with Telecommunications Provider's Placement of Facilities on Utility
2of5
CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source
(Adopted by the Burlingame City Council on July 18, 2011)
Poles Located within City Right -of -Way" policy and procedure document does include direction
regarding the maintenance and/or removal of cell towers (and other telecommunications
facilities) within the public right-of-way.
In one instance within the City where a cell tower has been installed within a public park; the
agreement with the service provider includes provisions for maintenance and/or removal of the
facility as part of the lease agreement with the City.
Finding: The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell
tower applications.
Response: Partially agree. The application fees of the various jurisdictions within the County
of San Mateo are based upon the cost of providing permit processing services within each
particular jurisdiction. Within the City of Burlingame, fees are based upon the amount of time
(calculated based upon past experience) that will be required to process an application. Fees
include reimbursement for staff time, noticing, and other costs that may be encountered during
permit processing, and cannot exceed the actual cost of processing the particular type of permit.
Finding: The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through
cell tower lease agreements.
Response: Agree. Lease revenues for cell tower installations on public property are the result
of negotiations between the City and the service provider. The City has limited experience with
this type of lease arrangement (only one such agreement is in existence in the City) — this past
negotiation will inform future negotiations for similar installations on public properties.
Finding: 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: Agree. The City of Burlingame has executed only one agreement with a service
provider for a cell tower installed upon public property; however, the agreement requires a fee
totaling $25,000 per year to be collected from the service provider for use of the site within the
Washington Park.
3of5
CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source
(Adopted by the Burlingame City Council on July 18, 2011)
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CITY OF BURLINGAME's RESPONSES TO THE GRAND
JURY'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING "CELL TOWERS: PUBLIC OPPOSITION AND
REVENUE SOURCE":
Recommendation: Review and revise, if needed, the current fee structure to recoup staff costs
for processing cell tower applications.
Response: No revision necessary at this time. The City's permit processing fees are based
upon actual costs for processing applications, including all costs above staff time. In the event
that additional procedural changes are made to improve upon procedures for processing cell
tower applications, then appropriate fees for processing will be formulated using this approach.
Recommendation: Negotiate lease agreements for future installations on public land that
generate revenue or other tangible benefits to the community.
Response: No revision necessary. Though only one lease agreement for a cell tower upon
City land currently exists, this agreement does provide for a revenue stream that is of benefit to
the community. Future agreements will be negotiated in a similar manner.
Recommendation: Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already
included in existing ordinances and lease agreements.
Response: This recommendation will be implemented as future revisions to current policies
regarding cell tower (and other telecommunications facilities) are revised. In the meantime,
requests for approval of discretionary "antenna exception" permits by the Planning Commission
shall include a standard condition that requires maintenance and/or removal of equipment,
similar to the condition imposed upon lease agreements for such installations on public
property, and for special encroachment permits issued by the Department of Public Works for
installations within the public rights-of-way.
Recommendation: Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring
service providers to install newer technology as it become commercially available to reduce the
footprint of cell towers.
Response: To the extent legally permissible, this provision will be included as a condition of
approval of any future cell tower and will be negotiated into any future cell -antenna lease
agreement between the City and a provider.
4 of 5
CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Cell Towers: Public Opposition and Revenue Source
(Adopted by the Burlingame City Council on July 18, 2011)
Recommendation: 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: Within the next six -months, the City shall update its website to include easily
accessible links to information regarding the permitting policies and procedures related to cell
towers (and other telecommunications facilities). This information shall include links to
applicable federal regulations that affect such installations.
5 of 5