San Marcos Cell Tower Ordinance – Guest Post

Here is a guest post from a concerned group of San Elijo Hills residents. Note some residents may have also received a door flyer that was pro tower and improved cell coverage. Please share your thoughts and ideas and mark your calendars for San Marcos City Cell Tower Ordinance Workshop- April 2, 2014, 6:00 at the San Marcos City Hall. San Elijo Life

Coming to a neighborhood near you (San Elijo Hills) Bigger, Badder MACRO CELL TOWERS?

The City of San Marcos has notified “some” San Elijo Hills residents of a Public Workshop on April 2 to present a proposed revised Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Cell Tower) Ordinance.  This is not about your cell phone coverage but is about the City permitting additional “macro cell towers” in our community.

This revised Ordinance will control all cell towers in San Marcos and San Elijo Hills including distance to our homes and schools, size, height, number of cell towers per site, and number of carriers per tower.

Using the current Ordinance, the City has not rejected a single cell tower in the last five years.  Even Mayor Desmond, who recently voted to approve another macro tower in SEH, told the Union Tribune “We’ve got nothing right now” when asked about the current Ordinance.

San Elijo residents on Orion Way, Antilla Way and Hollobrook learned first-hand how weak the current Ordinance is when the City Council approved a “second” 35 foot tower just 350 ft. from their homes. These residents have now been left with no choice but to fight this AT&T cell tower through expensive litigation.

If San Elijo Hills residents insist on a responsible Cell Tower Ordinance, we may keep the City from renewing a T-Mobile macro cell tower and adding a third or fourth such tower to this site or other places around us.

Residents believe everyone should have cell service but it should be responsible and fit within our community character.  The technology exists, macro cell towers do not belong near residential neighborhood or schools –it is irresponsible.  Newer small cell technology can provide needed coverage without significantly impacting our families, homes, schools and destroying the beauty of our community.

This is important, just look at the macro cell tower AT&T placed in front of our new High School.

San Marcos High Cell Tower

Support your community and attend the April 2, 2014 Workshop, 6:00 at the San Marcos City Hall.

For more information, contact saycellno@gmail.com or https://www.facebook.Aom/sanmarcosnewcelltechnology

2 comments

  • “San Elijo residents on Orion Way, Antilla Way and Hollobrook learned first-hand how weak the current Ordinance is when the City Council approved a “second” 35 foot tower just 350 ft. from their homes. These residents have now been left with no choice but to fight this AT&T cell tower through expensive litigation.”

    You write that as though we should all agree that it’s a problem. I live on Hollowbrook Ct. (note the spelling, by the way) and I’ll be VERY happy to have an AT&T cell tower up there next to the only-noticeable-if-you’re-looking-for-it T-Mobile fake tree. In fact, I think a cluster of fake trees will look far better than the single one does now.

    As an electrical engineer, I also have NO health concerns regarding the location of that tower. Modern digital cellular systems use spread-spectrum technology that results in very low effective transmit power. If you’re looking at health studies based on any other technology, they don’t apply.

  • As to the macro cell tower placed in front of the new High School being used as evidence of what the “new ordinance would allow” the authors of this piece, true to form, have clearly failed to read the terms of the new ordinance. Under its terms as well as the old one such a tower isn’t permitted. Any complaints about that tower on school property should be taken up with the San Marcos School District, over which the San Marcos ordinance will have no jurisdiction. As usual with these folks, misinformation is the order of the day.

Leave a Reply