San Marcos Planning Commission Application For a New AT&T Cell Tower in San Elijo Hills


View Larger Map

San Marcos Planning Commission application for a new AT&T cell tower in San Elijo Hills

Looks the City of San Marcos Planning Commission will hear an application for a new AT&T cell tower. The application Installation and operation of antenna facility including a ground-mounted equipment inside a new 240 square foot equipment building and a 35-foot tall mono-tree with 12 panel antennas (designed to resemble a pine tree) at an existing single-family residence with the agricultural (a-1) Zone at 2080 Golden Eagle Trail, San Marcos- See map

The application will be heard at the next regular Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013.

Read the application

29 comments

  • We also desperately need Verizon!

  • I live in Altaire at SEH and really hope this new ATT tower fixes our reception issues. I’m tired of using the Microcell!

  • Cell coverage from AT&T in this area is terrible. This new tower may keep calls from dropping when you come over the hill on Twin Oaks/San Elijo Road. And there’s already an existing “fake tree” cell tower on the site, although I don’t know which carrier it belongs to, so concerns about electromagnetic radiation seem moot.

  • The tower was approved last night by the San Marcos Planning Commission. Verizon is also looking to lease some land for a tower in the area.

  • Are you aware?
    Research supports the fact that EMF unequivocally causes DNA breakage at levels considered safe under the FCC guidelines, and that children ARE more vulnerable because the penetration is greater in relation to their head size.—The short term acute symptoms which have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies include headaches,muscle fatigue and pain, decreased memory, palpitations, anxiety, sleep disturbances, fatigue, depression, dizziness, tremor. We also know that the effects are cumulative and so long term effects may take years to manifest. The most progressive physicians now feel that the biggest risk for cancer is the accumulation of chemical and electrical insults/stressors. We also know that Italy, India, China, Russia have safe exposure limits that are 1% of the limits of the U.S. Did you know the new school will be built near these towers. These ugly trees and very close to our home. Not only are there potential health risks, they will affect my property value and they are an eyesore to our beautiful view. The city was very sneaky when informing nearby residences of the tower and have thus far pushed this through planning under our nose. We have invested in a personal devise from Verizon that allows better reception. We work from our home and I understand needing better reception. However our community needs your support. Imagine how you would feel if something was affecting your property values. Wouldn’t you expect the same support from your community?

    • Dear Anonymous (how brave of you),

      General research on EMF exposure really doesn’t apply here, because the transmission frequency matters. Low frequency emanations from power lines, for example, have different effects than high frequency emanations from cellular systems. Most, if not all, of the research I’ve seen on exposure to cellular telephone radio frequency radiation exposure is based on two assumptions: an antenna (phone) right next to your head, and older technology phones that transmit with higher power spread over a narrow bandwidth. RF power falls off as the inverse cube of the distance from the source, so a little distance goes a long way. And modern cell phone systems (3G, 4G, LTE) use spread spectrum technology that transmits the signal at much lower power over a broader bandwidth, which greatly reduces any biological effects. If you can show me some research on that shows significant negative effects of spread-spectrum RF radiation in the frequency bands used for cellular telephony, I might begin to be concerned.

      By the way, you’re likely getting as much RF exposure from your Verizon microcell as you’re going to get from this new cell tower. If you’re truly concerned about health effects from radio frequency transmissions, the most effective thing you can do is to not use a cellular telephone (or, for that matter, any cordless phone). The next most effective thing is to only use it as a speakerphone, away from your head (using a Bluetooth headset just puts another, albeit lower-powered, transmitter next to your head). If your home business has you on the phone all the time, you might want to use a corded land line. You might also want to use wired connections for your computers instead of Wi-Fi, which no doubt has a number of transmitters in your home. Personally, I wouldn’t worry about it.

    • P.S. You wrote “The city was very sneaky when informing nearby residences of the tower and have thus far pushed this through planning under our nose.”

      We received multiple mailings from the city about the proposed tower. Didn’t you get them? How is that “sneaky”?

  • I received multiple mailings from the City so I was well informed about the proposed tower.

  • I got one notice and I live closest to the tower. The sign that was required was posted on a private road where anyone in SEH would NOT see it. Possible health issues aside. There are 100 “known” cell towers in San Marcos…..the city has 5 on resident property. Possible health issues aside. I too want a cell tower for better coverage. I just don’t want one in my back yard affecting my home value. Would you? What if the city decided to put one on your neighbor’s property or on a hill in your back yard and your home value was affected? There has to be alternative locations that won’t affect anyone’s home value.
    Sidebar: A cell tower was proposed at the SEH Fire Department. One reason that it did not go through was because the Firefighter’s Union protested it. Here is the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS position of cell towers. Obviously………

    http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

    • Lets get real here guys. Views are not owned. I’ve lived out this way for well over20 years. Believe me, looking at thousands of homes vs the beautiful open rolling hills that are now gone is no comparison when you talk about property values lost. Another issue is this, it’s the community that has bought the need for the phone service. You can’t have it all. I have no problem with the towers. Nor do I or have I ever complained about SEH. It’s called progress and moving forward. The new school is next. It’s going to to be near many with open space. I know some are not happy about this. But again, your kids need another school. Being a parent of 4 I understand. I say build it. Lets move forward together as neighbors and a community.

    • Again, power falls off as the inverse cube of the distance. The firefighters are only asking for a study. But if their tower is 20 feet away, and the proposed tower is, say,100 feet from your house (5 times farther away, and I think it’s more, BTW), then the power you receive is 1/(5*5*5) = 1/125 of the power the firefighters are exposed to.

      • OK, I’ve been out of school too long. It’s an inverse-square, rather than inverse-cube, relationship. So it’s 1/25 of the power, rather than 1/125. Still pretty small.

  • Typical. No one wants to get involved until it affects them personally. Getting real….when I sell my home it will be worth less which in turn will make my neighborhood’s homes worth less. When one goes up in your back yard your home price will be affected. I am not saying we don’t need a cell tower…saying there should be some criteria as to where the city can put them. Not in our back yards, not where it will affect ANYONE’s home value. I and SEH homeowners pay a lot in taxes……the city should find an alternative site and protect the homeowners of the SEH community.

    • And your opinion of reduced resale value is based on what, exactly? Most people will (rightly) not be bothered at all.

      • As far as I can tell everyone’s homes are worth less today. I don’t think cell towers are the cause. Look to the economy and who you voted into office for a second term. We have bigger problems on our plates than where a cell tower is placed. There are cell towers near schools, ball fields, churches, shopping and our homes. If we want our phones we need the towers, which by the way, are less harmless than the computer were all sitting in front of to place these blogs.

  • Hi Walker, where have you been?? I hear there’s a couple of nuckelheads trying to stir up trouble where there isn’t any. Regarding this AT&T appeal. Their cry over R F signals was addressed by flying in a doctor in science who specializes in this territory who took measurements not only at their house, but also in our neighborhoods. The results were safe and sound. Of course the cost of this fell on someone else, not them. They also are

    • The ones responsible for these signs that have sprung up. I hear this is over a personal matter they have trying to get reimbursed for what they believe is their due. The project was passed by the planning department. The plan is up to code and beyond. Lets support AT & T for their project. We need this not only for the use of everyday calls, but for the safety of us all in case of emergencies. Don’t let a couple of knuckleheads ruin something that is for the good of all. Even them!!!!

      • I hope they win their appeal. I live off hollow brook and I don’t want an eyesore of a cell tower ruining the look of our neighborhood. I assume the folks that are pro tower live far enough away that they don’t have to see it everyday and can care less whether we the northern end of seh have these issues. Just a bunch of selfish “knuckle heads”. As long as their precious cellphones have better service….. Pitiful

      • As one of the neighbors , and as one currently in the middle of this debate with the city, I want to help set the record straight in an effort for the community to better understand what is really happening here. Our misinformed neighbor, who is only interested in profiting off of this location, is the person that I suspect is the one calling names and spreading false information. Contrary to the “anonymous” poster, the RF expert that he claims the city flew in is named Jonathan Kramer. Jonathan works as an advisor for the city and lives in Los Angeles. He is also on record as giving false information to the building council and has been unprofessional and incompetent many times during this debate by trying to patronize the community in order to help push this site through quickly. Although the RF debate is in question, the reason this location is an issue is due to the intentions of the site owner desiring to profit off the towers at any cost. They have already solicited Verizon, in addition to T-Mobile and AT&T, and will continue to build a cell farm if left to do so without any current regulation.

        Please don’t misunderstand, we are not against a neighbor doing what they can to utilize their resources to make money. What we do have an issue with is an unsightly cell farm that will reduce the property values of those who live in the vicinity. Our community has gone to great lengths to find the best solution for creating a better cell coverage map for you and the carriers alike. We are working with both the city and AT&T to review alternative sites that will actually create the coverage we all desire. This site is sub par at best due to the topography, and the fact that AT&T will require additional towers to the proposed site to improve coverage. They have already begun this process with a new tower at the ball fields in San Elijo and a new tower being built at Cal State San Marcos. Please support the relocation of this proposed site, as it is in our community’s best interest. If you would like more information, please contact our group via the email on the posted flyer.

        On behalf of Eric C

      • I’m trying to reply to the post from “Anonymous” at 8:06 PM on October 18, but there’s no “Reply” button at that level of comments, and the one on the next level up seems not to work in the new format.

        Anonymous wrote: “I live off hollow brook and I don’t want an eyesore of a cell tower ruining the look of our neighborhood.”

        Are you aware of the cell tower that’s already present on the proposed site? Does it bother you? As I understand it, the new one is also supposed to be a fake pine tree, just like the existing one. I’ll grant that it doesn’t exactly fit in with the existing natural palm trees, but I don’t really think it’s an eyesore, either. I’m only a few houses in from the end of Hollowbrook Ct.

  • Pingback: San Marcos City Council to Hear Appeal to AT&T Cell Tower Application in San Elijo Hills - San Elijo Life

  • http://sanelijolife.com/san-marcos-city-council-hear-appeal-att-cell-tower-application-san-elijo-hills/

    San Marcos City Council to hear an appeal to AT&T Cell Tower Application in San Elijo Hills on October 22nd at 6:00 PM. City Council Chambers, San Marcos City Hall, 1 Civic Center Drive. The tower was approved by the San Marcos Planning Commission September 3rd.

    • I live in SEH hills right below the proposed site. My AT&T cell service is horrible. When I bought the house the issue of poor cell service was almost a deal breaker. Having good cell service in this area would increase everyone’s property values. Cell phones and data transmission is the future. And as for view issues, I get to stare at power lines every day. The good thing is when I flip on a light switch at night, things get brighter. We can’t have it all. But we can have more. This is a great thing.

      • PLEASE READ!!!

        The issue isn’t that we don’t want cell service. The issue is that there is a better location for a cell tower that will give ALL of us better cell service and not at the cost of all of us losing property value and having a “Cell Tree Farm” on the edge of San Elijo HIlls. The other issue is that the City should get the money for Cell towers not an individual that wants to put as many cell towers and who knows how many other types of towers in his back yard.

  • As one of the neighbors , and as one currently in the middle of this debate with the city, I want to help set the record straight in an effort for the community to better understand what is really happening here. Our misinformed neighbor, who is only interested in profiting off of this location, is the person that I suspect is the one calling names and spreading false information. Contrary to the “anonymous” poster, the RF expert that he claims the city flew in is named Jonathan Kramer. Jonathan works as an advisor for the city and lives in Los Angeles. He is also on record as giving false information to the building council and has been unprofessional and incompetent many times during this debate by trying to patronize the community in order to help push this site through quickly. Although the RF debate is in question, the reason this location is an issue is due to the intentions of the site owner desiring to profit off the towers at any cost. They have already solicited Verizon, in addition to T-Mobile and AT&T, and will continue to build a cell farm if left to do so without any current regulation.
    Please don’t misunderstand, we are not against a neighbor doing what they can to utilize their resources to make money. What we do have an issue with is an unsightly cell farm that will reduce the property values of those who live in the vicinity. Our community has gone to great lengths to find the best solution for creating a better cell coverage map for you and the carriers alike. We are working with both the city and AT&T to review alternative sites that will actually create the coverage we all desire. This site is sub par at best due to the topography, and the fact that AT&T will require additional towers to the proposed site to improve coverage. They have already begun this process with a new tower at the ball fields in San Elijo and a new tower being built at Cal State San Marcos. Please support the relocation of this proposed site, as it is in our community’s best interest. If you would like more information, please contact our group via the email on the posted flyer.

Leave a Reply