Everyone is using more and more wireless capacity both at home and on the move so it's no surprise that the telecom companies need more antennae. One hot button in town now is how many more antennae. T-Mobile and a newish company called ExteNet are working on adding quite a few new installations on poles around town. Here's the list from the City
T-Mobile:
2501 Adeline Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units
2208 Davis Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units
1344 De Soto - Proposed antenna and remote units
1665 Hunt Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units on City owned street light
1613 Ray Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units on City owned street light
ExteNet:
146 Crescent - Proposed anchor
403 Occidental - Proposed anchor
1308 Alvarado - Proposed anchor
1449 Bernal - Proposed anchor
1477 Bernal - Proposed anchor
1505 Drake - Proposed anchor
2017, 2121, 2301, 2316, 2801 Easton - Proposed anchors
2813 Hillside Drive - Proposed anchor
Steps to Alvarado Ave from Easton - Proposed anchor
2521 Hayward Drive - Proposed meter pedestal
2684 Summit Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units
2536 Valdivia Way - Proposed antenna on City owned street light and related equipment
1457 Drake Ave - Proposed antenna and remote units
2517 Easton Drive - Proposed antenna and remote units
1900 Carmelita Ave - Proposed antenna and remote units
1430 Palm Dr - Proposed antenna and remote units
129 Crescent Ave - Proposed antenna and remote units
1824 Barroilet Ave - Proposed antenna and remote units
On Monday night, the Planning Commission will be looking at an Ordinance adding Chapter 25.77 to the Burlingame Municipal Code to regulate location of telecommunications facilities within the City of Burlingame to get some kind of handle on the growth. Pole attachment rights and the rights of companies to satisfy a "public necessity" can get pretty involved. It's number 8 on the agenda, so it may be late.
I am sending the staff packets to Administration to make available to all who want to inform themselves about the issue over the week-end because I don't really know how to post them here.
Although as the above posting says "Pole attachment rights and the rights of companies to satisfy a "public necessity" can get pretty involved", please recall that B'game stopped the PG&E high power transmission lines at Skyline and Trousdale about 18 months ago.
The prompt for the Planning Commission to study this issue came about a year ago when a church on the ECR applied for a conditional use permit to install transmitters on its tower. The neighborhood turned out in force to object. The PC denied the permit, not on the basis of possible health threats, but because they did not deem the addition of the transmitters to be an enhancement of the existing architecture. So what makes a utility company think it can install a "palm" or "pine" cell tree, or whatever shape it takes, in an R-1 neighborhood?
My guess is that this item will not come up befor 9pm, give or take 1/2 hour. I hope to see a large turnout because the Planning Commission really does take seriously all public comment,especially when folks take the time to attend the meeting.
Posted by: pat giorni | July 22, 2011 at 05:53 PM
High-voltage transmission towers and church towers are treated differently than regular electical, phone, cable poles by the regulators, including the FCC--and we know how much fun it is fighting with the Fed. This just in from the City:
A representative from the company, Ms. Patti Ringo, will be in the area next week. She is planning to meet several residents on Monday evening at the location of Extenet's node #8, 2536 Valdivia; this is at the (inverse) corner of Valdivia and Hayward in Burlingame. Ms. Ringo can be reached at ExteNet Systems, 1464 Madera Rd., Suite N-110, Simi Valley, CA 93065; (805) 404-4202- mobile; (805) 426-8041-fax; [email protected].
Meanwhile, the City Attorney is attempting to secure technical and legal experts to present information to the Council and the community at a study session sometime during August. The focus of the study session will be two-fold: the technical aspects of wireless facilities, that is, how the systems work and what options and types of equipment are available for placement; and, the legal limitations on the City's regulatory power under both state and federal law, including the ramifications of enacting a moratorium.
Posted by: Joe | July 29, 2011 at 05:24 PM
Everyone wants more speed--how do they think that will happen unless more stuff gets put in the neighborhoods.
Posted by: Hillsider | August 03, 2011 at 09:11 PM