Radios...Radios...More Radios

The issue of a new flavor or wireless antennae/radios going onto poles in the city is on tonight's agenda as well.   We started the conversation here.  Now there is an actual photo of the one at Stanley and Peninsula that have been submitted to the city.  Here it is:

 

This will be just an update at the end of the meeting (i.e. no action item or vote will happen).  As I mentioned in the last post, pole attachment rights are pretty complex and the FCC (i.e. the Feds) even have a say in this around the country.  With wired phone, DSL, Cable TV and modems, electricity, city tree trimming and street lighting and now wireless providers in the game, there's plenty of stakeholders with skin in the game. 

Comments

[JF]

Sheesh, how much more stuff can they cram on a telephone pole? It would be nice if all above street wiring could be placed underground (like Hillsborough). It would really open up the site lines, i.e., better views.

[jennifer]

These are so ugly. The poles alone are bad enough, except those that are masked by mature trees. This just adds more clutter. About ten years ago, we looked into under-grounding our utility wires, and it ran $2-$3K because we were the only ones interested on the block. People in the Easton addition are fortunate that so many are hidden in the easements. Nobody should have to look at this.

[Joe]

The Daily Journal has a good synopsis of the latest radio meeting:

Burlingame officials spent Wednesday’s study session learning about wireless communication and chatting with experts but gave no direction on how to regulate new antennas and communication devices.

Conversation was limited at the meeting as it was held less than a week after the city was sued by ExteNet — one of two companies hoping to place wireless devices throughout Burlingame to improve cellphone service.

Prompted by numerous applications to install antennas and other communication devices such as boxes and cables in residential areas of Burlingame, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting Wednesday night. The focus was on learning about wireless technology available along with the federal laws regulating installation. Mayor Terry Nagel explained the meeting was focused on education rather than making decisions or giving direction. Staff will develop a proposal with the next steps and bring it to the council at a future meeting for direction, said City Manager Jim Nantell.

In September, the City Council unanimously approved a 45-day moratorium on wireless communication devices which also covers the previous applications. It’s the action of covering applications in the works which ExteNet questions. In addition, ExteNet claims the city caused delays over the past year to discourage plans, according to the 18-page lawsuit filed by attorney Robert Jystad Thursday, Sept. 29.

Thus far, the City Attorney Gus Guinan acknowledged receiving the lawsuit but has not made a formal response.

ExteNet’s applications were submitted in September 2010, according to the lawsuit. State and federal laws do limit a city’s ability to deny telecommunication applications. Such installations are put in the public right-of-way rather than private land. Visual impacts are a valid reason for denying a cell tower application or requiring its modification, but the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow perceived health risks as a basis because electromagnetic radiation is scientifically unproven. Federal regulations also outline the process, which should take about 90 days.

While both ExteNet and Burlingame agreed to extend that timeline, ExteNet alleged the city prolonged the public notification process by not allowing notices to be sent out. In addition, ExteNet questions the legality of Burlingame’s public noticing requirements.

Ultimately, ExteNet wants the moratorium, as it relates to the applications in place, to be lifted. Also, it asks for the city to cover additional costs related to public noticing requirements, the lawsuit and any damages deemed fit.

[ugg outlet]

Ask each teacher and staff member who has a copy of the IEP and behavior management plan if they understand it and if they have all the resources they need to implement it. If they need something - explanations, materials, or training - ask if you can help them with that in any way.

[Joe]

The top part of this article about last night's Planning Commission meeting discusses the antenna ordinance that is underconsideration:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=226335&title=Planners favor new wireless rules proposal

[Joe]

This will be the hot button discussion at Monday night's Council meeting. The residents' group has really marshalled a vocal group opposed to these antennae, pole-mounted boxes and street-level pedestals.

[Joe]

It was a full house last night in Council chambers. Here's the DJ's write up. There are a lot of details to this issue--frequency bands that haven't been tested for capacity problems, whether one or two bigger antennae on central buildings could offer the same service improvements, etc. But here's the current state of affairs:

Burlingame votes to uphold appeal on six of the eight applications for wireless antennas
April 17, 2012, 05:00 AM By Heather Murtagh Daily Journal Staff

Burlingame officials agreed with residents that ExteNet’s antenna proposal to address gaps in wireless service is too intrusive, resulting in a vote to uphold an appeal on six of the eight applications.

On Monday night, the City Council heard an appeal of those applications filed by Mark Wilson and Douglas Luftman, on behalf of a group of 300 residents using the moniker Action Burlingame. The appeal was against the eight applications from ExteNet to attach wireless communication boxes to existing poles in the public right-of-way that were previously approved by the city’s Public Works department. Residents requested the permits be overturned arguing there is no gap in service to address and that ExteNet failed to meet legal standards to consider alternatives for increasing service.

City officials are limited in their ability to deny such applications, however, they agreed the proposals did not provide enough information or acceptable solutions. As a result, the council unanimously directed staff to appeal six of the eight applications.

Councilman Michael Brownrigg noted he made that proposal with the knowledge that only two antennas would not meet the needs of ExteNet but with the hope there could be a way to find a solution. Final resolutions will come back before the council at a future meeting.

Overall, the council found many problems with the ExteNet proposal.

“I don’t think this proposal, as is, is the least intrusive,” said Vice Mayor Ann Keighran, who noted that is one of the few areas the city does have power.

Councilwoman Cathy Baylock agreed adding the proposal doesn’t meet the city’s aesthetic requirements.

Councilwoman Terry Nagel was willing to delay the decision in hopes of finding workable solutions, a number of which she suggested during the meeting.

“We must find some middle ground to work within the law between what we can do and what the residents can accept,” she said.

Brownrigg’s concern was the cumulative impact of approving the applications. He said this approval was probably just the start of meeting the growing wireless telecommunications need.

Attorney Jamie Hall, representing ExteNet, said the company was willing to work with the city but has met all requirements including evaluating alternatives. Also, proving a need is not a requirement for approval, he said.

Keighran questioned how, in a city of 18,000 trees, alternatives to better hide the antennas could not be found. Hall pointed to an alternatives study ExteNet conducted which resulted in 16 possibilities that were not accepted for a variety of reasons. At this point, Hall said the responsibility to provide concrete alternatives is on the city. Should those be provided, ExteNet would consider those.

Nagel pointed out two places where undergrounding may be an option. Hall said the company would agree to such a condition unless it was found unfeasible.

Brownrigg questioned whether or not allowing the ExteNet applications would set a precedent. Earlier this year, new wireless telecommunication rules were adopted by the city. ExteNet, however, is under the earlier rules. Brownrigg questioned if new applicants would point to this approval as a reason to gain extra access. City Attorney Gus Guinan did not believe approving the applications would set such a precedent. Brownrigg argued that by holding ExteNet to a higher standard, however, it would create a higher standard as a precedent for future applications.

In the 33-page appeal, the group said ExteNet failed to prove a significant gap in service in Burlingame. Instead, the appeal said the permit locations are on the city limits, addressing service issues in neighboring Hillsborough. In addition, the appeal said the company fails to examine less disruptive alternatives.

In a nine-page response to the appeal, Public Works Director Syed Murtuza wrote ExteNet worked with the city to modify the applications. Two, for example, were modified to have the majority of the equipment underground. Another two were changed to a different, albeit nearby, location thought to have less impact on those in the area.

Wireless communication has been a hot button issue in Burlingame since last year when T-Mobile and ExteNet Systems put in numerous applications to install antennas in residential areas of Burlingame to meet the growing need for cellphone service. Murtuza said the eight cellphone antenna applications from ExteNet were approved as well as 10 wire supports, which offer additional safety.

Residents came out in force to support the appeal. Many questioned why the alternative of placing all the improvements underground wasn’t examined. Others noted safety issues with the proposed installations. Many supported the appeal even if it meant a lawsuit.

Burlingame resident Cheri Jaunich said if the antennas and support wires are approved they will be a constant reminder of why the community should not support the council in the future because they are the individuals responsible for representing the public. She encouraged the council to consider approving the appeal and facing the possible lawsuit.

“Worst case scenario is we lose a case,” she said, putting the city back in the situation it’s currently in. “Best case, we’ll have a better ability to regulate these going forward. … Don’t let corporate bullies scare you.”

Community involvement on the topic began last year when residents requested a moratorium to study the issue and draft rules — a request the city granted. New rules developed by the Wireless Telecommunications Working Group, which included residents and city officials, were adopted early this year.

The moratorium also covered pending applications resulting in a lawsuit from ExteNet claiming the city purposely delayed the applications. In February, the two sides were ordered to mediation. If not resolved, the matter could go before a judge in September.