Crown Castle has a lot of work to do before making the city and residents of San Marcos, CA, happy. The city council voted 4-1 earlier this month, allowing Crown Castle to continue operations on a tower for 10 more years, with conditions.
The existing tower is a faux tree that residents living in the Questhaven section of San Marcos said is in need of repairs and more aesthetically pleasing greenery. The Coast News Group reported the council’s approval upped the number of shielding trees to be planted from seven to nine. Crown Castle also must conduct an annual radio frequency analysis and city staff must annually inspect the site to make sure it’s up to code.
Residents previously appealed the planning commission’s approval of the permit extension, claiming, “Crown Castle didn’t deserve a permit extension due to its neglect of the existing tower and landscaping plan that was meant to shield the tower from residents.” The city council agreed with residents, allowing the extension, with conditions to keep Crown Castle in compliance, in the future.
The tower is one of two in the city of about 85,000 in northern San Diego County, both of which have been in conflict with the city. The original tower was owned by T-Mobile, and according to The Coast News Group, had also fallen into disrepair. Three trees planted that were supposed to shield the 30-foot monopole did not grow, “leaving an unsightly tower in plain view of the residents.” Crown Castle acquired that site in 2012, wanted to add antennas, but the city issued a stop work order upon residents’ complaints about the present sight of the tower. The city went as far as a lawsuit to make Crown Castle bring the tower up to code.
In reference to the second tower, Crown Castle representatives argued that “issues with the site were inherited ones” and that the company has “attempted to be a good neighbor with the city and the Questhaven residents.” However, Councilman Chris Orlando, who was the dissenting vote against the extension, argued that there was plenty of notice to resolve issues and comply.
“I am sitting up here at a loss and frankly a little frustrated at what should give us any level of comfort that the conditions that are in the current application will be given any more weight or significance than were in the prior application,” Orlando said at the April 12 meeting.
Reader Interactions