Breaking – 4G on Highway 1 – Electro-Smog Spreads

New 4G Distributed Antenna System (DAS) antenna

Breaking news on the latest cell tower infestation.

California Coastal Commission Votes Unanimously to Approve Big Basin State Park Verizon Cell Sites
Josh Hart – StopSmartMeters
Posted on August 14, 2012
If the California Coastal Commission’s decision is any indication, no endangered species, viewshed, or habitat is safe from a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) 4G cell tower popping up right next door. It’s open season, as smart phone addictions drive a kind of selective blindness toward wireless damage to life itself.

Though dozens of nearby residents had sent letters of opposition to the Commission, far outweighing those in support, and despite the project clearly violating several key sections of the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Plan, the Commission approved the project at the direction of the wireless industry, seemingly irritated by the large number of people who showed up to speak and defend Big Basin State Park and Santa Cruz County’s pristine North Coast….

Coastal Commission green-lights cell project: Objections raised to North Coast 4G installations
By Jason Hoppin – Santa Cruz Sentinel
Posted: 08/10/2012 04:26:28 PM PDT

BONNY DOON – Some North Coast residents lost their bid Friday to have the California Coastal Commission block the installation of six high-speed cellular hubs on a scenic stretch of Highway 1.

The project, proposed by Next G, should bring 4G technology to residents of Bonny Doon and visitors enjoying the charms of Northern Santa Cruz County, which includes bluff-top farmlands, hidden beaches and spectacular vistas.

But several people objected, saying cellular technology raises significant health concerns and would blight the landscape, with many having fought unsuccessfully to prevent the widespread local installation of PG&E Smart Meters.

“They went with the money. … This is an example of how the 1 percent are not making decisions democratically, they’re forcing things on the 99 percent,” said Josh Hart, one of more than a dozen people who spoke against the project.

Representatives of Next G did not attend the meeting. Hart, an architect of local Smart Meter resistance, objected on behalf of a group of neighbors based on health concerns for humans and wildlife, as well as the project’s visual impacts.

Angela Flynn of Green Evolution comments on the Sentinel article –

Yesterday’s hearing was one of the worst travesties of justice that I have witnessed. Mark Stone was clearly electioneering as he played close and fast to the Wireless Industries interests. The public were prohibited from speaking, which is in clear violation of the Commission’s rules. I’ll leave off with some references on this.

Distributed Antenna Systems are the latest industry trend. They are putting high powered microwave transmitters on utility poles in their effort to meet 4G video streaming functions. You may wake up one day and find one on the pole outside your bedroom window and that may be the last night you get decent sleep. It’s easy to dismiss the health effects of microwave exposure because it is not readily apparent. Cancer can take over a decade to develop to the point where you have obvious symtpoms. Not being able to sleep is easily dismissed and often not related to exposure. But that does not mean we are safe from harm.

The FCC public exposure guidelines are only intended for thermal effects. There are no safety standards nor non thermal guidelines for microwave exposure. And as non human beings are smaller than us it is safe to assume that they have lower exposure thresholds. There are no guidelines for their exposures either.

Below is the summary of my findings, but I recommend that you go to
https://www.scribd.com/doc/102420948/Comments-regarding-an-Appeal-on-NextG-Crown-Castle-s-Distributed-Antenna-System-DAS-on-California-Coastal-land and read my comments in full.

I recommend that the Commissioners take jurisdiction over the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for this project for these reasons:

NextG/Crown Castle has submitted misleading and inadequate information to the Santa Cruz County Planning Department (SCCPD) and to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

Application 111114 and Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 raise regional and statewide issues of significance.

Substantial issues have been raised regarding Santa Cruz County’s Local Coastal Plan (LCP) conformance due to the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision.

NextG/Crown Castle has unlawfully commenced installation for this project prior to the hearing of this appeal.

The precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its LCP.

The fact is the public can speak if they contest the staff report of finding no substantial issues. I submitted, ex parte, comments that clearly raised this finding.

Here are the Coastal Commission references:

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html
Coastal Commission decisions must be made on the basis of information available to all commissioners and the public. Therefore, copies of communications made to Commissioners that are forwarded to staff will be included in the public record. Public records are available for inspection at Commission meetings or in the Commission’s office.

NOTE: The purpose of these legal requirements is to protect due process and fairness in the Commission’s decision-making process. Failure to follow them could lead to fines, revocation of permits and substantial costs. If you have any questions, you can contact Commission legal staff at (415) 904-5220.
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/headings.html

NEW APPEALS. (Note: This agenda item requires an initial determination of whether the appeal raises a “substantial issue” and may not include a de novo public hearing on the merits of the project.)

When staff recommends “substantial issue,” a public hearing on the question will only be held if 3 or more Commissioners ask for it. If three Commissioners do not request a hearing on “substantial issue” the matter automatically proceeds to de novo public hearing either at this or a later Commission meeting. If staff recommends “no substantial issue,” public testimony will be taken only on the question whether the appeal raises a “substantial issue.” Generally and at the discretion of the Chair, testimony is limited to 3 minutes total per side.

If the Commission finds “substantial issue” and there is no staff recommendation on the merits of the project, the de novo hearing will be scheduled for a subsequent meeting.

=======
To help keep EON’s work going, please check out all the support options on our Donation Page or you can also send a check made out to EON to EON, POB 1047, Bolinas, CA
Or…just:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.