On February 6, 2018 Verizon applied for a major use permit to install two “small cell” towers in Sebastopol at Hutchins and S. Gravenstein, and at McFarlane and Woodland.
EMF Safety Network (EMFSN) opposed Verizon’s application in a letter sent May 29 stating, “The proposed towers would add unsightly equipment, overload poles, devalue property, and increase radio frequency radiation in our neighborhoods.” EMFSN presented peer-reviewed published science which shows cell tower radiation harms people and the environment.
In addition EMFSN retained Best Best and Krieger attorney Gail Karish to draft a letter outlining the legal ways a California city can deny a “small cell” in the public rights of way, and presented this letter to Sebastopol on April 24th..
On Thursday, May 31 Dana Morrison, Sebastopol assistant planner wrote, “This email is to inform you that this application, which was scheduled for a Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 12, 2018, has been withdrawn by the applicant. “
Sandi Maurer, Director of the EMF Safety Network said, ”We’re thrilled Verizon backed out. Wireless has become pollution, and we need to reduce, for example save corded landlines and use cell phones for emergencies, to better protect public health and the environment.”
6 thoughts on “Verizon withdraws application for “small cell” towers in Sebastopol.”
Thanks(!) for making the BBK letter available to to others fighting the push by the FCC and others to put 5G EMF emitter poles virtually on every family neighborhood street in the U. S.. I will also
utilize it as reference material in my next argument against the San Ramon City Council’s plan to start facilitating ‘deployment.’
Is there a web-site summarizing successful counter-actions by other Cities in this regard, that you would recommend? Thanks again!
There is a consensus in Contra Costa County that unsightly equipment, overloading poles and real estate values are not good reasons to deny these, even after submitting the BBK letter. After speaking with one of the Board of Supervisors, it’s clear they have been told they have little discreation and their hands are tied. I explained that they have more discreation than they think and forwarded her information with details about this subject. But, with a very conservative county attorney, it seems their decisions will be based on misinformation.
YES! The BBK letter is good till January, then new laws will take effect and it will need to be updated.
Can others – such as myself – use this BB&K letter as a reference when writing opposition letters to other local agencies regarding the placement of wireless communication facilities in our public rights-of-way?
Comments are closed.