Letter to Planning Commission About Cell Tower Appeal

My response to the Harbor Area's pathetic planning commission. I used a 2 cent stamp on the envelope to this letter, using the true post-office that most don't know about because they're too busy playing on their phones. On this site, I have left an account of my battle since February 2019 to stop a tower from going up. Two days ago, I received a letter informing me that tower is going up. (I have also received word from my landlord that I have to move, so soon, I will be out of the picture and they won't see me as a threat anymore...if they even do see me as a threat.) Anyway, so far, there is no tower there. :)

[Paget Hill©] c/o #### Any Street, Any City, CA [RFD zip #] Without UNITED STATES 3 October 2019 Department of City Planning c/o 200 N. Spring Street, Room 272 Los Angeles, CA [RFD 90012] Without UNITED STATES Dear Specific Person, Thank-you for your letter dated September 30 where you stated, “After several attempts, the HAPC was unable to have the item [my appeal of cell tower citing abuse] scheduled prior to July 21, 2019 [the last day for the HAPC to act] due to lack of quorum. DCP attempted to obtain an extension of time from the applicant [cell company], but they did not grant the necessary extension.” That’s the equivalent to “Go to your room!” “No, I decided I don’t want to.” Firstly, a lack of quorum translates to members of the planning commission not feeling it a worthy investment of their time to listen to the community. If an attempt was actually made, then that means that worker after worker said, “No thank-you. I don’t want to. I can’t. My schedule is too busy to listen to a community member. I could waste time listening and voting no, so I’ll save myself time in voting no by not going.” Any worker who does not want to attend meetings with the community needs to step down; quit. Your letter proves that our planning commission staff is inept and uncaring. Secondly, in the letter, you said, “The Zoning Administrator’s determination approved plans to permit a Conditional Use of the construction and installation of a new unmanned wireless telecommunication facility disguised as a 54-foot mono-eucalyptus tree [as if there are real eucalyptus trees in our area], and determined based on the whole of the administrative record, that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19, Section 15303 (New Construction) of the California Public Resources Code and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exemption to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.” But you forgot to inform me what you are basing that statement on about no evidence. Please cite your proof. I will look into the researchers of your so-called proof and see who funded their statement that 4G cell towers that may also go to 5G are not dangerous to the environment. Common Applicable LAFC CEQA Exemptions 15061 states, “The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.” You need to show evidence of safety if this project is not to be CEQA exempt, especially in light of the U.S. Appeals Court’s decision about 5G (https://www.fiercewireless.com/regulatory/

court-rejects-fcc-exemption-5g-small-cell-site-reviews).

Further, Conditional Use means property may be used in a manner not intended, but that doesn’t include abusing the community. Lastly, that you bring up the CEQA out of thin air shows that it is actually on your mind, most likely because you know the harm this tower will bring to living men, bees, and planning commissioners alike. Let me ask you. Could there be something going on that you aren’t even aware of that you are complicit in? Did you know before I came into your life that there were two post offices? Could there be another reality going on below your awareness? Are cell towers and military weapons known as 5G antennas simply for communication? It’s not too late for you to question. Bright Day Thoughts, [Paget Hill©]

For your convenience...

(https://www.fiercewireless.com/regulatory/

court-rejects-fcc-exemption-5g-small-cell-site-reviews).

Show less

REPLY