Ok, Cambrians. Cell Phone coverage is spotty in much of town. A few Cambrians have put in their 2ยข on where the “new” cell tower should NOT be, namely, on the Fiscalini Ranch. Though at least three companies have “been in charge”, the current applicant is taking citizens’ concerns seriously and has reduced the scale of the project. The issue is on the agenda for the next North Coast Advisory Council meeting (May 21, 7pm, Rabobank). The NCAC acts as the eyes and ears. It’s mission is to make sure our supervisor, Mr. Gibson, has a good idea about what the community’s opinions and comments are for this part of District 2. In light of this, I wanted to provide for more community input. I appeal to you, as Cambrians, to set aside the emotional, gut reaction to the project. Take a step back, breath a little deeper and consider the pros and cons of the potential sites. No matter the location of the project, there are impacts – most of which well are mitigated or absent. The FCC will NOT allow a cell tower project to get derailed if the only reason given in opposition is possible negative health effects. Instead of continuing to say NO, try saying yes to one of these alternate sites.
I will bring the survey results to the NCAC meeting to be included in the response we send to the County.
Tell you friends! The more votes we get, the better.
[survey_fly]
Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice
- Gail Robinette Chosen to Complete DeMicco's Term as CCSD Director on Unanimous Vote
- California Coastal Commission Unanimously Denied Army Corps Desal Tests
- Cambria CSD Agenda for November 27, 2011 Meeting Includes Water Conservation & New Tank Project
- Sunken Oil Tanker Off Cambria's Coastline Will Be Checked Again Soon
As a resident of Cambria for more that 15 years, I have had a terrible time with cell reception. The question at hand is where the cell tower should go. I seems to me that if the CCSD is so hard up for cash than put it on their land. Get the CCSD another revenue besides our hard earned money.
There is no law that say we have to have cell phones for crying out loud. For those who must have a cell phone in town – use Charter. It works everywhere.
Please take into consideration that it is not just one antenna – it’s several antennas, five 160 sf. buildings, a maintenance road, traffic in a residential area etc etc etc. There isn’t enough room at some of the sites you mention above for these facilities. Pine Knolls water tank site is built up as much as it can be without violating a conservation easement. Some of the sites you mention above do not have the allowable uses for Cell Phone cites. Are the sites you are mentioning agreeing to build five buildings on their properties?
The fiscally responsible way to ask the question would be to only include sites that are allowed in your question so we’re not wasting our time making a decision that cannot be implemented, or will have to be appealed down the road – again.
I have some concerns that I have never seen an illustration of what the actual installation will look like. At the very least, we are entitled/should require to see a rendering of what is being proposed. How can we possibly intelligently review the proposals without the actual visual representation of what we are supporting?
Anyone know where I can find a rendering of the proposed facitlities?