The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

a) REPORT 23-0215 FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STUDY SESSION (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

  • Default_avatar
    Tracy H 11 months ago

    Do any of the CIPs listed count as multipliers, such as the number of public bathrooms, for Regional Housing Number Assessment (RHNA) calculations?

    Please describe how the state considers the various income housing requirements, through use of algorithms, for our city.

  • Default_avatar
    Tony Higgins 12 months ago

    FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS NO eCOMMENT BUTTON FOR THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AGENDA ITEM AND NO EXPLANATION WHY. i assume that general comments are allowed so I will put my non-agenda comment here.

    Dear City City Council
    Dear Planning Commission

    Given that the jury is still out on cell tower safety (see attached) and given that the property value implications of large cell tower arrays like on 26th street seem to focus & concentrate the property value impacts of 100’s of thousands of dollars on a smaller number of residents than a wide distribution of smaller cell transmitter arrays might, should the city be pursuing a strategy of decentralization of low power arrays or concentration of arrays at one location.

    Is this on your radar?

    One issue for many was if the initial 18 word notice from the city was adequate in light of the FACT that nearby residents would see 150k to 300k decrease in property values according to several expert sources i cited in previous communications.

    A second issue, do we need a large-array multi-transmitter arrays that may focus & amplify the property value impacts and health concerns [on] a small number of residents, or does smaller more distributed transmitter arrays more equitably distribute these impacts on a larger number of residents?

    A 3rd issue was, did the city follow its own municipal codes in “finding“ that a large array at 26th street was the least impactful site AND the least impactful configuration; especially in light of the fact that the city planning commission and did not even have a list of alternative sites or even lower impact configurations; Nor has the city provided any evidence whatsoever that the required “”finding of least significance” was ever made.

    And finally what should be clear to anyone with even just a basic understanding of physics, medicine, the scientific process and who has read some of the actual studies that have been done: we really can’t say at all if these 5g towered are safe or not at this point in time!

    The required science just hasn’t been done. I don’t know if it’s safe, you don’t know and anyone that says they do is full of it.

    Here is an article that describes the conundrum.

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/etdata/tmy/2021HB-06442-R000309-Lynch,%20Margaret-,%20Exhibit%20X-TMY.PDF

    Educate yourself.

    The studies to date have not focused on the non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation on cellular metabolism even though independent peer reviewed scholarly articles point to significant risks of this non ionizing radiation on cellular metabolism to alter cell functions preliminary studies

    The studies to date mainly focus on thermal (heat related) effects not on how this radiation affects cellular functions and have largely funded by wireless industry advocates.

    Think big tobacco, big oil and big pharma and now Big Wireless.

    More science needs to be done and anyone that thinks they know they know there are no safety risks posed by the non thermal effects of non ionizing radiation on cellular metabolism at this point is just blowing sunshine out their ass.

    But what we do know is that large cell tower arrays like 26th street can have a significant impact on nearby property values and rightfully so, the jury is still out on safety; and that sets off alarm bells with prospective buyers or owners, especially those with young children or thinking of starting a family.

    Then there are the aesthetic impacts of larger versus smaller more distributed cell sites. Did the city speak to this to anyones satisfaction?

    But did our city even consider smaller more distributed antenna transmitter arrays?

    I don’t know. Do you?

    The sound-bytes that substitute for science are just appalling and just feed uninformed confirmation bias.

    For instance some people will tell you that the radiation exposure level that a person gets from using a cell phone is greater than the exposure from an antenna transmitter array so transmission arrays must be safe.

    They don’t tell you that data is based on ~one hour of cell phone use a day, and resident near a cell tower get the exposure 24 hours a day.

    They don’t speak to the actual radiation levels sufficiently to draw any meaningful conclusion.

    And you have to view industry funded studies with some suspicion.

    They don’t tell you whether they are talking about cell phone calls to a more distant tower where the phone radiation levels can vary significantly.

    They don’t do studies on the effects of non ionizing non thermal radiation on young children.

    There is not enough data available to know if these towers are safe or not but as I described above safety was hardly the only issue our local residents were concerned about.

    And to those that would dismiss 26th resident concerns based simply by denying cell tower safety concerns are doing a community disservice!

    Following is an excerpt from the above URL that might inspire someone to take a closer look at this.

    Anthony Higgins