Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: 8101 Slater Ave Proposed Cell Tower
From: Jennette Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:21 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) < [email protected]> Subject: 8101 Slater Ave Proposed Cell Tower
The proposed cell phone tower at 8101 Slater Ave will be obtrusive and ugly and will be in a completely inappropriate place (residential neighborhood). it will lower the values of our properties, and interfere with the hawk that is roosting there, in addition to other migrant birds. The cell phone tower will also be a source of dangerous and cancer-causing emissions. Please stop this proposed tower.
Thank you,
Jill Bennett
"In God we trust."
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:.. 7/18/2023
Agendalem No.i 17 (23-585)
1 Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Neighborhood 5G Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave.
Attachments: IMG_0.MOV; IMG_O.MOV
From: Rick Cook <rickcook343 @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:12 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Neighborhood 5G Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave.
Good Morning,
I am writing to plead with you that you do not allow the proposed 60' high 5G Cell Tower to go in our backyards. If approved, and AT&T drops the anchor there, they immediately have the right to go 20' higher.
That is 80' as more Gs are needed. What are 5Gs? What are the long term effects? Please understand that the closest bedroom window would be 65' away. That is where Ernest and Jodie (my neighbors) put their heads on their pillow at night. This tower will literally "tower" over us in our patios. We will constantly see it as we leave our house, from our windows, and as we enter our gate to come home. It is going to be the ultimate eyesore no matter how much of a fake tree they want it to look.
Bottom line, there are several more suitable areas for this tower. These towers should be placed in transient areas, where people come and go like onramp/offramps, commercial areas, ect. There's a cemetery, "Good Shepherd" on Beach Boulevard. That would also be a good place for it, because the deceased do not care about radiation and property values.
Lakeview Elementary School is right down the street. It is our job to protect the children. Cancer is not the only concern about these towers. There are also proven neurological effects that are a major concern. See IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) website. Cell towers have warning/hazard signs on them. They have those required signs for a reason. We need to take them serious. We can not turn it on and off like our cell phone, Wi-Fi, or microwaves.
This proposed cell tower has already stolen the neighborhood peace. It has also created fear, anxiety, and anger. There is also confusion of why the church would want to sell out the neighborhood to make profit for their AC unit and their new roof at $2,500 a month. So, already it has created a lot of stress, which is a physiological response and has already been harmful to our WELL-BEING.
There is a known Coopers Hawk (protected) that nests and lives in the eucalyptus tree adjacent to where the tower would be placed. There are also other several types of birds in those trees. This will also have a known negative affect on that hawk and the other birds.
As a Fire Captain, I am aware that Cell Tower's have been banned from Fire Stations. They were banned for a reason. We also know that when Cell Tower's go in property values immediately drop, that is a fact. We work very hard to live in Huntington Beach and pay a lot of taxes. Please do not lower my property value. This area of Slater, already has homeless shelter and homeless hotel. Please do not put this here too. I am aware that Beach and Slater is a less desirable area to live in Huntington Beach. However, I still pay a lot of money to live here. I pay property tax on a 1 million dollar house. Below, you will find some information from the American Cancer Society's webpage regarding cell towers. I kept it as brief as possible, but basically it states all research is inconclusive. I am sure you are aware that nobody knows the long-term effects of 5G cell towers, being that they are so new.
Also, attached you will see and hear the pastor of the church who is requesting the tower for his financial gain.
He is mocking the neighborhood in one sermon, and in the other one, he states that he "Feels the fear" of the neighbors. Which means, he agrees cell towers are dangerous and he is affecting us.
In City Hall, there is a plaque that says
"Huntington Beach in God we trust."Let's trust that God will find another way for the "Community Church" to make money for their renovations that is not going to harm and affect the community. I guarantee this would never, ever go 65' away from your house. Put the community before AT$T. It is your job to protect us. Please do not sell out. This whole process does not pass the smell test. The headline would be "David vs. Goliath." Again, I plead with you, please do not put this in our neighborhood. Please.
Respectfully,
Rick Cook
(Beach Villas)
***Below is the information included from the same American Cancer Society webpage, followed by clips of the two sermons stated previously***
-Cell phone towers are still relatively new, and many people are understandably concerned about whether the RF waves they give off might possibly have health effects.
At this time, there's no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects. However, this does not mean that the RF waves from cell phone towers have been proven to be absolutely safe. Most expert organizations agree that more research is needed to help clarify this, especially for any possible long-term effects.
Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there isn't a lot of evidence to support this idea. Still, more research is needed to be sure.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.
So far, not many studies in people have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk, and the results of these studies have not provided clear answers.
Both of these studies relied on estimates of RF exposure. Neither of them measured the actual exposure of people to RF waves from nearby cell phone towers. This limitation makes it harder to know what the results of these studies might mean.
2 Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 10:15 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Cell tower please say no.
From: Golden Girls <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2023 12:19 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Cell tower please say no.
Dear Whom it may concern,
I live behind the property where you are considering approving a new cell tower. I am going to write a letter from my heart, from one human to the next, hoping you will understand where I am coming from and vote no. I ask you to please say no to this proposal and relocate this project to an area, where there are no people living. There are so many commercial areas in HB, please consider a NO vote to protect our family and neighborhood.
I am writing to urge you to say NO to the proposed cell phone tower that will sit approximately 75 feet away from our home. When this home was purchased 20 plus years ago there was no cell phone tower present and if I would have known that the city would be considering placing a cell tower behind the house, never would I have considered buying here. Please find another location, not near where local HB families are raising children.
I ask you, as a mom, to not allow something that sends out RF waves 24 hours a day to be placed near homes, families, children and Lake View Elementary School students, which is a short distance from the site. Only you can put a stop to this, and I ask you from my heart to do so.
I ask you, would you vote yes to having a cell phone tower up to 60 feet in the air 75 feet from your house? If the answer is no, I ask you to say no for the families that also do not want this tower this close to our houses. Please vote this down, please locate it somewhere else in a commercial area. We have little children here; we don't want to worry about potential health risks years later. Even though this project directly affects us, we are given no vote.
I am also concerned if this cell tower passes the maintenance on the tower could cause issues for us with sleep and noise. The workers will be potentially working late night hours or early morning, right behind our house making all kinds of noise. This is another reason to vote no.
Thank you for considering this request, I hope you can understand that no homeowner anywhere in the city would want this in their neighborhood. I ask you to just say no, no to potential radiation and health issues, no to a large structure up 1 to 60 feet in the air, no to possibly lowering our property value, no to this proposal because nothing good comes from it for the city or the homeowners.
Please ask yourself if this was being proposed where I live, where my parents live or your family members, where your child lives, or your grandchild, would I vote yes, if you would not want this near your loved ones, please vote no for me, my husband, my son, and my wonderful neighbors as we do not have a vote, even though it directly impacts us! Thank you.
Jen hwang
Sent from my iPhone
2 Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:35 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Cell tower behind church on Slater 8101
-----Original Message----
From: Linda Boxley < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]> Subject: Cell tower behind church on Slater 8101
To whom it may concern? | Scott Boxley in Linda Boxley, an 8081 Windy Sands Circle, Huntington Beach 92647 with pose Cell Tower a number different reasons you've heard over and over. They did not do their dodiligence on getting given the full incorrect information about the Cell Tower before paying him before the city.
Lost a renter in May 2023 because of the cell tower. Morgan and Andrew moved out at the end of May.
New tenant moved in, but they objecting on the same grounds. His wife are with four children. They're looking for a new place but they have been able to find anything as nice as we have at Windy Sands Circle there.
I believe you received some pictures and or documentation of the bird in question question is endangered in the area.
I really believe that you have a company that's trying to push something through the city. Short of all the documentation you need.
Scott and Linda Boxley
8081 Winy Sands Circle
H. B. Calif 92647
714.220.8000 if you go to voicemail please leave a message please. Also phone number please Sent from my iPhone
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:49 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Gunn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:39 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) < [email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave
>>
>>
>> To our City Council,
>>
I am writing this email due to my concern for the Cell Tower being built in our community. I am very aware of the side effects and harm caused by these towers, since the county of Los Angeles allowed them to be built in the back of its Fire Stations, one of which I work in. Additionally, many of our stations are the middle of communities where families reside. Many studies have been done and as the American Cancer Society studies have shown, cell phone towers increase the risk of health hazards such as headaches, memory loss, congenital disabilities and cardiovascular stress. Other studies also report that cell towers lead to cancer as they emit non-ionising, high Radio Frequency (RF) waves. Due to these studies, our union, and the board of supervisors, actually voted to take down all the cell towers that were put into the back of our stations.
Please do not let the money from the cell tower companies get in the way of your constituents needs and health. Our Children, elderly and medically fragile community members, and family, are extremely vulnerable to the side effects of these towers. Please protect the health of the people you took oaths to serve. >>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Erik.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:05 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: appeal of agenda item 23-435
From: Coraljean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) <[email protected]>; Beckman, Hayden < [email protected]> Subject: Fw: appeal of agenda item 23-435
Forwarding previous emails. Still opposing cell tower. I would like to thank Casey for reaching out. I hope you understand how frustrating the last few months have been for us.
We still don't want the cell tower for every reason you can think of. The same reason you wouldn't want it to be behind your home (as admitted by some of you at last meeting)and towering over and dominating your sight line applies to us. There are just too many other commercial options and believed Council Greed AT & T did not do their due diligence in scouting locations. There is no coverage gap. If there were then AT&T is lying in their advertising to potential new customers.
Looking forward to some clarification tomorrow.
Thank you.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Coraljean <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 04:22:26 PM PDT
Subject: appeal of agenda item 23-435
I am asking that the City Council appeal the 6/13/2023 Agenda item 23-435. After the approval we understood that an appeal could be filed by one person. My neighbor, Christina Price, filed the appeal and the $4536.00 fee was paid. I found it interesting that some on the Planning Commision who listened to our case last week didn't know how much HB residents are charged to defend their homes and property values.
The appeal was scheduled for 6/13/2023, and should have been heard before 7 members of the Planning Commision. However, one person was on vacation. That left 6. We were very thankful for the members who came out to the property to see just how close this cell tower will be to our homes and a couple admitted that they wouldn't want it near their home. One admitted that if he had a choice between House A and House B that was basically where my house it, he would choose House A. It was agreed that this will cause a detriment to our housing values.
Some questions were asked of the AT&T rep. Some of the Commisioners were stopped with their questions and told the questions were not for public discussion?? One member lives fairly close to
the proposed cell tower and there was a discussion as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest. We have no way of knowing how it was decided that there wasn't.
A couple of the Commissioners asked the AT&T rep to do some things. They wanted pictures of real cell towers not just a computer generated presentation. Also, when the AT&T rep was asked about other locations, the response was that he sent letters but didn't get responses. The Commissioner said he wanted to work with the AT&T rep in contacting the other commercial property owners as he felt it was a much better option than where they wanted to put it, so close to our homes. One of the Commissioners asked if there was a financial risk to HB if they voted no. The answer was that there was no risk. So why didn't they say no especially when additional information was being asked for by half of the Commissioners? One said he didn't want to start a precedence. Another said he wondered about poor communities who couldn't pay the fee. Are you kidding? You think that people living at the Northeast corner of Slater and Beach are wealthy? Not even close. But why is it our fault that the appeal fees set by HB are so high? Should we suffer the penalty of poorer neighborhoods than ours? That isn't fair either. We aren't saying to put the cell tower in any other community where families live. We are saying to put it in one of the many commercial properties that would not see a 5G cell tower 60 feet from our heads when we sleep at night.
But those requests went away when it came time to vote. Three of the six members seemed to give a verdict based on their belief that it didn't matter what they thought. They didn't feel they had the power or the right to say no. If that is true, then who does? Why advise the neighbors of a cell tower being proposed? Why let us think we have a voice? Why have us pay thousands of dollars fighting the decision of the Zoning Administrator? Does the Planning Commission have a say? If the vacationing member of the Planning Commission had been there It was not our fault that all seven members were not present. It is also not understandable that the people who paid for the appeal do not get the benefit of a tie.
We are asking for City Council to appeal the 6/13 Agenda Item 23-435 so that the appeal fee will be waived and so this item can be brought before the full City Council. We understand that the appeal letter and fee are due this Friday.
Thank you and please try to understand what this tower will mean to all of us, many of whom have lived here in this neighborhood for over 25 years.
Moore, Tania
From: Fikes, Cathy
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 6:01 PM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: Cell Tower Construction Please Say NO
From: Robert Caruso <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) < [email protected]>; JEN CARUSO <[email protected]> Subject: Cell Tower Construction Please Say NO
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter, hoping you can see that the location of this cell tower project is unfair to the local residences (24 houses), and how they may be adversely exposed to radiation from the proposed construction of a cell tower, basically in their back yard.
Although they have been told there is no threat at this time, only history will tell if that was true. Many things in the country were used in various construction projects and were supposedly harmless, have turned out to be very dangerous, many years after their installation. You would have to admit that exposure to Asbestos, Mold and most recently Round Up fall into that category.
The thing that is hard to understand is that other similar projects that included cell tower construction have been abandoned in other locations, such as the T-Mobile cell tower project by Harbor View School. I assume they were discontinued by a NO vote in the city council. I still feel that the vote on this project was not taken in good faith, since not all the members were in attendance when the vote was taken.
Another problem with this project is that Home prices will also be adversely effected. People do not wish to purchase property so near to a cell tower.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Robert B. Caruso
Father and Grandfather of the occupants closely situated near this cell tower project 1 Moore, Tania
From: Douglas Von Dollen < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 11:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Opposition To Item # 22 On City Council Agenda (Proposed Charter Amendment) Dear City Council Members and Staff,
Huntington Beach is almost unique among California cities.
It is the only one to vote no on certification of its housing element, and the only one to sue the state over the 50 year-old RHNA process designed to address the housing needs of residents, regardless of income. It has attacked homeowner rights to build "Granny flats." And now members of its City Council want to attack Joint Power Authority agreements designed to provide affordable work-force housing.
Huntington Beach is also 1 of only 2 cities among the largest 25 in California that is majority White /Non- Latino. It is the only city in Orange County with more than 100,000 residents that is majority White/Non- Latino.
Connecting Huntington Beach's unique approach to housing to its unique demographics can make people uncomfortable, so, to provide context, I suggest we look at the only other city among the 25 largest in California that is majority White/Non-Latino: Glendale.
Like Huntington Beach has done through the formation of its Human Relations Committee and alliance with the Interfaith Council, Glendale has confronted a difficult past of religious and racial intolerance. For example, in October, 2020, it became the first city in California and the third in the nation to pass a resolution apologizing for its history as a "sundown town." The term references cities that once excluded African Americans.
Like Huntington Beach, Glendale was required to plan for more than 13,000 new housing units between 2021 and 2029 by the Southern California Association of Governments as part of the state's Regional Housing Needs Allocation process.
And this is where the similarities end.
Glendale passed a housing element that was certified by the California Department of Housing (HCD) in February 2023. And in April 2023, Glendale entered into a novel Joint Powers Authority agreement that creates a trust between the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena to address regional affordable housing needs.
Instead of putting limits on JPAs, Glendale is expanding their use.
Glendale's representative to the new JPA is new Mayor Dan Brotman, a former economics teacher at Glendale College.
Brotman is quoted in the press release announcing his selection as Mayor as saying, "As an educator, environmental activist, and City Council member, I have always tried to do what I can to make the world a little better, fairer, and more livable for everyone. That means identifying long-term challenges and applying best practices from around the world to turn them into opportunities."
Before proceeding with this proposal to restrict JPAs, I urge Councilmember McKeon and Finance Commission members Frank Lo Grasso Hank Cicerone, and Billy Hamilton to meet with Mayor Brotman and other representatives of Glendale to discuss their differing approaches to housing. I believe that HB's officials share Brotman's commitment to applying best practices to solve the city's challenges and will come away from this meeting with stronger proposals than the one on offer.
Moore, Tania
From: Coraljean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 10:54 PM
To: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Beckman, Hayden Subject: Re: appeal of agenda item 23-435
Attachments: 20230416_131902.heic
I sent a photo of my view from the bar in my kitchen prior to the very first meeting.
Thought I should share another photo that shows the exact palm tree that is to be replaced with the faux tree. In the photo you will also see a fountain that is visited by dozens of birds each day. We enjoy watching them. We can only hope they will continue to visit our yard should the cell tower be constructed. Even if they do, we won't enjoy our view if it includes a 60 to 80 foot tall fake tree. Nor would any prospective future buyers.
Also, the photos submitted by AT & T were obtained by someone illegally entering our gated community. It also shows a suggested rendering of what the tower will look like in relationship to the many mature trees in our community. Even when our trees are in full bloom, the faux tree will not blend in. How much more horrible will it be when the trees drop their leaves in the Fall? That cell tower will stand out like a sore thumb.
Thanks again.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 04:59:48 PM PDT, Coraljean <[email protected]> wrote:
Forwarding previous emails. Still opposing cell tower. I would like to thank Casey for reaching out. I hope you understand how frustrating the last few months have been for us.
We still don't want the cell tower for every reason you can think of. The same reason you wouldn't want it to be behind your home (as admitted by some of you at last meeting)and towering over and dominating your sight line applies to us. There are just too many other commercial options and I believed Council Greed AT & T did not do their due diligence in scouting locations. There is no coverage gap. If there were then AT&T is lying in their advertising to potential new customers.
Looking forward to some clarification tomorrow.
Thank you.
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: Coraljean <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 04:22:26 PM PDT
Subject: appeal of agenda item 23-435
I am asking that the City Council appeal the 6/13/2023 Agenda item 23-435. After the approval we understood that an appeal could be filed by one person. My neighbor, Christina Price, filed the appeal and the $4536.00 fee was paid. I found it interesting that some on the Planning Commision who listened to our case last week didn't know how much HB residents are charged to defend their homes and property values.
1 The appeal was scheduled for 6/13/2023, and should have been heard before 7 members of the Planning Commision. However, one person was on vacation. That left 6. We were very thankful for the members who came out to the property to see just how close this cell tower will be to our homes and a couple admitted that they wouldn't want it near their home. One admitted that if he had a choice between House A and House B that was basically where my house it, he would choose House A. It was agreed that this will cause a detriment to our housing values.
Some questions were asked of the AT&T rep. Some of the Commisioners were stopped with their questions and told the questions were not for public discussion?? One member lives fairly close to the proposed cell tower and there was a discussion as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest. We have no way of knowing how it was decided that there wasn't.
A couple of the Commissioners asked the AT&T rep to do some things. They wanted pictures of real cell towers not just a computer generated presentation. Also, when the AT&T rep was asked about other locations, the response was that he sent letters but didn't get responses. The Commissioner said he wanted to work with the AT&T rep in contacting the other commercial property owners as he felt it was a much better option than where they wanted to put it, so close to our homes. One of the Commissioners asked if there was a financial risk to HB if they voted no. The answer was that there was no risk. So why didn't they say no especially when additional information was being asked for by half of the Commissioners? One said he didn't want to start a precedence. Another said he wondered about poor communities who couldn't pay the fee. Are you kidding? You think that people living at the Northeast corner of Slater and Beach are wealthy? Not even close. But why is it our fault that the appeal fees set by HB are so high? Should we suffer the penalty of poorer neighborhoods than ours? That isn't fair either. We aren't saying to put the cell tower in any other community where families live. We are saying to put it in one of the many commercial properties that would not see a 5G cell tower 60 feet from our heads when we sleep at night.
But those requests went away when it came time to vote. Three of the six members seemed to give a verdict based on their belief that it didn't matter what they thought. They didn't feel they had the power or the right to say no. If that is true, then who does? Why advise the neighbors of a cell tower being proposed? Why let us think we have a voice? Why have us pay thousands of dollars fighting the decision of the Zoning Administrator? Does the Planning Commission have a say? If the vacationing member of the Planning Commission had been there It was not our fault that all seven members were not present. It is also not understandable that the people who paid for the appeal do not get the benefit of a tie.
We are asking for City Council to appeal the 6/13 Agenda Item 23-435 so that the appeal fee will be waived and so this item can be brought before the full City Council. We understand that the appeal letter and fee are due this Friday.
Thank you and please try to understand what this tower will mean to all of us, many of whom have lived here in this neighborhood for over 25 years.
Moore, Tania
From: Chad Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 6:34 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: No.23-006 Wireless Facility
Chad Smith
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Cell Phone Tower Installation near Residential Area Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed installation of a cell phone tower near my family home, where my children live and play. I kindly request that you carefully consider the potential health, safety, and aesthetic implications of such a decision on the well-being of our community.
My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for [number of years], and we have always appreciated the peaceful environment and sense of community it provides. The presence of a cell phone tower so close to our homes raises concerns about the potential adverse effects on our health, property values, and overall quality of life.
1. Health Concerns: Numerous studies have indicated potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phone towers. As a responsible parent, I cannot ignore the potential long-term effects on the health of my children and other residents in the area. It is crucial that we prioritize the health and safety of our community, especially our most vulnerable members.
2. Property Values: The installation of a cell phone tower in such close proximity to our homes can significantly impact property values. Potential buyers may be deterred from purchasing properties near a cell tower due to the perceived health risks and concerns about decreased property value. This could have severe financial implications for homeowners in the area.
3. Aesthetic Impact: Our neighborhood's beauty and tranquility will be compromised by the presence of a large cell phone tower. The tower's size and structure may disrupt the natural landscape and diminish the visual appeal of our community, impacting the overall sense of pride and enjoyment we derive from living here.
4. Alternative Locations: I urge the City Council to consider alternative locations for the cell phone tower that are farther away from residential areas. There are numerous commercial and industrial areas where the tower could be situated without posing a potential risk to our families and children.
In conclusion, I implore the City Council to prioritize the well-being of our community and reconsider the decision to install a cell phone tower near our homes. I request a thorough and transparent 1 evaluation of all potential health risks, property value impact, and aesthetic consequences before making any final decisions.
As a concerned citizen, I am willing to participate in community discussions and provide any assistance needed to explore alternative locations or solutions for this cell phone tower. Together, we can find a solution that balances technological advancement with the protection of our community's health and well-being.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that you will carefully consider the concerns and voices of the residents who will be directly affected by this decision.
Sincerely,
Chad M. Smith
2