The City Council this week is being provided a report from City Manager Bill Emlen that gives an update on the NewPath Networks Permitting Issues that nearly resulted in cell towers being placed on private residential property.
The city has now issued on a stop work notice effective November 30 and a notice of recession of encroachment permits on December 5.
“The City Attorney… conducted an initial evaluation of plans and specs associated with the specific site proposals and found there was enough evidence to determine that specific site permits may be inconsistent with the City’s Telecommunication ordinance. Based on this evaluation, the City Manager sent NewPath Networks correspondence (attached) on November 5, 2009, rescinding all pending permits.”
But the staff report never really accounts for how this occurred only suggesting that they “continue to evaluate how the process evolved to the point that permits were issued.”
We get a far better accounting in the Davis Enterprise with an Op-Ed published Sunday from three residents of Village Homes, Elaine Fingerett, Pattie Fong, and Alan Hastings. It becomes clear that the city might be reluctant to point the finger right now because it appears their own planning staff is largely to blame and while unnamed, our sources tell us the culprit here is Community Development Director Katherine Hess.
The key question that needs answering in a public manner is:
“How did the city of Davis issue 37 permits for telecommunications installations, including structures as tall as 41-foot-tall towers, on residential front yards without the knowledge of our city manager or a single Davis City Council member?”
Elaine Fingerett, et al write:
“After the Thanksgiving weekend, City Manager Bill Emlen discovered that city Community Development Department staff members had issued all 37 permits to New Path Networks, with city inspectors participating in the siting of New Path’s locations. No one else knew about these new cell phone towers.”
The justification for this is presented by City planning staff who
claim that federal regulations pre-empt local planning rules for these cell tower operators and therefore, notification to the city manager, City Council or affected Davis residents and property owners was not required or desired. Another stated justification for not being open about New Path’s permit applications was that only public utility easements were being used.
City planning staff also claimed that the permitted sites were carefully chosen to ‘minimize visual impact.’
They justifiably question this designation of minimal visual impact.
“How is planting a 41-foot-tall structure in the middle of a lawn next to a busy Village Homes bike path or placing another telecommunications pole on a traffic island at the intersection of Lake and Arlington boulevards considered minimal visual impact?”
The company New Path also seems questionable in this matter:
“New Path intends to build a network of cell phone infrastructure in Davis and then sell bandwidth to cell phone companies. On its Web site, New Path claims it works closely with the communities where it wants to build.
In Davis, New Path used quite a different tactic. New Path convinced city staff to issue construction permits without notifying anyone and had its substantial project sanctioned by the city without any community input on aesthetics, need, safety or desirability. Put simply, there was absolutely no community process involved!
Recently, Davis residents tried to contact New Path, only to discover that the New Path Web site’s contact numbers were either disconnected or never answered.”
However, they place the bulk of the blame here rightly on the Community Development Department.
“New Path may not know Davis or the Davis community. But our Community Development Department staff does, and should have known better than to proceed without public input. Davis is an attractive place in which to live, work and play because the political process is open and responsive to its citizens. We expect our city to be committed to transparency and honesty in its development processes.”
We are left unfortunately with a culprit here–the Community Development Department and therefore their director Katherine Hess who apparently had to authorize this without consulting the city manager or city council. The City Manager in particular was left with egg on his face two weeks ago as he sheepishly acknowledged the city dropping the ball on this one.
The key question is why did the process break down–how could Katherine Hess not have informed the City Manager that this was occurring? The authors of the op-ed are correct, we might forgive New Path for not knowing how things work in Davis in terms of community involvement, open government, and transparency, but the Community Development Director has been in this community for a long time and she should have known better than to have proceeded without public input, or at least informing the City Manager (if this is in fact true) and the City Council.
We agree:
“We expect our city to be committed to transparency and honesty in its development processes.”
Unfortunately all too often, experience teaches us that is not the case and perhaps the Community Development Director felt it was easier in Davis to ask for forgiveness than permission. We are all left to ponder what might have happened had Elaine Fingerett decided to leave town for vacation over Thanksgiving as she usually does, rather than be home to question what was going on on her property.
The op-ed concludes:
“We are relieved that our City Council and city manager have initiated a new process, one that includes citizens’ participation and reference to our city’s existing telecommunications policy. And we still ask of the Community Development Department, ‘How did this happen?'”
The Vanguard fully agrees, and this is where the city staff report falls short. It gives very brief information but does not come close to the detail of the op-ed by three citizens. The residents of Davis and the Davis City Council deserve to know far more than the City Manager is willing to tell.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One more time from the NewPath documents:
Why is this happening without public comment or hearings?
A NewPath network has completed a rigorous process which . . . means that they do not need to go through the rigorous planning processes in every community that requires their services.
Absolutely agreed that NewPath’s field rep needs anal-cranial surgery, but staff seems to have followed standard procedures in granting the permits. Further, there is only one location challenged, and that for aesthetic reasons only, leaving the rest of a fairly substantial (though fairly unobtrusive) network install likely to be approved as per the original permits.
Fan the flames as much as you believe necessary, but I think you’ve nailed the wrong target here.
This is not an innocuous situation. About 10 years ago the city council voted to amend the municipal code, making property owners liable for accidents on city sidewalks.
Now, the City has authorized a third-party firm to excavate our sidewalks and create a dangerous situation throughout the City. In fact, over a mere 1.5 block stretch of Loyola Drive there are three holes in the sidewalks covered only by plywood and orange “warning” cones.
I urge all residents to complain to the city council about this serious safety hazard ASAP, and take steps (through an attorney or class-action suit against the City) to protect yourself from a lawsuit that might be filed against you if anyone is harmed on the excavated sidewalk fronting your property.
No one has answered a question I asked earlier: what does New Path earn by building on public or private property in addition to selling band width. Put another way: what does New Path pay the City or private property owners to have a cell tower on their property? Does this add to City income? And, let’s not forget that Mr. Emlen was part of the city Planning Department before being hired as City Manager.
Hess needs to be fired: This is just one of MANY screw-ups and egregious acts by Hess who continuously works against the concerns of the citizens and acts in the best interests of the developers in general. For instance just in the recent months she has screwed over:
1) On the Chiles Ranch (Simmons Property)issue. Hess disregarded a memorandum of understanding between the neighbors and the developers to significantly increase the number of units despite outcry by the neighbors.
2) On the recent Wildhorse Ranch (Measure P ) development proposed, where where Hess backed up a poorly, planned over densified development on ag land ignoring the neighbors concerns. She also refused to bring the project through commissions other than Planning Commission even though the developer was receptive to having the project looked at by other commissions.
3) Hess along with City Manager Bill Emlen) backed broad siding the Lewis homes Hunt Wesson project that was supported by the community after FIVE years of planning and THEN last minute demands that the site had to have two EIR’s, one for an infeasible 100 acre high tech park in the middle of neighborhoods and as well as some other iteration for a mixed use project. Hess never followed Council directive to have staff participate in the five community outreach meetings that eh developers had to organize because she effectively “dropped the ball”.
4) On the massive signage issue of putting three way rotating louver highway signs on I-80 in Davis, despite citizen objection, Hess forged forward with a recommendation for these two huge ugly signs where the city would get NO revenue but just made to look like Vacaville along I-80.
5) On the recent Willowbank Park project issue, Hess backed ignoring the Fish and Game
50 foot riparian buffer and supported a badly planned project removing with reduced open space and trying to “offsite” the projects drainage problems.
6) On the recent attempt to give selective noise ordinance exemptions. Hess had done nothing to resolve the noise issues with the East Davis Montessori school issue even though she had been given direction by Council years ago to get the noise mitigations implemented that were recommended by a noise consultant. Instead, she tries to change the entire noise ordinance to exempt schools. When asked why the ordinance change? Hess admitted that the city would not longer need to respond to the noise issues regarding the Montessori site (or other school sites).
7) Hess now tries to slip through 37 cell towers anywhere that the cell company wants, does NOT inform Davis residents (especially those impacted), does not inform the City Manager, does NOT inform City Council but simply escorts the 37 permits through. If the cable company sues the city for having their permits revoked now (as they should be) it will be due clearly due to Hess’ incompetence.
We need new Planning Department leadership with a Director of Community Development who is will to work with the citizens and in their best interests rather than the developers and special interests. It is time to fire Hess before she does any more damage to our community.
Regarding compensation for city employees to work on contracts and my so called libelous comments.
Misinformed, yes, libelous NO!!!
Here’s how it works with regards to city employees working on contracts..
the city charges developers (150/hr – i heard this- so not sure about the exact dollars and cents but you can call the city to verify)
The money charged by the city is billed by people like hess and foster and others who work on developing new construction projects.
developers pay this money to the city via workers in city hall. that money is in turn used by the city to finance the hefty salaries that these workers get paid.
hess and foster make 96 – 108k / year. So they might not get 150/hr per se, but it’s funneled by the city and recycled into the gargantuan pension plan and the huge salaries, union contracts, health care etc etc etc etc.
this is not libelous, but the more informed truth of the matter.
thank you for reading this
and have a nice day
and i’ll agree with the other lady.
katherine hess has got to go in my opinion.
free country right?????
That is very different than what you said before, Melanie.
Sure, developers pay fees. Fees go into city coffers — along with all the other fees and taxes and state revenue sources. The city pays workers out of all the funds, except as those funds may be restricted or in separate accounts. It seems unlikely to me that the city staff encourages development projects just for the purpose of maintaining city revenues, but others have made that same general argument here before.
“We need new Planning Department leadership with a Director of Community Development who is will to work with the citizens and in their best interests rather than the developers and special interests. It is time to fire Hess before she does any more damage to our community.”
Who “fires” Hess? Mayor Asmundson or soon to be Mayor Saylor? Yeah right!
We need a NEW a Council majority first, who can then start putting the heat on Hess, Emlen if they continue to put the interests of developers over residents.
Where are the candidates? We are almost at the end of the year, and we only have Joe Krovenza declared (who by the way, supported Covell Village I!)
Outrage against Hess, Kevin Wolf and others will only go far; finding and electing new CC members will have more lasting effects; difficult it will be, since the CC pays squat and really is a “full-time” job!
sokolove
in your mind it’s very different that what i’ve said before. i was misinformed in the specifics, but they do get paid per hour to work on construction projects. the city charges developers an hourly rate/fee for their employees to work on the projects. while the fees don’t directly go into the pockets of the workers, developers are still stuck paying these hourly fees. the money goes into city coffers and is channelled back to the workers big fat pay checks.
i believe hess makes 108k and foster makes 96k.
so they get the money in a round about way. same thing, different name.
why are you so desperate to stand up for the rights of the city workers who are making money hand over fist from the developers and tax payers?
what’s your interest in this greg??????
I assume you’re replying to me, not Greg, Melanie.
I don’t believe that city employees make a point of encouraging development projects in order to keep themselves busy and make money for the city. You think they do. Fine — we disagree about that. No city employees are paid directly by developers.
I don’t know what their salaries are either, but I’m sure it’s a matter of public record somewhere.
[quote]”The key question is why did the process break down–how could Katherine Hess not have informed the City Manager that this was occurring?”[/quote]It is my understanding that anyone interested in pursuing this issue can go to the planning department front desk and request access to all emails, letters, memos, and any other documents related to the NewPath permits. If the staff won’t comply, then they can be compelled to disclose these documents by a Freedom of Information Act request.
This “incident” shows a shocking disregard for the many residents that would be negatively impacted by the towers. It also clearly suggests that one or more members of the city staff are out of control. In the staff report, the planning department had an opportunity to fully explain exactly what happened … and failed to do so. As a consequence, the responsibility for this serious breach of the public trust now falls squarely on the head of Katherine Hess.
As to the question of who would “fire” Hess, that would be Bill Emlen’s job. If he elects to circle the wagons instead of disclosing what happened and appropriately disciplining the individual(s) responsible, then we need to have a serious discussion with the city council about replacing the City Manager with someone who is more in tune with the idea that the staff serves the community.
[quote]what does New Path pay the City[/quote]Nancy,
These are the terms they negotiated with the city of Santa Fe:[quote]Section 9. Compensation and Charges. Fee. As consideration for this franchise, which provides for the rental and use by Applicant, of the public rights-of-way within the boundaries of the City, Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount of five percent (5.0%) of the annual gross revenue of telecommunications services. Payment shall be made according to the requirements of Article 27-2 SFCC 1987.[/quote]I don’t have any idea what type of deal they have with Davis.
whoops sorry to greg, got the wrong person.
meant you don shor.
their compensation is high and it’s a matter of public record.
check out David’s 100k club blog
Speaking of Katherine Hess and cellular phone towers, I seem to remember learning about Hess having a cellular tower on one of her properties in Davis and getting paid for it. Anyone have the history on this and her “connection” with the cellular companies?
I second Greg’s comment above. Ms. Hess must go, but I am afraid that the current CC majority will not get rid of Hess. Hess’ agenda is similar to that of Saylor and Asmundson. Unless Souza can be persuaded that there is huge popular support to get rid of Hess I am afraid we are stuck with Hess.
We keep trying to change these issues piecemeal but we need a new City Council majority who really represents the interests of Davis. This is not a partisan or “progressive” issue–its a common sense issue. I have been told by many that Hess is essentially a Republican, but how is putting a private cell tower in someone’s private yard a Republican idea?–Perhaps many in today’s Republican party believe in Socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else and that is consistent, but the idea that all this can occur with no process is repulsive.
I hope someone sues the City over this issue (I know some good land use attorneys) and Hess gets her comeuppance, but lets also keep our eyes on the prize–a new City Council majority who will put an end to this BS.
Get rid of Hess but to do so we need a new City Council majority that represents us, not special interests with campaign money.
I was a Planning Commissioner for 13 years and chairman for more than half of that time. During my tenure, I worked very closely with Katherine Hess and found her to be both professional and always mindful of the obligations of her position as a planner. She is a significant asset to the City of Davis. I hope that Davis citizens will recognize all of the great things that Katherine has done for the City and not let their personal feelings about cell towers or other planning decisions color their objectivity. I don’t agree completely with what anyone does, including Katherine, but I will never castigate someone for doing what they believe is right even if I would come to a different conclusion. All I ask for in anyone is fairness and consistency. Katherine has always shown those characteristics in my many dealings with her on the Davis Planning Commission.
The fact that New Path may not know “how things work in Davis” is one thing (although ignorance is no excuse…) – the way that Katherine Hess operates in this City is another matter entirely. The principles of community involvement, open government and transparency appear to be trifling inconveniences in the face of the agenda she wishes to ram through at the Community Development helm. Chiles Ranch, Willowbank Park, New Path, Results Radio – Davis will bear the unattractive stamp of her tenure permanently.
How many times have we seen Council ask a straightforward, reasonable question of Staff regarding a project and they are incapable of addressing it? It’s not that more junior levels of Staff are incompetent or incapable – it’s that Hess has imposed a “my way or the highway” process for projects (steering projects away from appropriate citizen commissions, for example) that stifles any collaborative working process between Staff and citizens.
Dexter – Hess has stated publicly that formal citizen/developer MOU’s have no legal value. Yesterday, I was told by a City Planner that citizen input has no value and staff makes the final decisions. Agree that Davis has been damaged by her actions.
Darobert – you’re talking about someone who’s publicly stated that formal citizen/developer agreements have no value. What kind of a Community Development Director makes large last minute changes in a large project (129 units on 12 acres) w/ zero discussion w/ nearby residents? What kind of CDD sets working hours for developers as 7-7 M-F, 8-8 S/S? Yes those hours are standard policy. Golly, folks might be upset.
The recently approved development on Simmons Estates (East Davis by 8th Street and the Poleline Cemetery) is a prime example of Hess ethics. Simmons is 12 acres of undeveloped land. Really unique. Old barn, vintage oaks, wildlife. It’s been zoned ag for for at least 100 years. Hess and staff NEVER made this clear. No written, no verbal. In 2 years of meetings and an elaborate $89,000 series of planning “parties”, none of the nearby residents had any idea that they were discussing property zoned ag for decades. Why no Measure J? Justification was a 36 year old General Plan amendment. This justification is technically correct. However, it was a decision made in 1973 in a smaller Davis when Measure J didn’t exist. Let’s ask if it’s ethical.
The 2005 zoning map at the Planning Dept’s counter labels ALL of Simmons as “ag”
Why does the No J needed justification appear just 3 weeks before the CC vote? Even in her 5/22/09 report to CC (rezone recommend), the actual number of acres is not specified.
Hess does NOT represent citizens interest. She should be fired
Thanks Gadfly for the information on potential City income from New Path, a third party business selling bandwidth to providers. So, where is the City Council oversight on this deal? Is the City getting the best deal possible in the public interest? After all, to the extent that public land and public air space (band width) is being accessed, the public has a right to know and the City Council, as our representatives, the obligation to exercise “due diligence” on behalf of the community. We need open, transparent, and fully democratic government. Not backroom deals.
A web of cell phone towers city wide will bathe all Davis residents in sustained low levels of electromagnetic forces. High levels of EMF radiation have been implicated in elevated levels of leukemia (especially in children) and brain tumors in adults. In addition, sustained exposures to EMFs have been implicated in mood disorders (depression). Is this what we really want in Davis? Having all of these towers so we can all cry on each other’s shoulders via cell phone may not be worth the “convenience”.
PS Just because you can’t see EMFs doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. Oh, thats right, only fireplace emissions are dangerous!
A couple of links on the issue of EMF and health:
[url]http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health[/url]
I wonder how strong the correlation is between people who believe in nonsense like [i]”high levels of EMF radiation have been implicated in elevated levels of leukemia …”[/i] and believe other quackery?
Do they also believe that men never went to the moon? That the 9-11 attack was a Zionist conspiracy? That regular enemas for colon cleansing is salutary activity? Do these dupes believe in palm reading? I just wonder, once someone decides to disregard science and common sense, does he feel free to go whole hog and buy into every nutty conspiracy theory?
Rich: In spite of the excess verbal hyperbole exuding from your 02:56 posting, I would prefer not to be subjected to this massive, multi-antenna experiment for the convenience of Davis cell phone subscribers. EMF issues associated with antennas are a legitimate concern, and should be considered in whatever decision making process is involved with siting antennas within Davis*. Such issues should not be white-washed based on your biases.
* If the process is flawed, so shall the product be.
Steve and Rich:
Let’s get back to the original focus of the story: Did Catherine Hess screw up in allowing New Path to build towers on private residential property? The answer is clearly YES. In today’s article in the Enterprise she is quoted as saying something about “hindsight” is easy, but there is a clear pattern when it comes to her decisions: she favors big-money developers, corporations over Davis residents’ concerns, and that is the main reason why she should be ousted (if Emlen won’t do it, he should go also!) Let’s save the debate about EMF effects for another time, and focus on this question: Does Davis need a Director of Community Development, and I for one, clearly state YES on that!
I forgot to write “Does Davis need a NEW Director…YES!
Steve: “EMF issues associated with antennas are a legitimate concern….” The scientific reviews argue against your concerns, Steve. How should these concerns be considered? I don’t see major scientific organizations giving any support to your concerns.
Re: “massive, multi-antenna experiment” — are you suggesting that what is being proposed in Davis is somehow different from how cell service towers are located in other communities?
Contrary to Darobert’s comment I have heard complaints from a number of Commissioner’s about Hess’ lack of integrity and her manipulative actions including from members of the Open Space Commission, Senior Commission, Business and Economic Development, Budget and Finance Commission, and Planning Commission.
The common complaint is that Hess has a lack of integrity. She edits and manipulates information always giving her “spin” to the Commissions, the Council, and the public. Staff’s job is to be neutal but Hess is anything but neutral. She advocates for developers and special interests groups. She works against the citizens who are paying her $126,000 salery.
Hess has a long history of doing an inadequate job and shafting Davis residents. She is a combination of incompetent and dishonest. For her to try to use the lame excuse that she (as a Director of Planning) was “confused” by the City’s telecommunications ordinance, demonstrates this. Either she is too incompetent to know enough to ask for more input on such an incredibly important issue to “get it right”, or she is simply dishonest. Either way, she has proven time and time again that she is not qualified to be the head of Planning, and needs to be fired. My guess is that she will try to defer the blame to Public Works when she was fully aware of the permitting of all of the 37 cellular towers WITHOUT notifying the public placing some on private property. My guess is that Hess was counting on the public being busy with the holidays to slip this incredible blunder through like she has a number of times in the past.
Hess clearly can not be trusted with the level of responsibility and ability needed to be the Director of Community Development. Hess was also responsible for the scandal in 2002 when the El Macero Estates affordable housing units were being sold to RELATIVES OF THE DEVELOPERS OF THE PROJECT!!! Hess was in charge of overseeing affordable housing at the time and she was replaced in this responsibility by Danielle Foster as a result of this enormous embarrassment to the city. I also heard that she has finagled getting affordable units going to people she knew.
We can’t tolerate this kind of misbehavior and incompetence anymore, nor can we afford it. Why should Davis residents be paying Hess $126,000 to constantly screw-up, to work against the citizens, and to enable her to help “Big Money” like the developers and special interests?
We need to start a movement to “Save Davis” from Hess. Get your letter’s to the editor here into the Vanguard, the Enterprise, and to the Council. If City Manager Bill Emlen won’t fire her, we need to fire him too.
[quote]Rich: In spite of the excess verbal hyperbole exuding from your 02:56 posting, I would prefer not to be subjected to this massive, multi-antenna experiment for the convenience of Davis cell phone subscribers. [/quote] It is not hyperbole to say that the people who push this non-scientific nonsense are quacks. Look up the definition of quackery in the dictionary if you are unfamiliar with the nature of quackery.
You have every right to not want the cell towers for any reason or any illogical calculus. You don’t have the right, however, to publicly object on the basis of pseudo-science and not expect anyone to call you on it. [quote] EMF issues associated with antennas are a legitimate concern [quote] Why are they a legitimate concern? The claims they are injurious to health are bogus. [quote] Such issues should not be white-washed based on your biases. [/quote] I have no bias whatsoever. Scientists thoroughly studied the claims made by alarmists like you and found they had no truth to them.
Has anyone see the list of addresses of the 37 where these cell towers (up to 41 feet tall) are to be located? If you haven’t, here are the addresses in case one of these towers is coming to your neighborhood. If it does, you have Katherine Hess to thank. I feel sorry for the folks who wrote the commentary published in last Sunday’s Enterprise on this issue. The property owners of one of the targeted sites expressed their concerns and anger about this unbelievable incident. They came home to find markings on their private property for installation of one of these monstrous cell towers. Fortunately, they investigated soon enough to intervene. Can you imagine on of these huge cellular towers in your yard? How could the Director of Community Planning let this happen? There is no excuse. Hess is simply incompetent, clearly does not care enough about the welfare of the citizens, and needs to be fired.
1455 E 8TH STREET
3700 ALHAMBRA DRIVE
4000 E COVELL BLVD
3075 E COVELL BLVD
1306 CLARA LANE
2500 MOORE BLVD
730 J STREET
308 ANTIOCH DRIVE
803 LINDEN LANE
2819 LILLARD DRIVE
3606 LILLARD DRIVE
809 LA PAZ DRIVE
812 BURR STREET
2312 WESTERNESSE ROAD
3215 BERMUDA AVENUE
1340 LAKE BLVD
3100 LOYOLA DRIVE
1427 E 8TH STREET
515 E 8TH STREET
646 A STREET
2902X W COVELL BLVD
2500 MOORE BLVD
23 RUSSELL BLVD
875 RUSSELL BLVD
1306 CLARA LANE
3700 ALHAMBRA DRIVE
2500 MOORE BLVD
4000 E COVELL BLVD
3075 E COVELL BLVD
1813 OLEANDER PLACE
1010 E 8TH STREET
401 ANTIOCH DRIVE
513 RUSSELL BLVD
1241 TULIP LANE
23 RUSSELL BLVD
3200X ALHAMBRA DRIVE
803 LINDEN LANE
Rocks, your list repeats most of the addresses. For example, you have 1306 CLARA LANE in there twice, and you have 803 LINDEN LANE twice and you have 23 RUSSELL BLVD twice and twice you have 2500 MOORE BLVD. Did you do that because those places will have two towers?
I commented on EMFs on another blog recently and am copying my comments here.
I take exception to calling fear of EMFs as based on pseudoscience. This is what an EPA site on EMFs stated.
“Many people are concerned about potential adverse health effects. Much of the research about power lines and potential health effects is inconclusive. Despite more than two decades of research to determine whether elevated EMF exposure, principally to magnetic fields, is related to an increased risk of childhood leukemia, there is still no definitive answer. The general scientific consensus is that, thus far, the evidence available is weak and is not sufficient to establish a definitive cause-effect relationship.”
However:
“In 1998, an expert working group, organized by the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), assessed the health effects of exposure to extremely low frequency EMF, the type found in homes near power lines. Based on studies about the incidence of childhood leukemia involving a large number of households, NIEHS found that power line magnetic fields are a possible cause of cancer. The working group also concluded that the results of EMF animal, cellular, and mechanistic (process) studies do not confirm or refute the finding of the human studies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) reached a similar conclusion. “
I believe in erring on the side of caution. There may or may not be any link between EMF’s and human adverse health effects, but until we KNOW there are none, it is best to take caution. There was a time we thought pesticides and radiation were relatively safe too.
Rich,
Here you go with text from the letter from the City Manager Bill Emlen to NewPath and the identification number of each cell tower and where it will be located. So yes the list is correct and it looks like some of these locations would have two towers. This letter is attached to the Cit Staff report for last night’s City Council meeting.
From the City Manager’s letter to NewPath:
The following Encroachment Permits are revoked and rescinded pursuant to this order: Encroachment Permits and any Related Building Permits Issued to NewPath Networks:
09 77700271 1455 E 8TH STREET
09 77700268 3700 ALHAMBRA DRIVE
09 77700267 4000 E COVELL BLVD
09 77700266 3075 E COVELL BLVD
09 77700265 1306 CLARA LANE
09 77700262 2500 MOORE BLVD
09 77700252 730 J STREET
09 77700251 308 ANTIOCH DRIVE
09 77700250 803 LINDEN LANE
09 77700249 2819 LILLARD DRIVE
09 77700148 3606 LILLARD DRIVE
09 77700247 809 LA PAZ DRIVE
09 77700246 812 BURR STREET
09 77700245 2312 WESTERNESSE ROAD
09 77700.244 3215 BERMUDA AVENUE
09 77700243 1340 LAKE BLVD
09 77700242 3100 LOYOLA DRIVE
09 77700128 1427 E 8TH STREET
09 77700227 515 E 8TH STREET
09 77700226 646 A STREET
09 77700218 2902X W COVELL BLVD
09 77700201 2500 MOORE BLVD
09 77700200 23 RUSSELL BLVD
09 77700199 875 RUSSELL BLVD
09 77700196 1306 CLARA LANE
09 77700195 3700 ALHAMBRA DRIVE
09 77700194 2500 MOORE BLVD
09 77700193 4000 E COVELL BLVD
09 77700192 3075 E COVELL BLVD
09 77700189 1813 OLEANDER PLACE
09 77700188 1010 E 8TH STREET
09 77700187 401 ANTIOCH DRIVE
09 77700186 513 RUSSELL BLVD
09 77700185 1241 TULIP LANE
09 77700184 23 RUSSELL BLVD
09 77700158 3200X ALHAMBRA DRIVE
09 77700157 803 LINDEN LANE
Given the number of sites, significant public outreach will be required. My understanding is your firm had previously been reluctant to engage in public outreach in advance of these permits being issued. I do not believe that is a good strategy or policy particularly given that some of the poles are effectively within some property owners front or side yards. Even if there were no permit issues, it seems unconceivable to be reluctant to inform these individuals of what is proposed. Under no circumstances will a new encroachment or any other types of permits be issued until all affected parties are properly informed and they have an opportunity to comment under the appropriate process.
The City is prepared to work with you further on this matter.
Sincerely
Bill Emlen
City Manager
Cc: Harriet Steiner
Katherine Hess
Robert Clarke
Rick Guidara
Rich: As a retired scientific professional with an earned PhD, I continue to find it reasonable to continue to discuss up the issue of electromagnetic forces when an array of cell phone towers are beiong backed in to sites throughout Davis without public input. The public is sufficiently sentient and competent to evaluate EMF impacts and EMF risks via the internet on their own. As a scientist, I would encourage my fellow citizens to do this and err on the side of caution* in this arena.
Dr. Stephen P. Hayes
* For example, MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) was added to gasoline as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, and was hailed as an advance. Because of leaching from point sources (fuel storage tanks)and non-point sources (runoff, aerosols, etc.) we are now exposed to MBTE as a toxic contaminant in drinking water supplies.