GILROY
– It’s on.
The debate over transmission towers in Gilroy
– a discussion that began with an Internet company’s proposal
for a Northwest Quad neighborhood structure and snowballed to
include a citywide petition drive and opposition to at least two
other tower sites – will likely come to a head after the New Year
with a public meeting specifically meant
to address the issue.
GILROY – It’s on.
The debate over transmission towers in Gilroy – a discussion that began with an Internet company’s proposal for a Northwest Quad neighborhood structure and snowballed to include a citywide petition drive and opposition to at least two other tower sites – will likely come to a head after the New Year with a public meeting specifically meant to address the issue.
Although details aren’t firmed up yet, Mayor Tom Springer confirmed Monday that officials are trying to set up a public forum in mid-January where views – and facts – on the towers and transmitters can be aired.
“The objective is to get all the questions identified, get facts from public sources and truly understand what’s going on here,” Springer said.
The tower controversy first sprung up in October around a wireless Internet transmission tower proposed for a city water tank site near Welburn Avenue and Mantelli Drive.
After hearing from several angry residents concerned about health and aesthetic issues, the city’s Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject the plan by San Francisco-based Zinc Technologies.
But Welburn Avenue resident Christopher Cote, who helped lead opposition against the Zinc tower, has kept the issue alive by spearheading a petition drive that seeks a new city law prohibiting radiation-emitting transmitters and towers within a 2,500-foot radius of homes, schools and water supplies.
Cote has spoken at City Council meetings in recent months urging the city to consider the ordinance. More recently, he has been supplanted at the city level by Country Estates residents who are concerned about a smaller 30-foot AT&T tower proposed for the water tank site above their homes.
General themes among tower detractors include a distrust of regulatory standards and concerns there hasn’t been enough research to demonstrate their long-term safety. Other objections have also included aesthetics, air-safety and concerns about the degree of access crews will be afforded to the large municipal water tanks.
However, the City Attorney’s office has said communications safety and health levels and standards are largely set by federal laws and the Federal Communications Commission, with the city’s authority relatively limited to site-placement issues such as aesthetics.
Meanwhile, some councilmembers – such as Springer, who has generally expressed confidence in the regulations – worry the hubbub about towers is based too much on emotion, misinformation and innuendo.
Springer said the city is arranging to have experts speak at the forum. In the meanwhile, he urged citizens to visit www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet for more background on towers.
Cote – who thanked Springer for the hearing in a recent email – has said he is also securing experts and is promoting several websites such as www.scenic.org/towers.htm.
