Against PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN

I for one am very interested on what exact criteria did our Parks and Rec Department use to determine this conclusion? They have "NO CONCERNS"...WOW! The below statement is included in this proposal. Parks and Recreation – The proposal was reviewed by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission at a workshop on February 26, 2018. Parks staff indicated the tower will not impact recreational activities at Walden Heights Park and the tower will generate a monthly lease payment to the City. The Commission had no concerns or specific recommendations regarding Verizon’s proposal.

With all of the land in Eagan, please put this tower in an industrial area...not residential.

As the Stonecliffe Home Owners Association President I cannot agree to this proposal given such a short time to understand the plan. This is also Spring break so rather inconvenient timing. The City of Eagan needs to hold more informational and educational meetings before rushing this through to a conclusion. Walden Heights was given to the City when Lungren couldn't meet its obligations for a community center. The City cannot reasonably expect the Residents to accept this without further discourse. Thank you.

There is nothing "unique" to this location except that it is the most advantageous for Verizon Wireless. Other somewhat less "optimal" locations are available. The City Council should deny this application which will destroy the character of Walden Height Park, threaten the safety of our children and degrade the value of the surrounding neighborhood.

I am alarmed at the City of Eagan's proposal for Verizon Wireless to build a 119 foot phone tower in Walden Heights Park, Eagan, Minnesota. Due to our proximity to the proposed location, I’m concerned about the potential impacts of this tower on my wife and I as retired 27-year residents of Eagan not to mention the degradation of the aesthetic of our neighborhood. The science regarding the impact of microwave radiation from a tower of this type has not been fully established and there are research studies that indicate increased rates of cancer and other potential serious issues. For these reasons, we are very uncomfortable with the City approving construction of this tower. The city council should deny the conditional use permit. This tower serves no benefit.

As an expecting mother, and due to our proximity to the proposed location, I’m concerned about the potential impacts of this tower on our newborn, not to mention our property value and the degradation of the aesthetic of our neighborhood. The city council should deny the conditional use permit. This tower serves no benefit.

Thank you for organizing this petition. As a resident within 350’ of the proposed location I’m strongly opposed to this tower which serves no purpose to the residents and taxpayers it would impact. The city council should do the right thing and deny the conditional use permit.

Vote NO regarding this proposed cell tower. Put it in a commercial area instead of in a park in a beautiful neighborhood.

As someone who used that sledding hill every single winter when I was growing up in Stonecliffe, it would be a shame to see a tower disrupt this experience for children in the future. I hope the city council makes the right decision and votes "no" to the unnecessary cell tower.

NO

A less visited area should be found and considered.

I see that there is only one Variance up for vote. The way I see it there are 3 variances being desired 1. The desired pole is 119'. This in itself is at least a 19' variation if not a 59' variation, (i) Depending upon whether the park is classified as non-residential use district (maximum height is 100' for single consumer) or residential use-district (maximum height is 60' - which means that the requested variance is almost 100%!). Considering that I live within the 350' distance of the site, as do a lot more people, I can only imagine this area being classified as a residential use-district. (ii) Of course, this variation could be subsumed in the CU permit. 2. The variance of 135 ft from residential property, which is being requested, and 3. There are no setbacks defined in the code from parks where children may be playing (at least I did not find any in Section 11.70, Subd. 26). The subject area is a park and there should be some setback defined for humans, particularly children, to be around the tower. The tower will be smack in the middle of the park, and the entire park will be in the "fall zone" for this tower.

Yuck

I had a client who worked for the power company that wanted a test done on her home for the cell phone tower she could see from her deck... it was recommended she put her bed on one wall otherwise she will spend 8+ hrs a night in a direct path of cell phone waves. If people who don't believe that makes a difference, you might want to check with those who have lost a child to brain cancer...then had their homes checked....or for starters read the book ZAPPED by Ann Louise Gittleman...cell phone towers, electrical lines, your wifi, your electrical appliances, even the cities automatic water meter readers. Have your home tested and see what you don't know. We will never get away from this billion dollar industry but you can do things to reduce your exposure.

There are many other places in Eagan that are higher in elevation with less surrounding population that could potentially be a better place with less risk of exposure to to high energy radio frequencies. Health risks are still being studied and are far from being settled on as universally known as safe. Cigarette smoking in the 50’s was also shown not be linked to cancers according to the prevailing studies at the time. Vote NO on relaxing the variance rules which are there to protect residential areas and the surrounding citizens.

Absolutely against the cell phone tower being built in and near a neighborhood park!!! How insensitive to families and family homes and their families!!!!

Bad idea for a residential neighborhood

Against tower

This is insane idea to build tower in some people backyard. Don't put this cell tower next to our neighborhood playground. This green space is used and enjoyed by families in the Stonecliffe neighborhood.

VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. Health Concerns from RF radiation. There is the growing evidence of damage to cells and tissues that can lead to cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) named RF Radiation from cell phones /towers as class 2B, possible human carcinogen. Studies show that even low levels of RF Radiation damage cell tissue & DNA. (i.e. Eyes, testes, fertility, rapid aging, cancer, tumors & leukemia). The corporate technocracy driving the technocrat mindset behind the mobile 5G (and higher radiation frequencies) “internet of everything” care ONLY about driving the mindless and endless connectivity to artificial intelligence & the networks, these technocrats do NOT care about our families & communities & the unethical consequences of the long-term impact of their products on our human health. These industries need to be held accountable for proving the safety of their products, in the same exact manner that drug and device companies are held accountable for proving the safety of our products. They must be held to much HIGHER standards, unlike products that you can chose to use or not to use, the technocrat industries insist on the never-ending pushing and shoving their products and radiation down the throats of Americans, without our consent to using or being exposed to their continued radiation. These industries must be held accountable for proving the safety of their products. These industries and the regulatory agencies must be held accountable for holding public forums of debate to discuss and prove of safety for their products. These companies profit only from their products, they have not proven the safety of their products. Communities must say NO to their bullying techniques, their lack of public input and discussion, their lack of transparency of who is and who is NOT accepting payment for these products with UNPROVEN safety. https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/research/3._Health_Effe