Loading...
Exhibit CC 11-29-2010 No. 7 Appeal of T-Mobile Wireless Antenna Cc 11/2.1 i )D Appeal of M- 2010 -28 Applicant: Dayna Aguirre, Sutro Consulting (for T- Mobile) Appellant: Shaul Berger Project Location: Public right -of -way in front of 11371 Bubb Rd Project Scope: A personal wireless service facility mounted on an existing PG &E pole and consisting of: ❖ Three (3) panel antennas mounted at a height of 45 feet; ❖ Four (4) equipment boxes Sept. 7, 2010 - Project approved by Corn. Development Director Sept. 20, 2010 - Project appealed Nov. 9, 2010 - Planning Commission denied the appeal (4 -0 -1) -- VI 1 : � ` i _ ^ R1 ' 111 ry P a :l; ,j � S I ! I 1550Di aC,�y1 'I T 74, r� „` 2 11306 �- 171 'I r jig^, I 1•� Cl �'' � . 31 L i •,. , i II, , r — _ i Li - I — _ -�--Zt I 1 1 _ a� , . x s k f � � } � . 1 173 �'' 1 r1 ., • ' 1174 f ff ! ,1 • „. 1 21511 i/� / 7 n . .� i1 {_. `, / . \ ' 7 - 7 -I' s A. / ? <s 11331 ' 11350 1179 1 ' !,, I I .VS,', ss / 113 1 1 1184 1183 1 11 1e� / q ? 1 �+ 11II5 t t - �� / .y / i \` 11371 , ? 1.1nI6 1187 I � ++ SI- .� jS � .. I 1, ' i 1 194 1191 I , 119 k j ■ '4E' ccn 1 ,141 1. 4 1. 2,k , 15 33 I ` C I1 ,I -- :,. 1200'x: 1195 r I ,; 1 \ 5�� ;} ° _ - _ r - s 1 ■ 119 A j 21544 c e o - -, -I �� °; I �� ' a; 1208 1'I199 ∎ �1 r 120 15 la <�� I d a �\ 1 t u a n 1214 1203 1,7 • , y Iti ') V �� 21 ,�..:r � `fir_ � 0 1218 ,_ 1 1 1,5'. 120 A , O iti, ,ni 1 \ `' ,-' ..7,' m ?.22 1207 I ' » - ` V N _ ,- 1 4 N , • m I 1 ' 1 1 a\ :\ • 1 F , r . - i , O 1228 .121 �1 s' ' ' ,' amt m j \. _ .. cn 144 __ _ t =c ,=4 / 1 . . �.i 1 , - I r ' , - i i !' 1234 12 _ . : .. I 1 1. r • :,p ": " s! gym � • L • vkwfnm Bo0R.o.itoo#n9^° 'PAatshc I ;j:..1rr� :��im Proposed :fisting tra 7a70au , .' � y t t�y t ( • Px r �SX 4 �r . iu 4 1 5 � � i'- ':.. , ./ ";':. - 4:-. ''''' , ,,, :- ;..... : 41.11 * 1 ti { a re. t ,- s 2 Appeal Summary • Concerns with inaccuracies in the radio frequency emission study (project description, hilly terrain, 2nd story exposure); • Concerns with health effects to people (children, seniors, sedentary individuals); • Concerns with the proposed location in a residential area, should be in the hills. Responses to Appeal Responses to Radio Frequency Emission Report • Facility power (< 1,000 watts) and coverage range (< 2.0 kilometers) is typical of a microcell. • Federal standard is based on exposure of people to RF emissions wherever they are located, not propagation assumptions. • Cited standards, equations and methodology used in report based on FCC protocols accessible on- line. 3 Responses to Appeal (contd.) Responses to Health Effects • The standard - setting body for the U.S. is the FCC which looks at all scientific studies before it set a safety standard for PCS technology. , • This safety standard (general population) applies to continuous exposures ( 24 hours /day, seven days /week) and provides a prudent margin of safety for all persons regardless of age, gender, size or health. Responses to Appeal (contd.) Health Effects Responses (contd.) • The Hammett & Edison RF Study calculates the RF energy exposure for the project: ➢ 0.12% of the MPE for all ground level exposures, ➢ 0.22% of the MPE for 2 floor of closest residence. =W > MPE is reached at a distance of < 12 ft. in front of antennas. All longer distances have lower exposures. 4 Responses to Appeal (contd.) Responses to Health Effects (contd.) • Federal Law, the 1996 Telecommunications Act — Section 704, subsection 7(D), states: "no state or local government entity may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such emissions comply with FCC regulations;" Responses to Appeal (contd.) Response to Location/ Alternatives (contd.) • The project is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan and Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance. The Master Plan prefers existing vertical structures, like utility poles, to mount wireless antennas to provide cell phone coverage to residential areas. The facility is consistent with Federal law and PLIC regulations. 5 Responses to Appeal (contd.) Response to Location/ Alternatives (contd.) • Regarding a hillside location for the project, wireless companies are looking at numerous sites in western and southern Cupertino, including hillsides, utility poles & towers, parks and churches. Given the low -power of these facilities, sites in multiple locations will be 'needed to provide acceptable cell coverage. II txisting Coverage Map R K50L)D COVERAGE "Confidential and Proprietary. Not for Further Distribution } { V"' f ,, • ; „ �� e j • •' x "MG 4 cn n - a 4. ”."2.. ( _ :4 a 'W. ut R "% I i :a c r., It :' . 1.4"j 4 ' 7 T f i L . a M %w..e / • 5 F - e t ?c 1 1 • - , a c .,.Q . , C „0.0 0 n , i .yF ' -, fi.._ t � N ` i . . R `• .M Re ... ....r.'. . w - ill Mail la. no 1 [ _I - e ma.t -waem C � 'A T f f. , f' d" 1 a,x..nt-eseR.a 7 .2 I .n - . c (Y� 6 • .egpmek 9[e ' , July 76, 201 1 . . 6 I Proposed Coverage Map $OL i 10 "Confidential and Proprietary. Not for Further Distribution." COVIRAC[ ` �� �lIF`a f 4 r. s �.4 1 � L f a r.:. r ' .. 1 a ' ",. a •a4 4 . 1 c ..," n.t.... , • �' � . «: y a - I . 1 P .. Y V. :wM ' �T . Ttt . i I x 2222 '. - ) - , r ''''' C . I t .. n ~% J 4;y ncw • .tt a �ret. ; .1 -, - < ` • f nH.*• I •: • I • •E -w >>° •( t hoFnes 9[. ' - .. __ .. . _ Jul;' 26, 2010 2 :r- Planning Commission • The antennas cannot be raised in height due to the type of utility pole & Public Utility Commission regulations • N9 aesthetic concerns were found • Expected emissions exposure from the antennas meet federal standards. The City is prohibited from making decisions based on health effects if federal standards are met • Post construction testing is desired to alleviate concerns. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeal of DIR- 2010 -28 (i.e., approval of the project) with the added condition: Radio frequency energy testing be conducted after construction and after one year of operation at: • ground level, • nearest residence measured at existing or potential second floor level, • Nearest residences at 100 feet in westerly & southerly directions measured at existing or potential 2 floor level 8 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 1 of 10 Burbank ACTION (Against �vnc�i irlaq /ra sf fl Cell Towers In Our < <ei u d1k_own Neighborhood) - - - - _ _ 1 Home > DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE Note: This page is ( best viewed using Mozllla Fire fox intemet browser. For residents in -.3-- . ° � X , ` = _ . other communities opposing proposed wireless 1 Please click below for facilities in your more info: , neighborhood: in addition to Burbank the real estate ; °� UPDATES: studies you send - -�-� 9 . ' 1 • August 31, 2010 and share with i 1, � *�, City Council Meeting your local _ officials, talk to Approved your local real estate -- 0.• - : . _ • July 26, 2010 � � " . °` � , = Planning Board professionals How would you like one of these ugly monsters Meeting - Interim and inform and installed on the sidewalk next to your home? This one Regulations was installed in a public right of way (PROW, aka Approved educate them sidewalk) on Via De La Paz in beautiful Pacific about the Palisades, because the City of _os Angeles currently lacks rigorous regulations concerning proposed • June 14, 2010 Study negative effects PROW wireless installations. Why isn't the Los Session and on local Angeles City Council and Attorney updating the city's Upcoming TBD ordinance like residents are asking? Photo courtesy Community Meeting property values Pacific Palisades Residents Association, that cell towers http: / /pprainc.org/ • Dec 8, 2009 Study have, and ask Session & City Hall them to submit letters of support to city officials, or Meetings have them sign a petition that will be forwarded onto • Nov 16 Planning your city officials. See examples below. It's very Board and Nov 17 important to have your local real estate professionals City Hall Meetings back up what the experts report in their studies to make • November 12, 2009 your arguments real and relative to your specific Public Meeting community. You can also educate your local http: // sites. google. com / site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 2 of 10 homeowners associations and neighborhood councils Burbank Leader about the negative property value effects and have them Newspaper Stories submit letters and sign petitions, too. Check out the and Editorials other pages on this website (click links in right column) Tools: Reasons To for other helpful information. Deny A Proposed Cell Tower and/or Residents are justifiably concerned about proposed cell push for stronger towers reducing the value of their homes and properties. regulations: Who would want to live right next to one, or under one? And imagine what it's like for people who purchase or . Reasonable build their dream home or neighborhood, only to later Discrimination have an unwanted cell tower installed just outside their Allowed window? • Decrease I n This negative effect can also contribute to urban blight, Property Value and a deterioration of neighborhoods and school districts when residents want to move out or pull their children . We Already out because they don't want to live or have their children Have Good attend schools next to a cell tower. Coverage: Significant Gap People don't want to live next to one not just because of and 911 health concerns, but also due to aesthetics and public safety reasons, i.e., cell towers become eyesores, • Alternative obstructing or tarnishing cherished views, and also can Locations and attract crime, are potential noise nuisances, and fire and Supplemental fall hazards. Application forms These points underscore why wireless facilities are commercial facilities that don't belong in residential • Aesthetics and areas, parks and schools, and find out why they should Public Safety be placed in alternative, less obtrusive locations. In addition, your city officials have the power to regulate • Public Right of the placement and appearance of cell towers, as long as Way such discrimination is not unreasonable, and especially if Developments you show them that you already have coverage in your area. • Noise and Nuisance and As mentioned on our Home Page, putting cell towers notes about near residential properties is just bad business. For Clearwire residential owners, it means decreased property values. For local businesses (realtors and brokers) representing • Health Effects. and listing these properties, it will create decreased Science & income. And for city governments, it results in decreased Research http: / /sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighbor hood / home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 3 of 10 revenue (property taxes). . Watch these videos - Read this New York Times news story, "A Pushback Glendale and Against Cell Towers," published in the paper's Real other residents Estate section, on August 27, 2010: protest cell http:// www. nytimes. com/ 20io /08 /29 /r ealestate /29Lizo.1 towers and ask r= i &ref = realestate. for new ordinances - A number of organizations and studies have documented great the detrimental effects of cell towers on property values. examples: read, watch and learn 1. The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional how these residents and membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters other local throughout the world, spotlighted the issue of cell towers groups organized and the fair market value of a home and educated its their effective members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a presentations decrease in home value. before their elected reps. The definitive work on this subject was done by Dr. What they did will Sandy Bond, who concluded that "media attention to the inspire and may help you. potential health hazards of [cellular phone towers and antennas] has spread concerns among the public, DVDs and Books: resulting in increased resistance" to sites near those you can view and read towers. Percentage decreases mentioned in the study range from 2 to 2o% with the percentage moving toward Take Action: the higher range the closer the property. These are a few of her studies: Read and Sign the Petition a. "The effect of distance to cell phone towers on house prices" by Sandy Bond, Appraisal Write and Call Our City Journal, Fall 2007, see attached. Source, Leaders Appraisal Journal, found on the Entrepreneur website, Other Links: http: / /www.entrepreneur.comj tradejournals/ar or . Actions Taken http: / /www.prres.net /papers /Bond Squires _ U� . Other b. Sandy Bond, Ph.D., Ko-Kang Wang, "The Communities Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices Saying "No" in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005; see attached. Source: . Important Goliath business content website, Organizations http:// goliath .ecnext.com /coms2 /gi0199- . Wireless Smart http: // sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 4 of 10 5011857 /The- impact -of- cell-- phone.html Meter Concerns c. Sandy Bond also co authored, "Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived impact on residents • City of Burbank and property values" University of Auckland, Website: paper presented at the Ninth Pacific -Rim Real Wireless info Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, January 19 - 22, 2003; see attached. Source: • Burbank Pacific Rim Real Estate Society website, Neighborhoods http: / /www.prres. net / Papers /Bond The Impa( & Districts 2. Industry Canada (Canadian government department Join our promoting Canadian economy), "Report On the National facebook page - Antenna Tower Policy Review, Section D — The Six network, share and Policy Questions, Question 6. What evidence exists that post info that's going property values are impacted by the placement of on in your community, inform and help other antenna towers? ; see attached. Source: Industry Canada communities http: / /www.ic.gc.ca /eic /site /smt- gst.nsf /eng /sfo8353.htm1 website, Search for Antennae in Your 3. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Area "Appendix 5: The Impact of Cellphone Towers on Property Values "; see attached. Source: New Zealand Website Contact Ministry for the Environment website, Info http: / /www.mfe.govt.nz /publications /rma /nes- telecommunications- section32- augo8 /ht ill /page12.html Home On a local level, residents and real estate professionals have also informed city officials about the detrimental effects of cell towers on home property values. 1. Glendale, CA: During the January 7, 2009 Glendale City Council public hearing about a proposed T- mobile cell tower in a residential neighborhood, local real estate professional Addora Beall described how a Spanish home in the Verdugo Woodlands, listed for 1 million dollars, sold $25,000 less because of a power pole across the street. "Perception is everything," said Ms. Beall stated. "It the public perceives it to be a problem, then it is a problem. It really does affect property values." See Glendale City Council meeting, January 7, 2009, video of Addora Beall comments @ 2:35:24: http: / /glendale .granicus.com /MediaPlaver.php? http: // sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 5 of 10 view id =12 &clip id =1227 2. Windsor Hills /View Park, CA: residents who were fighting off a T- Mobile antenna in their neighborhood received letters from real estate companies, homeowner associations and resident organizations in their community confirming that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antenna in their neighborhood. To see copies of their letters to city officials, look at the . Report from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding CUP Case No. 200700020 -(2), from L.A. County Board of Supervisors September 16, 2009, Meeting documents, Los Angeles County website, here at: http: // file. lacounty .gov /bos /supdocs /48444.pdf a. See page 295, August 31, 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna, President /Realtor of Solstice International Realty and resident of Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining negative effect of cell tower on property values of surrounding properties. "As a realt:or, I must disclose to potential buyers where there are any cell towers nearby. I have found in my own experience that there is a very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable." b. See page 296, March 26, 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark, "Those who would otherwise purchase a home, now considered desirable, can be deterred by a facility like the one proposed and this significantly reduces sales prices and does so immediately...I believe a facility such as the one proposed will diminish the buyer pool, significantly reduce homes sales prices, alter the character of the surrounding area and impair the use of the residential properties for their primary uses." c. See Page 298, The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum, about the reduced value of a home of resident directly behind the proposed installation http: // sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased - real - estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 6 of 10 after the city had approved the CUP for a wireless facility there: "The property owner has listed the property...and has had a potential buyer back out of the deal once this particular information of the satellite communication center was announced....there has been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevant and determined that this new planning decision can have some negative effect on the subject property." d. See Page 301, PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values: "The California Association of Realtors maintains that `sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property,' including `known conditions outside of and surrounding' it. This includes `nuisances' and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses." e. See Pages 302 -305 from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association, the United Homeowners Association, and the Windsor Hills Block Club, opposing the proposed cell tower and addressing the effects on homes there: "Many residents are prepared to sell in an already depressed market or, in the case of one new resident with little to no equity, simply walk away if these antennas are installed. f. See Pages 362 -363, September 17, 2008, Letter from resident Sally Hampton, of the Windsor Hills Homeowner's Assoc., Item K, addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values. 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Also attached is a story about how a preschool closed up because of a cell tower installed on its grounds; "Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation," Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 17, 2006; Source, EMFacts website: http: / /www.emfacts.com /weblog / ?p =466. 4. Merrick, NY: For a graphic illustration of what we http: / /sites.google.com /site /nocelltowerinourneighbor hood/ home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 7 of 10 don't want happening here in Burbank, just look at Merrick, NY, where NextG wireless facilities are being installed, resulting in declining home real estate values. Look at this Best Buyers Brokers Realty website ad from this area, "Residents of Merrick, Seaford and Wantaugh Complain Over Perceived Declining Property Values: http://www.bestbuyerbrokencom/blog/?p=86. 5. Burbank, CA: As for Burbank, at a City Council public hearing on December 8, 2009, hillside resident and a California licensed real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agree about the adverse effects the proposed cell tower would have on property values: "I've done research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area, and they all agree that there's no doubt that cell towers negatively affect real estate values. Steve Hovakimian, a resident near Brace park, and a California real estate broker, and the publisher of "Home by Design" monthly real estate magazine, stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10% of their value due to proximity of the cell tower...So even if they try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees, as a real estate professional you're required by the California Association of Realtors: that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of a property including conditions that are known outside and surrounding areas." (See City of Burbank Website, Video, Alex Safarian comments @ 6:24:28, http: // burbank .granicus.com /MediLPlayer.php? view id =6 &clip_ id =848) Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009, signed a petition /statement offering their professional opinion that the proposed T- Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: http: / /sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood /home /decreased - real - estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 8 of 10 "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T- Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e -mail on June 18, 2010. To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here: http: / /sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighbc -real- estate - value /burbank- real - estate- professionals- statement ) Here is a list of additional articles on how cell towers negatively affect the property values of homes near them: . The Observer (U.K.), "Phone masts blight house sales: Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles," Sunday May 25, 2003 or go here: http: / /www.guardian.co.uk /money /2oo3 /may /25/h( • "Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places," The New York Times, January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 4o percent because of neighboring cell towers) . "Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court's Call," Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered property values due to cell tower) • "The Future is Here, and It's Ugly: a Spreading of http: // sites. google. com / site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased - real - estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Ou... Page 9 of 10 Techno - blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt," New York Times, September 7, 2000 • "Tower Opponents Ring Up a Victory," by Phil Brozynski, in the Barrington [Illinois] Courier - Review, February 1 5, 1999, 5, reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value of twelve homes following the construction of a cell tower in Lake County, IL. See attached story: http : / /spot.colorado.edu /- maziara /appeal &attache - 43- LoweredPropertyValuation/ • In another case, a Houston jury awarded 1.2 million to a couple because a loo- foot -tall cell tower was determined to have lessened the value of their property and caused them mental anguish: Nissimov, R., "GTE Wireless Loses Lawsuit over Cell -Phone Tower," Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999, Section A, page 11. (Property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower.) Read about other "Tools" on our website that may help you and your fellow residents oppose a cell tower in your neighborhood in the column to the right. These include: . Reasonable Discrimination Allowed . We Already Have Good Coverage: Significant Gap and 911 . Alternative Locations and Supplemental Application forms . Aesthetics and Safety . Noise and Nuisance and notes about Clearwire . Health Effects: Science & Research Also print out this helpful article on court decisions from the communications law firm of Miller & Van Eaton (with offices in D.C. and San Francisco) that you can pull http: // sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased -real- estate -va... 11/29/2010 DECREASED REAL ESTATE VALUE - Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In ... Page 10 of 10 and read to realize what rights you may or may not have in opposing a wireless facility in your neighborhood: http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent? page name= I-IT% 3A + +IMI.A+ Article +Tower +Siting +Nov * -2008 (click the link once you get to this page). Other important decisions and actions taken by courts and local governments can be found in our Actions 'I'aken page. Watch how other resident groups organized effective presentations at their public hearings so you can pick up their techniques and methods. You can read and find additional organizations and resident groups that have organized opposition efforts against cell towers and wireless facilities, on our Other Communities Saying "No" and Important: Organizations pages. Subpages (1): Burbank Real Estate Professionals Statement Sign in Recent Site Activity Terms Report Ab mse Print page I Powered by Google Sites http: // sites.google.com/ site /nocelltowerinourneighborhood / home /decreased - real - estate -va... 11/29/2010 4 Linda Lagergren From: Prasad Narayana [pnvn95 ©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:20 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Proposal to install T- mobile antenna near 11357 Bubb Road Dear Mr. Santoro: I am a resident of Cupertino and I have voted in all the elections held in this County. I have taken pains to elect the right people on the Council board and hoped that they provide the appropriate guidance to the City in terms of good governance and safety. I would like to bring this to your attention regarding proposal to install Cell Phone Antenna near 11357 Bubb Road. Due to Aesthetic issue, the property value will go down. I have gathered these facts from searching interne and would like to share this information with you and your team. My concern is that the value of the property will go down and it is a Loose - Loose proposition for both the City and the residents. Residents will loose the property value and the City will loose due to reduced property tax they can collect. This is not only on one property but several properties. In addition, please note that installation of T- Mobile antenna is the first one and other mobile carriers will follow. With this, there will be a mushroom of antennas within Cupertino and hence it is high time some thing was done. One suggestion is through issuing an ordinance where these antennas can be installed. One suggestion is to have it on the hill side (more power) and include all cell phone carriers to join hands together. In addition, other suggestion is to have them on main roads where there are rio residences or schools that could be impacted. Here are links to some of the property value going down especially in Burbank, CA. http: / /sites.google.com/ site /nocelltow erinourneighborhood /home /decreased -real- estate -value Other articles regarding resistance to install cell phone antenna near residential neighborhood. It shows that it is not only in Cupertino, but in other parts of the State where residents are against this action. http://seekingalpha.com/ news - article/ 91664- walnut- creek - council -may- consider- moratorium -on- residential- cell- towers http: / /blogs. sfweekly. com /thesnitch /2010 /03 /bay_guardian cell towers neigh.php http : / /www.contracostatimes.com /ci 16167579 ?nclick check =1 I beg you to please re- consider approving the installation of the Cell Phone Antenna near 11357 Bubb Road. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me through this e-mail. Regards, Prasad Narayana 21504 Conradia Court Cupertino, CA 1 C- filaci/ro �t Linda Lagergren From: Chekfa Zarka [chekfa.zarka @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:30 PM To: City Council Subject: withdrawal of the TMobile proposal Dear City Council of Cupertino We would like to join all concerned Cupertino residents regarding the cell phone antenna installation. We are against city proposal to install the TMobile antenna near Regnart School. The cell tower radiation will pose a health hazard to all residents in the area especially our school children. We oppose the city proposal to install the powerful antenna near Regnart School. Thank you, The Chekfa family, Cupertino, California 1 GG if-a9-fn Linda Lagergren From: Standridge Ginger [Standridge_Ginger @cusdk8.org] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:11 PM To: City Council Subject: Antenna on Bubb To Whom It May Concern, I am opposed to the city proposal to install a powerful antenna on Bubb and Folkstone. I am very disappointed with the city council that they would even consider a location so close to an elementary school and to a middle school. I know our young children don't have a voice on this issue, but as a teacher at Regnart School I would like to be the voice for them. I also know we have been told that these antenna are sa but there was a time when smoking was considered safe and allowed on school campuses. Please don't risk the safety of our children. Find a different location that is not near where children go to school, learn, play, and grow. Sincerely, Ginger Standridge First Grade Teacher Regnart Elementary School 1 /( -a9 -/C 7 Linda Lagergren From: Archana Rawat [archana_rawat @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:25 AM To: City Council Subject: Cell Phone Tower Withdrawal Dear City Council Members, I am writing to voice my opinion regarding the proposed cell phone tower installation at the corner of Bubb and Folkestone. This location is very close to Regnart Elementary school, where lots of children and teachers spend a fair amount of their day. No matter what studies say about low -level radiation from cell -phone towers, I think it will put our children at risk. Please look at alternate locations for the tower. Thanks, Archana 1 cx— „_aq_i Linda Lagergren From: svasa @comcast.net Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 9:38 AM To: City Council; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong Cc: Berger, Shaul; remavasa Subject: T- Mobile cell transmitter on a PG and E electric pole at 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino. Dear City of Cupertino Council Members, Please consider following points before considering the proposal for a T- Mobile cell transmitter (antenna) on a PG and E electric pole at 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino. My Background: I (Suresh Vasa) moved to Cupertino in 1983 on Regnart Road and my two kids (Son Engineer, Daughter Physician) have attended various Cupertino district schools - Stocklmeir (In Sunnyvale near Ortega Park), Regnart Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista. I proudly claim to be involved with eight years of active volunteering in Monta Vista High School and yet have not got over the separation anxiety from that school. My kids' mother passed away in 2003 due to Cancer and I got remarried again in 2009 and my wife shares the same concern on this tower as me. As I am retired now and my wife is planning a retirement this year we look forward to continue to live in Cupertino for our retirement lives. 1. 1. How many more such transmitters are needed for the cell phone coverage in Cupertino? When you look in to this transmitter it only covers for few blocks for one (T- Mobile) of the many carriers (Other carriers come to my mind are Sprint F'CS, Metro PCS, AT & T, Verizon etc.) You must estimate the numbers of such antennas or transmitters needed to cover completely over city of Cupertino. Approving one transmitter will be opening a flood gate for application of many such transmitters. 2. 2. One Network or one tower option for Cupertino. I am assuming that the number of such transmitter required above is staggering. So it makes a sense to me that one tower placed on a Cupertino Hill may make more sense. We do not allow multiple power lines to come to our houses or multiple water lines or multiple phone lines or multiple gas lines to name a few. Why should we allow multiple mobile phone companies to install separate network systems in Cupertino? Cupertino needs a policy for mobile phone network. You must look in to forming such a policy before consideration of approving this transmitter. One tower makes a better option than multiple antennas. Most other countries have one network that is shared by all mobile phone companies. Here in USA Apple Computer needs to bring out a separate phone for Verizon users and a separate phone for AT &T users. These phone versions are not compatible to each other. A solution must be found to reduce the number of transmitters in City of Cupertino. I believe you have more power to decide on this factor by creating a unified policy for the implementation of various networks in the city. 3. 3. You must not compromise Cupertino's strong point of having a great school system. If you approve this tower and the scenario of multiple towers the property values will decline and that will reduce the money coming in for City of Cupertino. This possibility must be looked in to before approving this transmitter. Cupertino schools are great assets to our city. 1 4. 4. Radiation Measurement and advice. If radiation is a hazard whether it comes from CeII phones, microwave ovens, wireless internet or cordless phones, we must be able to measure this radiation. This is important for us as we will be spending full time in our home in Cupertino. We would be interested in the radiation present in our environment and believe City of Cupertino can take a leadership role in advising on reducing this radiation to its residents. We would be interested in trying to reduce the radiation in our life style and look forward to City of Cupertino to take an active role in advising us as it has done for re- cycling in our homes. Obviously second hand smoking is as an area we should have been more careful much earlier in our lives even though it was considered harmless at one time. Regards, Suresh and Rema Vasa 21512 Regnart Road Cupertino, Ca, 95014 S 2 /1/09//c) Linda Lagergren From: Peng Liu [peng_liu @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:35 AM To: City Council Subject: reject cell phone tower proposal Dear council members, As a resident of Cupertino with two kids going to William Regnart Elementary and John F Kennedy Middle, I'm deeply concerned about the cell phone tower proposal at the corner of Bubb and Folkstone. Please reject this proposal -For the health of our children. Best Regards, Peng Liu Seven Springs resident, Cupertino, CA 95014 1 CC— ' c 1 /6 96 r /I #7 Linda Lagergren From: Steven Yang [stevenyang @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:38 AM To: Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Subject: Public Hearing to install T- Mobile antenna on Bubb Rd Cupertino The planning department of the city of Cupertino approved to T- Mobile to install antenna on PG &E pole in our neighborhood. We fully support the efforts of the city to provide superior connectivity (broadband, wireless, etc) to its citizens. The problem is that the current plan and similar to come will not achieve it. Quite the contrary! The proposed antenna is located just two blocks away from Regnart elementary school and poses a heath risk to our children. In addition to health risks that nobody is sure what are the long term effects of this type of radiation, this solution is very localized and solves connectivity for least popular carrier. This means that soon all our streets will be full of ugly power poles, each addressing different type of wireless connectivity. Even the planning department admits that the proposed antenna does not solve connectivity to big parts of Cupertino for T- Mobile (meaning that we will need many more ugly poles for them and AT &T, Verizon, Sprint, etc). We think the right approach is to erect a high tower on the Cupertino hills which will be away from dense housing (and thus less health risks) . This tower will be able to provide much better coverage to most of the city and can be shared by all wireless providers without the aesthetic damage that the current approach will bring to our streets. We are asking you to put the approval on hold and ask all the other carriers (that are also applying for antenna approvals) to come up with a joint proposal that will put a wireless antenna tower on Cupertino hills and solve the coverage issues without making our street look like military wireless compound full of ugly antennas. This should be part of overall city plan that will combine coverage based on tower located in non - residential areas like the Cupertino hills or commercial locations. In conclusion, I asking you to vote "NO" to the proposed T- mobile antenna near 11371 Bubb Road. I strongly urge the City Council to pass a resolution for city wide cell phone tower plan that will reduce the wireless antenna clutter in the city to minimum by sharing facilities between all operators. I appreciate your patience in understanding your constituents view point. Thanks, Steven Yang 1 Linda Lagergren From: Ken Au [ken_au_home @yahoo.corn] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:54 AM To: City Council Cc: Jessie Au Subject: Concern Parents from Cupertino on Cell Phone Tower To whom it may concern, As resident and parents living in Cupertino near Regnart Elementary school; I strongly oppose to build the cell phone tower so close to the young kids. As parents and residents, it is our obligation to minimize risks for our kids and our neighbors. Please do not build the cell phone tower. Best Regards, Ken Au 1