114-M. Public Correspondence.pdfATTACHMENT M
RECEIVED
CCupertino Chamber of Commerce
Your Partner in Silicon Valley
September 10, 2010
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Srp 1 1�j 2010
BY
I am writing to express the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's support for the
installation of an AT&T wireless tower at 1 Results Way. This investment in Cupertino's
wireless infrastructure meets a pressing community need by extending robust service to
Cupertino businesses and residents.
In 2007, the Technology Information & Communications Commission conducted a
survey that found half of Cupertino residents experienced fair, poor or non-existent cell
phone reception. The study specifically identified Monta Vista/Bubb/McClellan as an
area with poor reception. Extending improved wireless service to this area will help
businesses conduct their operations, improve communication and public safety for
residents, and provide ongoing benefit to the local economy.
Not only will the installation provide enhanced service to the community, but will do so
in a visually unobtrusive manner. The use of a stealth mono -pine tree pole mitigates
concerns about aesthetics by blending the structure in with its surroundings.
Given the compelling benefits for Cupertino businesses and residents, the Chamber
respectfully requests your consideration of AT&T's application to invest in this key
community asset.
Sincerely,
igrv_
Lynn Ching
President, Board of Directors
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
20455 Silverado Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 * 408-252-7054 * FAX 408 252-0638
www.cupertino-chamber.org
r
0MICIKc
Chd, DH Wqb`, C,4h
Arrerhn Nc. '
=Ch,,k Riid,Co- M, .
. Clry of Ban Juee -
Ru. Ggk . VH•e .F,e•la. M6CEO
Jdd nwntt aAXw, vaAaY xeiwnR
DIRECTDHa
Janie c. Aa.m. .
'Wale F.rgn '
u.M ae.,
GouBle.'Inc. .
EIAZ Allulel
CaINA BMIe Senale
M.a Bxrhau.
J.IWH.he.ft - -
G..p.ryB.I.nl.r
Cumwlc. BenX
G.Bmn.nth.l
UnN-.lry d CeAlunY e19anm Lti•X
a.... Beuh-r
Wann Gen. W G. kh a R-al
w Bee.eh '
Cm,nlY elSan Memo
Ed C..tr. .
%Plat
EmmiH D. Conan.
aM_V.IY Cum hieyr,ealen
Bony•n
AYean. 8d. Sd.r- -
PM V.
SanJoeaGAlrnnYaYMGhemberdCamn,ama
M.ry D.nl
BVB FlnawLl Gn,p -
a.A F.,ama
s•n Jou Cfm•enNm A wimn au,em, -
S.n F—I
Glenn G.Mt
Wehrnraultlun
K-m GIIII. -
J.dlm M.eu,.B Gnly
n•Ire Derne D, Namur UnM ly
P-1 D-lahon
TM Gryup
Tlmelny HMBht -
M .c Caleye . -
Ch-MrHrh.11
Cep -•A pd,uanlnl Coleys -
]u. H-d
GummerHl H.mr
M d, J__ _
D.WM a -.ha
W. K.Ith K.n-ari Jr.
con«ay
Al K.—
G.Mame,-
r m HI•I.
Gr-M.,y Treuay 11P
-_Km p
cAy d C,glem..
H-. LU K.
Genh LTe,a County l.ma d G., ry
Jam-M. tlkon Yell.yla.ylam J-aBWnn.e Jeurlml
Tua MaCMmwa
R.alGwd. 9dm '
as-MCCauBh.-
wels9a1WrPaeYad CNtlmnbHoaplal
si•n MMcewn
.,,n,a unx.w,
September 8, 2010
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I understand that the Planning Commission is considering an application from ATT for a
wireless installation located at 1 Results Way, Cupertino on September 14, 2010. Joint
Venture: Silicon Valley Network would like to go on record as strongly encouraging efforts
to improve wireless service in the City of Cupertino and the region.
A few years ago a joint committee of business and city leaders identified wireless service as
a serious problem in Silicon Valley. They felt that our wireless service was not up to world -
class standards. The committee determined that the availability and reliability of wireless
service was an issue of public safety and economic development. The same was felt by half
of Cupertino's residents when surveyed in 2007.
With the help of business and community leaders, and with inputs from city planners and
cell phone service providers, Joint Venture analyzed the problem and published Cell Phone
Coverage Primer, which can be found at: http://www.jo.intyetiture.Qrg:wiretess.
We concluded that the primary reason for poor coverage in Silicon Valley is the rapid
growth in the number and usage of cell phones. People are using the phones not only in
downtowns and major thoroughfares but also at home, in stores and rural areas. The
wireless network was not designed for this load and is unable to accommodate current and
future demand for service. And more and more, people are depending on their cell phones
in an emergency. More than one-third of 911 calls are being made from cell phones today.
The solution is to increase the number of cell sites. Because service is now needed in
residential areas, cell sites need to be compatible with community tastes. This often means
that the antennas are mounted at a lower height reducing the distance the signal can travel
and thus requiring more cell sites for coverage similar to that of older and taller cell towers.
The current cell site is proposed to be a stealth mono -pine tree pole, which will blend with
the surroundings to meet aesthetic requirements.
GeH.M•
The path to improved wireless service is ours to create. We now need the support of local
W Aver m,Her WrkrNy Help a DurrLLP
M.WM HIDhmrl!na� .. -
jurisdictions as they consider cell applications since wireless use is only going to increase.
AwMM soiuHuu '
- -� -
J.i.Pn F.N.r -
"�"°
Joint Venture respectfully requests that you bear in mind the need to improve the quality of
wireless service within Silicon Vallev as You review and consider the ATT cell site
..by K.w
6,0Cap W, application.
P-IKa.h.
MdUneay d Gunparry, Inc.
H.m slm
cm... Enwm.yMamv -
aa.-am.m -
xal•afPennanalM
nn aotirate, ar..
9.hmm GevebpmunlCemparik• -
H•Il Btnr ehlMC..
Xq acan.m,aan naa-I:aana -
H.r wm.
A"I. Mel.dtl.
Chn•h WA..
aenm Cnm C—Y cm. of Eaucmt.n
I.Inee MYnhm.
A'mnryd Pernlhnntl Marts-M
Janymllmen
s•n Joe. sum uN.enlr
-I.I Yen
allck n.mromn 6 amcm. LW
Sincerely,
. . \�( r ll,,,
Ashwini Gillen
Director, Wireless Communications Initiative
100 W San Fernando Street, Suite 310 a San Jose, California 95113
(408) 298-9330 tel n (408) 404-0865 fax a www.jointventure.org
Colin Jung
From: Debbieloo [debbieloo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: At & t
Hi -
Please support better wireless coverage for AT&T in cupertino. It is odd that in the city
where apple is headquartered we have such poor coverage. Embarrassing!
Debbie Y. Loo
1
Colin Jung
From: Jitendra Gupta [Jitendra@punchh.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Support for new AT&T cell site in monte vista area
Dear Colin,
We live on Milky Way (off Stelling Ave.) in Cupertino... Since we moved here, AT&T cell phone reception has
been a constant problem for us...We recently moved to this area and don't have the option to move to another
provider because of contract issues.
I want to express my strong support for the new tree tower in the monte vista area to improve reception.
Thanks, Jitendra
Ph: 650-520-9689
Blog: http://jitepdragupta.com
Twitter: http.//twitter.coni/JitendraGupta
Colin Jung
From: Steve Mayhew [steve mayhew2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:31 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Support for ATT
Colin,
Our coverage for AT&T is so bad here in Monte Vista that calls drop outside my house.
As a resident and tax payer 1 hole heartedly support AT&T's plans to put a tree pole cell tower behind Cupertino Supply
on Imperial (Bubb Road). Hopefully we will be able to attend the meeting on the 14th, but if not you have heard my voice.
Regards,
Steve Mayhew
408-873-9693
21691 Lomita Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Colin Jung
From: naylorken@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:26 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: ATT Mobile Service in Monte Vista Area of Cupertino
Colin Jung-----
Weare subscribers of ATT mobile service and we received a message from the company that you
are involved with their attempts to improve mobile reception in our neighborhood_
This is to let you know we live on Rancho Deep Cliff Drive in somewhat of a canyon and the
current ATT service is "spotty" at best. Anything you can do to improve their transmission and
reception will be appreciated.
Please contact either myself or my wife if you need more info.
Thank you ------- Ken Naylor 408-446-1160 (a landline number!!)
Colin Jun
From: 6507962759@mms.att.net
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: Colin Jung
We strongly support cell phone coverage at rancho deep cliff fr
Colin Jung
From: shashi kulkarni [shashi.kulkarni@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:10 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: support for better wireless coverage and approving the proposed cell site in the Monte Vista
area of Cupertino, California.
Hi,
I fully support for better wireless coverage and approving the proposed cell site in the Monte Vista area of
Cupertino, California.
It is the worst coverage from AT&T and now -a -days most of us have Whone which is only available from
AT&T but is hardly useful when we are at home due to the coverage problem.
Please approve this and help us getting better coverage as the rest of the bay area is getting.
Cupertino is the best town to live due to the best schools - which is the major reason we chose Cupertino. But
we are facing the issues related to cell phone coverage and your help will be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Shashi Kulkarni
Colin Jung
From: Urabesan [urabesan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:53 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T coverage
Colin,
We are long time residents (25 yrs) of Cupertino. Please, please allow AT&T to put up
more towers or whatever they need to do to improve reception on our iPhones. We live in the
Monte Vista neighborhood, on Weymoth Dr. and love our iPhones but can't use them in our own
home!
Thank you
Sandi
Sandra S. Urabe
1233 Weymoth Drive
Cupertino CA. 05014
Sent from Sandi's iPhone!
1
Colin Jung
From: Marshall Jackson [marshalI@marshalijackson.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:49 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject; AT&T Cell Tower in Monte Vista Area, Cupertino NEEDS it!!
To: Colin Jung, Senior City Planner, Cupertino
I am writing this letter regarding the proposed AT&T cell tower in the Monte Vista area of Cupertino. I have been a
licensed California Realtor since 1990. (20 years). I am with Intero Real Estate. Our corporate offices are in Cupertino.
Over the years, I have represented may clients who have purchased and sold homes in Cupertino. On a personal note, I
spend a lot of time in Cupertino. I skate at the ice rink in Vallco. I eat at many of Cupertino's great restaurants. I go to
the movie theatres. I am a member of the Cupertino Sports Center. My daughter was a member of the Cupertino
chapter of 4H. My wife worked for 8 years at Apple Computer. I could go on and on. I know the town well.
I also know that cell coverage is severely limited in many parts of Cupertino. this must be repaired. Cell phones are so
important in our lifestyles here in the Bay Area. The provide security for families (like mine) to keep in touch with our
children. They provide safety for reaching e911 in an emergency. (If only we could control that accidents only occur
where cell phone coverage exists!) They are a source of commerce and a required tool for all businessmen that keeps
our high-tech companies and our overall economy humming. There are so many reasons that our cellular network
needs to be improved.
Some of the nay -sayers and NIMBYs say that cell towers negatively impact property values. I can't comment on the
nationwide impacts of cell towers on housing values, but as a Bay Area Realtor, I can certainly comment on our local
trends. Many of my clients have instantly passed on a home if upon arrival, they find their cell phone has no signal. Our
Silicon Valley High -Tech culture requires that we are available to our companies at all hours of the day. The cell phone
and smart phone is that link! I have personally experienced this over and over again.
The NIMBYs also comment on the aesthetics. We have all become so accustomed to utility poles and street signs and
fire hydrants and overhead wires, and roads (yes, asphalt paths for our cars are not natural) and TV antennae and Hamm
radio antennae that we don't even notice these things anymore. They just blend into the background and we accept
them are necessary parts of our society. Cell towers, particularly those built as monopines, are NOT a real aesthetic
concern in society.
Just last month, a home in Santa Clara County (just 1 exit up Hwy 280 from Cupertino) sold in 2 days, above asking price,
and $250K above the neighborhood median home price. The interesting thing about this particular home was that it is
less than 50 yards from 3 cell towers.
Please, do the right thing for Silicon Valley as a whole. Do not allow the vocal minority to impact what is best for
everyone. Allow AT&T to build this cell tower right away.
Please contact me if you have any questions,
Marshall Jackson
Marshall Jackson, Intero Real Estate
Phone: 408-656-1070
FAX: 650-618-8548
Email: Marshall@ MarshallJackson.com
1-
Colin Jung
From: Agnes Fu [ppwen@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
Dear City Planner,
I'm a resident of Cupertino and live very close to the AT&T proposed base station location. I STRONGLY OBJECT to the
placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
I am very concern of the health risks the cell phone base station presents. The cell base station in the neighborhood will
also lower the property value.
Please do everything in your power to prevent the base station from being built near residential area.
Sincerely,
Agnes Fu
Resident of Cupertino
Colin Jung
From: Xiaowen Liu [xliu_2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: STRONGLY OBJECT to the cell phone base station at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
Dear Mr. Jung,
I strongly object the cell phone base station at Results Way, Cupertino, USA.
The location is not appropriate, and is inconsiderate to the people, especially children in this
neighborhood.
The location is not appropriate to improve AT&T's wireless coverage either.
Best regards,
Xiaowen Liu
Imperial Ave, Cupertino resident
Traci Caton
From: Doris Yeh [doristwyeh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:07 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Response for: AT&T/Results Way (APN: 357-20-046)
Attn:
Mr. Gary Chao
Cupertino City Planner
Dear Mr. Chao:
I am emailing you with regards to the proposal to install an AT&T cellular tower in the Results Way office
park. My family and I, along with our neighbors, are strongly against this proposal.
This proposal by AT&T to place this cell tower at this location is not new, and this issue has been discussed
many times in the past. From my attendance at past city planning meetings, it is clear to me that there is
widespread resistance in the community to this proposal. Although AT&T and their supporters claim this cell
addition will benefit local cell phone users, I believe negatives outweigh the supposed benefits of this plan.
The proposed location of this tower is directly adjacent to a large community of homes and families. Cellular
towers are ugly, no matter how you try to camouflage it, and they belong in industrial complexes, and not
among communities. Furthermore, while it's been noted that the health concerns of living next to a cell tower
are not valid arguments, it needs to be clear that there has not been any definitive scientific evidence to show
that living next to cell towers does or does not impact the health of residents living in the community.
Therefore, it is a valid concern for those of us who close to this proposed location.
Aside from our concerns about the welfare of the residents and the community, a 74 foot tall cell tower would
detract from the landscape and beauty of the neighborhood that I have been a resident of for more than 20 years.
Installing such an industrial structure within a residential community will detract from the value of our
properties, while not necessarily improve cellular service throughout the city.
In closing, I wish to strongly protest this plan, and I hope the Cupertino Planning Commission will strongly
consider the will of the residents in their decision and vote against this plan.
Thank You.
James, Doris, Jimmy, and Christine Yeh
10354 Imperial Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014
Traci Caton
From: Candice Tsai [can d ifuyu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 20104:44 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Regarding AT&T/Results Way (Application No. U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31 APN:
357-20-046)
Mr. Gary Chao
In regards to the request for AT&T to build a cell tower on Results Way, as a local resident and property owner I vote
strongly against this action.
This cell tower issue from AT&T has been a long issue discussed by Cupertino city planners and their local residents.
Through the years, the proposition has been continuously rejected by the local community as proven by the past failed
attempts to build a cell tower. Although the requester and supporters of this claim to be benefiting the local user of AT&T
for a better reception, there has not been a lack of Cupertino residents to own AT&T cellular service. Furthermore, the so
called "bad service" has not been affecting the popularity of Cupertino residency and property value. The building of this
tower may or may not improve the reception service, but it would definitely reduce the beauty and image of the
Cupertino neighborhood, not to mention the negative effect it would have on the local property values and other factors
of Cupertino residents are proud to call their own.
Unfortunately I will not be avaliable to attend the hearing on Tuesday, however, I wish to protest this plan strongly even
though I cannot be physically present.
I hope the Cupertino Planning Commission will reconsider and vote against this plan so that we can keep Cupertino
attractive in every way.
Thank You.
Candice Tsai
10108 Imperial Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014
Traci Caton
From: sunil chawla [sunil@seascapelearning.com]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 8:40 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Re: Application No U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31
Hello Gary
I will be unable to attend this mt re a Wireless Tower at Resulats Way.
However, I would like to voice my views as follows:
a. If the City already has a regulation in place for towers to be no greater than 55, why
does the City even have to entertain a request for a higher tower? Is'nt this flying in the
face of your well designed regulations?
b. Will an envirommental and health impact review be done before permission is granted?
Thanks!
Sunil Chawla
21701 Alcazar Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
Colin Jung
From;
Grace W. Chen [gwychen@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Saturday, September 11, 2010 12:40 AM
To:
Colin Jung
Subject:
74 ft tall cell phone base station tree
Attachments:
AT&T Wireless Pole Location.pdf; AT&T Public Hearing 2010-9-14.pdf
Dear Colin,
"2 STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree
pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA. "
Regards,
Grace Chen
1
Colin Jung
From: kchung88 [kchung88@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 1:44 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: Bo Choy
Subject: Opposition to the construction of AT&T wireless cell phone base station pole at Results Way,
Cupertino
Dear Mr. Colin
I am a resident of the Astoria community on Imperial Ave, Cupertino. I strongly oppose to the construction of the proposed
AT&T wireless cell phone base station pole near my residence. We are seriously concern of potential health hazard by the
radiation and electromagnetic field of the structure due to its proximity to our homes and the surrounding schools. We
have many kids in the community and many students in the neighborhood walk to Lincoln, Kennedy, and Monta Vista
every school day. The location of the wireless structure is just not appropriate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kam Chung
10154 Imperial Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Colin Jung
From: Allan Chapman [chapman8@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 6:29 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T Tower in Cupertino
Dear Mr. Jung,
I want to strongly urge you to approve the proposed AT&T tower in Cupertino. The signal is so bad at
our home in Cupertino that only 1 in 10 calls, either incoming or outgoing is successful.
Please make the new tower a reality.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allan Chapman
Slaves On Horseback
Authored by Allan Chapman
Nick Shepherd survives the terrorist attack, but becomes the prime suspect. In his quest to unmask
the true perpetrators, Nick runs into trouble at UNRC, the oil company where he works, Stanford
University, his alma matey, and even at home. He loses his way, but then embarks on a new, spiritual
path, which stretches him beyond his imagination.
Publication Date:
Apr 30 2010
ISBNIEAN13:
0979678013 / 9780979678011
Page Count:
302
Binding Type:
US Trade Paper
Trim Size:
6" x 9"
Language:
English
Color:
Black and White
Related Categories: Fiction
YOU CAN NOW ORDER A PAPERBACK COPY OF MY THRILLER, Slaves On Horseback, BY
CLICKING ON: hftps://www.createspace.com/3423793. TO HEAR THE FREE PODCAST
EPISODES FROM Slaves On Horseback PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITE:
www.allanchapman.blogspot.com. TO HEAR THE FREE PODCAST EPISODES FROM MY
CHILDREN'S STORIES PLEASE VISIT MY WEB SITE:
www.chapmanchildrenstories.blogspot.com.
Allan Chapman
CHAPMAN TRADING COMPANY, INC.
7585 KIRWIN LANE
CUPERTINO, CA, USA 95014
TELEPHONE: 408-873-7515
CELL: 408-396-6813
FAX: 408-252-0566
EMAIL: chapmanB@pacbell.net
Colin Jung
From: Imin [imin168@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:54 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Application # U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31(Planning Commission)
Hi,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way, Cupertino, CA.
I am a resident of the Astoria community on Imperial Ave, Cupertino. I strongly oppose to the construction of
the proposed AT&T wireless cell phone base station pole near my residence. We are seriously concern of
potential health hazard by the radiation and electromagnetic field of the structure due to its proximity to our
homes and the surrounding schools. We have many kids in the community and many students in the
neighborhood walk to Lincoln, Kennedy, and Monta Vista every school day. The location of the wireless
structure is just not appropriate.
Imin Chang
Colin Jun
From: Andrew Wu [awu9890@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Oppose ATT 74 feet cell tower at Result Way
I am a resident of the Astoria community on Imperial Ave, Cupertino. I strongly oppose to the construction of
the proposed AT&T wireless cell phone base station pole near my residence at Result Way.
I am seriously concern of potential health hazard by the radiation and electromagnetic field of the structure due
to its proximity to our homes and the walking paths for kids going to schools. We have many kids in the
community and many students in the neighborhood walk to Lincoln, Kennedy, and Monta Vista every school
day.
The location of the wireless structure is just not appropriate.
-andrew
Colin Jung
From: Sudhanshu Sethi [sethi1234@gmail. com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:37 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T Coverage in Cupertino
Hello Colin,
I think it's important to have better AT&T Coverage in the Cupertino Area. Cupertino has
always struggled with good wireless coverage for AT&T and other carriers. With the advent of
the iPhone, AT&T's coverage in the area is gotten worse and worse - especially since we live
in the silicon valley, the number of subscribers to AT&T using the iPhone has gone up even
more.
We are one of the few cities in the bay area that struggle with poor wireless reception. This
shows how Cupertino does not promote new technologies and why new corporations do not want to
have a presence here.
Sudhanshu
1
Colin Jung
From: zhaohui qu [zhqu@yahoo.coml
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 3:35 PM
To: Colin Jung
Hi Colin,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed
at Results way, Cupertino, CA.It will affect all kids health in Lincoln Elementary School.
Bina
I
Colin Jung
From: Jitendra Pahadia Upahadia@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:55 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: ATT coverage near Monta Vista school
Colin Jung,
Senior City Planner,
Cupertino.
We understand that there is a proposal for new cell phone tower site near monta vista. I and my family fully support this
proposal. This will go long way in helping parents and kids connect with each other through cell phone. Thank you
Colin -Jun
From: MarciaKearns@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:11 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AW tower needed in Cupertino
I am writing to express my hope that At&t will consider installing a cell tower in the Monta Vista
(please correct the spelling on your emails!) area of Cupertino. As a long-time At&t customer who
has had to deal with spotty to zero coverage where my children go to school, and where I do much of
my volunteer work, I can't tell you how many missed calls and dropped calls I have had in the
neighborhood areas around Monta Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School, and the Mc Clellan Rd
area in general. It has made picking up carpools challenging and frustrating at times.
I have only kept my At&t account because my son has an Phone, otherwise I would have changed to
Verizon, or another carrier, as I've heard good things about their coverage.
I also understand all the other four high schools in our district have the cell towers, and I can think of
no good reason why Monta Vista should be excluded from not only better cell phone coverage, but
the income that goes along with having one of the towers on their property.
I implore you to think of the greater good of the entire Cupertino community and not just listen to the
neighbors who are only worried about themselves and their properties.
thank you,
Marcia Kearns
Colin Jung
From: Rajaram Soundararajan [rajaram.sr@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:36 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: jaya devi
Subject: Unacceptably Poor AT&T Coverage in our neighborhood
Dear Ms Colin Jung,
I live in Lily Court, Cupertino near the Monta Vista/Lincoln school area. The AT&T wireless coverage in and
around my house is just too bad. Most of my important calls and messages never reach me or my wife's
mobiles. When we try making calls, the calls most of the time end up a one way conversation if at all
successful. For instance I cannot even take advantage of the free mobile to mobile call when I have to call my
wife from my office or vice versa. I have to always call the land line to talk to her there by chopping my day
time minutes too quickly. Adding to the frustration is a need to go out to some specific point in our
neighborhood and face in a specific direction to make a (wishful) call. It is sadly funny sometimes that more
than one neighbor end up in the same place for the same reason. Literally a heavy call traffic!
Please kindly do the needful to get us good cell coverage from AT&T so our families are not left out of
communication when it is needed the most in this digital age. I am sure you will agree with me on how
important a role the cell phone plays in this age for safety, productivity, and ultimately a prosperous
neighborhood/city. Mine and neighbors' children walk to the schools daily. Their safety in my view highly
depends on effective instant communication.
Again I request you to kindly do the needful to get the AT&T coverage better in our neighborhood.
Thank You.
Best Regards,
Raj & Jaya
Colin Jun
From: john dilley [Idean95014@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:16 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T Cell Coverage
Hi Colin - I am a long time user of the AT&T cell services and look forward to the city working with the
company to improve the coverage of its cell service. Thanks for your help in improving our service.
Larry Dean
22159 Rae Lane
Cupertino, 95014
Colin Jung
From: akashpai@gmail.com on behalf of Akash Pal lakash.pai@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:20 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31
To: City of Cupertino, Planning Commission
Subject: Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04,
TR-2010-31
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way, Cupertino, CA in the parking lot for the following reasons:
1. The proposed cell phone tree pole is NOT supposed to be built near Residential Housing.
2. A cell phone tree pole at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively.
3. A cell phone tree pole of 74 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural
aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and
forever alter the residential character of the community.
4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential
community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this cell phone tree pole. There are
various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and
cell phone towers.
5. If the proposed cell phone tree pole is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set
for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Cupertino neighborhoods.
6. The proposed cell phone tree pole in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents
potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell towers to
health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer.
I REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential
physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed
cell phone tree pole, and do everything in your power to prevent this tree pole._(and futul:e cell towers) from
being built near residential area!
Thanks.
-- Akash Pai
Resident of Cupertino, CA
Colin Jun
From: Susan Camilleri [susan—camilleri@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:03 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T's proposed cell phone tower on Imperial
Dear Colin,
I support the installation of this cell phone tower.
However, I would appreciate a closer tower to my house on Wilkinson. I don't think this will put me in the yellow area, let
alone the green reception area. If I understand the many attempts AT&T has tried to give better service to their
customers, I can simply implore that you allow something to go up so someone in my neighborhood does not have to go
to a neighbor's house during a robbery because their cell phone has NO reception. That is what happened during the
summer at the corner of Hyannisport and Bubb. Most people don't have land lines anymore and cell phone reception is
paramount to safety.
Please allow the antenna to be installed — even though closer to McClellan would be less double coverage and more for
the neighborhood barely covered.
Thank you,
Susan Camilleri
10812 Wilkinson Avenue
408 252 6165
Colin Jung
From: Russell Lu [russlu@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:35 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Against AT&T new cell site in Cupertino
Hi Colin,
I am a resident of Cupertino at 10086 Imperial Ave. and I am voicing my opposition of the
proposed new cell site in the neighborhood. With two young children in the household, we are
very concerned with the close proximity of the tower to the neighborhood. In addition, the
cell site is an eye -sore to the community towering way above the nearby houses.
Please consider our concerns and those of our neighborhood and vote against the new AT&T cell
site.
Best Regards,
Russell Lu
10086 Imperial Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
Traci Caton
From: Raja Srinivasan [saligram@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:16 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Proposed AT&T Cell Tower in Monta Vists
Hi:
I do not support the 80 feet tower that emits powerful radio magnetic waves within the school. I've 2 kids who
go to Monta Vista and I'll not have their health impacted. Please do not allow AT&T to setup the towers within
the school property.
Thanks & Regards
Raja Srinivasan
11094 La Paloma Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014.
Colin Jung
From:
Valerie Hayes [valhayes@comcast.net]
Sent:
Monday, September 13, 2010 5:04 PM
To:
Colin Jung
Subject:
AT&T Tower
I agree that it would be great to have an AT&T cell tower on Results Way. I work at a local school and live
nearby and have changed to Verizon because that is the only carrier that has good coverage in the
Lincoln/Kennedy/Monta Vista school areas.
I would prefer they NOT cut down 5 redwood trees though. It seems like there is plenty of space on the
property to put in a tower without cutting down trees.
Valerie Hayes
September Drive,
Cupertino, CA
Colin Jung
From: Seejo Pylappan [radwar@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: Oppose the placement of 74ft cell phone base station at Results Way, Cupertino
Dear City of Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA. My kids go to Lincoln elementary school and I don't want an cell phone antennae near it.
Thanks
Seejo Pylappan
864 Kim St,
Cupertino CA 95014.
Colin Jung
From: Caroline Hayes [carolinesemail@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 5:41 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Cell phone tower
We have kids at Lincoln and Monta Vista and would LOVE a cell phone tower to be put in by Lincoln.
The Hayes Family
1093 November Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Traci Caton
From: Rajeshri kale [rajeshri@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:23 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: I am opposed to application# "U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31"
Hi,
I am opposed to your plan to have a wireless service facility consisting of 12 panel antennas
mounted on 74 Ft tall monopine......
I live in
Rajeshri Kale
10166, Imperial Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Thanks
Rajeshri
Traci Caton
From: Arvind Kale [arvind_kale@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:21 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: I am opposed to application# "U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31"
Hi,
i am opposed to your plan to have a wireless service facility consisting of 12 panel antennas mounted on 74 Ft tall
monopine......
I live in
Arvind Kale
10166, Imperial Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Thanks
Arvind
Colin Jun
From: Xin Liu [xliu_grad@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Subject: I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA
Colin Jung
From: Andre Chiu [andrechiu168@gmaii.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 11:38 AM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Subject: Objection to the AT&T Cellphone tower in Result Way
Dear City Commissioners,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA.
I just don't think betting unknown health risk(EMF) on our next generation is the right decision to make. We don't want to
find out ten or twenty years later such a decision had hurt many many of our next generation in this prestigious school
district. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Andre Chiu
Colin Jun
From:
Delphine Imbert [imbertdelphine@gmail.com]
Sent:
Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:54 PM
To:
Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Ig iefer@sbcglobal. net', dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Cc:
Mike Francoeur
Subject:
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
Dear Mr. and Ms. Jung, Miller, Giefer, Kaneda, Brophy, and Leeds,
Please know that I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at
Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
Delphine Imbert
Cupertino, CA
Colin Jung
From: jenny tsai Dennytsai_2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 2:52 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Cc: Jenny Tsai
Subject: Object to the Placement of the Cell Phone Base Station at Results Way
Dear Sir or Madam,
"Z STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA."
Regards,
--Jenny Tsai
1
Traci Caton
From: Angela Chan [alschan28@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:52 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmillee@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Re: Oppose Application NO:U-2010-03,EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31
Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this Email to strongly oppose having a cellphone tower installed so close to my family home on
Imperial Avenue.
The opposing reasons :-
1. An Eye Sore:- The tower is 3 times higher than natural trees. I do not want to see a huge tall fake tree in
front of my window, blocking the good view of the mountains.
2. Decrease value of my property:- I chose to live in the Monta Vista area because of the high ranking
schools. I will not send my children to the school which would be situated so close to the Celt phone tower,
because of the health concerns. No one will want to live in the Monta Vista area then the Property will
devaluate.
3. Radiation Health Risks:- I have done some research. The influence of being Physically near to a cell
phone transmission mast increases the incidences of Cancer.
4. The tower is by the Residential Area, within walking distance of Lincoln, Monta Vista and Kennedy
Schools. It is too close to our children Is school The children will be affected by the radiation and it will
affect their brain cells.
Please take a serious consideration for our future generation and reject the application.
Thanks,
Angela Chan
Colin Jung
From: Natalino Camilleri [natalinoc@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:56 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: Susan Camilleri
Subject: Fw: Help improve coverage in .Cupertino, CA
Dear Colin,
I fully support ATT in putting more cell sites in Cupertino.
Cell coverage all around Monte Vista High is very poor.
This cell site on Imperial will help the residents between Stevens Creek and McClellen, we also need
a cell site between McClellen and and Rainbow high by the Hills to cover the area between 85 and
the hills.
I do understand that we have some residents that are highly opinionated about the possible danger of
RF radiation. I am an RF professional and I have a PhD in RF technology. The information that
some of the residents have about the dangers of RF radiation are unfounded and not scientific.
Please help ATT on this matter and please let me know how I can help bring adequate cell phone
reception to Cupertino.
Natalino Camilleri PhD.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: AT&T <att@em.wireless.att-mail.com>
To: NATALINO CAMILLERI <natalinoc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, September 8, 2010 7:17:53 AM
Subject: Help improve coverage in Cupertino, CA
View on Mobile Device I View in Web Browser
l
AT&T is working hard to improve wireless coverage in and around the
Monte Vista area in Cupertino, California. Your voice will help bring
a better wireless service sooner by supporting a new cell site in
Cupertino.
Traci Caton
From: Vicky Chan [vchan_13@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9.31 PM
To: collinj@cupertino.org; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Strongly OPPOSE AT&T Cell Tower on Results way (Application No.
U-2010-03,EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31)
Attachments: Germ a nreport_celltower.pdf; Israelstudy_celltower.pdf
Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this email to strongly oppose having a cell phone tower installed so close to my family's home on
Imperial Avenue. I was not aware of the tower until my neighbours notified me a couple of days ago. Some of
them had received a noticed from AT&T requesting support for their cell tower. I live right next to the area
where they expect to put their tower but was not included in AT&T's distribution. They significantly selected
WHO they wanted to notify which I found quite disturbing!
There are a number of important reasons why I oppose this cell tower:
1. AN EYE -SORE! - The 75 foot tower will be a horrendous eye -sore noticably from my front patio. Currently
I can see the mountains from my patio but putting a "fake" cell tower tree would alter the natural view and
would look preposterous. The tower would be much higher than any of the trees currently in the area and would
destroy the natural city skyline.
2. DECREASE in PROPERTY VALUE - Having a tower so close to my property would decrease the value
of my house. People's perspective of a cell tower is the health risks due to the radiation from the tower.
Prospective owners would not risk the health of their families after seeing a cell tower in the neighbourhood. I
certainly would not have purchased my house in cupertino next to a cell tower.
3. RADIATION HEALTH RISKS - These towers emit radio frequencies which are a form of electromagnetic
radiation. These are the same frequency radiation as microwaves from microwave ovens. Even at lower levels
of radiation exposure, there is evidence of damage to cell tissues and DNA linking to cancer. Children and the
elderly are at greater risk. I have attached a couple of articles from studies conducted in Germany and Israel on
how safe cell phone towers are. These articles indicate living near a cell tower increases the cancer risk by 3 to
4 times. I certainly don't want to risk my family's health and I presume you wouldn't either.
4. RESIDENTIAL AREA - The cell tower would be placed in a residential area. The community population in
this area is mainly families with children who would be exposed to these radiation waves on a daily basis.
Placing a tower so close to this residential community would put everyone's health atsisk._
I am currently a long time AT&T customer and have NEVER had any issues with reception in this area. There
is no need for a tower in this residential area. I strongly URGE you to REJECT AT&T's proposal based on
the important reasons above. If you would like to discuss any of my concerns, please do not hesistate to contact
me at vchan_13(c7yahoo.com.
Regards,
Vicky Chan
The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone
Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer
Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit
Published in Urnwelt•Medizin•Gesellschaft 17,4 2004, as:
'Einfluss der raumlichen Nahe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz'
Summary
Following the call by Wolfram Konig, President of the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency
for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the
risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to
cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors.
The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the
years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal. data of almost 1,000 patients
were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is
intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly
higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400. metres
from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients
living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years' operation
of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of
compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.
of the transmitting installation, the relative risk
the area in the proximity of the installation
Key words: cellular radiation, cellular transmitter antennas, malignant tumours
The rapid increase in the use of mobile telephony in
the last few years has led to an increasing number of
cell phone transmission masts being positioned in or
near to residential areas. With this in mind, the
president of the German governmental department
for protection against electromagnetic radiation
(Bundesamtes fur Strahlenschutz) Wolfram Konig, has
challenged all doctors to actively help in the work to
estimate the risks from such cell phone masts. The
goal of this investigation was therefore to prove
whether on not people living near to cell phone masts
have a higher risk of developing cancerous tumours.
The basic data was taken from the medical records
held by the local medical authority (Krankenkasse)
for the years 1994 to 2004. This material is stored on
computer. In this voluntary study the records of
roughly 1,000 patients from Haila (Oberfranken)
were used, respecting the associated data protection
laws. The results from this study show a significantly
increased likelihood of developing cancer for the
patients that have lived within 400 metres of the cell
phone transmission mast (active since 1993) over the
last ten years, in comparison to those patients that
live further away. In addition, the patients that live
within 400 metres tend to develop the cancers at a
younger age. For the years 1999 to 2004 (ie after
five or more years of living with the cell phone
transmission mast), the risk of developing cancer for
those living within 400 metres of the mast in
comparison to those living outside this area, was
three times as high.
Introduction
A series of studies available before this investigation
provided strong evidence of health risks and increased
cancer risk associated with physical proximity to radio
transmission masts. Haider et a[ reported in 1993 in
the Moosbrunn study frequent psychovegetive symptoms
below the current safety limit for electromagnetic waves
(1). In 1995, Abelin et al. in the Swiss- Schwarzenburg
study found dose dependent sleep problems (5.1) and
depression (4:1) at a shortwave transmitter station that
has been in operation since 1939 (2)..
In many studies an increased risk of developing
leukaemia has been found; in children near transmitter
antennas for Radio and Television in Hawaii (3);
increased cancer cases and general mortality in the
area of Radio and Television transmitter antennas in
Australia (4); and in England, 9 times more leukaemia
cases were diagnosed in people who live in a nearby
umwelt•medizin•gesettschaft 1 17 1 4/2004
area to the Sutton Goldfield transmitter antennas (5).
In a second study, concentrating on 20 transmitter
antennas in England, a significant increased leukaemia
risk was found (6). The Cherry study (7) indicates an
association between an increase in cancer and living in
proximity to a transmitter station. According to a study
of the transmitter station of Radio Vatican, there were
2.2 times more leukaemia cases in children within a
radius of 6 km, and adult mortality from leukaemia also
increased (8).
In 1997 Goldsmith published the Li lienfeld -study that
indicated 4 times more cancer cases in the staff of the
American Embassy in Moscow following microwave
radiation during the cold war. The dose was low and
below the German limit (9).
The three studies of symptoms indicated a significant
correlation between illness and physical proximity to
radio transmission masts. A study by Santini et al. in
France resulted in an association between irritability,
depression, , dizziness (within 100m) and tiredness
within 300m of a cell phone transmitter station (10).
In Austria there was an association between field
strength and cardiovascular symptoms (11) and in Spain
a study indicates an association between radiation,
headache, nausea, loss of appetite, unwellness, sleep
disturbance, depression, lack of concentration and
dizziness (12).
The human body physically absorbs microwaves. This
leads to rotation of dipole molecules and to inversion
transitions (13), causing a warming effect. The fact
that the human body transmits microwave radiation at
a very low intensity means that since every transmitter
represents a receiver and transmitter at the same time,
we know the human body also acts as a receiver.
In Germany, the maximum safe limit for high frequency
microwave radiation is based on purely thermal effects.
These limits are one thousand billion times higher than
the natural radiation in these frequencies that reaches
us from the sun.
The following study examines whether there is also an
increased cancer risk close to cellular transmitter
antennas in the frequency range 900 to 1800 MHz. Prior
to this study there were no published results for long-
term exposure (10 years) for this frequency range and
its associated effects to be revealed. So far, no follow-
up monitoring of the state of health of such a residential
population has been systematically undertaken.
Materials and Methods
Study area
In June 1993, cellular transmitter antennas were
permitted by the Federal Postal Administration in the
Southern German city of Naila and became operational
in September 1993.
The GSM transmitter antenna has a power of 15 dbW
per channel in the 935MHz frequency range. The total
Fig. 1: schematic plan of the antenna sites
transmission time for the study period is ca. 90,000
hours. In December 1997 there followed an additional
installation from another company. The details are
found in an unpublished report, appendix page 1-3 (14).
To compare results an 'inner' and 'outer' area were
defined. The inner area covered the land that was
within a distance of 400 metres from the cellular
transmitter site. The outer area covered the land
beyond 400 metres. The average distance of roads
surveyed in the inner area (nearer than 400m) was
266m and in the outer area (further than 400m)
1,026m. Fig. 1 shows the position of the cellular
transmitter sites I and 2, surrounded by circle of radius
400 metres. The geographical situation shows the
transmitter sites (560m) are the highest point of the
landscape, which falls away to 525m at a distance of
450m. From the height and tilt angle of the transmitter
it is possible to calculate the distance where the
transmitter's beam of greatest intensity strikes the
ground (see Fig. 2).
The highest radiation - values am -in areas of the main
(m) a : angle of downtilt
h:
height of beam of greatest intensity
mast
D : distance at which main beam strikes ground (m)
Fig. 2: From the mast height h and the downtilt angle a, the distance D
at which the main beam reaches ground is given by D = tan(90-a) x h
umwelt•medizin•gesellschaft 1 17 1 4/2004
beam where it hits the ground and from the expected
associated local reflection; from this point the intensity
of radiation falls off with the square of the distance
from the transmitter.
In Naila the main beam hits the ground at 350m with a
beam angle of 6 degrees (15). In the inner area,
additional emissions are caused by the secondary lobes
of the transmitter; this means in comparison that from
purely mathematical calculations the outer area has
significantly reduced radiation intensity.
The calculations from computer simulations and the
measurements from the Bavaria agency for the
environmental protection, both found that the intensity
of radiation was a factor of 100 higher in the inner area
as compared to the outer area. The measurements of all
transmitter stations show that the intensity of radiation
from the cell phone transmitter station in Naila in the
inner area was higher than the other measurement
shown in the previous studies of electromagnetic fields
from radio, television or radar (14).
The study StSch 4314 from the ECOLOG Institute
indicates an association between a vertical and
horizontal distance from the transmitter station and
expected radiation intensity on the local people (16).
The reason for setting a distance of 400m for the
differentiation point is partly due to physical
considerations, and partly due to the study of Santini et
al. who chose 300m (10).
Data Gathering
Similar residential streets in the inner area and outer
areas were selected at random. The large old people's
home in the inner area was excluded from the study
because of the age of the inhabitants. Data gathering
covered nearly 90% of the local residents, because all
four GPs in Naila took part in this study over 10 years.
Every team researched the names of the patients from
the selected streets that had been ill with tumours
since 1994. The condition was that all patients had
been living during the entire observation time of 10
years at the same address.
The data from patients was handled according to data
protection in an anonymous way. The data was
evaluated for gender, age, tumour type and start of
illness. All cases in the study were based on concrete
results from tissue analysis. The selection of patents for
the study was always done in exactly the same way.
Self-selection was not allowed. Also the subjective
opinion of patients that the radio mast detrimentally
affected their health has not affected this study. Since
patients with cancer do not keep this secret from GPs,
it was possible to gain a complete data set.
Population study
In the areas where data was collected 1,045 residents
were registered in 31.12.2003. The registration statistics
for Naila at the beginning of the study (1.1.1994) show
the number of old people in the inner and outer areas,
as shown in Table 1. The average age at the beginning
_ female male ttlll W
Inner area 41.48 _ �38.70 40.21
Outer area 41.93 38.12 40.20
Naila total 43.55 39.13 41.45
Table 1 : Overview of average ages at the beginning of the study in
1994
Table 2 : Proportion of patients aged over 60
of the study (1.1.1994) in both the inner and outer
areas was 40.2 years. In the study period between
1994-2004, 34 new cases of cancer where documented
out of 967 patients (Table 3). The study covered nearly
90% of local residents.
The average age of the residents in Naila is one year
more than that of the study due to the effects of the
old people's home. From the 9,472 residents who are
registered in Naila, 4,979 (52.6%) are women and 4,493
(47.4%) are men. According to the register office, in
1.1.1994 in the outer area, the percentage was 45.4%
male and 54.5% female, and in the inner area 45.3%
male and 54.6% female. The number of people who are
over 60 years old is shown in Table 2.
The social differences in Naila are small. Big social
differences like in the USA do not exist here. There is
also no ethnic diversity. In 1994 in Naila the percentage
of foreigners was 4%. Naila has no heavy industry, and
in the inner area there are neither high voltage cable
nor electric trains.
Results
Results are first shown for the entire 10 year period
from 1994 until 2004. Secondly, the last five-year
period 1999 to 2004 is considered separately.
Period 1994 to 2004
As a null hypothesis it was checked to see if the
physical distance from the mobile transmission mast
had no effect on the number cancer cases in the
selected population, ie that for both the group nearer
than 400 metres and the group further than 400 metres
the chance of developing cancer was the same. The
relative frequencies of cancer in the form of a matrix
are shown in Table 3.-The statiltical-test method used
on this data was the chi -squared test with Yates's
correction. Using this method we obtained the value of
6.27, which is over the critical value of 3.84 for a
.___..
_34� -
new cases 18 16__..__-_
of cancers
with no new 302 631
933
cancer
total 320 647
967
Table 3 : numbers of patients with and without cancers, 1994-2004
umwelt•medizin•gesellschaft 1 17 1 4/2004
statistical significance of 0.05).
This means the null hypothesis that both groups within
the 400-metre radius of the mast and beyond the 400
metre radius, have the same chance of developing
cancer, can be rejected with a 95% level of confidence.
With a statistical significance of 0.05, an even more
significant difference was observed in the rate of new
cancer cases between the two groups.
Calculating over the entire study period of 1994 until
2004, based on the incidence matrix (Table 3) we arrive
at a relative risk factor of 2.27 (quotient of proportion
for each group, eg 18/320 in the strongly exposed inner
area, against 16/647 in the lower exposed comparison
group). If expressed as an odds ratio, the relationship
of the chance of getting cancer between strongly
exposed and the less exposed is 2.35.
The following results show clearly that inhabitants who
live close to transmitter antennas compared to
inhabitants who live outside the 400m zone, double their
risk of developing cancer. In addition, the average age
of developing cancer was 64.1 years in the inner area
whereas in the outer area the average age was 72.6
years, a difference of 8.5 years. That means during the
10 year study that in the inner area (within 400 metres
of the radio mast) tumours appear at a younger age.
In Germany the average age of developing cancer is
approximately 66.5 years, among men it is approx-
imately 66 and among women, 67 (18).
Over the years of the study the time trend for new
cancer cases shows a high annual constant value (Table
4). It should be noted that the number of people in the
inner area is only half that of the outer area, and
therefore the absolute numbers of cases is smaller.
Table 7 shows the types of tumour that have developed
in the cases of the inner area.
Period 1994 to 1999
Flo sf ases
_of
lriner
re .IP
o F#W
ti54
0eg
to:I
m �of1°em
1994
-
-
1
1.5
1995
-
-
-
1996
II
6.3
1
1.5
1997
1
3.1
III
4.6
1998
11
6.3
III
4.6
1999
11
6.3
1
1.5
2000
11111
15.6
1
1.5
2001
II
6.3
11
3.1
2002
II
6.3
II
3.1
2003-3/2004
II
6.3
11
3.1
Table 4 : Summary of the total tumours occurring per year (no. and
per thousand)
new cases 5
8
13
of cancers
with no new 315
639
954
cancer
total 320
647
967
Table 5 : numbers of patients with and without cancers, 1994-1999
For the first five years of the radio transmission mast
operation (1994-1998) there was no significant increased
risk of'getting cancer within the inner area as compared
to the outer area (Table 5).
Period 1999 to 2004
Under the biologically plausible assumption that cancer
caused by detrimental external factors will require a
time of several years before it will be diagnosed, we
now concentrate on the last five years of the study
between 1999 and 2004. At the start of this period the
transmitter had been in operation for 5 years. The
results for this period are shown in Table 6. The chi -
squared test result for this data (with Yates's
correction) is 6.77 and is over the critical value of 6.67
(statistical significance 0.01). This means, with 99%
level of confidence, that there is a statistically proven
difference between development of cancer between
the inner group and outer group. The relative risk of
3.29 revealed that there was 3 times more risk of
developing cancer in the inner area than the outer area
during this time period.
Prfl
new cases 13 8 31
of cancers
with no new 307 639 946
cancer
total 320 647 967
Table 6 : numbers of patients with and without cancers, 1999-2004
The odds -ratio 3.38 (VI 95% 1.39-8.25, 99% 1.05-10.91)
allows us with 99% confidence to say that the
difference observed here is not. due to some random
statistical effect.
Discussion
Exactly the same system was used to gather data in the
inner area and outer areas. The medical chip card,
which has been in use for 10 years, enables the data to
be processed easily. The four participating GPs
examined the illness of 90% of Naila's inhabitants over
the last 10 years. The basic data for this study were
based on direct examination results of patients
extracted from the medical chip cards, which record
also the diagnosis and treatment. The study pdpulation
is (in regards to age, sex and cancer risk) comparable,
and therefore statistically neutral. The study deals only
with people who have been living permanently at the
same address for the entire study period and therefore
4 umwelt•medizin•gesellschaft 1 17 1 412004
T�+pe of
nsr 4f
' Incidence
"raga
breast
8
5.6
112
5:3
ovary
1
1.1
23
0:1
prostate
5
4.6
101
2:3
pancreas
m 3
0.6
14
2:1
f 2
0.9
18
1:1
bowel
m 4
3.7
81
2:2
f 0
4.0
81
0:0
skin
m 1
0.6
13
1:0
melanoma
f 0
0.7
14
0:0
lung
m 3
3.6
79
2:1
f 0
1.2
24
0:0
kidney
m 2
1.0
22
1:1
f 1
0.7
15
1:0
stomach
m 1
1.2
27
0:1
f 1
1.1
23
0:1
bladder
m 1
2.0
44
0:1
f 0
0.8
16
0:0
blood
m 0
0.6
14
0:0
f 1
0.7
15
1:0
Table 7 : Summary of tumours occurring in Naila, compared. with
incidence expected from the Saarland cancer register
have the same duration of exposure regardless of
whether they are in the inner area or outer area.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of
newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher
(p<0.05) among those patients who had lived during the
past ten years within a distance of 400 metres from the
cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation
since 1993, in comparison to people who live further
away. Compared to those patients living further away,
the patients developed cancer on average 8.5 years
earlier. This means the doubled risk of cancer in the
inner area cannot be explained by an average age
difference between the two groups. That the
transmitter has the effect that speeds up the clinical
manifestations of the illness and general development
of the cancer cannot be ruled out.
In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years and more of
transmitter operation, the relative risk of getting
cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the
proximity of the mast compared to the inhabitants of
Naila in the outer area (p>0.01). The division into inner
area and outer area groups was clearly defined at the
beginning of the study by the distance to the cell phone
transmission mast. According to physical considerations
people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were
exposed to heightened transmitted radiation intensity.
Both calculated and empirical measurements revealed
that the intensity of radiation is 100 times higher in the
inner area compared to the outer, area. According to
the research StSch 4314 the horizontal and vertical
position in regards to the transmitter antenna is the
most important criterion in defining the radiation
intensity area on inhabitants (16).
The layered epidemiological assessment method used in
this study is also used in assessment of possible chemical
environmental effects. In this case the layering is
performed in regards to the distance from the cell
phone transmitter station. Using this method it has
been shown that there is a significant difference in
probability of developing new cancers depending on the
exposure intensity.
The number of patients examined was high enough
according to statistical rules that the effects of other
factors (such as use of DECT phones) should be
normalised across the inner area and outer area groups.
From experience the disruption caused by a statistical
confounding factor is in the range between 20% and
30%. Such a factor could therefore in no way explain
the 300% increase in new cancer cases. If structural
factors such as smoking or excessive alcohol consumption
are unevenly distributed between the different groups
this should be visible from the specific type of cancers
to have developed (ie lung, pharyngeal or oesophageal).
In the study inner area there were two lung cancers
(one smoker, one non-smoker), and one in the outer
area (a smoker), but no oesophageal cancers. This rate
of lung cancer is twice what is statistically to be
expected and cannot be explained by a confounding
factor alone. None of the patients who developed cancer
was from a family with such a genetic propensity.
Through the many years experience of the GPs involved
in this study, the social structures in Naila are well
known. Through this experience we can say there was
no significant social difference in the examined groups
that might explain the increased risk of cancer.
The type and number of the diagnosed cancers are
shown in Table 7. In the inner area the number of
cancers associated with blood formation and tumour -
controlling endocrine systems (pancreas), were more
frequent than in the outer area (77% inner area and 69%
outer area).
From Table 7, the relative risk of getting breast cancer
is significantly increased to 3.4. The average age of
patients that developed breast cancer in the inner area
was 50.8 years. In comparison, in the outer area the
average age was 69.9 years, approximately 20 years
less. In Germany the average age for developing breast
cancer is about 63 years. The incidence of breast
cancer has increased from 80 per 100,000 in the year
1970 to 112 per 100,000 in theyear 2000. A possible
question for future research is whether breast cancer
can be used as a 'marker cancer' for areas where there
is high contamination from electromagnetic radiation.
The report of Tynes et al. described an increased risk
of breast cancer in Norwegian female radio and
telegraph operators (20).
To further validate the results the data gathered were
compared with the Saarland cancer register (21). In this
register all newly developed cancers cases since 1970
are recorded for each Bundesland. These data are
accessible via the Internet. Patents that suffer two
separate tumours were registered twice, which
increases the overall incidence up to 10%. In this
umwelt•medizin•gesettschaft 1 17 1 4/2004
45-------40.6
40 -- ------
35 ------------------- ---
30 ---------------------------
24.2
25----------21.8--------------
20 - - -- ---
15 - -- ----.---13.2_
0
Saarland* Naila** Inner area Outer area
no. of newly diagnosed tumour patients
* Expected no. of new cancers in Saarland
predicted by the Saarland incidence register
** Total cases in the Naila study area
Fig. 3 : Number of new cancer cases 1999 to 2004, adjusted for age
and gender, calculated for the 5,000 patient years
register there is no location -specific information, for
instance proximity to cell phone transmission masts.
The data in the cancer register therefore reflect no
real control group but rather the effect of the average
radiation on the total population.
From the Saarland cancer register for the year 2000 the
incidence of new cancer cases was 498 per 100,000 for
men and 462 per 100,000 for women. When adjusted
for age and sex one would expect a rate of between
480 and 500 per 100,000 in Naila. For the years 1999 to
2004 there were 21 new cases of cancer among 967
patients. The expected number was 24 cases per 1,000
patients.
The results of the study are shown graphically in Fig. 3.
The bars of the chart represent the number of new
cancer cases per 1,000 patients in the separate areas,
over the five years (bars 2 to 4). The first bar
represents the expected number from the Saarland
cancer register.
In spite of a possible underestimation, the number of
newly developed cancer cases in the inner area is more
than the expected number taken from the cancer
register, which represents the total population being
irradiated. The group who had lived during the past five
years within a distance of 400 m from the cellular
transmitter have a two times higher risk of developing
cancer than that of the average population. The
relative risk of getting cancer in the inner area
compared with the Saarland cancer register is 1.7 (see
to Table 7).
Conclusion
The result of this retrospective study in Naila shows
that the risk of newly developing cancer was three
times higher among those patients who had lived during
past ten years (1994-2004), within a distance of 400m
from the cellular transmitter, in comparison to those
who had lived further away.
Cross -sectional studies can be used to provide the
decisive empirical information to identify real
problems. In the 1960s just three observations of birth
deformities were enough to uncover what is today an
academically indisputable Thalidomide problem.
This study, which was completed without any external
financial support is a pilot project. Measurements of
individual exposure as well as the focused search for
further side effects would provide a useful extension to
this work, however such research would need the
appropriate financial support.
The concept of this study is simple and can be used
everywhere, where there it a long-term electromagnetic
radiation from a transmitting station.
The results presented are a first concrete epidemio-
logical sign of a temporal and spatial connection
between exposure to GSM base station radiation and
cancer disease.
These results are, according to the literature relating
to high frequency electromagnetic fields, not only
plausible and possible, but also likely.
From both an ethical and legal standpoint it is
necessary to immediately start to monitor the health of
the residents living in areas of high radio frequency
emissions from mobile telephone base stations with
epidemiological studies. This is necessary because this
study has shown that it is no longer safely possible to
assume that there is no causal link between radio
frequency transmissions and increased cancer rates.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to all those involved in developing this
study, in particular, Herrn Professor Frentzel-Beyme
for his advice on all the epidemiological questions.
(Received 14.09.2004; Accepted 08.10.2004)
Footnotes
(1) HAIDER, M., KUNDI, M., KNASMULLER. S., HAIDER,T., GROLL
KNAPP, E. Et G. OBERMEIER (1993): Medizinisch-hygienische
Untersuchungen and Beurteilungen der Kurzwellensendeanlage
Moosbrunn, Institut fur Umwelthygiene,Universitat Wien.
(2) ABELIN, T., ALTPETER, E.S., PFLUGER, D.H., KREBS, T.,
KANEL, J.V., STARK, K. a C. GRIOT (1995): Gesundheitliche
Auswirkungen des Kurzwellensenders Schwarzenburg, BEW
Schriftenreihe Studie Nr. 56 (BEW: Bundesamt fur
Energiewirtschaft).
(3) MASKARINEC, G., COOPER, J. Et L. SWYGERT (1994):
Investigation of increased incidence in childhood leukemia
near radio towers in Hawaii. Preliminary observations, J.
Environ. Pathol.Toxicol. and Oncol. 13: 33-37.
(4) HOCKING, B., GORDON, IR., GRAIN HL, et al. (1996):
Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV -Towers.
Med. J. Australia 165, 11-12: 601-605.
umwelt•medizin•gesellschaft 1 17 1 4/2004
(5) DOLK, H., SHADDICK, G.,WALLS, P., GRUNDY, C.,
THAKRAR, B., KLEINSCHMIDT, I. It P. ELLIOT (1997a):Cancer
Incidence Near Radio and Television Transmitters in Great
Britain, Part 1. Sutton Coldfield Transmitter, Am. J.
Epidemiol. 145: 1-9.
(6) DOLK, H., ELLIOT, G., SHADDICK, G., WALLS, P. It B.
THAKRAR (1997b): Cancer Incidence Near Radio and
Television Transmitters in Great Britain, Part 2. All High
Tower Transmitters, Am. J. Epidemiol. 145: 10-17.
(7) CHERRY, N. (1999): Critism of the proposal to adopt the
ICNIRP guidelines for cellsites in New Zealand, ICNIRP
Guideline Critique, Lincoln University, Environmental
Management and Design Division, Canterbury, NZ.
(8) MICHELOZZI, P., CAPON, A., KIRCHMAYER, U.,
FORASTIERE, F., BIGGERI, A., BARCA, A. Et C.A.PERUCCI
(2001):Department of Epidemiology. Local Health Authority
RME Rom, Italy.
(9) GOLDSMITH, JR. (1997): European EpiMarker 2(4): 4-7;
Lilienfeld 1978 Final report US Dept. of State, NTIS PB-
288163,1978.
(10) SANTINI, R., SANTINI, P., DANZE, J. M., LE RUZ, P. a
SEIGNE,M. (2002): Symptoms experienced by people living in
vicinity of cell phone base stations: I. Incidences of distance
and sex, Pathol. Biol. 50: 369.373.
(11) KUNDI, M. (2002): Erste Ergebnisse der Studie uber
Auswirkungen von Mobilfunk-Basisstationen auf Gesundheit
and Wohlbefinden. Bericht des Instituts fur Umwelthygiene
der Universitat Wien.
(12) NAVARRO EA., SEGURA J., PORTOLES M., GOMEZ-
PERRETTA de MATEO C. (2003): Das Mikrowellensyndrom: Eine
vorlaufige Studie in Spanien. Electromagnetic Biology an
Medicine (fruher: Electro- and Magnetobiology) 22(2): 161-
169,www.grn.es/electropotucio/TheMicrowaveSyndrome.doc.
(13) BROCKHAUS (1973): abc Physik, VEB F.A. Brockhaus
Verlag, Leipzig: 991 ff.
(14) EGER, H., HAGEN, K.U., LUCAS, B., VOGEL, P. Et H. VOIT
(2004): Einfluss der raumlichen Nahe von Mobilfunk-
sendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz,Tabellarischer Teil,
unver6ffentlicht, Naila
(15) Regulierungsbeh6rde fiir Post and Telekom (oJ):
Standortbescheinigungen,
(16) ECOLOG-INSTITUT (2003): Bestimmung der Exposition von
Personengruppen, die im Rahmen des Projektes "Querschnitts-
studie zur Erfassung and Bewertung moglicher gesund-
heltlicher Beeintrachtigungen durch die Felder von
Mobilfunkbasisstationen" untersucht werden, Berichtszeitraum:
1.2.2003 bis 31.5.2003, Forderkennzeichen: StSch 4314,
ECOLOG-Institut fur sozial-okologische Forschung and Bildung
gGmbH, Hannover.
(17) KLEINBAUM, D.G., KLEIN, M. (2002): Logistic Regression -
A. Self - learning text, Springer Verlag
(18) AG BEVOLKERUNGSBEZOGENER KREBSREGISTER IN
DEUTSCHLAND (Hrsg.) (2004):Krebs in Deutschland, 4.
iiberarb., akt.Ausgabe, Arbeitsgemeinschaft bevdtkerungs-
bezogener Krebsregister in Deutschland in Zusammenarbeit
mit dem Robert Koch-Institut, Saarbriicken.
(19) LEGATOR, M.S. Et B. STRAWN (1998): Umwelt-Risiko:
Chemie, Haug-Verlag.
(20) TYNES, I., HANNEVIK, M., ANDERSEN, A., VISTNES, Al. a
HALDORSEN T. (1996): Incidence of breast cancer in
Norwegian female radio and telegraph operators. Cancer
Causes Control 7: 197-204.
(21) www.krebsregister.saarland.de
Kontakt:
Dr. med. Klaus Uwe Hagen
Birgitt Lucas
Peter Vogel
Dr. med. Helmut Volt
Korrespondenz:.
Dr. med. Horst Eger
Marktplatz 16
95119 Naila
Tel.: 09282-1304
horst.eger@arcormaiL.de
umwelt•medizin•gesellschaft 1 17 14/2004 7
INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL -
PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION.
RONNI WOLF MD'
DANNY WOLF MD
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and
the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel -Aviv University, Tel -Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
Running title: Cancer near a cell -phone transmitter station.
Address for correspondence: Ronni Wolf, MD, Dermatology Unit, Kaplan
Medical Center, Rechovot 76100, ISRAEL.
Fax 972-9-9560978. E-mail: wolf r@netvision.net.il
International Journal of Cancer Prevention
VOLUME i, NUMBER 2, APRIL 2004
Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell -Phone Transmitter Station
by Ronni Wolf and Danny Wolf
2
Abstract
Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of
mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especially concerned with the
possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions
from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools. The few
epidemiologic studies that did report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation
have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, and thus emphasize the
need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with high RF exposure for
changes in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is
an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to
RF radiation from a cell -phone transmitter station.
This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whether the incidence of cancer
cases among individuals exposed to a cell -phone transmitter station is different from
that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to people who lived in a nearby
area. Participants are people (n=622) living in the area near a cell -phone transmitter
station for 3-7 years who were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure
began 1 year before the start of the study when the station first came into service. A
second cohort of individuals (n=1222) who get their medical services in a clinic
located nearby with very closely matched, environment, workplace and occupational
characteristics was used for comparison.
In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different lands of cancer were
diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with
the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate
recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for
area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of
women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area
B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15
times more cases in area A than in the entire population.
3
The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living
in proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station.
Key Words:
Radiofrequency radiation; Cell -phone transmitter station (cell -phone antenna);
Cancer incidence study; Netanya.
r.I
Introduction
Much concern has been expressed about possible health effects from exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, particularly following publication of
scientific reports suggesting that residence near high voltage power lines may be
associated with an increased risk of developing childhood leukemia. While interest
tended to focus on microwave ovens and radar equipment in the past, it is now mobile
telecommunication that attracts the most attention. The rapid introduction of mobile
telecommunications systems, the exponential increase in the use of such phones, and
the many base stations needed for serving them have engendered renewed concerns
about exposure to RF radiation.
The biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and a possible potential
relation to cancer causation are controversial. There have been several
epidemiological studies of the possible adverse health effects associated with
environmental exposure to extremely low frequency (0-300 Hz) non -ionizing
radiation, such as that emitted by power cables and electric substations, linking such
exposure to leukemia, brain cancer, male breast cancer and skin and eye melanoma
Far less attention has been paid to health hazards from environmental exposure to
radiation in the RF range (100 kHz to 300 GHz), including the radiation emitted from
cell -phone equipment, in the frequencies of 850 MHz, at field strengths much below
those required to produce thermal effects. The few epidemiologic studies that did
report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation (mainly from occupational
exposure including microwave and radar and from living in proximity+@ TV towers)
have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, or were subject to possible
confounding from other exposures (12-20).
Laboratory studies in this area have also been confusing and conflicting. While
some animal studies suggested that RF fields accelerate the development of cancers,
other studies found no carcinogenic effect (21).
5
Obviously, there is an urgent need for extensive, well-conducted epidemiological
and laboratory studies (21-24).
An opportunity for studying the effect of RF radiation presented itself in South
Netanya, where a cell -phone transmitter station was located in the middle of a small
area. We took advantage of the fact, that most of the population in the investigated
area belong to one outpatient clinic (of DW), and undertook an epidemiologic
assessment, in which we compared the cancer incidence of this area to those of a
nearby clinic, to the national incidence rates of the whole country and to the
incidence rates in the whole town of Netanya.
P
Material and methods
Radio frequency radiation
The cell -phone transmitter unit is located at the south of the city of Netanya in an area
called hus (area A). It first came into service in 7/96. The people in this area live in half a
circle with a 350 meter radius centered on the transmitter.
The antenna is 10 meters high. The antenna bears total maximum transmission power at
frequencies of 850 MHz of 1500 watt when working at full power.
Both measured and predicted power density (for the frequencies of 850 MHz) in the
whole exposed area were far below 0.53 µw/cm2 thus the power density is far below the
current guidelines which are based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. Exact measured
power density in each house are described in table 1.
The current Israeli standard uses 50 packets/sec with Time -Division -Multiple -Access
(TDMA) quadrature modulation. The antenna produces 50 packets/sec, using a 3:1
multiplexed Time -Division -Multiple -Access (TDMA) modulation with a 33% duty cycle.
Statistical analysis:
We conducted a cancer incidence study to investigate the incidence of cancer cases of
individuals exposed to a cell -phone transmitter station, in comparison to those of a
nearby clinic, to the national incidence rates of the whole country and to the incidence
rates in the whole town of Netanya.
The cohort included 622 people living in the Irus area (area A) for at least 3-7 years and
were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure began in 7/96 which was 1 year
before the start of our study.
Statistical analysis was based on the comparison of observed and expected numbers of
cancer cases.
7
In order to compare incidence rates, 95% confidence intervals were computed.
The observed number of cancer cases is the number of all the cancer cases in the exposed
cohort in the period between 7/97 - 6/98.
In order to estimate relative risk, rate ratios were computed using the rate of 3 different
cohorts as the base (the ex ected values):
The rate in a nearby clinic (which serves a population of 1222 people, all of them
living in area B) during the same period of time, i.e. 7/97 - 6/98. In order to compare
area A and area B populations we used:
x2 test to compare origin and sex division
t- test to compare age means
The national incidence rates of the whole country.
The incidence rates in the whole town of Netanya where the 2 clinics (of area A and B)
are located. The data of 2 and 3 were given to us by the Israel cancer registry and are
updated to the years 91-94.
We also examined the history of the exposed cohort (of the A area) for malignancies in
the 5 years before the exposure began and found only 2 cases in comparison to 8 cases
detected one year after the transmitter station came into service.
Results
Of the 622 people of area A, eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in
a period of only one year (from July 1997 to June 1998). Details on these cases are
presented in Table 1. Briefly, we found 3 cases of breast carcinoma, and one case of
ovary carcinoma, lung carcinoma, Hodgkin's disease, osteoid osteoma, and
hypernephroma. -�
0
This rate of cancers in the population of area A was compared both with the rate of 31
cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 211222 rate recorded in a
nearby clinic. To each one of the rates, a 95 percent confidence interval was calculated
(Table 2): the rates in area A were significantly higher than both those in area B, and the
population as a whole.
A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area
A than in the entire population.
The population characteristics of areas A and B were very similar (Table 2-5). The x 2
test for comparing gender and origin frequencies showed no significant differences in
these parameters between the two areas. Age means, as compared by t-test and age
distribution stratum also showed no significant difference between the two groups.
Table 2a lists the rates of cancer incidence of areas A and B compared to data of the
whole town of Netanya. The comparison clearly indicated that the cancer incidence of
women in area A is significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of the whole city.
Discussion
Our study indicates an association between an increased incidence of cancer and living in
proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station.
Studies of this type are prone to biases. Possible methodological artefacts to explain our
alarming results were considered:
Differences in socioeconomic class and employment status, and demographic
heterogeneity due to differences in age, sex and ethnicity were excluded. The two areas
that were compared have very closely matched environment, workplace and
occupational characteristics.
Confounding variables affecting individuals could not be absolutely adjusted for,
however, there was no ionizing radiation that could affect the whole community except
the previously mentioned mobile antenna station. There is no traffic density in this
area, neither is there any industry or any other air pollution. The population of area A
X
(on which adequate data could be gathered) did not suffer from uncommon genetic
conditions, nor did they receive carcinogenic medications.
Differences in diagnosis and registration of cancer cases. Although we cannot
altogether exclude the possibility that higher awareness of the physician responsible
for area A led to an artificial increase in cancer cases in this area, this possibility seems
to us very unlikely, since both are qualified family physicians.
Several findings are of particular interest:
The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the
current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore,
that the current guidelines be re-evaluated.
The enormous short latency period; less than 2 years, indicates that if there is a real
causal association between RF radiation emitted from the cell -phone base station and
the cancer cases (which we strongly believe there is), then the RF radiation should
have a very strong promoting effect on cancer at very low radiation!
Although the possibility remains that this clustering of cancer cases in one year was a
chance event, the unusual sex pattern of these cases, the 6 different cancer kinds, and
the fact that only one patient smoked make this possibility very improbable and
remote. It should be noted that 7 out of 8 cancer cases were women, like in the work of
Maskarinec (25) who found 6 out of 7 leukemia cases in proximity to radio towers to
occur in girls. Such unusual appearances of cancer cases due to one accused factor on
two completely different occasions is alarming.
We are aware of at least 2 areas in which a drastic increase in the incidence of cancer
cases occurred near a cell -phone antenna, however, the setup was not suitable for a
well design study of those cases. In one of them (which also got publication in the
daily newspapers) there were 6 out of 7 cancer cases in women working in a store in
close proximity to a cell -phone antenna.
In conclusion, the results of this study showed that there was a significantly greater
incidence of cancers of all kinds within the vicinity of a cell -phone transmitter station.
10
It would be certainly too premature to draw any conclusions from our results before
they are confirmed and repeated by other studies from other areas, particularly in view
of the fact that a great majority of papers on this subject showed that RF fields and
mobile telephone frequencies were not genotoxic, did not induce genetic effects in
vitro and in vivo, and were not found to be teratogenic or to induce cancers (24). The
results of this paper should, however, serve as an alarm and emphasize the need for
further investigations.
Addendum
At one year following the close of the study, 8 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in
area A and two cases in area B. Among the cases diagnosed in area A was one of osteoid
osteoma, the second case from the beginning of the study.
11
References
1. Cartwright R (1989) Low frequency alternating electromagnetic fields and
leukaemia: the saga so far. Br J Cancer 60:649-651.
2. Demers PA et al (1991) Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and breast
cancer in men. Am JEpidemiol. 134:340-347.
3. Dolk H et al (1997) Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in
Great Britain. Am JEpidemiol 145:1-9.
4. Elliott P et al (1992) The Small Area Health Statistics Unit: a national facility for
investigating health around point sources of environmental pollution in the United
Kingdom. J Epidemiol. Community Health 46:345-349.
5. Feychting M and Ahlbom A (1993) Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing
near Swedish high -voltage power lines. Am JEpidemiol 138:467-481.
6. Goldsmith J (1995) Epidemiologic evidence of radio -frequency (microwave)
effects on health in military broadcasting and occupational studies. Int J Occup Med
Environ Health 1:47-57.
7. Guenel P et al (1993) Incidence of cancer in persons with occupational exposure to
electromagnetic fields in Denmark. Br.JInd.Med 50:758-764.
8. Hocking B et al (1996) Cancer incidence and mortlity and proximity to TV towers.
Med JAust 165:601-615.
9. Kraut A et al (1991) Epidemiologic investigation of a cancer cluster in professional
football players. Environ.Res. 56:131-143.
10. Lester J and Moore D (1982) Cancer mortality and Air Force bases. J
Bioelectricity 1:77-82.
12
11. Maskarinec G et al (1994) Investigation of increased incidence in childhood
leukaemia near radio towers in Hawaii: preliminary observations. JEnviron Pathol
Toxicol Oncol 13 :33-37.
12. McGregor A (1998) WHO launches mobile -phone hazards study. Lancet
351:276.
13. Milham S Jr (1988) Increased mortality in amateur radio operators due to
lymphatic and hematopoictic malignancies. Am JEpidemiol. 127:50-54.
14. Pollack H (1979) Epidemiologic data on American personnel in the Moscow
embassy. Bull N. Y.Acad.Med 55:1182-1186.
15. Polsen P and Merritt J (1985) Cancer mortality and Air Force bases: a re-
evaluation. JBioelectricity 4:121-127.
16. Repacholi M (1997) Radiofrequency field exposure and cancer: what do the
laboratory studies suggest. Environ Health Perspect 105 (Supp16):1565-1568.
17. Repacholi M (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 19:1-19.
18. Robinette C, Silvermann C, and Jablon S (1980) Effects upon health of
occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am JEpidemiol 112:39-53.
19. Savitz DA et al (1988) Case -control study of childhood cancer and exposure to
60-Hz magnetic fields. Am JEpidemiol. 128:21-38.
20. Savitz D, Ahlbom A (1994) Epidemiologic evidence of cancer in relation to
residential and occupational exposure. In Carpenter D, Ayrapetyan S (eds) Biological
effects of electric and magnetic fields. Sydney: Academic Press.
21. Savitz D and Calle E (1987) Leukaemia and occupational exposure to
electromagnetic fields: review of epidemiologic surveys. J Occup Med 29:47-51.
22. Theriault, GP. Health effects of electromagnetic radiation on workers:
epidemiologic studies. Bierbaum, PJ and Peters, JM. 91-124. 1991. Cincinnati, OH,
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proceedings of the Scientific
13
Workshop on the health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields on Workers. Ref
Type: Conference Proceeding
23. Torngvist S et al (1991) Incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours in some
"electrical occupations". Br.Jlnd.Med 48:597-603.
24. Verschaeve L and Maes A (1998) Genetic, carcinogenic and teratogenic effects of
radiofrequency fields. Mutat Res 410:141-165.
25. Wertheimer N and Leeper E (1979) Electrical wiring configurations and
childhood cancer. Am JEpidemiol. 109:273-284.
14
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Aviva Zeer A Sc from the Zinman College of Phisical
Education and Sport Sciences At the Wingate Institute, Israel, for help with the
statistical analysis.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the writers and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the institutions with which the writers are associated.
15
Table 1: Cancer cases in area A
NAME
AGE
SE
X
ORI-
GIN
SMO
-
KIN
G
CANCER TYPE
Measured
power density
in
wlcm2
Hemda
52
f
ash
No
Ovary ca stage 1
0.3 w/cmz
Edna
42
f
sph
No
Breast ca in situ
0.4 w/cmz
Tania
54
f
ash
No
Breast ca
0.5 w/cmz
Neh
67
f
ash
Yes
Breast ca
0.4 w/cm2
Galit
24
f
ash
No
Hodgkins
0.5 w/cm2
Miriam
61
f
sph
No
Lung ca
0.3 w/cmz
Masal
37
f
sph
No
Osteoid osteoma
0.4 w/cm2
Max
78
m
ash
No
Hypernephroma
0.3 w/cm2
1. Origin: ash - Ashkenazien Jews sph - Spharadic Jews
I
Table 2: Cancer rates in area A, B and the total population.
No. of
popnlati
Rate per
confide
cc
relative
cancer
on size
year per
interval
(95%)
risk
cases
10,000
lower
upper
limit
limit
Area A
8
622
129
40.1
217.2
4.15
Area B
2
1222
16
-6.3
39.0
0.53
total
31
10,000
31
20.1
41.9
1.00
populat
Table 2a: Cancer rates in area A, B and the whole town.
Male
Female
rate
Relative rate
rate
relative rate
Area A
33
1.4
262
10.5
Area B
17
0.7
16
0.6
Whole town
24
1
25
1
17
Table 3: Comparing area A to area B by gender.
Gender
Area A
Area B
N
%
N
%
male
290
49
669
49
female
305
51
685
51
Table 4: Comparing area A to area B by origin.
Origin
Area
Area
N
%
N
%
Sfaradic
340
55
551
45
Ashkenaz
239
38
620
51
Russian
41
7
51.
4
19
Table 5: Comparing age means in both areas.
Area A
Area B
mean
Std
mean
Ad
age
26.5
17.9
25.5
12.4
Table 5: Age distribution by stratum.
0-1
1-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
>70
IRUS
16
143
157
65
70
88
41
21
21
POLEG
31
285
257
139
180
158
83
55
34
Colin Jung
From: Jenny Tsai [kidsandj@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Colin Jung; lgiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: Object to the Proposed AT&T CellPhone Tower
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA." Jonathan Chang
1
Colin Jung
From: Calvin Ng [calvinckng@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 2:53 PM
To: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; Colin Jung
Subject: OBJECT to the placement of AT&T Cellphone tower Close By Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista
Hi,
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
Thanks,
Calvin Ng
Colin Jun
From: Vaishali. U. Mehta [vaishali_mehta@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Subject: Objection to cell phone tower
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Almost everyone is familiar with the potential health peril of proximity to cell phone towers. Already, our children use cell
phones for hours each day. Adding a proximity to radiation from -towers can only increase those risks.
Colin Jung
From: clarahlim@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:00 PM
To: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; Colin Jung
Cc: clarahlim@yahoo.com
Subject: Objection to Proposed AT&T Cellphone Tower By Olive & Imperial
Hi All,
I just want to let you know:
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed
at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
thanks,
Clara Hong -Him Lim
(property owner of Lomita Ave)
1
Colin Jun
From: Wenzhe Zhou [wenzhe_zhou@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:58 AM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: BJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way, Cupertino, CA.
My Name: Wenzhe Zhou
Colin Jung
From: Gary Li [garylimobile@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 6:24 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Dear Cupertino Planning Department,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA.
The reasons are:
1. The health effect of cell tower is unclear, it is better to be safe than sorry.
2. 1 have AT&T cell phone, the reception is acceptable although not great. But I would rather not risk our family and
neighbors health on better cell phone reception. I live about 400 meters from the proposed cell tower, it may not pose
serious health risk to our family, but I can really imagine how people feel who live within 400 feet from this cell tower.
3. When I look at cell tower maps, it seems no tower in residential only areas such as los gatos, saratoga, cupertino, los
altos, palo alto, portola valley, woodside, menlo park, etc. The cell towers are concentrated in commercial building area
where people don't sleep at night:
http://www.ceilreception.com/towersltowers.php?city=san%20iose&state abr=ca
4: Please find an area in cupertino that is 400 meter from any house to build this tower, such as the hill area.
5. This is a debate between people who lives really close to the cell tower and the rest of the residents in cupertino, in a
voting situation, it is impossible for the affected people to win.
Regards,
Gary Li
resident on Lomita Ave, Cupertino
Colin Jung
From: Mei Jin [meijinl104@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 6:13 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net-, dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; win nieleedd s@yahoo.com; Ames Kim; Aashia Mehta; aa.dolphinl8
@gmail.com; athena441@gmail.com; Sindu Tilaka; ClaireThesmiley; Kim Jiang; julieee cho;
creampuffl999@gmail.com; cloudie826; Kyle Chang; Cassandra Lem; dipsyl7@gmail.com;
Divya Raman; gina kim; Sonali Gupta; Hannah Sung; Rachel Hyun; hannah :); Raina ,Bang;
josh95014@gmail.com; Wen Jin; kalpanarox; LI SHEN /6227; Michelle Zhang;
mandosploosh@gmail.com; Sithara Menon; oliversguan@gmail.com; roy985@gmail.com;
wang_ledee@yahoo.com; boj@cypress.com
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Proposed AT&T Cellphone tower Close By Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista [3
Attachments]
Save the neighborhood!
Please forward and dont just delete this
I vie':
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ethan ng <ethanng72ggmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Proposed AT&T Cellphone tower Close By Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista [3 Attachments]
To: kylechang96ggmail.com, Josh Tai <josh95014&gmail.com>, Julia Cho <kaley7@ mail.com>, Kim Jiang
<coolkim2008( gmail.com>, Raina Jiang <jraina99kg_mail.com>, joshuachgAg9000@gmail.com, Mahesh
Murag <sotwabhm3 cggmail.com>, Anjan Amarnath <dheis9ggmail.com>, Mei Jin <meijinl 104ggmail.com>,
Kyle Chang <kylechang99@yahoo.com>, Alina Kim <yeiinkim mac.com>, Jewel Kirby
<fluffy.air.kirbyggmail.com>, Kirthi Gomatam <soccermonl 10(cc gmail.coin>, Shalzie Kay
<koolska ail.com>, Junho Kwon <junhockwon a,gmail.com>, Bryan Wong
<bryanjwong2000(c�gmail.com>, elliot.ryu@sbcglobal.net
Hi All,
Please show the email I just sent and this one to your parents. This is important and the deadline to send an
email out to City of Cupertino is tomorrow Sept 14, 4pm. Please save our neighborhood!
thanks,
Ethan Ng
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <clarahlim@,yahoo.com> _
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Subject: Fw: Proposed AT&T Cellphone tower Close By Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista [3 Attachments]
To: calvinckng(cr�yahoo.com, Daphne Chen <daphnewchen@yahoo.com>, ethanng72(7gmail.com
Please forward to our neighbors as many as you can. It is very close to our house, at Olive and Imperial.
Note the deadline is tomorrow 9/14/10.
Just send email to these people below
Colin Jung ColinJacupertino.org
City of Cupertino Planning Commissioners
Marty Miller mmiller@interorealestate.com
Lisa Giefer Igiefer@sbcglobal.net
David Kaneda dkaneda@ideasi.com
Paul Brophy Pauldbrophy@yahoo.com
Winnie Lee winnieleedds@yahoo.com
with
" I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
thanks,
Clara
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: jenny tsai <jennytsai 20000yahoo.com>
To: Jenny Tsai <jennytsai 2000(&yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 1:57:21 PM
Subject: Proposed AT&T Cellphone tower Close By Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista [3 Attachments]
Hi,
Please forgive me if I sent you multiple copies.
See attached info about an initiative to prevent the construction of a 74-ft cell phone tower very close (within
400meters) to Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High.
If you object and would like to email the city of Cupertino, the emails are pravided below.
the Dead Line is tomorrow, 9/14, 4pm.
Thanks,
--Jenny
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andre Chiu <andrechiul68@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Subject: AT&T Cellphone tower in Monta Vista
To: imbeAdelphine@gmail.com
Dear Friends and Family,
URGENT! Please help support this cause. See attachments.
Please email "All" the following individuals and voice your objections..
www*ww**wwww+***www*�twrr�ew*+*+�wwww.twww,�.w**wx,r****wwww�rwir*w+++kwwy�wwx x,t*wxw**w�twrw*,twrtw.tw*wwrw*xw,�wwrwww**xw*x,t+ew*wwwww
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
wwwwwww*wwwww*wwwwwww*wwww,tw:wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*w*wwwww*w+wrw+w,xwwwwwwxww,r**wwwwww*w:rwww,rw*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�.wxx
City of Cupertino Senior City Planner
Colin Jung ColinJacupertino.org
City of Cupertino Planning Commissioners
Marty Miller mmiller@interorealestate.com
Lisa Giefer Iariefer@sbcalobal.net
David Kaneda dkaneda@ideasi.com
Paul Brophy pauildbrophy@vahoo.com
Winnie Lee winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Please email immediately. Deadline is Tuesday, September 14, 2010, at 4pm.
Regards,
Attachment(s) frmn Delphine Imbert
3 of 3 File(s)
19LT&T Public Hearing 2010-9-14.pdf
19LT&T Wireless Pole Location.pdf
[A-kesults Way petition with signatures. doe
Reply to sender Reply to group I Reply via web post I Start a New Tonic
Messages in this topic (t)
RECENT ACTIVITY:.
New Members 5
Visit Your Group
3
i ch to: Text -Only, Daily Digest - Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
awsum boberta
T
Colin Jung
From: Liping Zhao [lipingzhao0$@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:03 PM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at
Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
My Name is Liping Zhao
Colin Jun
From: Satya Kunapuli [satya_kunapuli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:19 PM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: proposed AT&T Cellphone tower By Lincoln Elementary
wwxwwxw+wwx+++ww++wwwwwxwwwwwwwwxwwxwwwwxwxx+wwwx+++ww++�+++w++w++wwww+wwwxx++++wx+w+wx++w+w++++++ww++++wx+wx+x+++++++
" I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
*wxwww+++w++wxw+wwx+++w++++++w++++w+x+++w+++w++wwwwwwwxw+www++++++ww+++w+w+x++www++wxww+wxw++w+wwxw+xw+++w+w++wwwr+w+e+
Colin Jung
From: Kristy Liu [kliu3519@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:23 PM
To: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; win nieleedds@yahoo.com; Colin Jung
Subject: We object the AT&T Cell Phone Base Station Location
Dear All,
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
Best Regards,
Kristy
Colin Jung
From: Ying Chen [annie_letter@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; Colin Jung;
mmiller@interorealestate.com; dkaneda@ideasi.com
Subject: We Object to the Proposed AT&T CellPhone Tower Location
HI,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA
YI NG
Colin Jung
From: bei z [bei—z@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com
Subject: PLEASE REJECT CELLPHONE TOWER PROPOSE AT RESULTS WAY, CUPERTINO
Dear City of Cupertino Senior City Planner and City of Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
After 4 years, AT&T come back again. This time they try to install the cellphone tower which is even closer to Lincoln
School. Please think about that how many kids and their parents walk along McClellan Rd every day. Results Way is very
close to the intersection of Bubb Rd and McClellan Rd.
Nobody knows how safe.a nearby cellphone tower is. Please concern our kids and residents' health.
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA.
Cupertino resident,
Jenny Zhong
Colin Jung
From: cid pereira [cpereirabc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:29 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
paulbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Subject: AT&T cell phone pole
My intent in writing to you is to inform you that alongside my neighbors, i also, STRONGLY OBJECT the proposed placing
of a cell phone pole
by AT&T at Results Way, Cupertino, that is coming before you at the meeting tonight, September 14, 21010.
I ask you not to allow AT&T to come into our backyards nor our front yards likewise.
Please help our city preserve our wonderful lifestyle of community.
We are expecting this from you and are counting on it!
Sincerely yours,
Cid Pereira
Colin Jun
From: ZhongYouMichelle [zmy456@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:42 PM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: Objection to AT&T cell phone tower
Dear sir or madam,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA. It's near school area and may threaten the health of children. Please listen to our voice and take
consideration of the benefits of young generations. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Michelle Zhong
Cohn Jung
From: Michael Yeh [myhk1995@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:44 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: the AT&T Wireless Tower Application
To whom it may concern:
i STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed
at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
Michael Yeh
21675 olive ave.
1
Colin Jung
From: Jennie Jacob Denniejacob@ymaii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:02 AM
To: Colin Jung
STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA."
We do get phone reception and do not need any additional cell phone tree pole around to facilitate the area.
Jennie Jacob
Cupertino Resident
Colin Jung
From: Shu Shawna [sshu2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:53 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: STRONGLY OBJECT to AT&T's Pole at Results Way
Dear Mr. Colin Jung,
We are sending this email to STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base
station tree pole by our neighborhood proposed by AT&T.
As you know, our community - Astoria Home Owner Association complex is a dense residential
area, spatially dense with kids of all ages, (Most home owners moved here because of the
schools.) In addition, everyday, many kids walk to and from schools to Lincoln, Kennedy and
Monta Vista via the roads close to the tower AT&T is proposing. Few years ago, AT&T's
proposal to set their cell phone tower at Monta Vista high got strong objections from parents
and teachers. Now once again, they are choosing a location with heavy impact to the kids.
AT&T should look for a much better location than this.
As parents, who do care about the radiation our kids can expose, we will change our pattern
from letting kids walk to school to driving them to school in order to reduce the time of the
expossion. This can add to the existing traffic problem of the school area. While the City
of Cupertino is encouraging walking to school, AT&T's proposal can be counter environmental.
AT&T's tower can also affect our house value. Cell phone's potential hazards to human
health as well as the ugliness of the 74 ft tree pole at the side of our complex have no
double to push our home value further down.
We would appreciate if you could understand our concern and vote against the proposal.
Thanks in advance.
Xuena Xu and George Yang
10078 Imperial Ave., Cupertino.
The following are for your reference:
A substantial body of research suggests that radio frequency (RF) radiation (the kind emitted
by cell towers as they provide "signal" to mobile phones) has harmful health effects on
humans and animals, even in amounts well below FCC exposure limits. Surprisingly, the FCC
standards for RF emissions are based on thermal effect but the case for non -thermal hazards
from RF is substantial. Here are a few examples:
A study presented in the peer -reviewed publication of Germany's environmental medicine
society found that the risk of newly developing cancer was three times higher among those
patients who had lived during past ten years (1994-2004), within a distance of 400m from a
cellular transmitter, in comparison to those who had lived further away. The study indicates
a 99% confidence interval that the difference observed was not due to a random statistical
effect. Click here to see the entire paper:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118 naila.pdf
An Israeli study published in the peer -reviewed journal The International Journal of Cancer
Prevention also showed an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in
proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station.
In a two year period, there were 4.15 times more cancer cases in the area of proximity to the
cell tower than in the entire population. The authors made a point of noting, "The measured
level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the current guidelines
based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current
guidelines be re-evaluated."
To see the entire paper, click here:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118 naila. df
The Bioinitiative Working Group, a collaboration of neuroscientists and others studying the
effects of electromagnetic radiation from a variety of sources, has taken the position that
"current standards are inadequate to control against harm from low -intensity, chronic
1
exposures and that an entirely new, biologically -based standard is needed." Their 7uly,.2007
report can be http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section 17.pdf
Colin Jung
From: Shih-Hsiung Wang [structors@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:31 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 & TR-2010-31 AT&T Wireless tree
pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino
Attachments: Petition to deny AT&T Wireless Tree Pole 2010-9-13.pdf
Hi, Colin:
Attached please find the Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 & TR-2010-31 AT&T Wireless tree
pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino
Our community started the petition effort last Saturday (Sept 11, 2010) and has collected 226 signatures (or e-
mails) so far and more signatures will be collected today.
We will hand deliver the complete petition tonight during the public hearing of this application
Sincerely,
Allen Wang
To: City of Cupertino, Planning Commission
Subject: Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04,
TR-2010-31
We, the undersigned residents, voters, and relevant neighboring communities of the City of
Cupertino, STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree
pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA in the parking lot for the following reasons:
1. The proposed cell phone tree pole is NOT supposed to be built near Residential Housing.
2. A cell phone tree pole at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage
effectively.
3. A cell phone tree pole of 74 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to,
the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the
landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential character of the community.
4. It would lower property values to the neighboring'single family homes and town houses in
the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this
cell phone tree pole. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that
support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers.
5. If the proposed cell phone tree pole is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a
precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Cupertino
neighborhoods.
6. The proposed cell phone tree pole in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and
schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of
scientific studies linking cell towers to health related illnesses issues such as headaches,
dizziness, depression, as well as cancer.
We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly
consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective
coverage improvement from the proposed cell phone tree pole, and do everything in your
power to prevent this tree pole (and future cell towers) from being built near residential area!
Address
Name (Print)
Signature (or e-mail address)
hS ire Dr-
n
6 Y.
0/4 Im-e—i"-P Ave
41 4
(b
v
L(71" ..iz��d
.
10 1 I ,� �v
G I
W
rLj
1611 Z 1 I°£12+ t✓
1 K-Y CJ4*-r-)
I Aze
,
23644 A K
TM Mr~
�6 E by-
CA 1,.A-:
D
i len,p 111.2' 4 `p
_ . 3r.✓'
u-
a
Address
31�n
w-h'Aaj C.A
I. b C Iz Y-M,A,r-�'��
;10ly .TWL
_
/Sf3 z
CA
Name (Print) Signature (or e-mail address)
�( r BEN (s
Vt.NP,
6U,U
��
A U , v
c.c4,-1.' ?�1
e
A�-�
6V r ��
it v
2 i {7�
� �111�
r
./Fw•-�.
OL I u ✓`
A vi .
yr
Address
Name (Print)
Signature (or e-mail address)
C
y �ii r 7vt. - Lu
� L • 79Ez Ititr jorin,, A4
C
r. -5 ( G'r'
Ave'{
b [/
".1 UK
..(
•41, '�__.e ^r•
�Z�` �.�.. ��. �f ��:. •�l`-:J'. � -
�i�3-.f��.:�-1•L.
i�'1GL.v'lG`-�.l�Vl'il�.r '-.L.�"�''
4+�
-
r i h-eQLJ
-
LE
�
r
Im D, Y.,IAveCuM
P&AIV&�
Jai y �►�� ����;. A-C
� c��� ,�
,iY . {,u�.�1„�
M
EAddress Name (Print) Signature (or e-mail address)
Vie L'4rr lrN �- cc �r
.r
5
12
i C 11 Lf 1 i" ve oe"wot
Address
Name (Print)
SigW-
nature (or e-mail address)
14 ie.j
�,b P
cx-
-4ylyl 6 L5 ip� Pf
L s,4 A)4
4�5
ljNLLLL 0
J
F.
Address
Name (Print)
Signature (or e-mail address)
Arin
kcx 0(115,,
C
p
s eve
C_LMtS Q 1Ai
t . � L�
�.
wj
1
Avo
L'. V•-"�{ L�=��l i h o� fit.
�
ndq fUp
,
2 � i Utt i r ���_� / ✓
�k it GI r�
_-
b70 G „� r c u f Cam. r
jlij 9u Y) L C z--
�2 Lac P,,Qk,c
U4
V-4-J;M1 ,,,a Av---
'CVO Yu U00
- f
r
r+rq
�JL� ra Lakvb.
7z Sv ,a,,.r;h.:rr r -i,
Chen
Address
Name (Print)
Signature (or e-mail address)
t 079'b
7 �6t Mcck pqG�
n1 1�tGi CnlnUlih
4 �Zcd
1 . ,
Zl() iz
V5�...coSPr'c
r
xi51 �arKi,'+�I�xCirtle
A_MveaWeNo
J�Zc •�. irY
�! Y J
ZZ62 % l�l ytc � t1/CL
—
�r fry r��
7Ztoc( PC,\ oqq c\1 Dr
10
27L
_
66 y L' (
2Y-I 3
:� fins,
✓` �� .
,�.
f L Oc
G �hi ah
San hawau C
-
il � d
+ CSC"C.
L
�r
I
Address I Name (Print) Signature (or e-mail address)
315 Ann A-Fbor Prv(.
oil156r
c;tlqqA
-cauleV
tin e � � c���c LAtt�.e��,
k-1,16M
r
1
� .rt
,��r
`!(r 1c `" yY�-..ry5 y r
L` W 1{ 1 �A Ct.
j{ `Kant'{1 y�
V 7 L
'
.Oi_ S5 { Iytcwvr��
lflif't i-i I'l
r
u67D Cmc�.v�lcu} C4vrF Mtgcu+)
zf o� 5 Ave- T Yv Ll(0071//
r
Apiv.
om YVi
y� Kalrcl�t,C? 1Jvan�M1i�,�vz�
-745o ar-,,huFy lcl. jnf�i L � cifGnl � _[hPfi_ji+:J �cen,•;5 , ury,
\ �"
fi
Traci Caton
From: Z Liang [zl_603@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:45 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Oppose to cell phone pole construction by AT&T
Dear Planning Commission,
We are residents of the Astoria community on Imperial Ave, Cupertino. We STRONGLY OPPOSE to the placement of a
74 ft tall cell phone base station pole proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
Sincerely,
Zhang's family
Colin Jung
From:
Weibing Zhou [weibingz@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:16 PM
To:
Weibing Zhou
Cc:
Weibing Zhou
Subject:
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way, Cupertino, CA
To: City of Cupertino, Planning Commission
Subject: Petition to deny application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31
We, the undersigned residents, voters, and relevant neighboring communities of the City of Cupertino,
STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 It tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results
Way, Cupertino, CA in the parking lot for the following reasons:
1. The proposed cell phone tree pole is NOT supposed to be built near Residential Housing.
2. A cell phone tree pole at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively.
3. A cell phone tree pole of 74 It tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural
aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and
forever alter the residential character of the community.
4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential
community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this cell phone tree pole. There are
various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and
cell phone towers.
5. If the proposed cell phone tree pole is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set
for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Cupertino neighborhoods.
6. The proposed cell phone tree pole in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents
potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell towers to
health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well -as cancer. -
We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential
physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed
cell phone tree pole, and do everything in your power to prevent this tree pole (and future cell towers) from
being built near residential area!
Weibing Zhou
Resident on Imperial Ave of City of Cupertino
Colin Jung
From: Kiran Palla [kiran_palla@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: kiran_palla@yahoo:com
Subject: Objection to the cell phone base station near Lincoln Elementary in Cupertino
Lid
" I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA." I feel this is not safe for kids at Lincoln, Kennedy and Montavista schools.
Please reconsider the plan and move it to a different location away from schools.
Thanks,
Kiran
Colin Jung
From: Suma Kunapuli [suma_kunapuli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:13 PM
To: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; Colin Jung
Subject: Proposed AT&T cell phone tower
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed
at Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
Suma Kunapuli
1
Colin Jung
From: Mahesh Murag [sourabhm3@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:45 AM
To: Colin Jung; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;
dkaneda@ideasi.com; mmiller@interorealestate.com
Subject: Please don't place the tower near my school.
"Y STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole
proposed at Results Way , Cupertino, CA ." Mahesh Murag
-Mahesh.
1
Colin Jung
From: linda park [lindaincupertino@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:04 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: Opposing ATT cell tower near Lincoln Elementary
Dear Cupertino City Planning Dept,
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed
at Results Way, Cupertino, CA.
Paul Park
1
Colin Jung
From: ying zhang [yingzhang059@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: AT&T Wireless Pole
Dear Colin,
STRONGLY OBJECT to the placement of a 74 ft tall cell phone base station tree pole proposed at Results Way,
Cupertino, CA.
Regards,
Ying
Colin Jun
From: dj s [dj_private@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Colin Jung; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; dkaneda@ideasi.com;
pauidbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com
Subject: Stop to build a Cellphone tower that is close to schools
Dear Cupertino Planners and Comissioners, I am a parent of Lincoln student. I very strongly
object that, AT&T and any cellphone companies to build a cell phone tower in the area that is
close to schools ( Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Manta Vista High). As you know,
the electrical and magnetic radiation from a cell phone tower is very harmful to human
health, very specially to kids. They are our country's future. Please stop AT&T and any other
telephone to do that no matter what is the purpose. It is because the human health shall be
on the top concern
Thank you very much for your help on that.
A Lin
D] 5heh
1
Date: September 14, 2010
To the City of Cupertino, Cupertino Planning Commissioners:
Subject: Application No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31, to be discussed at the
public hearing of the Cupertino Planning Commission, to be held on September 14, 2010,
meeting begins 6:45pm, at Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, CA.
Dear Sir/Madam:
I strongly object to the approval of the applications named herein.
I am writing to you to ask you to support that the request by applicant Dave Yocke, of
Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility), on Application No. U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04,
TR-2010-31, be denied, based upon the issues raised below.
[Note: For the purpose of the letter, the "Planning Commission Staff Report' often
referenced in this letter refers to that of Agenda Date: September 14, 2010, Agenda Item
No. 2, relating to Application: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31.]
Point 1
Relating to the approval of the application, a 74-foot tall monopine will have a
negative visual impact on the residential neighborhood in the Monta Vista area.
Monta Vista is an upper -income residential neighborhood in Cupertino. Monta Vista
homes are mainly detached single-family homes ranging from 1,400 to 3,300 sq. ft. of
living space area. The neighborhood is very sought-after partly because of its
academically high -performing schools such as Manta Vista High School and Kennedy
Middle School. For example, Monta Vista High School is one of the top 100 high schools
in the United States.
The approval and the installation of the proposed wireless cell tower, of a 74-foot tall
monopine in the Results Way Office Park, will have negative impact on the
neighborhood. The proposed cell tower is to be located in the office park on Results Way.
Results Way is also a street branching off of Bubb Road, a major artery of the Monta
Vista neighborhood. Coincidentally, that particular section (of Bubb Road) is the major
hub of Monta Vista's three notable schools: Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy
Middle School, and Monta Vista High School.
Given nearly 4,500 students (the total number of students attending the three schools) and
their family members traverse that intersection to and from school every day, such a
structure will be noticed and will standout.. Given the behemoth of the structure, the
approval of such application and the associated applications will have a negative visual
impact on the predominately residential Monta Visita neighborhood.,
Point 2
Relating to the impact on real estate prices in Monta Vista upon approval of the
applications
With the economy is still struggling to recover from the Great Depression of 2009 and
where prices and values of homes have already fallen precipitously in 2008 and 2009, the
additional impact of a proposed cell tower to be built in Morita Vista's neighborhood at
this time will greatly exacerbate the negative perception of prospective buyers and
adversely affect property values even more so.
In these days where the real estate market is already fragile, and the US economy still in
midst of a recession, and the unemployment rate in San Jose -Santa Clara -Sunnyvale at a
near -time high of 11.5% ( July 2010 data), real estate prices will hasten its downward
spiral, if the proposed applications are approved.
For certain, the approval of a proposed cell tower in the Results Way Office Park will
have a detrimental impact on the price of homes in Morita Vista, and will actually pull
down all real estate values in Morita Vista, with those who particularly live in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed cell tower. In general, the proposal of the existence
of a cell tower will take on a stigma and the real estate community will become negative
when showing properties in the area.
Many real estate studies and reports have concluded that the installation of the cell tower
such as this will decrease the value of homes. Those in close proximity to the cell tower
will be affected even greater.
Prior to the approval of these applications, Cupertino Planning Commission must also
consider the potential loss of property value for Monta Vista homeowners. These
homeowners because of its close proximity to the proposed cell tower and whose price
and value of homes have further de -valued as a result of the approval of the proposed cell
tower should be justly monetarily compensated. Such condition, of monetary
compensation to all property owners within 1,000 foot radius of the project property
boundaries, should be amended and attached as a condition to the current applications
process and approval.
The city of Cupertino should also be prepared to receive a deluge of requests to re -assess
the value of the real property in Monta Vista subsequent to the approval of th„filed
applications. The new assessed value of the real property will most definitely be
substantially lower than the already depressed current assessed value.
Point 3
Relating to EXC-2010-04 Height Exception Request contradicts Cupertino's 2003
"Wireless Facilities Master Plan"
-2-
If the Cupertino Planning Commission approves the applications, it is re -writing the
original intent that has been set forth in the "Wireless Facilities Master Plan", developed
in 2003.
Per the "Planning Commission Staff Report", p.4 section titled Height Exception Request,
lines 4 and 10, state the following:
"According to 19.108.100 of the City's Wireless Ordinance, an exception may be
granted by the Commission for an antenna exceeding the maximum height limit
where practical difficulties exist.
... Staff supports the proposed height exception ...given the fact that the City
has previously approved similar height requests for similar reasons."
First, the approval of the Height Exception Request contradicts the Cupertino Planning
Commission's "Wireless Facilities Master Plan".. Excerpt from p. 24, relating to Lattice
Towers and Monopoles), states
The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it
is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural
appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility.
The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding
vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.).
The proposed 74-foot tall cell tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding trees
and structures. Presently at the proposed cell tower location in the Results Way Office
Park, the trees do not exceed 25 feet. Refer to "Planning Commission Staff Report",
pages 95 and 96. The proposed cell tower will dwarf the surrounding trees by nearly 50
feet tall, like the biblical story of Goliath over David. The proposed monopine will be
significantly taller and will contradict what had been set forth in the "Wireless Facilities
Master Plan".
The proposed monopine will not blend in with the current landscape. The "PIanning
Commission Staff Report", titled Treepole and Enclosure Appearance page 2-4, states
" ...challenging to blend in the project"and proposes recommendations set forth in the
report, same page 2-4. The recommendations listed, on page 2-4, do not adequately
address and do not resolve the issues at hand. The existing proposals to "achieve a more
natural and realistic tree image" with several enhancements still do not visualLv integrate
the monopine to the surrounding environment.
Point 4
Related to that the community of Monta Vista has shown true solidarity in objecting
to proposals of personal wireless service facility to be installed in the neighborhood.
-3-
Since 2005, AT&T had proposed six different sites in the neighborhood of Monta Vista
and sought ways to provide better wireless communications coverage in the area. AT&T
have not yet been able to successfully succeed in gaining approval of the proposed sites.
The Monta Vista residents are united and have repeatedly objected to having a proposed
cell tower in the neighborhood. The community of Monta Vista has steadfastly sent a
strong united message to the Cupertino Planning Commission that they object to the
installation of such personal wireless service facility or the like of therein.
Point 5
Relating to AT&T's intention to improve wireless coverage in Cupertino of its
Previous Application and Current Application
In the "Planning Commission Staff Report", page 2-3, titled Previous Application, the
new proposal consists "of six more antennas ( a total of 12)" compared to the original
[2009] application [consisting of six -antenna monopine].
The purpose of the applications filed by AT&T is to improve its wireless coverage in
Cupertino. In the "Planning Commission Staff Report", page 2-9: Item 3. Co -location
of Antenna, it states as follows:
"...designed to accommodate the co -location of additional antennae from
other wireless carriers. The co -location agreement shall be at market rates
with reasonable compensation to the mast owner."
Note that the proposed cell tower can also accommodate the co -location of additional
antennae from other wireless carriers. Given the intent of the application of AT&T is to
improve wireless coverage in Cupertino, it is not essential and excessive to also
accommodate the co -location of additional antennae from other wireless carriers. Such
co -location does not contribute to AT&T's intent of proposal. Therefore, is it really
necessary to install "twelve panel antennae mounted on a proposed.74-foot tall
monopine" ? Exactly how many antennae are adequate for AT&T? Excessive antennae
are not needed. They should be deleted from the application, and the application should
be revised with a more accurate number of panel antennae that is adequate for AT&T to
provide improve wireless service to its customers.
The combined interests of other wireless carriers are not in the scope and are not the
intent of this application and therefore should not be considered in the approval of the
application. Thus, the application should only consider that which is -necessary for the
AT&T's needs. Given such revision, the monopine may not necessitate to be as tall and
big as the application is requesting.
Point 6
Relating to approval of tree removal (TR-2010-31).
-4-
The City of Cupertino has a very comprehensive tree protection ordinance that stresses
the need for replacement trees when protected trees are removed.
Code (14.18) The Protected Tree Ordinance of the City of Cupertino itemizes all the
reasons in which "permit will be granted if specific findings are possible: .. "
The Code enumerates all the reasons for the approval of the permit and "permit will only
be granted if specific findings are (true and valid)".
In short, in which Application no. TR-2010-31, gives reason that the redwood "trees are
in conflict with developmental project" such reason is not listed as a reason to grant the
permit. AT&T has not established reason and cause to remove the redwood trees. Given
this, if the Cupertino Planning Commission were to approve TR-2010-31, then the
Commission contradicts that has been set forth in the Tree Ordinance of the City of
Cupertino.
Point 7
Relating to ATTACHMENT 3 Letter from County of Santa Clara, Office of the
Sheriff
"Letter from County of Santa Clara, Office of the Sheriff" states that several areas within
the city limits of Cupertino do not have good cell service. The letter does not explicitly
state of poor cell service in the Monta Vista area. Also, it is not conclusive (herein the
letter) that the approval of the AT&T's applications will remedy the needs of the Santa
Clara County Sheriffs. It has not been substantiated that the proposed monopine will
increase the communication and effectiveness of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's needs.
The letter should not be used as support of AT&T's position, of section titled Coverage
Demand, on page 2-3 of "Planning Commission Staff Report"..
Point 8
Relating to e-mail dated September 8, 2010 and sent by AT&T to its wireless
provider customers requesting support in the approval the proposed cell site.
On September 8, 2010, AT&T sent an e-mail to its wireless service customers to enlist
their support in gaining approval of the proposed cell site.
The e-mail is filled with flaws - inaccurate and misleading.
■ "Monta Vista" is repeatedly misspelled in the e-mail, as "Monte Vista".
■ The photos in the e-mail are misleading. The photos do not accurately reflect the
location of the proposed site in the Results Way Office Park. AT&T intentionally
tried to mislead its customers in order to gain public opinion for support for the
applications.
-5-
AT&T did not fully disclose the details of the proposed cell site. AT&T has
peddled upon the dissatisfaction of its wireless service customers to gain support
and has neglected to disclose pertinent details and facts relating to the proposal,
and in turn, has compromised its integrity in the matter of handling this
application.
AT&T has intentionally tried to mislead its customers in order to gain support. Given the
points raised, pages 32-90, of the "Planning Commission Staff Report", relating to the e-
mails requesting support of the approval of the cell site should be null and void and not
be used as supporting evidence for the approval of the applications. These pages should
be deleted and been stricken from the Report.
The Cupertino Planning Commission should consider reprimanding AT&T of its
intentions to deceive its customers of the facts and details of the proposed applications.
There are many contradictions, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues in the applications.
These issues presented herein must be addressed, clarified and explained, and resolved
before the approval of the applications, No: U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31.
Please advise the applicant Dave Yocke, Trililium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility), to
explore and exhaust ALL different options and alternatives to the size, Iocation, and
placement, of the cell tower to improve AT&T's wireless coverage in the Cupertino area.
Monta Vista is predominately a residential neighborhood, where children under 18 years
old make up over 35% of Cupertino's population (data of 2006-2008) and comprise
nearly fifty percent of all households in Cupertino. Monts Vista is not an appropriate
location for the location of a personal wireless service facility. Other areas in Cupertino
or its outlying vicinities should be considered!
The residents of Morita Vista have repeatedly objected at every public hearing relating
this subject, that is, against having a cell tower in Morita Vista. Please heed to the voice
of the people and deny the applications stated herein.
In closing, I reiterate the approval of the proposed monopine and its related applications
will lead to the following:
... that which negative visual -impact the Monta Vista area;
... that which will decrease the value of real property in Manta Vista;
... that which contradicts the Master Plan set forth by Cupertino's
Community Development Planning, further detailed in the "Wireless
Facilities Master Plan".
that which the residents of Monta Vista have consistently banded together
and have repeated voted against proposals of the installation of personal
wireless service facility and the like;
-6-
... that the current application, consisting of a 12-panel antennae monopine,
include excess capacities that are not necessary and not needed for AT&T
to improve wireless coverage in the Monta Vista area;
... that the City of Cupertino has not performed its duty to protect tree species
as outlined in Code (14.18) The Protected Tree Ordinance of the City of
Cupertino;
that it is not conclusive that it can fulfiil the needs of the Santa Clara
County Sheriffs to increase communication and effectiveness in the
Cupertino area; and lastly,
that AT&T has deliberately mislead its customers to gain support of the
applications, has inaccurately portrayed the proposed 74-foot tall
monopine, and did not fully disclose the details of the proposed cell site.
Thank you.
[Note: Many references were used to support and validate the issues raised above. All
sources of reference can be provided upon request. ]
Sincerely,
Grace Chen
Resident of Cupertino
-7-