If tenants and businesses move to nearby towns, such as Albany, Kensington or El Cerrito, millions of revenues will be lost forever.

Transcription

1 7/6/2009 ATTACHMENT Page 12 1 of 2 Page 1 of 6 From: kat hua [kathua@juno.com] Saturday, January 17, :10 PM ; Planning Dept. Mailbox Subject: Request Dear Ms. Mendez and City of Berkeley Planning and Zoning Department: I saw a posting in the window at 1625 Shattuck Avenue that stated eight AT&T cellular antennas and seven equipment cabinets will be installed on that premises. I am requesting you not to approve this project for two reasons: 1) Health Concern: Numerous reports point to the links between cellular radiation and cancer, such as the warning issued by the Director of the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute in July Electronic magnetic radiation from a major cellular antenna installation in a neighborhood that is densely packed with residents and businesses can put thousands of people at risk of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to electromagnetic radiation. 2) Economic Effects on the City's revenue: Not long after that sign showed up in the window, I noticed a new "For Lease" sign was also posted at the same premises Shattuck Avenue. Could it be that other tenants in that building decided to move out due to the health concerns?! The proposed cellular antenna installation is located in the heart of the Gourmet Ghetto. Restaurants and stores in this area have steadily generated revenues for the City. There are also many large apartment buildings with thousands of tenants in this neighborhood. Those landlords have been paying annual fees to the City's Rent Stabilization Board and annual business license fees to the City. If tenants and businesses move to nearby towns, such as Albany, Kensington or El Cerrito, millions of revenues will be lost forever. Please do not allow this proposal to pass and please keep me posted on the progress of this proposal. My address is 2112 Virginia Street, #3, Berkeley, Sincerely, Katie Huang Objections against the Cellular Antenna Installation Proposal at 1625 Shattuck Avenue

2 7/6/2009 ATTACHMENT Page 12 1 of 1 Page 2 of 6 From: Cc: Bearess Robin [bearessrobin@yahoo.com] Tuesday, January 20, :53 PM Planning Dept. Mailbox Subject: 1625 Shattck Antenna Installation Dear Ms. Mendez: I am the property owner of 1647 Walnut Street where six units are on the same parcel. Last week, my tenants informed me about the ATT antenna installation at 1625 Shattuck Ave. Two tenants, who work in El Cerrito, said they will move out after the installation, although they like the North Berkeley's gourmet ghetto area very much, but they fear of the constant exposure of EMF. Most of my tenants are on month-to-month basis without any lease. I am worried if they all move away and I will have a hard time to find new renters in that neighborhood. Please deny the application and keep our neighborhood alive and prosperous. Thank you very much Grace Chang

3 Page 3 of 6 From: Subject: Cynthia Brantly Pierce [cynthia@hancockforsenate.com] Wednesday, February 04, :43 PM please don't allow AT&T to antennas near our children Hi Kat, I am a parent of two children at Berkeley Arts Magnet school. I am very concerned about exposing our 350 students to radiation from the proposed AT&T antennas. I urge you to not jeopardize our children's health by allowing these antennas to be erected so close to a school. Thanks for your consideration, Cynthia Cynthia Brantly Pierce VP of Fundraising BAM PTA cindy@cpierce.com Cell: Home:

4 Page 4 of 6 From: Ross, Steven D. Monday, September 28, :29 PM Cc: Jacob, Melinda Subject: FW: UP # Leslie, I believe this is yours. From: Justin Cannon [mailto:cannonboy@gmail.com] Saturday, September 26, :45 PM Ross, Steven D. Cc: City Clerk Subject: UP # Dear Zoning Adjustments Board, I am writing to you concerning Use Permit # According to Berkeley Zoning Code 23E , C-NS North Shattuck Commerical District Provisions, Uses Permitted, an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) is required for "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities when located on site with existing facilities." First of all, this proposed development would require an AUP, not a simple UP. Second, this is subject to the requirements of Section 23C , which declares that the ZAB or ZO must find "that the facility is necessary to prevent or fill a significant gap in coverage or capacity shortfall in the applicant s service area, and is the least intrusive means of doing so"(b3). I am a AT&T cell phone and internet user, and can attest to consistent and strong 3G cell coverage in this area (I live one block from the proposed development). I can also provide maps from the AT&T website showing full coverage in this area ( Finally, this application for a use permit cannot claim exception from an Environmental Review under Section of the CEQA. While that section of the CEQA does address existing facilities, the Class 1 exemption of section is for the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The types of 'existing facilities' itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." This property is not currently being used for "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" therefore this does not qualify for an exemption under Section of the CEQA, and a full Environmental Review is required in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. For the ZAB to issue, or even consider, this Use Permit would be improper. First, the applicant must apply for an AUP, must meet requirements of Section 23C , and also provide an Environmental Review. 1

5 Please present this letter to the Zoning Adjustments Board. I also will be attending the public hearing on October 8th and would like to know what I must do to get a chance to speak if these matters have not been properly addressed. Sincerely, Justin R. Cannon Page 5 of 6 2

6 Page 6 of 6 From: Ross, Steven D. Monday, September 28, :10 PM Cc: Jacob, Melinda Subject: FW: Regarding the proposed new wireless facility at 1625 Shattuck Leslie, Please attach to your ZAB report. From: Carolyn Sweeney [mailto:goingplaces@sbcglobal.net] Monday, September 28, :09 PM Ross, Steven D. Subject: Regarding the proposed new wireless facility at 1625 Shattuck Hello - As a business owner at 1675 Shattuck, I strongly urge the city not to proceed with expanding wireless in this neighborhood. We already have ample coverage, and are exposed to sufficient dangers from EMF. This is so close to a very populous area, residences and businesses. Please do not add to the hazards of this wonderful area. I would be at the meeting to register my lack of support, but I will not be in town. But put me on record as opposed strongly to this proposal. Business concerns should not trump those of safety. Carolyn Sweeney Going Places Travel 1675 Shattuck Ave. Berkeley