Appeal Form - Verizon Permit Submittal Notice 2020CUPERTINO APPEAI, FORM
Application No.:
Verizon Permit Submittal Notice:CA SJ CUPERTINO 338
Applicant(s) Name:
Verizon
Verizon Representative: Jacob Olander
Project Planner:
Yan C'ui (Amy) and Guduan Gong (Gordon)
Appellant(s) Name: Yihjau and Shuhui Chang
(
Please check one:
Note: Do not use this form for Administrat'tve Citation decisions (1.16), Petitiorts for
Reconsideration (2.08.096), or Damage to Public Trees (14.12)
a. Appeals regarding Title 19 (Zoning) and 14.18 (Protected Private Trees):
€ Administrative decision (14 calendar days after decision to appeal)
€ Planning Commission decision (14 calendar days after decision to appeal)
€ Design Review Committee decision (14 calendar days after decision to appeal)
CI Director of Community Development decision regarding Tentative Maps (18.20)
(14 calendar days after decision to appeal'
€ Street Improvements (14.04) (30 calendar days after date of decision to appeal)
CI Code Enforcement regarding Massage Permits (9.06) (5 business days after
receipt of notice of decision to appeal)
€ Solicitor's Identification Permit (5.20) (10 calendar days after denial notice to
Date of decision or mailing of notice of decision:
Nov 2, 2020
Specifically state the grounds and basis for appeal:
We strongly oppose the choice
of this location for the 5G antenna, even aTter we carefully reviewed the three files shared by Verizon
Representative Jacob Olander, for the following reasons:
G:'l City ClerklAppeals & Call For Review\Appeal Forms\Appeal form.doo+
1. The current light pole is inside of Amy and Gordon's property. It is an
intrusion of our property rights and privacy for a private company to add a 5G antenna for their profit.
There is no similarity between this 5G antenna and the streetlight originally installed here. Electric
light is a well-established well-trusted proven technology used over 100 years, so American public
has given it public right-of-way. The 5G small cell, on the other hand, is a very new technology
getting installed by a private company. There is no consensus among the residents of Cupertino
that every corner of this city needs to have 5G. On the other hand, many residents are concerned
about radiation, environmental issues, noise problems and other problems. As owners or this
property, we don't want to give up our rights of this land for that purpose. Therefore we reserve
the rights to sue Verizon and the city of Cupertino for your intention to force this upon us.
2. Jacob's noise report said max noise level could be 38.1 DBA at 5 feet distance. Amy and
Gordon's 2nd floor bedroom is 30 Feet from the pole, so the 38.1 dBA antenna noise is 25 Teet
from our bed all the time, including at night when we sleep. This is definitely a huge problem for Amy.
For example: A low-voice conversion is usually considered as 30 dBA, which she would easily
ignore during the day. But at night, she cannot get to sleep with any noise at all. If Gordon wants
to watch TV in the Tirst floor family room, which is more than 30 feet away from the upstairs master
bedroom, she can always hear it and couldn't get to sleep even with the lowest volume. As Gordon
said "How can you hear when I couldn't hear it right in front of the TV?", so he turned to watching
from the computer with a headset. Considering that we have many seniors living near this pool,
this is a big concern for them as well. This will most certainly affect our health and lifestyle.
Therefore, we strongly oppose the installation at this site due to this noise problem.
(See more points from Additional Pages attached)
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $325.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 20-038 ($705.30
for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California (408) 777-3223,
G: \City Clerk\Appeals & Call Fot Review\Appeal Forms \Appeal form.doy
3. Jacob's radiation report said: "To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the
FCC guidelines, it is recommended that appropriate RF safety training be provided to
all workers who have access within 8 feet outward from the antennas." So contrary to
what the report is tging to imply the safety of near field, special safety training is
required for workers to get close to the pole. But we have mailboxes for four families
right next to the pole, so this means all these families will go to the pole at least once
every day. We also have a 6-foot-tall tree 4 feet away from the pole, and another very
tall tree 14 feet away, almost to the level of the antenna. Every year, Gordon will
climb a ladder to trim these trees. He will be dangerously close to the distance the
workers are getting to. Furthermore, Amy and Gordon's second-floor master bedroom
is only about 30 feet away from the pole, so they will be living with this radiation
source 365 days a year, 24 hours a day continuously for the rest of their ownership of
this house. The report doesn't mention any long-term (tens of years) study of the
effect this close to a bedroom. The mere psychological distress will cause long term
health problems, and the mere possibility of this hazard will cause our property value
to drop, unless Verizon and the city of Cupertino can prove nobody will have this
concern. Therefore, we strongly oppose the installation at this site due to health
concerns and possible negative impact to our property value.
4. Residentsonl0335TulaLanealsohaveconcernsabouthealth-relatedissues.Shuhui
Chang is a very weak old woman. She has serious insomnia, high blood pressure and
irregular heart arrhythmia problems. Although she is taking medications and under
doctor's treatment, she cannot get any hazard radiations at all. Talking about
installation of 5G radio/antenna already makes her nervous and insomnia, not to
mention after this antenna is installed. Both of Shuhui Chang and her husband are
more than 75 years old already. They can't afford to have radio/antenna at all installed
near them (60 feet from the pole to their house) at all!
5. We simply can't understand why this location is chosen when there are
evidently much more suitable locations nearby, for example: the east
entrance of De Anza College, where nobody sleeps. Did Verizon and the city
spend adequate effort trying to choose non-residential locations over
residential ones? This alone would certainly be basis for lawsuits for Verizon
and especially the city of Cupertino which force a radiation source into its
residential area without adequate due process to alleviate its risks when
clearly there is a better nonresidential alternative. Please do not tell us that
you need this location as well as the De Anza one; we have other neighbors
signed with this appeal to confirm that they also oppose strongly the
installation of 5G antenna at this location because they are afraid of long-term
physical and psychological health problems, fire and lightning risks, sleep
deprivation, environmental impact and almost certain impact to property
values.
6. We are also concerned that the 5G signature could impact pacer makers
(even FDA web site mentions that risk if you do a simple search) and could
be life threatening, so we strongly oppose the notion of testing only affer the
installation of the 5G antenna when we already know many seniors living in
our neighborhood.
7. We also include names, addresses and signatures of other neighbors
living close to the pole who are also opposing this installation. We do not
know any person who welcomes the installation of the 5G antenna at this
location. Forcing the antenna upon residents who oppose this would be an
infringement of our rights and we reserve our rights to sue Verizon and the
City of Cupertino over any consequences from this installation, including
but not limited to health problems, life threatening emergencies, intrusion
of our privacy and impact to our property values.
aJ s
mailbox marthe pole
Both mes need ladder to hm aery
year and needs to dimb up to a
heigh) that % dangemudy do to
theantgnna
By signing in the following table from Nov 11 to Nov 12, 2020, you are confirming your support
of the residents of 10305 Tula Lane and 10335 Tula Lane to appeal the Verizon Permit Submittal
Notice with Verizon Site Number: CASJCUPERTINO338 and you are residents of the city of
Cupertino and close to the location of the site: 10305 Tula Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014
Your Name Address in
Cupertino
Phone Number Your Signature Additional
Comments
X'l-(-s-,,,;'[
'p, -
By signing in the following table from Nov 11 to Nov 12, 2020, you are confirming your support
of the residents of 10305 Tula Lane and 10335 Tula Lane to appeal the Verizon Permit Submittal
Notice with Verizon Site Number: CASJCUPERTINO 338 and you are residents of the city of
Cupertino and close to the location of the site: 10305 Tula Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014
Your Name Address in
Cupertino
Phone Number Your Signature Additional
Comments
Sriiiial z%qe
/X(:,,6.- '\,
By signing in the following table from Nov 11 to Nov 12, 2020, you are confirming your support
of the residents of 10305 Tula Lane and 10335 Tula Lane to appeal the Verizon Permit Submittal
Notice with Verizon Site Number: CASJCUPERTINO338 and you are residents of the city of
Cupertino and close to the location of the site: 10305 Tula Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014
Your Name Address in
Cupertino
Phone Number Your Signature Additional
Comments
J-/AKQ {
/h
By signing in the following table from Nov 11 to Nov 12, 2020, you are confirming your support
of the residents of 10305 Tula Lane and 10335 Tula Lane to appeal the Verizon Permit Submittal
Notice with Verizon Site Number: CASJCUPERTINO338 and you are residents of the city of
Cupertino and close to the location of the site: 10305 Tula Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014
Your Name Address in
Cupertino
Phone Number Your Signature Additional
Comments
-a-r-(%"
) r /j t -,,-'i C i ) C
, JJ 7) C
p>7
By signing in the following table from Nov 11 to Nov 12, 2020, you are confirming your support
of the residents of 10305 Tula Lane and 10335 Tula Lane to appeal the Verizon Permit Submittal
NoticewithVerizonSiteNumber:CASJ CUPERTINO338andyouareresidentsofthecityof
Cupertino and close to the location of the site: 10305 Tula Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014
Your Name Address in Cupertino Phone Number Your Signature
[,_?, g/%,=a=aa
-
/./7
% /l/
/ 4=a
i,/'l<t)-t" -<:1-=='(3 '
,Xi
)D J9.!2.!70 Appea)s.
A. An appeal may be filed by any person, firm or corporation aggrieved or affected by any
grant, denial, modification or revocation of any permit, or any determination or interpretation
related to any provision of this title.
B. Filing:
1. An appeal shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the City and shall be filed during
regular office hours with the City Clerk within fourteen calendar days after the City decision or
if a notice of decision is not required, from the date of the decision or determination, under this
title. An appeal not filed within such time shall be barred. The appeal shall state the grourids
and basis thereof.
2. Appeals under this chapter are subject to an appeal fee as prescribed by resolution of the
City Council.
C. Noticing: Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner in whiai the original notice
was given. U a project with no noticing is appealed, appropriate noticing shall be determined by
the Director of Community Development.
D. Appeal heag body shall be determined in accord with Section " .. '.
E. Decision of the appeal heating body: The decision ot determination of the appeal heag
body on any appeal shall be final and effective immediately.
F. Notice of Decision: Notice of the appeal heating body's decision shall be mailed to the
original applicant, to the person filing the appeal, and to any other person who has filed a
written request with the City Clerk.
G: \City ClerXAppeals & Call For ReviewSAppeal FormslAppeal form.docx