Public Comment

In her Jan. 30 article, “ZAB Rejects Cell Phone Antennas on UC Storage,” Riya Bhattacharjee writes:  

“Applicants Verizon Wireless and Nextel Communications argued at the meeting that the need for cell phone towers had stemmed from complaints of South Berkeley residents about dropped calls and poor reception. Several Verizon Wireless employees as well as customers testified about poor cell phone service in the area and urged the board to approve the use permit.”  

A fuller account may help readers understand this meeting’s importance. First, neither our neighborhood group, the Le Conte Neighborhood Association, nor even the neighbors within 100 of the proposed project, ever received any city or developer notice of the project. On May 25, 2006, the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) by a vote of 8-0-1 (Abtain: Shumer) voted to allow the installation of 17 new cell phone antennas at 2721 Shattuck Ave. In September the City Council sent the matter back to ZAB for review. Thankfully, a handful of our neighbors had gotten wind of developer Patrick Kennedy’s, Nextel’s, and Verizon’s plans and managed to stall a second ZAB decision until Jan. 25 This delay allowed our neighborhood time to organize, conduct research, and get out the word. According to the ZAB minutes, 167 people were in attendance at the Jan. 25 meeting. This turnout far exceeded the ZAB’s highest attendance in the past 12 months. 

Shortly before the Jan. 25 meeting our newly formed group, Berkeley Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (BNAFU), presented the ZAB with a City Planning Department map of Berkeley which lists all cell phone antenna locations in the city. The map indicates that South Berkeley already has 15 separate antenna locations, 12 of which are located in our part of town. North Berkeley has two locations, while the Berkeley Hills have none. South and Central Berkeley, supposedly suffering from poor cell phone service, have seven times the number of locations that North Berkeley has.  

At the January meeting, the developer, cell phone company reps, and a corporate attorney presented their case. Then a dozen Nextel/Verizon managers/employees and sincere-sounding Nextel/Verizon customers also pleaded for improved cell phone service. One manager was from the Emeryville Nextel store, which I had contacted a few hours before the meeting. I spoke shortly after he did and conveyed the following information: That afternoon I not only had called the Berkeley Nextel and Verizon stores, but the Emeryville Nextel Store, as well, to inquire about the quality of service in the proposed coverage area. I spoke to one store manager and three employees at these stores. All of them looked on their store computers at a color-coded map of the area. They told me that our area was receiving their number one, highest rating for excellent phone service. They stated that their own Nextel and Verizon phones provided excellent service and reception in Central and South Berkeley. One remembered a few complaints about poor service, but every one of these had been resolved with a free software upgrade. Two employees mentioned that the North Berkeley Hills and Claremont Hotel had received less than excellent ratings due either to no service available or dropped calls. Why don’t the suffering Berkeley Hills residents get together and demand that at least a few antenna towers be placed in their neighborhoods?  

Finally, our neighbors testified that they had no problems with their cell phone service. Many also expressed deep concerns about the health risks of radio frequency (RF) radiation emanating from these antennas, even though it is illegal for cities to use RF radiation as a reason for denying a use permit, as long as it is within FCC “safe” limits. This policy is part of the Federal Telecommunications Act, pushed through Congress in 1996 by the telecommunications industry.  

How can we ever understand and resolve our health concerns, if, during our city’s decision-making discussions, we can’t even consider the risks to our heath without the fear of being successfully sued in court by the cell phone industry? The FCC established what they consider safe emissions levels from antennas. Even the EPA thinks these are too low to be safe. Why would we need emission limits in the first place if there is no danger? The applicants were actually considering erecting a huge wall in order to separate their antennas from a proposed five-story condominium development next door in order to reduce 24/7 radiation exposure from the current project. Why would they need a wall if emissions do not present a health risk?  

As the meeting continued, one resident after another from our part of town spoke about their satisfaction with their current cell phone service and about what they had learned of antenna dangers (The King Early Childhood Center, serving 85 3- to 6-year-olds, is located 800 feet from the proposed site). ZAB members listened. Just before midnight, the ZAB overturned their May decision and voted 6-3 to reject the argument of need made by Verizon/Nextel spokesmen, attorneys, employees, and recruited customers. Members Allen, Doran, and Judd opposed the majority and supported the antenna installation. 

This victory represented one of those sweet moments, when the power of the people overcomes developer and corporate domination and manipulation. Stay tuned. The next round may see Kennedy, Verizon, and Nextel appeal the ZAB decision to the Berkeley City Council. You can purchase a taped copy of the meeting at the downtown Berkeley ZAB office, where cell phone reception is great. For more information about BNAFU, e-mail: jllib2@aol.com. 

Michael Barglow is a Berkeley resident.