1 / 60

A Community Perspective on Residential Cell Tower Construction

A Community Perspective on Residential Cell Tower Construction. Background: 1 of 3.

thelma
Download Presentation

A Community Perspective on Residential Cell Tower Construction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Community Perspective on Residential Cell Tower Construction

  2. Background: 1 of 3 • In November of 2008, residents of Northwest Glendale discovered that a cellular tower some 34 feet tall was about to be constructed in front of a residential home on Cumberland Road. The residents quickly contacted the Mayor and City Council, who put the project on hold.

  3. Background - 2 of 3 • Since that time, the City has researched its options under the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act and the California Public Utilities Code. • Its report to city council cited a Sept. 08 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling giving some control and oversight back to local jurisdictions. Residents formed a community group, G.O. A.C.T. (Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers) to fight the intrusion of cell towers into residential areas and educate neighbors on the issue • The specific carrier working with the city on this tower (as well as one proposed for nearby Glenwood), is T-Mobile, who lacks a land-based telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer base.

  4. Background: 3 of 3 • The process by which carriers move into neighborhoods is one which subverts the normal conditional-use permit process and avoids city planning reviews, moving through public works and constructing along utility rights-of-way. • The 1996 Act, written largely by the Telecom Lobby, prohibits cities from raising any health concerns at zoning hearings, even while the Food and Drug Administration recommends a policy of "prudent avoidance" of cell phone radiation, especially among children.

  5. We will show tonight that … • T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTIFICATION GUIDELINES • T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN SERVICE • T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY • THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER AFFECTS NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES.

  6. We will show tonight that … • T-MOBILE HAS NOT TRIED TO FIND THE “LEAST INTRUSIVE” SITE FOR ITS TOWER • T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE AND IN FACT MISLEADING • T-MOBILE HAS SHOWN BAD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP • THE CITY OF GLENDALE CAN TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT ITS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS

  7. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES T-Mobile has shown improper disclosure, even under their own limited requirements and the limited requirements of The Telecommunications Act and City Public Works.

  8. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES (1) T-Mobile had no plans to disclose any information to the public, other than a simple "pizza hanger" style advertisement. (See Exhibit A) • The notice failed to list a contact name, number, or any information about the construction. • The notice listed a non-existent address - 510 ¼ Cumberland Road, which didn’t give neighbors meaningful information as to the location of construction.

  9. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES After complaints, T-Mobile's contactor returned with a second notice - this time with a phone number to call. When you call it, it had no information; it simply said, "Hi this is Ed. Please leave a message.” (Exhibit B)

  10. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES • The third notice, which came days after, still lacked disclosure, claiming the project’s purpose was to "replace a light pole on the North Side of the Street." As you can see from the pictures attached, there is nothing wrong with this light pole. (Exhibit C) • These notices went out to nine homes, below the notification guidelines in Glendale's own code.

  11. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES • We will show that this behavior is part of a track record of deception that T-Mobile has shown in the city of L.A. • We will demonstrate T-Mobile’s strategy of avoiding blame by putting subcontractors in front of the public, the company not agreeing to sit down with residents or answer questions.

  12. (A) T-MOBILE HAS IGNORED EVEN LIMITED NOTICE GUIDELINES •  Per the Glendale Zoning code, 12.008.030, when the director of public works “has determined that a person has violated any of the terms of this chapter or that an encroachment … constitutes a public nuisance … the director of public works is authorized to issue a stop work order … or revoke a permit. • The former is what already occurred. • The latter - REVOCATION … is what we seek today.

  13. (B) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A “SIGNIFICANT GAP” IN SERVICE T-Mobile's own existing coverage service map, which we will display, shows that there is already adequate coverage in the area. There are NO white areas which T-Mobile's own materials define as a loss of service. (Exhibit W)

  14. (B) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A “SIGNIFICANT GAP” IN SERVICE The fact that T-Mobile calls may not (at all times and in every location) be made and received indoors does not mean that T-Mobile has a 'significant gap' in service as that term has been defined by federal appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (See MetroPCS vs.. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Circ.2005) * It is inherently the nature of wireless technology that building materials block and attenuate signals, and adding an antenna facility will not change this fundamental law of physics.

  15. (B) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A “SIGNIFICANT GAP” IN SERVICE • Discussions with residents with T-Mobile service confirmed that they are, in fact, able to make and receive calls from inside their homes. • Residents Ellie Polychronis and John McMahon drove the neighborhood calling from Ellie's T-Mobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific, Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER DROPPED.

  16. (B) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A “SIGNIFICANT GAP” IN SERVICE • When, on January 2nd, T-Mobile representatives heard this at a home visit with John McMahon, they responded that the results might be different walking (vs. driving) or inside a home. • On January 4th, McMahon walked up and down Cumberland, up Pacific, and along Meadows. 10 residents allowed him inside their homes, to test the T-Mobile phone he was lent for the test. Calls were possible in all locations. • We video-taped these results and they are available at YouTube.Com (Search “Get the cell out of here”)

  17. (B) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A “SIGNIFICANT GAP” IN SERVICE • In the Windsor Homes Community in Los Angeles - who we’ve connected with and who is also fighting T-Mobile, similar results were found. Those residents contacted a T-Mobile service rep, who informed them that their area (where a cell tower was also asserted as a necessity) had a call completion rate of over 97%. • T-Mobile's own lobbyist, in that case, David Cunningham, met with residents and raved about coverage at the site.

  18. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY Capacity refers to the number of customers able to access the same cell antenna base station facility at the same time. In order for T-Mobile to demonstrate this, it should complete the following CAPACITY CHECKLIST (shown as follows)

  19. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY CAPACITY CHECKLIST: • Provide quantifiable network performance metrics recorded over time, including (a) Baseline network performance (b) Peak loads correctly handled and time periods (c) Nominal loads correctly handled

  20. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY (ii) This should also include the following information: (a) The total number of T-Mobile customers in this service area in a given period of time (e.g. one month) (b) The total number of dropped or blocked calls in this area over that time (c ) The make and model number of the equipment at its existing adjacent sites

  21. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY (iii) Additionally, information about blocked/dropped calls and data network should be broken out as follows to detail ALL causes: (a) RF/air-network base station capacity issues (b) Consumer equipment issues (e.g. cell phone batteries not adequately charged) (c ) Non-RF / non-air-network issues in the adjacent cells already providing service coverage (d ) Other back end and network issues

  22. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY T- MOBILE HAS PROVIDED NONE OF THE ABOVE. A NEWLY-FORMED CITY REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD REQUIRE ALL THIS INFORMATION, AND MORE AS WE DESCRIBE BELOW. IT ALSO SHOULD BE THOROUGLY VERIFIED BEFORE ANY PERMIT IS ISSUED … and reliance on T-Mobile’s 3rd party vendors is not independent city verification (As a note, to protect the privacy of customers, T-Mobile can easily redact and block customer information, in case that is their response to the city)

  23. (C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY • T-Mobile Representatives Searcy and Gaworecki, during their site visit on 1/2/09, said the placement of the tower was a response to (a) Capacity and (b) Demand. • T-Mobile has shown nothing to prove capacity issues. • 911 advantages to an increased capacity will be shown later in this presentation to be faulty • Demand issues seem to be a non-factor with the low level of demand as seen in the petitions (See Exhibit M) • G.O. A.C.T.'s own marketing against the T-Mobile brand in the neighborhood should assure T-Mobile a continued lack of demand.

  24. (D) THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES The Appraisal Institute is the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world. The Institute spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home and educated its members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value. (www.appraisalinstitute.org)

  25. (D) THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES • The definitive work on this subject was done by Dr. Sandy Bond, who concluded that "media attention to the potential health hazards of [cellular phone towers and antennas] has spread concerns among the public, resulting in increased resistance" to sites near those towers. (See Exhibit Q) • Percentage decreases mentioned in the study range from 2 to 20%. For the subject property itself, since the tower sits directly in front of it, the percentage will move toward the higher range.

  26. (D) THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES There may be a legal obligation the city is forcing onto the nearby Cumberland Residents - to disclose the existence of the tower when selling a home which may erode the property value • The California Association of Realtors maintains that "sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property," including "known conditions outside of and surrounding" it. This includes "nuisances" and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses • We will attach letters from realtors Gerry Cragnotti, Kendyl Young, George Moreno, John Christopher, Michelle Christopher, Margi Simpkins, Addora Beall, Phyllis Harb - ALL SAYING THIS WILL AFFECT HOME VALUES

  27. (D) THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES • We will also show a picture of the subject property, with the current resident’s children, ages 3 and 5, playing 5 feet from the proposed tower. (Exhibit R) • We will display how T-Mobile's own artistic re-creations of the cell tower in front of the proposed home dwarf the home (Will common sense prevail when seeing this?) (Exhibit T) • We will attach a letter from a local realtor providing evidence on the issue of property value decrease. (Exhibit V)

  28. (D) THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER WILL AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES • Lower Home Values LEAD TO Lower Property Tax LEADS TO Less Revenue for Glendale • Per Glendale’s Zoning Code, even in the case of a public right-of-way encroachment permit, the Director of public works may “deny the permit” if he determines that the “welfare of the community will be adversely affected by the proposed encroachment … [or] attach such reasonable conditions thereto as would eliminate such adverse affects.” • The previous list - mentioned by Marguerite - is such a reasonable condition

  29. (E) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN THE PLACEMENT OF THE TOWER AS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE SITE T-Mobile should have the burden of showing that its proposed site is the "least intrusive site" for the community. • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly stated in its MetroPCS vs.. the City and County of San Francisco that the "least intrusive" standards "allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites.”

  30. (E) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN THE PLACEMENT OF THE TOWER AS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE SITE The District Court criticized Metro PCS as follows: • "The alternative site analysis took place as part of the effort by MetroPCS' RF engineers and siting experts to determine the best possible cell site for MetroPCS from an engineering perspective. Put another way, that analysis was aimed at finding the best site from which to provide greater service coverage, not necessarily at finding the least intrusive means with respect to identifying the best solution for the community."

  31. (E) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN THE PLACEMENT OF THE TOWER AS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE SITE The Court went on to state that compliance with this ‘least intrusive’ standard requires a wireless carrier like T-Mobile to provide evidence that it has considered (a) less sensitive sites (b) alternative system designs (c) alterative tower designs; and (d) the placement of antennae on existing structures

  32. (E) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN THE PLACEMENT OF THE TOWER AS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE SITE • The fact that a higher tower may be needed - or a different design or network required - is unimportant. The objective is what’s LEAST INTRUSIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY • About a month ago, when the council discussed the public pool proposed for Glendale, a member commented that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “alternatives,” since the pool designs were all one design, with a different number of lanes. This is a similar situation with T-Mobile. No serious analysis of real alternatives was performed.

  33. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE … IN FACT, THEY ARE MISLEADING T-Mobile and other carriers like to tell us that no one in our neighborhood has a land line anymore - that we have abandoned them for cell phones. While this is untrue in most areas, in affluent neighborhoods with median ages of owners above 50, like ours, this is especially Untrue. NOT ONE PERSON who signed our petition responded that they have already OR would give up their land line.

  34. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE T-Mobile's argument is as follows: • Residents cancel their land lines and only use cell phones. • Residents have an emergency and need good 911 coverage via cell phone to save their lives.

  35. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE On January 2nd, two representatives from Synergy and T-Mobile, Rob Searcy and Wally Gaworecki, came out to the home of John McMahon, where the cell tower is proposed. They confirmed that even a digital cell phone with a cancelled contract will pick up ANY SIGNAL of ANY CARRIER in the area - when 9-1-1 is dialed.

  36. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • The argument for 911 then becomes how much total cell capacity - from all carriers - is in your neighborhood. • We will show maps from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint-Nextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage from all carriers, ready for 911 calls. (See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)

  37. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • T-Mobile has a history of misleading cities on the 911 issue. In the issue of the Windsor Homes Association working with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, T-Mobile repeatedly provided deceptive information about the advantages of 911. • T-Mobile introduced testimony in the ongoing Windsor Homes Association case to discredit local residents, but failed to mention that much of the statistical data they presented included accidental calls to 911.

  38. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • We will attach an analysis from the Windsor Hills area, where T-Mobile went on record and purported that there were over 5,000 911 calls in 1 month made from T-Mobile cells in that area. • The actual amount of T-Mobile customers in the area turned out to be a little over 1000, meaning that T-Mobile claimed each of their customers made 5 separate 911 calls that month. (See Exhibit H)

  39. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • We will attach written testimony from a 911 call center employee - a member of law enforcement - attesting to T-Mobile’s inaccurate reporting of 911 data. (See Exhibit J) • We will show an excerpt from T-Mobile's own website that warns "Is your Cell Phone Causing a 911 Crisis?" and mentions that over half of 911 calls are accidental calls from cell phones and are not for real emergency purposes. (See Exhibit K)

  40. (F) T-MOBILE'S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • We will attach our signed petition, which lists the cell carriers of each person signed. It will be quickly obvious that T-Mobile has a saturation level lower than any other carrier - less than 5% of the neighborhood uses T-Mobile. • THE CONCLUSION: Not only are people not abandoning their land lines - there are few T-Mobile Customers in the area to tie up existing T-Mobile capacity in an emergency. (See Exhibit M)

  41. (F) T-MOBILE’S CLAIMS ABOUT 911 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE • We will attach information and reporting regarding the failure of a cellular antennae to be available long term in the case of an emergency because they lack sufficient battery back-ups. • Reporting has also shown that the telecom industry is fighting this requirement federally, not wanting to be financially responsible for the emergency needs which they claim are so critical to their mission. (See Exhibit N and Exhibit P, P2)

  42. (G) T-MOBILE HAS SHOWN BAD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP * AN UNWILLINGNESS TO LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISES * THE PROVIDING OF INACCURATE DATA TO COMMUNITIES AND CITIES * FAILURE TO SHOW GOOD FAITH WITH NEIGHBORHOODS * LACK OF MAINTENANCE OF SITES ONCE BUILT

  43. (G) T-MOBILE HAS SHOWN BAD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP • (1) San Francisco Chronicle writer Seth Rosenfeld reported on T-Mobile’s improper placement of new cell sites without compliance with local building laws (See article at Exhibit X) • (2) The California Public Utilities Spokeswoman Susan Carothers confirmed The Chronicle's report, saying "CPUC staff is looking into allegations concerning T-Mobile cell siting” and irregularities • (3) Sources on the investigation reported that T-Mobile was rushing to put sites in, to earn bonuses, without complying with permit and noticing requirements (Sound Familiar?)

  44. (G) T-MOBILE HAS SHOWN BAD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP • (4) We will show pictures of poorly maintained T-Mobile cell facilities (See Exhibit Y) • (5) T-Mobile staff has refused to meet with residents, sending independent contractors and vendors instead • (6) T-Mobile has refused to provide contact information for its on-staff liaison (someone who actually works at T-Mobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile) • (7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of alternative sites

  45. (G) T-MOBILE HAS SHOWN BAD CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP • Is there transparency when T-Mobile does business with the city? Is the City Council informed of this? Requests to the City Mgr re any park land T-Mobile agreed to landscape/fix came back with the answer “no,” but T-Mobile conceded they reconfigured the hiking park entrances, gates, and done landscaping at Middle Sunshine where they put in a tower. • We would like the Council to look into the above to verify if it’s true • They use studies from firms who themselves may have potential conflict of interests. Hammet and Edison, for instance - their senior engineer Robert Weller - has worked at the FCC -then at H&E -then at the FCC. They’re like lobbyists, moving back and forth between government and private.

  46. SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT ??? • IF NOT FOR EXISTING DEMAND - LIKE T-MOBILE STATED IN THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION - THEN WHAT? • WHY IS T-MOBILE SO COMMITTED TO THIS ACTION? • SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO DEFACE GLENDALE NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION ALLOWS CITIES TO MAKE TELECOM CARRIERS MEET REASONABLE CONDITIONS?

More Related