Transcript A Community Perspective on Residential Cell Tower Construction
Slide 1
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 2
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 3
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 4
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 5
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 6
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 7
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 8
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 9
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 10
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 11
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 12
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 13
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 14
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 15
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 16
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 17
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 18
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 19
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 20
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 21
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 22
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 23
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 24
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 25
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 26
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 27
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 28
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 29
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 30
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 31
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 32
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 33
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 34
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 35
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 36
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 37
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 38
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 39
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 40
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 41
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 42
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 43
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 44
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 45
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 46
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 47
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 48
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 49
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 50
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 51
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 52
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 53
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 54
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 55
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 56
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 57
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 58
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 59
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 60
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 2
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 3
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 4
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 5
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 6
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 7
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 8
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 9
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 10
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 11
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 12
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 13
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 14
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 15
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 16
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 17
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 18
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 19
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 20
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 21
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 22
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 23
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 24
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 25
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 26
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 27
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 28
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 29
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 30
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 31
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 32
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 33
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 34
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 35
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 36
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 37
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 38
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 39
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 40
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 41
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 42
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 43
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 44
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 45
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 46
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 47
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 48
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 49
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 50
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 51
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 52
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 53
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 54
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 55
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 56
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 57
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 58
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 59
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304
Slide 60
A Community Perspective on
Residential Cell Tower
Construction
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.
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 landbased telecom program (like AT&T for instance) and is
aggressively moving into neighborhoods to bolster its cell customer
base.
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.
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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 TMobile's own materials define as a loss of
service. (Exhibit W)
(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.
(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 TMobile phone to John's wife on a land-line. Driving
up and down Cumberland, Meadows, Pacific,
Ridgecrest, Hillcrest, and Maginn - CALLS NEVER
DROPPED.
(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”)
(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 TMobile, 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.
(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)
(C) T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN
PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY
CAPACITY CHECKLIST:
(i)
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
(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
(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
(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)
(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.
(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)
(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.
(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
(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)
(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
(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.”
(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."
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, SprintNextel and T-Mobile - ALL displaying great coverage
from all carriers, ready for 911 calls.
(See attached - Exhibits D, E, F, and G)
(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.
(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)
(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 TMobile’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)
(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)
(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)
(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
(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?)
(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 TMobile, receives a W-2 from T-Mobile)
(7) T-Mobile has not provided to the public its studies of
alternative sites
(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.
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?
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
#1 REASON: An economic desire to gain a strong-hold in the Home
Phone/Land-Based Market
(Unlike carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile has no traditional home service.)
With the advent of AT&T’s U-Verse, other carriers are panicking.
* Residents saw the U-Verse box go in at
Pacific/Kenneth.
* Now AT&T has sent salesmen, door to door, for
sign-ups - free wiring, combination of 1 bill for
cable, cell, and phone … T-Mobile is panicking
about loss of future sales - NOT RESPONDING TO
DEMAND of their 8 or so customers
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
Per their own paperwork filed with the S.E.C. in T-Mobile’s
10Q financial statement, the company is intent on growing "TMobile @Home” - described as "an affordable alternative to
traditional landline service."
On July 2nd, T-Mobile launched this new service, which was
previously tested in Dallas and Seattle. It allows customers to
add their home phone number to their cell line service. The
long term story - if it works - even MORE residential cell
towers will be needed.
SO WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
# 2 REASON: A desire to roll out more towers IN ADVANCE of their
own 3G (3rd Generation) and soon 4G Network.
• T-Mobile knows that - once on the street - they are free to customize
and alter towers later as technology changes.
The same T-Mobile Financial Report discussed the need for T-Mobile
to expand their network - not for existing demand but for “future
growth opportunities in the U.S., especially in mobile data as we
look toward a national introduction of 3G later this year.”
Data services revenue (3G style revenue from applications and
texting) - the report goes on to say - increased 31.5% year after year
for T-Mobile. Other revenue has been dropping for them consistently.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
1. A public study session with all relevant staff, including City
Engineer and City Attorney, to educate the public about the
towers and issues surrounding them.
2. The establishment of a notification process similar to that of
Design Review Board (DRB) applications.
3. That all new towers be approved by the Planning Commission, so
that the public will have the opportunity to review data and
respond.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
4. That the Planning Commission must make the following
findings, based on proof provided by the utilities:
a. that there is a current lack of coverage;
b. that the placement is the least intrusive to the community;
c. that the tower utilizes the least intrusive (rather than least
expensive) available technology;
d. that there is no feasible location (such as open space) or
alternative technology available
5. That DRB review the design and placement for all towers not in
designated or proposed historical districts.
6. That HPC approve the design and placement of all towers in
designated or proposed historical districts.
AN ACTION PLAN … What we’re
looking for from our public officials
7. That the Planning Department have authority over Public Works
and Engineering with regard to antennas and towers.
8. That all applications are reviewed to ensure that they are in
complete compliance with all zoning codes.
9. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning this
portion of the Federal Communications Act, to be sent to
Sacramento and Washington DC.
10. That the City of Glendale pass a resolution condemning the
portion of the California Public Utilities Code which allows
telecom carriers to ignore local zoning codes and construct along
public rights of way, to be sent to Sacramento.
If we don’t codify this, the future of our beautiful
city will be in question. Now is the time to take a
stand against these companies whose motive is not
to serve our residents. There are tons of options
for fantastic cell service in this neighborhood,
none of which require this tower.
The Telecommunications Act allows for reciprocity
among carriers; when one cell carrier is allowed
into a residential areas, the city must do the same
for the next.
WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS
T-MOBILE DIDN’T VOTE FOR YOU.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We need to stop this now - at the first one
****
For more information, go to
GetTheCellOutofHere.Com
Will the City allow T-Mobile to put a 3-Story Tower
in front of this suburban Glendale home?
EMAIL OR CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCH HOW THEY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE …
ELECTIONS ARE COMING IN THE NEXT 2
MONTHS
Log on to www.GetTheCellOutOfHere.Com
TO CANCEL YOUR T-MOBILE PHONE SERVICE,
CALL 1-877-453-1304