APPEAL OF
PROPOSED VERIZON
CELL TOWER
APPLICATION
A SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
KEY POINTS AGAINST VERIZON’S APPLICATION
• No gap in coverage established
• Visual blight harms neighborhood
• No mitigation provided
• Miscellaneous points:
• Shot clock does not apply
• Emergency calls not affected
2 NO GAP IN
COVERAGE
ESTABLISHED
MAP OF EXISTING SITES
4 MAP SHOWS AMPLE COVERAGE
• Santa Rosa has the highest concentration of cell towers than any North bay community.
• There are over 40 cell towers in Santa Rosa.
• There are over a dozen within a 2-mile radius of the proposed tower. • The current ordinance states that you cannot place a cell tower within a 2-mile radius of an existing uncamouflaged or unscreened cell tower. 5 PROOF OF GAP IN COVERAGE MISSING
• What can show whether a gap exists?
• Drop call lists and drive by tests
• These are objective measures.
• Verizon has not provided either one.
• You need all the facts to make an objective call as to whether a gap exists, how big it is, where it is, and if the proposal is over kill. 6 VERIZON CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
• Verizon is claiming that there’s a gap in coverage to the City Council. • Verizon’s own website claims that along Colgan and in the bulk of Santa Rosa, there’s no gap in coverage. RED indicates excellent coverage. 7 Close up map of 244 Colgan Ave.
Map of Santa Rosa and larger environ
VISUAL BLIGHT
HARMS THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
THE DESIGN VIOLATES LOCAL AESTHETICS
• Verizon proposes a 69-foot cell tower, rising more than 30 feet higher than any building along Colgan.
• Out of character for the neighborhood
• Daily visual slap in the face
• Ugly eye sore wrecking the skyline
9 VISUAL HARM CAN BE COMPOUNDED
• If approved, the project can be allowed to go higher. • 20 feet higher!
• Verizon would have the clout to increase the harm without having to seek Council approval.
10 PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE HARMED
• Giving free reign to a corporation to erode property values hurts homeowners. • On average, residential property values drop by 20% near cell towers. • The neighborhood reflects middle-income, lower-income, and retirees——not affluent residents.
• Undermining property values here increases the economic divide. • The proposed tower undermines the General Plan supporting a livable residential neighborhood.
• Affects those with the least to protect the value of what modest homes they have.
11 NO MITIGATION TO
REDUCE HARM
VERIZON HAS NOT TRIED TO MINIMIZE THE HARM
• The ordinance requires that Verizon:
• Conduct alternate site location analysis.
• Minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area.
• Co-locate, where feasible.
• Verizon has failed to exhaust numerous possibilities in a 2-mile radius. • Verizon has not camouflaged, screened, or reduced the tower’s height. • Verizon has not acted in good faith nor performed due diligence. 13 MISCELLANEOUS
ISSUES
Shot clock and emergency calls
SHOT CLOCK DOES NOT APPLY
• The Telecommunications Act created a time frame for cities to review applications, called the Shot Clock. (B) Limitations
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
• It was created to make sure cities didn’t ignore applications. • Once a city takes “an action” (approval or denial) within 150 days or an agreed toll date. • After that, there is no additional shot clock. An appeal or a court proceeding has no effect because the shot clock has been met.
15 EMERGENCY CALLS UNAFFECTED BY VERIZON’S
PROPOSED TOWER
• AT&T operates the national First Net first responder network, not Verizon. • Safety and 911 calling would be affected if AT&T mounted its antennae on the proposed tower.
• With co-location, that AT&T antennae affects only AT&T customers. • No indication that Verizon has a deal to support AT&T antennae. • No indication that AT&T would co-locate on the proposed tower rather than its own.
• Bottom line: All 911 calls connect to any available network. 16 REJECT VERIZON’S
CELL TOWER
APPLICATION AT
244 COLGAN
AVENUE
• No gap in coverage established
• Visual blight harms neighborhood
• No mitigation provided
THANK YOU
Carmen R. Gonzalez, homeowner at La Esplanada Condominiums Sidnee Cox, Co-director EMF Safety Network
Paul-André Schabraq, Co-director EMF Safety Network
Kim Schroeder, SafeTech4Santa Rosa