Tomorrow, we will hold a community press conference with Councilman Rob Johnson. The community will gather together, in front of cameras, in opposition of the project. (I am told that cameras will be there.) The more people the better. We want families and kids on camera. Please come and bring your children. We are hoping that media coverage will help sway Seattle City Light NOT to issue a final permit for Project 3026196. Where: On the sidewalk in front of the Bryant Corner Cafe (next to the proposed location of the project) When: 430pm, Thursday May 11 Here is an updated (detailed) list of reasons why we oppose Project 3026196: 1. T-MOBILE HAS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, T-Mobile must prove that there is a “significant gap” in coverage in order to erect a new tower. The inability to cover a few blocks in a large city, as a matter of law, is not a “significant gap.” T-Mobile’s application states that “Project 3026196 is necessary because there is a significant gap in coverage in the neighborhoods along NE 65th, from 33rd Ave NE to 26th Ave NE.” However, when we go to T-Mobile’s consumer website (https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map), it states that the coverage along NE 65th, from 33rd Ave NE to 26th Ave NE is “excellent”, that there are no coverage gaps. Both of these statements cannot be true. Either T-Mobile is making a misrepresentation in its application to the City for Project 3026196 OR T-Mobile’s consumer website contains false advertisement and misrepresentations. 2. NOTICE, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, WAS NOT PROVIDED. There was no mailed notice. The Seattle Municipal Code requires that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections mail written notice of application to all property owners, businesses and residents within 300 feet of the proposed project. I believe that no such written notice was provided to the school or any of the surrounding homes or businesses. The Assumption-St. Bridget School, the Bryant Corner Cafe and the dentist office of Karl Eberhardt, DDS are all well within 100 feet of the project. I spoke with the principal and vice-principal of the school, the owner/manager of the Bryant Corner Cafe and Dr. Karl Eberhardt and his office manager. Not one received a written/legal notice. Dr. Eberhardt did not know about the project until I stumbled into his office asking questions about it. There are many many residential homes within 300 feet. I contacted many of these residents and could not find one person that received a written notice. The planner at the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) responsible for providing the notice told me that “people probably threw them away.” I can imagine some people throwing them away, but not everybody. The SDCI is unable to provide any proof (such as certificates of mailing) that it actually mailed the notices. The posted notice was grossly inadequate and did not meet code requirements. The Seattle Municipal Code requires the posting of a land use sign (an 18x24 inch street-facing sign) for this type of project. In addition, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection has published guidance stating that it will post FOUR placards “on or near the development site” for this type of project. The SMC defines “Placard” as a highly-visible notice with headings that can be read from a distance of 75 feet by persons of normal visual acuity. Here, only ONE very small sign posted to the north side of the utility pole at issue. It was not large enough. It was not street-facing (it was entirely out of view from the street). It was visible only from a small 4ftx4ft footprint, when standing away from the street. From 75 feet away, the headings, and even the sign itself, were not visible. The placement location of the sign on the pole is consistent with an effort to “hide” the notice from the school community. The content of the notice provided (the small sign) was insufficient and did not meet the requirements of the code. For instance, the code requires a “project description”. The project description in the notice omitted material information, such as the 70’ height of the new pole (almost a 200% increase). The 70’ height is the whole reason why the applicant was required to apply for a SDCI recommendation in the first place. 3. THE TIMING OF THE APPLICATION AND SIGNAGE SUGGESTS BAD FAITH. The application was first published online (in the City’s Land Use Information Bulletin), and the sign was first placed on the utility pole, on December 22, 2016, the first full day of Christmas vacation for the Assumption-St. Bridget School. As a result, the 14-day comment period ended on January 4, the first day the students resumed school after Christmas break. The school community was not aware of the proposal because everyone was on Christmas holiday. And by the time they found out, it was too late, as the public comment period was over. 4. THE NEW POLE WILL HAVE AN EXTREMELY LARGE, 70-FOOT-RADIUS "FALL ZONE." The pole could fall and cause substantial damage. The fall-zone of the proposed 70’ pole includes several residential homes, two businesses and the gymnasium used by the Assumption-St. Bridget school (for two classrooms and the school’s before- and after-school care programs). The current 41-foot pole has a much smaller “fall zone,” which only includes two businesses and NOT the gymnasium or residential homes. There is a bus stop just a few steps west of the utility pole. It is easy to imagine a scenario where, on a wet or snowy day, a bus careens into the utility pole, causing devastating and incalculable loss. 5. THE PROJECT WILL VIOLATE THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, city governments are required to retrofit any public facilities, including sidewalks and curb ramps, whenever any alterations are carried out. This project, involving the installation of a new 80' long city light pole (with 10' underground), will most inevitably involve a disturbance/alteration of the sidewalk. However, there are no plans for the City to retrofit this sidewalk to meet ADA standards, in connection with the project. (It currently does not meet ADA standards.) The need for ADA compliance is highlighted by the fact that (1) there is a bus stop just a few feet west of the utility pole, (2) there is a large elementary/middle school just across the street on 32nd Ave NE, and (3) the area will soon have a major population increase due to the new townhomes and apartments being finalized in in the Bryant Heights development (on NE corner of 65th St NE and 32nd Ave NE). Pedestrians, including those in wheelchairs, those with strollers, etc. all need to be able to safely navigate this area and cross the street. 6. THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE RETAIL AND PEDESTRIAN NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA. The Seattle Municipal Code prohibits this type of project if it will “significantly change the retail and/or pedestrian nature of the commercial area.” (SMC Section 23.57.012) Currently, the neighborhood commercial area consists of just two businesses, the Bryant Corner Cafe and the dentist office. The maximum zoning height for the area is 30 feet. This new pole will be 70 feet, more than 200% taller than what the area is zoned for. It will be a huge eyesore. --If this project is erected, many people that would otherwise eat at the sidewalk tables of the Bryant Corner Cafe will not (who wants to sit under a giant cell tower and eat brunch?). The Bryant Corner Cafe is the heart and soul of the neighborhood--where ladies groups meet every Wednesday for coffee, where families ritually enjoy brunch every Sunday after church. --The proposed site is 30 feet away from a school-patrol-controlled crosswalk, used by students from at least 4 different area schools. 7. THE PROJECT WILL VIOLATE CITY NOISE ORDINANCES. The project will include an equipment and machinery cabinet to support the operation of the cell tower. The machinery inside the cabinet will operate 24 hours a day, and it will make significant noise. The noise levels from this machinery cabinet will exceed the 45 dBA limit established by the Seattle Municipal Code. (see SMC 25.08.410.) We know this information, because it was submitted (as part of an acoustical report) in TMobile’s permit application. Specifically, the acoustical report states that machinery in the equipment/support cabinet for the cell tower will have a sound level of 69 dBA when standing 5 feet away. As the distance from the cabinet grows, the dBA level gets smaller and smaller. The report states that the neighboring property will only receive 45 dBA from the equipment because the property is 10 feet away from the equipment cabinet. (45 dBA is the legal threshold limit.) However, when we look at the “Approved Plan Set” (submitted as part of TMobile’s permit application), we see maps indicating that the neighboring property is located just 52 inches from the equipment/support box, NOT 10 feet. We also measured in person, and our measurements indicate the neighboring property will be closer than 52 inches from the equipment/support cabinet. This means that the neighboring property will actually receive more than 70 dBA, which is significantly higher than the legal limits. 8. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE CITY'S HEARING EXAMINER. Under the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 23.76.006(C)(2)(f)), administrative-conditional-use decisions are subject to appeal to the City's Hearing Examiner. Here, the Department of Construction and Inspection made an administrative-conditional-use decision and issued a permit for an administrative conditional use. However, the City is not letting us appeal this decision. We have contacted numerous other city officials, and no one seems to care. This project involves many many violation of code, but city officials don't seems concerned because they know we can't hold them accountable (because they have illegally classified this as not appealable to the Hearing Examiner). 9. THE NEW POLE WILL HAVE A LARGER FOOTPRINT AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL SALE OR LEASE OF THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO A PRIVATE PARTY. SMC 15.32.300 only contemplates attaching facilities to existing poles and making taller poles. It does not contemplate the physical expansion---the increase in the footprint of--the utility pole. The sale/lease of the public right-of-way is governed by a totally different body of law. 10. THE PROJECT HAS INACCURATELY BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE "REPLACEMENT" OF A UTILITY POLE; WHEN IN FACT, THE PROJECT INVOLVES SOMETHING BIGGER--THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW, FREESTANDING TRANSMISSION TOWER. Under the Code, the primary function of the City’s poles is to support the City’s electrical lines and equipment. Here the 70’ pole will exist for the primary purpose of holding TMobile’s cellular communications facilities, NOT to support the City’s electrical lines. The height increase is significant in dramatic (almost 200%). The new pole will have a bigger footprint than the old pole. The project is more than a “replacement” of a utility pole. It involves the construction of a new transmission tower. The permitting process and criteria for a new free-standing transmission tower are totally different from what the applicant is currently using. 11. CERTAIN MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY T-MOBILE IN ITS APPLICATION CONTAIN FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION. For example, the acoustical report submitted by T-Mobile contains measurements/numbers that directly conflict with the project plans (also submitted by TMobile as part of its application), and misleads one to think that the machinery supporting the cell tower will be quieter and less disruptive than what is actually the case. In addition, the application contains significant misrepresentations regarding the property line between 3116 NE 65th St (currently occupied by tenant Bryant Corner Cafe) and 3114 NE 65th St (currently occupied by dentist office of Dr. Karl Eberhardt). This is important because construction of the project will likely involve trespassing onto the neighboring parcel, but the application is drafted to falsely suggest that there will be no trespassing. The application also contains misrepresentations regarding T-Mobile’s so-called “significant gap in coverage.” Our research indicates there is not significant gap in coverage for the area. 12. OTHER LESS INTRUSIVE ALTERNATIVES EXIST. Our Ninth Circuit has adopted a standard that requires telecom providers to demonstrate that the proposed means for closing a "significant gap in service" is the "least intrusive" means; that is, the provider must show that it has considered other locations, system designs and tower designs. We believe that a new 70' pole in a largely residential area in Bryant is NOT the "least intrusive means." There are many other viable locations that are less intrusive. Please consider: (a) Where the existing cell tower is--on top of the Raleigh Court building at 3418 NE 65th St. Project 3026196 has been dubbed the "Raleigh Court Relocation" because it is actually a relocation of the existing T-Mobile cell tower, which currently sits on top of the Raleigh Court building. Wouldn't it be LESS INTRUSIVE to merely build a taller tower on top of the Raleigh Court building? This building already has some infrastructure. The community is used to having telecom equipment on top of this building. It won't require erecting an entirely new 70' City Light pole that will be ugly, violate the ADA and noise ordinances and possible fall on top of an elementary school. (b) In the Cavalry Cemetery. This location might necessitate a slightly higher tower, since it is further down the hill, but many of the community’s concerns would be eliminated. The tower couldn’t fall on a house or school. There would be no ADA issues. It wouldn’t ruin the character of a residential or commercial area. No living people would be under the tower constantly soaking up the RF radiation. Visually, you could make the pole look like a giant cross (cell towers are often made to look like other things to fit the landscape--pine trees, palm trees, steeples, etc.). 13. T-MOBILE IS MAKING A LAND GRAB. The community is worried that Project 3026196 is merely a "land grab" by TMobile. Project 3026196 is a 4G project, NOT a 5G project. Why is T-Mobile rolling out an antiquated 4G project, when it should be focused on building its new 5G network? We are aware that SB 5711, if enacted into law in Washington State, will allow telecom companies to build out their "small cell" networks atop city light poles, though public right-of-ways. It seems that T-Mobile is merely trying to claim this location before anyone else is. We feel like this is why T-Mobile is not considering other, less intrusive alternatives. It is using this as an opportunity to "grab" the City Light pole on the top of the hill before other telecom companies due so after passage of SB 5711. This is NOT a justifiable reason for TMobile choosing (and the city permitting) this location. (See http://www.npr.org/2017/04/10/523336443/wireless-industry-lobbies-states-in-preparation-for-new-technology.) 14. THE COMMUNITY STRONGLY OPPOSES THE PROJECT. A petition on Change.org protesting the project currently has over 465 signatures from community members. Go to https://www.change.org/p/rob-johnson-no-cell-tower-next-to-assumption-st-bridget-school. 15. THE PROJECT COULD HAVE HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS ON COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY SMALL DEVELOPING CHILDREN. The proposed cell tower will be across the street from, and well within 100 feet of, the Assumption-St. Bridget school gymnasium, which houses two classrooms and the school’s before- and after-school-care programs. Hundreds of students occupy this space for hours upon hours each day. The World Health Organization has classified RF electromagnetic radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. Long term effects of RF electromagnetic radiation exposure have not been fully studied, but researchers generally agree that children are more susceptible than adults to potential dangers. Some studies suggest that long-term lower-level exposure might cause hormonal changes leading to memory changes, anxiety, depression, mood changes, sleep disorders, concentration problems, increased rates of suicide and other neurophysiological effects. (See http://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html.) In a letter to the FCC, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability...” (See https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf.)