The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 2, 2010 - General Municipal Election - Ballot Measu (15) t ''a >�."•. .. ,*�,� rs�€sr';- r.;'+`^ Ektl mr r 4 ar � ss sv� *c? rk w `$ 72f' r x�t ? ,4 f �. '; *'+# +.,r �' gU # s i,' .3. ZU NA Ij S h ? 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 moo MCA I�Ilm[7 Mm R MMM Z= MaDguan ❑ Permanent Absentee Voters should have received their ballots the week of October 4. If you have not received yours, call: (714) 567-7600. 0 Poll voting occurs on November 2. Polls are open 7am-8pm. 0 There are nine state propositions on your ballot. ❑ The City of Huntington Beach has.four local measures on the ballot: Measures N (Charter Revision), O (Infrastructure Fund), P (Tax Reduction/Modernization) and Q (Cell Tower). For more information on our local measures, visit ,www.huntingtonbeachca.gov _ I 4 o !34 6" ilk ' E• fit x 4"r "^� x } � 7 - ► �j �-U iz ourNovember 2010 Ballot features.nine State Propositions and four local ballot 1Vleasures N, Q, P, and Q For,more information on all of these:measures visit www.00wote.com Weve received questions;from;-the community.about.lVleasure P 'Measure:P°simply.updates ,. City's 40=year old utility users'.tax ordinance to;.comply,with current'federal laws, ensuring that all taxpayers"are treated;equally.regardless of the technology used.f 1Vleasure P lowers`the tax rate for,telecommunications`and cable services and maintains current , d' at servicswitltrincrratesforelectricity;-gasanwer ,ease. ' z, Revenues from theJUtJT are used for"fund';general city services, such as:, mainta%ning police patrols of streets and neighbor"lioods,e TD supporting after school,and senior:programs, gang an`fu-ndmg,youth anti= d°anti drug prograrris, and' paying `for city street sweeping` ervices that as year`prevented 3`,90Q tons of`debris from polluting our beaches and coastal waters-,-, Man residents live in Huntington Beach because itoffers,a higher level of service .prograrns Y and quality of life than neighboring cities. Maintaining this revenue source will ensure'that our C1 can'inaintain'and improve;tlie high quality services"that we'expect Water Bill insert- 1/3 page 3 5/8"x 8.5" black ink on pink paper City Measures on the November General Ballot Measure N-Shall proposed CharterAmendment No.1, revising and restating the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach(excluding changes to Section 617 entitled Infrastructure Fund)as set forth in the proposed measure be approved? Measure O-Shall proposed CharterAmendment No. 2, amending Section 617 of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach entitled Infrastructure Fund, as set forth in the proposed measure be approved? Measure P-Huntington Beach Utilities Users Tax Modernization/Reduction Measure—To preserve vital city services shall Huntington Beach's existing utility user's ordinance be modernized and reduced by.1 to maintain 9-1-1 emergency response times,police officers, firefighters, public safety communications/ equipment,senior services, storm drains and other city services, requiring equal treatment of taxpayers regardless of technology used with low-income senior exemptions, annual audits, local control of funds, and no rate increase without voter approval? (See reverse side for additional information) Measure Q-Huntington Beach Private Wireless Communication Facilities Advisory Measure—Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park,located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park, located at 5741 Brighton Drive? For more information, see the City Websitewww.huntin tonbeachca. ov INFORMATION ON MEASURE P Since 1970, residents of Huntington Beach have paid a UUT (utility users tax) to fund essential city services such as public safety, 9-1-1 services and senior programs. 150 other California cities use this type of funding to provide vital services that communities rely upon. Measure P, on the November General Election ballot, simply updates our outdated,40-year old UUT ordinance to comply with current federal law. Measure P lowers the tax rate for telecommunications and cable services, while ensuring that all taxpayers are treated equally, regardless of the technology used. Measure P will NOT change electricity, gas or water services, and does NOT increase your water rates. For more information about Measure P, visit www.Huntingtonbeachca.gov Action Agenda MAYOR Tuesday, July 20, 2010 AND CITY COUNCIL CATHY GREEN CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor and PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY JILL HARDY GIL COERPER Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember sEACh CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH KEITH BOHR DEVIN DWYER 1909 f zoos ; Councilmember Councilmember 7 00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING JOE CARCHIO DON HANSEN Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Councilmember Councilmember Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http l/www surkity-hb om CALL TO ORDER— 7 07 PM ROLL CALL- (Councilmember Gil Coerper has requested permission to be absent pursuant to Resolution No 2001-54) Carchio Coerper Hardy Green Bohr Dwyer Hansen Coerper-Absent ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION Joan L Flynn announced two Late Communications for Agenda Item No 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) 3 Speakers ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1 Adopt Resolution No 2010-53 submitting to the qualified electors of the City an advisory measure pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter regarding whether mobile telephone antennas and related facilities should be a permitted use in City-owned parks setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No 2010-53 submitting to the qualified electors of the City an advisory measure pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter regarding whether mobile telephone antennas and related facilities should be a permitted use in City-owned parks setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis 1 Amend Alternative Ballot Language B Huntington Beach Private Wireless Communication Facilities Advisory Measure - In the future, shall the City of Huntington Beach permit the construction of private wireless communication facilities which exceed the dollar threshold as set in Charter Section 612 such as cell towers and mobile antennas within 500 feet of school sites to be located in parks owned by the City FAILED 3-3-1 (Hansen, Dwyer, Carchio-No, Coerper Absent) Advisory Measure Regarding Private Wireless Communication Facilities - Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park located at 5741 Brighton Drive APPROVED 4-2-1 (Dwyer, Hansen-No, Coerper Absent) Adopt Resolution No 2010-53 as amended to replace the proposed ballot language with Advisory Measure Regarding Private Wireless Communication Facilities - Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park located at 5741 Brighton Drive' Additionally, in Section 6 of the Resolution, Council dad not authorize any of its members to file an argument either in favor or against the measure Instead, they invited the public to submit written arguments by August 3, 2010 before 5 00 p m to the City Clerk APPROVED 6-0-1 (Coerper Absent) MOTION TO RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Government Code § 54956 9 the City Council shall recess into closed session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit Omnipoint Communications Inc (T-Mobile) v City of Huntington Beach United States District Court Case No CV09-3777 RGK, which involves T-Mobile s project to install antennas at Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park RECONVENED SPECIAL MEETING — 9 13 PM CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY— None COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) — None ADJOURNMENT — 9 14 PM Adjournment to Monday, August 02, 2010, at 4 00 PM in Room B-8 Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITYAGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT http //www surfc►ty hb oral 2 clt,1,11111`4T Council/Agency Meeting HeldW,-�QL,-L,0/0 Deferred/Continued to kw-,4 )'ADDroved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Ci ler Si gnat r Council Meeting Date 7/20/2010 Department ID Number CA 10 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION SUBMITTED TO Honorable M and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY Fred Wilso Administrator PREPARED BY Jennifer McGr_ tiy Attorney SUBJECT Adopt Resolution No 2010 53 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Submitting to the Qualified Electors of the City at the November 2 2010 General Municipal Election a Measure Related to Whether Private Wireless Communication Facilities Should Be Located In City-owned Parks Statement of Issue Funding Source Recommended Action Alternative Action(s) Analysis Environmental Status Attachment(s) Statement of Issue T-Mobile West sued the City to prevent application of Charter Section 612 (Measure C) to its request to install mobile telephone antennas at Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park in the City of Huntington Beach On July 9 2010 the Federal District Judge issued a preliminary ruling that application of Measure C to the antennas violates the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the extent that it impedes the City from acting on antenna applications within a reasonable period of time The Court further directed the City by no later than September 7 2010 either grant the permits or articulate in writing the bases of denial in a way that comports with the [Federal] Act If the City denies the permits and T-Mobile objects the Court set a trial for November 9 2010 The attached Resolution permits voters to advise the Council whether mobile telephone antennas may be permitted in City parks at the November 2 2010 general election before the T-Mobile case is tried on November 9 2010 Financial Impact The licenses between the City and T-Mobile to use the park sites would generate $30 000 per year in revenues to the City for each site If the voters disapprove permitting telephone antennas in City parks this could result in a long-term loss of significant revenues to the General Fund _�L/� �� / REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/20/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER CA 10-10 Priorities For Filing Written Arguments and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis Alternative Action(s) Do not approve the Resolution placing the measure on the ballot Analysis A Application of the Federal Telecommunications Act to Measure C Section 612(a) of the City Charter provides that no park or beach may be sold leased exchanged or otherwise transferred without an affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council and an affirmative vote of a majority of the electors The same voting requirement is imposed under Section 612(b) for any structure costing more than $100 000 in any City park or beach (Together these requirements are known as Measure C ) In January 2009 the City Council approved 10-year license agreements to locate mobile telephone antennas at Harbour View Park at 16600 Saybrook Lane and Bolsa View Park at 5731 Brighton Drive When the City Council later learned that the cost of construction exceeded $100 000 the City insisted that voter approval be obtained However T-Mobile then sued the City in May 2009 contending that application of Measure C to its antennas violated the Federal Telecommunications Act The City initially argued that the Act did not apply to Measure C However in an October 2009 ruling the Court concluded that Measure C was subject too the Federal Act Then on July 9 2010 The Federal Court has determined that Measure C violates the TCA requirement decisions on mobile telephone antennas be acted upon in a reasonable time stating The Court notes that the fundamental problem here is not whether the city conducts an election or not The problem is that there are no clear and relevant decision making criteria to guide award or denial of permits that would flow from the vote of the people For example an ordinance that simply states that the City Council shall vote at on [sic] construction projects that cost more than $100 000—without any explanation as to how the project cost should have any bearing on grant or denial of permit—will not likely satisfy the substantial evidence requirement of the Act The Court then gave the City Council until September 7 to either grant the permits or articulate in writing the bases of denial in way that comports with the Act If the City denies the antennas T-Mobile has ten court days to immediately return to Court to challenge the Council s decision by way of motion If the Court denies T-Mobile s motion trial will begin on November 9 2010 2 7/20/2010 3 46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/20/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER CA 10-10 At the same time the Court stated that while Measure C may not control the Council s decision the City may hold an advisory election provided it does not impede acting on a permit application within a reasonable time or violate other substantive requirements of the Act By setting trial on November 9 2010 which date is one week after the November 2 2010 general election it appears the Court invited the Council to hold an advisory Measure C vote Conducting an election in November 2010 provides two benefits First it will immediately determine going forward whether any antennas should be permitted in City parks without impeding individual decision on antennas Second the City Attorney disagrees with the conclusion of the Federal Court that Measure C violates the Federal Telecommunications Act By conducting an election now the results will be available to be considered by the District Court at trial and the Ninth Circuit should the City file an appeal B Alternative Ballot Language There are several alternative Measures that might be placed on the ballot The attached Resolution applies generally to all antennas and reads as follows "Huntington Beach Private Wireless Communication Facilities Advisory Measure In the future shall the City of Huntington Beach permit private wireless communication facilities such as cell towers and mobile telephone antennas to be located in parks owned by the City? The City Council may consider alternative Measures For example as to Harbour View and Bolsa View it could set specific votes on the two pending projects and alternative language regarding granting the City Council the discretion whether to permit antennas Advisory Measure No 1 Regarding Private Wireless Communication Facilities Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane? Advisory Measure No 2 Private Wireless Communication Facilities Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Bolsa View Park located at 5731 Brighton Drive? "Advisory Measure No 3 Regarding Private Wireless Communication Facilities In the future shall the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to enter into leases permitting private wireless communication facilities such as cell towers and mobile telephone antennas to be located in parks owned by the City? 3 7/20/2010 3 46 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/20/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER CA 10-10 C Ballot Arguments The Elections Code permits arguments both in favor and against any Measure to be included in the Voter Pamphlet The first priority for submitting such arguments is given to the City Council Section 7 of the Resolution gives an opportunity to any Council Members to either write the argument in favor or against the Measure(s) If no Council Member chooses to write either of the arguments then any other person may submit an argument in favor or against the Measure(s) If multiple arguments are submitted the City Clerk shall then select the arguments based upon the following priorities 1 The individual voter or bona fide association of citizens or the combination of voters and associations who are bona fide sponsors or proponents of the Measure 2 A bona fide association of citizens 3 Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the Measure The last day for direct arguments and for the City Attorney impartial analysis to be submitted is 14 days after calling the election (Election Code Section 9286 ) Assuming the election is called on July 20 then arguments in favor and opposed to the Measure and the City Attorney impartial analysis are due on August 3 2010 Rebuttal arguments are then due 10 days later on August 13 2010 Environmental Status Not applicable Strategic Plan Goal Maintain financial viability and our reserves Attachment(s) o t 0 a Resolution No 2010-53 A Resolution of to City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Submitting to the Qualified Electors of the City an Advisory Measure Pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter Regarding Whether Private Wireless Communication Facilities Should Be A Permitted Use in City-Owned Parks Setting Priorities For Filing Written Arguments and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis 4 7/20/2010 3 46 PM ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO 2010-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AN ADVISORY MEASURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 612 OF THE CITY CHARTER REGARDING WHETHER PRIVATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE A PERMITTED USE IN CITY- OWNED PARKS, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS WHEREAS City Council Resolution No 2010-34 has called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday,November 2, 2010 and The City Council also desires to submit to the voters at the election an advisory Measure pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter regarding whether private wireless communication facilities (also known as mobile telephone antennas or cell towers) should be a permitted use in city-owned parks, and Residents of the City of Huntington Beach have objected to placing mobile telephone antennas and related facilities at Harbour View Park at 16600 Saybrook Lane and Bolsa View Park at 5741 Brighton Drive, and WHEREAS the City Council is authorized and directed by constitutional provision and statute to submit the question to the voters and City Council wishes to authorize arguments in favor of and in opposition to the as well as authorize impartial analysis of the measure identified herein, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve declare, determine and order as follows SECTION 1 The City Council finds and determines that each of the findings set forth above are true and correct SECTION 2 That the City Council pursuant to its right and authority,does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following Measure Huntington Beach Private Wireless Communication Facilities Advisory YES Measure Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park located at 5741 Brighton Drive? NO 50042 DOC SECTION 3 In all particulars not specified in this Resolution the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections SECTION 4 Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election in time, form and manner as required by law SECTION 5 Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280,the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure not to exceed 500 words in length showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten(10)days of the adoption of this Resolution SECTION 6 That with respect to the above entitled measure a That the City Council authorizes (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) members of that body to file a written argument regarding the Measure as specified above in accordance with Article 4 Chapter 3 Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk Said argument to be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization the name of the organization,and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers SECTION 7 The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions 50042 DOC PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20thday of July, 2010 Mayor ir ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM clerk lty Attorney �,4042 DOC Res No 2010-53 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a special meeting thereof held on July 20, 2010 by the following vote AYES Carchio Hardy Green Bohr Dwyer Hansen NOES None ABSENT Coerper ABSTAIN None C Clerk and ex-officio Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTORNEYS AT LAW NOSSAMANLLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1800 Irvine CA 92612 T 949 833 7800 F 949 833 7878 VIA EMAIL U S MAIL AND John J 7 7 III � D 949 47 7634 BAND-DELIVERY jflynn@nossaman corn Refer To File#290297 0250 July 20,2010 Scott Field, Esq Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re City-Approved Permits and Site License Agreements(Harbour View and Bolsa View Parks) Dear Scott As you know, T-Mobile West Corporation has been trying to build two badly-needed stealth telecommunications facilities at Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park in Huntington Beach, in accordance with wireless permits,building permits and Site License Agreements previously issued and approved by the City itself Last night,after 7 00 p in, I received an email notification from you of the City Council's intention to consider a resolution for placement of an advisory measure on the City's ballot for November 2, 2010,purporting to seek the advice of the electorate on possible enactment of an ordinance prohibiting the installation of telecommunications facilities at city- owned beaches and parks Needless to say, I was surprised by the late notice,not to mention the lack of support in Section 612 for an advisory measure Of course,we must reserve all rights related to notice and the lack of legal authority under Section 612 It is not at all clear whether the City intends for tonight's resolution to relate in some way to the recent ruling of the United States District Court in T-Mobile West Corporation v City of Huntington Beach, in which the Court ruled that the application of Measure C to installation of telecommunications facilities violates federal law In response to the Court's decision,the City of Huntington Beach should reach a prompt decision to reinstate T-Mobile's building permits for these two cell sites The facts support reinstatement of the permits (1) T-Mobile Has Been Trying to Build the Facilities at Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park for'Three Years Now The City has approved wireless permits,building permits and Site License Agreements Our customers are vitally interested in the provision of rT 300665 5 DOCX // �(✓ � / �� L , / C✓ nossaman com Scott Field Esq July 20 2010 Page 2 effective telecommunications coverage, including effective provision of E911 coverage The City should not interpose any additional delay (2) The City Has Already Taken Final Action to Approve the Permits and Agreements The City already approved the wireless permits,building permits and Site License Agreements for Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park in accordance with the City's own ordinances No administrative appeals were taken from the issuance of those permits, and the statute of limitations for third-party challenges has long since run In addition,the substantial construction efforts by T-Mobile at Harbour View Park have resulted in a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the City-approved permits (3) The City Council Has Reaffirmed the Validity of the Permits and Agreements Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit,and long after the City Council became aware of the objections of some residents to development of those much-needed facilities,the City,through its City Attorney,on July 23,2009,unequivocally rearmed the validity of the wireless permits and building permits,but"suspended"the building permits until a Measure C election takes place Specifically,Jennifer McGrath,the City Attorney, in a declaration of April 20,2010,filed with the United States District Court, stated At its July 6, 2009 meeting the City Council met in closed session to consider the T-Mobile Site License Agreements for Harbor [sic] View Park and Bolsa View Park At the conclusion of the closed session, I reported out that during the closed session,the Council by a vote of 5 to 0,with two members absent,authorized a letter to be written to T-Mobile to the effect that they have valid land use and budding permits and valid site license agreements, although voter approval pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter is required before they may proceed with construction (Emphasis added) Ms McGrath also stated in her declaration under penalty of perjury that,pursuant"to the Cary Council's instruction,I informed T-Mobile of the City's position in writing A copy of my letter of July 23,2009 is attached " (Emphasis added) In other words, long after hearing of the opposition of some residents to the construction of the Harbour View facility,the City Council itself reaffirmed the validity of the issued wireless permits,building permits and Site License Agreements In her July 23, 2009 letter, Ms McGrath states Despite the protests,the City continues to recognize the validity of the Site Licenses and the Wireless Permits However, it was immediately after the protests that the City learned that the construction costs exceeded$100,000 The City now is obligated to enforce Section 612 Consequently,by way of a separate memorandum to the Building Department, I have directed that both building permits be suspended until voter approval can be 300665_5 DOCX Scott Field Esq July 20 2010 Page 3 rh obtained If and when Ommpoint obtains voter approval,the suspensions will be lifted,and Onimpoint may construct the towers (Emphasis added) The only grounds for"suspending"the building permits,as set forth in Ms McGrath's July 23, 2009 letter, is the alleged need to comply with Measure C,now rendered legally irrelevant by virtue of an order of the federal court We look forward to a final decision by the City,pursuant to the Court's order,to refrain further from interfering with T-Mobile's rights under the wireless permits,building permits and the Site License Agreements, and to the City's withdrawal of the claimed suspension of T- Mobile's building permits T-Mobile looks forward to providing better service to customers in Huntington Beach as soon as possible WS of Nossaman LLP JJF/rrg 300665_5 DOCX i RESOLUTION NO 2010-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTING N BEACH SUBMITTING TO THE (QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AN ADVISORY MEASURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 612 OF THE CITY CHARTER REGARDING WHETHER PRIVATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE A PERMITTED US IN CITY OWNED PARKS, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING W TEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO P EPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No 2010 34 has ailed a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday,November 2, 2010, and The City Council also desires to submit to the v ers at the election an advisory Measure pursuant to Section 612 of the City Charter re rding whether private wireless communication facilities (also known as mobile telephone a ennas or cell towers) should be a permitted use in city-owned parks, and Residents of the City of Huntington Beach ave objected to placing mobile telephone antennas and related facilities at Harbour View Park at 1 600 Saybrook Lane,and Bolsa View Park at 5741 Brighton Drive, and WHEREAS,the City Council is au orized and directed by constitutional provision and statute to submit the question to the voters, d City Council wishes to author ze arguments in favor of and in opposition to the as well as authorize impartial analysis of the easure identified herein, NOW THEREFORE, T CITY COUNCIL of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve, declare, determine an order as follows SECTION 1 The ity Council finds and determines that each of the findings set forth above are true and correct SECTION 2 That the City Council pursuant to its right and authority does order submitted to the voters at t e General Municipal Election the following Measure Huntington Beach PAvate Wireless Communication Facilities Advisory YES Measure In the fuhire shall the City of Huntington Beach permit private wireless commumI 'anon facilities, such as cell towers and mobile telephone NO antennas to be 1 cated in parks owned by the City r 50042 DOC r SECTION 3 In all particulars not specified in this Resolution,th/electionall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections SECTION 4 Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election in time, form and manner as required by laws SECTION 5 Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280,the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure toythe City Attorney The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten(10) days of the adoption of this Resolution SECTION 6 That with respect to the above4tled measure a That the City Council authorizes (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) ,✓ (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) (Councilmember in Favor/Against) members of that body, to file a written argument regarding the Measure as specified above in accordance with Article 4,Chapter 3,Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and mcludingAhe date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the Measure maybe submitted to the City Clerk Said argument to be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of/t/he person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization,the name of the organization,and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers SECTION 7 Th City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions r 50042 DOC PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of July 10 Mayor ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM City Clerk `C"Attom � I k1\j 1� t f 50042 DOC July 27, 2010 The City Clerk's Office Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach California Subject: Arguments against allowing cell phone towers in Harbor View and Bolsa View Parks. Placing a cell tower in either Harbor View or Bolsa View parks is unacceptable. Bolsa View Park lacks trees of significant height to obscure the unsightly cell tower.No amount of work can disguise a cell tower to look like anything but a cell tower. Towering over the park and the surrounding homes the towers will stick out like the abominations they are. Not withstanding the potential danger of being exposed to the micro wave radiation,which the towers will emit, is the effects the unsightly towers will have to those who have to live or play near them. Public parks are not places for private industry to establish a foot hold. If AT&T is allowed to place a tower in either park what is to stop Verizon from asking for the same privilege? Once the precedent is set there is no turning back. How much public land is the city willing to give up to private companies in exchange for the almighty dollar? While the city may be making money on leasing public park land the local homeowners will have to deal with reduced property values as it will become increasing difficult to sell homes near a tower. The voters of Huntington Beach should not allow any tower to be erected in a public park,but those living near their prospective sites should have more to say about it then those who will neither benefit from it or be damaged by it. Donavan Cullings, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Jacq ei e C ngs, Hunt1 onBe4ch, CA9:X(49 Reyes, Huntington Beach,�CX 92649 -A Measure "X" Advisory Measure Be gardin_g Private Wireless Communication Facilities - Shall the City permit the installation of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park located at 57,$1 righton ®rive? if Argument Against Measure "X" RESTRICT CELLULAR TOWER CONSTRUCTION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS AND ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS The jury is still out on the long-term effects of RF transmissions on children and adolescents. One of the proposed locations is 20 feet from the kindergarten playground and classes of Harbour View School; the other is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Access to cellular service is not at issue here — caution is. Our city has countless retail developments, parking lots, and utility locations where cellular towers could be constructed away from schools and homes and still provide needed wireless coverage and competition. Let's be safe. Let's be smart. Don't allow cell towers in Huntington Beach next to classrooms or outside your front door. NOT WORTH THE RISK( TO CHILDREN OR ADULTS There continues to be considerable debate as to the adequacy of.existing public exposure standards including those promulgated by the Federal Communications. Commission. This technology is too new to know if the long-term and compounded exposure will have any effect on children. Moving the location of cellular facilities away from schools and residential areas will ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation. A 66NO" VOTE ON MEASURE L6X99 MEANS NO CELL TOWERS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND PARKS Alan G. Rasmussen, Superintendent, Ocean View School District Cindy Osterhout Principal, Harbour View Elementary School el _. Dr. Harry Pellman Pediatrician, Edinger Medical Group ATTACHMENT E®BACK SIDE SIGNATURE STATEMENT- Back Side To be completed for arguments filed by a governing body of a county/district, a bona fide association of citizens, and individual signers ARGUMENT/REBUTTAL FILED BY (Check Any of the Following that Apply): 1. ❑ Board of Supervisors ❑ District Governing Body: Contact Person's Printed Name: Contact Person's Signature: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: 2. The following information is submitted by the author(s) to establish that the organization or group is a Bona Fide Association of Citizens. ❑ A. Bona Fide Association of Citizens (Group or organization has not been formed to support or oppose the measure) Name of Association: Principal Officer's Printed Name: Principal Officer's Signature: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: ❑ B. Bona Fide Association of Citizens (group or organization has been formed to support or oppose this measure) Name of Association: Principal Officer's Printed Name: Principal Officer's Signature: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: A form 410 Statement of Organization-establishing the group or organization as a Primarily Formed Ballot Measure Committee to support or oppose Measure was filed on Committee I.D. # . (The form 410 must be filed within 10 days of the date of the date the committee receives $1,000.00 in contributions) 3. Individuals filing/signing the argument: � I Contact Person: S' Vt O - Phone: Mailing Address: ��)�l �- �a h1/'1 et 1,c4 CA Fax: Email: Q6 M So, cc r), 22 ATTACHMENT E-FRONT SIDE SIGNATURE STATEMENT All Direct Arguments/Rebuttal Arguments concerning county measures shall be accompanied by this form to be signed by each author who is a signer or authorized signer of the argument. Names and titles listed will be printed in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet in the order provided below and will appear as indicated below. The undersigned author(s)or authorized signer(s)of the(select one of the following): ❑ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ❑ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR `ARGUMENT AGAINST ❑ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST ballot measure— at the Q C-0(2-111 election for the hA 1 ' being eld on (Letter) (Election Name) (Jurisdictio ) (Date of Election) hereby state that such argument is true and correct to the best of his/her/their knowledge and belief. If argument is filed by the governing body of a county/district,fill in the name of the county/district governing body on the line below.The governing body members sign as authors of the argument and must complete both this side and#1 on the back side of this form. Name of County/District Governing Body If argument is filed by a bona fide association of citizens and the signers of the argument are affiliated with the association and are authorized by the association to sign the argument,fill in the name of the association below, The Association officers/members sign as authors of the argument and must complete this side and either#2A or #2B on the back side of this form. Name of Association If argument is filed/signed by individuals, (the argument is not submitted on behalf of an association-the signer(s)are not affiliated with the association and/or are not authorized to sign on behalf of the association),complete this side and#3 on the back side of this form. 1. A�-ofs C. l z aw9t kneawax W WA W u� Pdn Name esidence AddWss Date Title N Sfir�lhke Phone Number 2. I G \ e �n 312 l Qyt t7�� Y I z&4771q-T41 _7q1 Pd t Name Resi ence A �f ess 7 ate g Title , ignature, Phone Number,- 3. PrintName Residence Address f Date, LL� ) Clot- 0 Title ` A S` nature Phone Number 4. Print Name Residence Address Date Title Signature Phone Number 5. Print Name Residence Address Date Title Signature Phone Number 21 Impartial Analysis of Measure Prepared By the City Attorney Section 612(b) of the Huntington Beach City Charter provides that no structure costing more than$100,000 for construction may be built in any City park or beach without voter approval. This Measure asks the voters whether the City should permit the construction of a mobile telephone antenna at Harbour View Park located at 16600 Saybrook Lane and at Bolsa View Park located at 5741 Brighton Drive. The antenna at Harbour View is approximately 55 feet tall and designed to resemble a palm tree. The antenna at Bolsa View is approximately 57 feet tall and designed to resemble a broadleaf tree. In September 2007, the City approved zoning permits for both antennas. In January 2009, the City Council approved 10-year license agreements with T-Mobile, a mobile telephone company, to locate mobile telephone antennas at Harbour View Park and Bolsa View Park. When the City learned in April 2009 that the cost of construction exceeded $100,000, the City suspended the zoning permits and required that T-Mobile obtain voter approval. In response, T-Mobile sued the City, and in a July 9, 2010 preliminary ruling, the Federal District Court determined that voter approval requirement violated the Federal Telecommunications Act to the extent that it impedes the City from acting on antenna applications "within a reasonable period of time." At the same time, the Court allowed the City to conduct an "advisory" election on antennas. The Court then gave the City Council until September 7, 2010 to either grant or deny the antenna permits. If the City Council denies the antennas, the Court may overrule the Council at a hearing prior to trial, or may conduct a trial beginning on November 9, 2010, after the November 2, 2010 election, to review the Council's decision. In response to the Court's ruling, the City Council decided to reconsider the antenna permits on August 30, 2010, and submit to the voters the question of whether the antennas should be permitted in the two Parks. Because of the lawsuit, the impact of this Measure cannot be definitively stated. If the lawsuit proceeds to trial in November 2010, the election will inform the City Council and the Court whether the voters approve of constructing antennas at the two Parks. Further, the City Attorney disagrees with the conclusion of the Federal Court that Section 612 violates the Federal Telecommunications Act. By conducting an election now, the results will be available to be considered by the Ninth Circuit should the City appeal the District Court's ruling. JENNIFER MCGRATH City Attorney 1 0-2 5 8 015 03 3 1