Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpringdale Pump Station - Wireless Communications Facility - SEND • •N�.'.' PoMPLETETHIS SECTION'ON • ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A.rii Tire item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ��_G�-1 ❑Agent X ® Print your name and address on the reverse / ❑Addressee so that we Can return the card to you. B. Re(;dved by(Printed,Name), C. Da a of D !very ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, r,! ' -.. 7-- or on the front if space permits. --- D. Is delivery�a`ddress c!VreraS[om item 1.\0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: i ' `� If YES,ente�dgli a�dlres"efp� ❑ No �l (1�C�fLhl�A A��c �1M1SS/r3 @�16YYJ7 AQ�IUuy x. 262 9 01 3. Service Typ,`e, $P� /L/LNG Certified Mai` xpres ally ❑Registered eturn Re /� ceipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number 7008 0500 0001 8218 5454 (Transfer from service iabeil PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1 o25s5-o2-M-1541 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 Sender Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • 0/7 6d UA e M D o ]0 D!Al✓Ild.C1!IiCJdlJ•� o o ' o o U- G ro� c83OCPER V-I .a OFFICIAL r u Postage $ ro Certified Fee r-q Postmark E3 Return Receipt Fee L7 (Endorsement Required) Here 0 Restricted Delivery Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) E3 u'I Total Postage&Fees $ O ro Sent T Slreef,APLNo.;. t'�-----------.LG^tS�r_. or PO Box No.,�� KT[Qj ---In� --------------- l.�rr�� ----'-- '-'------- �---- cm rare. 6: ca M. rft .,imamn.MC-QffIYGYR CUM -Maw Certified Mail Provides: ❑ A mailing receipt ❑ A unique identifier for your mailpiece ❑ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years Important Reminders: ❑ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First-Class Mail®or Priority Mail® ❑ Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail. ❑ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For valuables,please consider Insured or Registered Mail. ❑ For an additional fee,a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of delivery.To obtain Return Receipt service,please complete and attach a Return Receipt(PS Form 3811)to the article and add applicable postage to cover the fee.Endorse mailpiece"Return Receipt Requested".To receive a fee waiver for a duplicate return receipt,a LISPS®postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is required. ❑ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or addressee's authorized agent.Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the endorsement"Restricted Delivery". ❑ If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired,please present the arti- cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed,detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT.,Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry- PS Form 3800,August 2006(Reverse)PSN 7530-02-000-9047 ® City Of Huntington Beach � e �'�� Via, •• 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachea.gov FFBm tt`"Poaw ® Office of the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ***REVISED*** NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY—SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION) January 25, 2012 California Coastal Commission CERTIFIED MAIL South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Applicant: Amiee Weeks— Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: CDP: To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping station. CUP: To permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street — Springdale Pump Station) Coastal Status: APPEALABLE JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE Date of Action: January 9, 2012 On January 9, 2012, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council denied with findings Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 11-015, in addition to all entitlements identified in the request above. Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand Notice of Action — CDP 11-0 15 Page 2 January 25;2012 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Shaw, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, and Boardman NOES: Harper ABSENT: None This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone and may be appealed to the Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action (attached) by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. An appeal to the Coastal Commission shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn City Clerk Attachment: Notice of Action for CDP 11-015 c: Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner G:NOA/Coastal/CDP 11-015 CUP 11-028 WP 11-052 SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov rT,199g,P°` Office of the City Clerk ' Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF ACTION ***REVISED*** January 25, 2012 Amiee Weeks Coastal Business Group 16460 Bake Parkway, Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: CDP: To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping station. CUP: To permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. APPLICANT: Amiee Weeks—Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT OWNER: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street — Springdale Pump Station) COASTAL STATUS: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone DATE OF ACTION: January 9, 2012 On Monday, January 9, 2012, the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider your application and took action to deny with findings Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at the Springdale Pump Station. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ® Waitakere,New Zealand NOA— Springdale Pump Station Wireless Communications Facility Page Two January 25, 2012 Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14, Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. Attached are the Findings for Denial for Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052, and a copy of pages 2 & 3 of the January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner, at (714) 374- 1547, or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, 0 o f' '� oan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk JF:rl c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings for Denial for CDP 11-015, CUP 11-028, and WP 11-052 January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda Pages 2 & 3 FINDINGS OF DENIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028 WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station does not conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program land use designation of Residential Low Density. The project is inconsistent with Coastal Element Land Use Objective C 1.2.2 which requires that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project and objectives for Coastal Zone character. The proposed facility will be out of character with the size/scale of structures and facilities on the project site and within the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proximity of the wireless communication facility to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will visually degrade the natural environment of the area by providing an inadequate and incompatible visual transition between the residential and wetland areas. Existing utility poles and lines are visually concealed within the project area. Allowing the proposed project adjacent to the wetlands will visually degrade the area and be inconsistent with the unique characteristics of the project area. 2. The project is inconsistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District and the base zoning district because the project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility at a proposed height of 55 ft. and designed as a palm tree (i.e., monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment. The proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the maximum 45 ft. height limit for wireless communication facilities. Residential structures within the surrounding zoning district (i.e., single-family detached residences) are allowed a maximum height of 35 ft. However, the single-family residences which abut the Springdale Pump Station maintain an average height of approximately 23 ft. The proposed communication facility will exceed this height by approximately 22 ft. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028 to permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the natural environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The concealment of utilities by undergrounding assists in preserving the wetlands as a public visual resource which the proposed facility will negatively impact. The proposed facility will be incompatible with surrounding structures because the 55 ft. height for the proposed wireless communication facility exceeds the height of any structure within the surrounding area including the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly comprised of one and two-story, single-family residences and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The homes which abut the Springdale Pump Station vary in height at an average of 23 ft. Other utility poles (light poles) located within the surrounding area maintain a similar height as the adjacent residences. The proposed wireless communication facility will be out of scale with the surrounding area, including the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have similar utility poles within close proximity, and will not visual blend into the existing environment in terms of height. Therefore, the additional 10 ft. above the maximum height requirement will make the structure out of scale and incompatible with the site and surrounding environment. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Residential Low Density — Max. 7 units per acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following objective, policy, and goal of the General Plan: Land Use Element Obiective—LU 4.1: Promote the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Urban Design Element Policy— UD 2.1.1:Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. Coastal Element Goal— C 4: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The facility will not preserve or complement the unique character of this area and will serve to negatively impact the wetlands as a public visual resource. 3. The proposed construction of a wireless communication facility (i.e., monopalm) with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The height of the monopole exceeds the maximum building height established for the base zoning district by 10 ft. and 22 ft. higher than residences located adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance Section 230.96(D) the project is required to be compatible with the surrounding environment and consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. The height of the proposed facility is incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding structures as the height far exceeds that of other onsite and surrounding structures, including existing utility poles, which maintain an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the existing neighborhood including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have any similar structures within close proximity. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. The proposed wireless communication facility is not compatible with the surrounding environment because the area is comprised of mainly one and two-story, single-family residences at an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility far exceeds the height of these structures, especially utility (streetlight) poles and trees within the project area. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the neighborhood and will visually degrade the environment and character of the area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. 2. The proposed wireless communication facility is located in a residential area and does not comply with the maximum height limits permitted within the base zone district because the proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the 45 ft. height maximum established by the CZ Overlay and the base zoning districts. Due to the proposed height, it is determined that the facility will be incompatible and a detriment to the surrounding area. lawsuit: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV09-3777 RGK, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case Nos. 10-56877 and 10-56944 ("T-Mobile I"), and related case T-Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV10-1471 RGK ("T-Mobile II"). RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN ROOM B-8 —4:48 PM STUDY SESSION Revenue and Cost Specialist will present to the City Council a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan of capital needs and acquisitions based upon the growth anticipated under the General Plan. A review of Development Impact Fees necessary to accommodate those needs will also be reviewed with the City Council. RECESS UNTIL 6:00 PM — 5:35 PM 6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS — CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 PM ROLL CALL Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced supplemental communications: #1 (11), #2 (1) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING ITEM(S) (3 Minute Time Limit) (None PUBLIC HEARING 1. Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: -2- City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 with findings for denial. Supplemental Communications: 11 Speakers: 15 Denial Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to deny combined with Consent Item #2 below) CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approve Reject Lease Agreement With T-Mobile West Corporation For Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: Ai therize the MaYOF and City Clerk to approve and evens�+e Relent"Site Lease / \\A\I 1 V 1 1L\.rZfZV Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and T-Mobile West Corporation, A Delaware Corporation at the Springdale Pump Station." Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to reject combined with Public Hearing Item #1 above) 3. Adoption of Successor Agency Resolutions - City Council Resolution Nos. 2012-01 and 2012-02 Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the City Council as the Successor Agency Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Subject to Reservations Herein Stated;" and, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Designating the Housing Authority to Perform the Housing Functions Previously Performed by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Subject to Reservations Herein Stated." Approved 7-0 4. HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING The Mayor will recess the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Special Meeting and convene the Huntington Beach Housing Authority Special Meeting Call the Special Meeting of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority to order Roll Call Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present -3- City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • AO 90 11t1tt>>1,1l1i}„1<<11„il11l,lilt Jill Jill 1t,1111 D 0 0 • • 0 DEVVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si t r item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent X ® Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received'by(Pnn�,Naine)-'i� C. D e 1,Qf- Iivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �j� or on the front if space permits. �( D. Is deliver addre��difre. �� ite 1?' ' Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,a ftZr deltJ�� ad ess b'e lw: b No CF�iP�i•�'1-Lpflsr/i�� /jI/ff/UnJ la i 3. Service Type UU U d Certified Mail Exp ss.Mail� ❑Registered uft Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 1 ❑Yes 21 1i1i11iiii,lii..ii1111,1111--1iI.I.&.1{ii;i,li=iliiil'!i;i PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt J 102595-02-M-1541 UA F@@M 9@Fvft)M C3 M Ln r-I ru Postage $ CO Certified Fee r-I Postmark C3 Return Receipt Fee Here C3 (Endorsement Required) 1=1 Restricted Delivery Fee C3 (Endorsement Required) C3 Lrj Total Postage&Fees C3 Sent TrO or PO O C3 pt.N city,state,zlp111�6 M rphm 9f.Mis Own"Wo M# Certified Mail Provides: ❑ A mailing receipt ❑ A unique identifier for your mailpiece ❑ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years important Reminders., ❑ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First-Class Maile or Priority Maile. ❑ Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail. ❑ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For valuables,please consider Insured or Registered Mail. © For an additional fee,a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of delivery.To obtain Return Receipt service,please complete and attach a Return Receipt(PS Form 3811)to the article and add applicable postage to cover the fee.Endorse mailpiece"Return Receipt Requested".To receive a fee waiver for a duplicate return receipt,a USPS®postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is required. ❑ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or addressee's authorized agent.Advise the clerk or mark the maiipiece with the endorsement"Restricted Delivery'. o If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired,please present the arti- cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed,detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT:Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry. PS Form 3800,August 2006(Reverse)PSN 7530-02-000-9047 City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov `FB R Office of the City Clerk e Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY— SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION) January 17, 2012 California Coastal Commission CERTIFIED MAIL South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Applicant: Amiee Weeks—Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: CDP/CUP: To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility designed as a flag pole with three (3) panel antennas within the pole, including associated equipment within the existing building. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communications facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 16901 Algonquin Street, 92649 (northwest corner of Davenport Drive and Algonquin Street— Huntington Harbour Mall) Coastal Status: APPEALABLE JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE Date of Action: January 9, 2012 On January 9, 2012, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council denied with findings Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 11-015, in addition to all entitlements identified in the request above. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand Notice of Action —CDP 11-015 Page 2 January 17, 2012 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Shaw, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, and Boardman NOES: Harper ABSENT: None This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone and may be appealed to the Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action (attached) by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. An appeal to the Coastal Commission shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, r � k J n L. Flynn City Clerk Attachment: Notice of Action for CDP 11-015 c: Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner G:NOA/Coastal/CDP 11-015 CUP 11-028 WP 11-052 SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION ® City ®f Huntington Beach - 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov f � 7), 90 -t`�" Office of the City Clerk f8, 18,P� � Joan L. Flynn, City Cleric NOTICE OF ACTION January 17, 2012 Amiee Weeks Coastal Business Group 16460 Bake Parkway, Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: CDP/CUP: To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility designed as a flag pole with three (3) panel antennas within the pole, including associated equipment within the existing building. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communications facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. APPLICANT: Amiee Weeks— Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT OWNER: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 16901 Algonquin Street, 92649 (northwest corner of Davenport Drive and Algonquin Street— Huntington Harbour Mall) COASTAL STATUS: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone DATE OF ACTION: January 9, 2012 On Monday, January 9, 2012, the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider your application and took action to deny with findings Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at the Springdale Pump Station. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan * Waitakere, New Zealand NOA— Springdale Pump Station Wireless Communications Facility Page Two January 17, 2012 Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14, Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. Attached are the Findings for Denial for Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052, and a copy of pages 2 & 3 of the January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner, at (714) 374- 1547, or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, an L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk J F:rl c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings for Denial for CDP 11-015, CUP 11-028, and WP 11-052 January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda Pages 2 & 3 FINDINGS OF DENIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028 WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station does not conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program land use designation of Residential Low Density. The project is inconsistent with Coastal Element Land Use Objective C 1.2.2 which requires that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project and objectives for Coastal Zone character. The proposed facility will be out of character with the size/scale of structures and facilities on the project site and within the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proximity of the wireless communication facility to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will visually degrade the natural environment of the area by providing an inadequate and incompatible visual transition between the residential and wetland areas. Existing utility poles and lines are visually concealed within the project area. Allowing the proposed project adjacent to the wetlands will visually degrade the area and be inconsistent with the unique characteristics of the project area. 2. The project is inconsistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District and the base zoning district because the project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility at a proposed height of 55 ft. and designed as a palm tree (i.e., monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment. The proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the maximum 45 ft. height limit for wireless communication facilities. Residential structures within the surrounding zoning district (i.e., single-family detached residences) are allowed a maximum height of 35 ft. However, the single-family residences which abut the Springdale Pump Station maintain an average height of approximately 23 ft. The proposed communication facility will exceed this height by approximately 22 ft. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028 to permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the natural environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The concealment of utilities by undergrounding assists in preserving the wetlands as a public visual resource which the proposed facility will negatively impact. The proposed facility will be incompatible with surrounding structures because the 55 ft. height for the proposed wireless communication facility exceeds the height of any structure within the surrounding area including the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly comprised of one and two-story, single-family residences and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The homes which abut the Springdale Pump Station vary in height at an average of 23 ft. Other utility poles (light poles) located within the surrounding area maintain a similar height as the adjacent residences. The proposed wireless communication facility will be out of scale with the surrounding area, including the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have similar utility poles within close proximity, and will not visual blend into the existing environment in terms of height. Therefore, the additional 10 ft. above the maximum height requirement will make the structure out of scale and incompatible with the site and surrounding environment. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Residential Low Density — Max. 7 units per acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following objective, policy, and goal of the General Plan: Land Use Element Obiective— LU 4.1: Promote the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Urban Design Element Policy— UD 2.1.1:Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. Coastal Element Goal— C 4: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The facility will not preserve or complement the unique character of this area and will serve to negatively impact the wetlands as a public visual resource. 3. The proposed construction of a wireless communication facility (i.e., monopalm) with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The height of the monopole exceeds the maximum building height established for the base zoning district by 10 ft. and 22 ft. higher than residences located adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance Section 230.96(D) the project is required to be compatible with the surrounding environment and consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. The height of the proposed facility is incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding structures as the height far exceeds that of other onsite and surrounding structures, including existing utility poles, which maintain an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the existing neighborhood including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have any similar structures within close proximity. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. The proposed wireless communication facility is not compatible with the surrounding environment because the area is comprised of mainly one and two-story, single-family residences at an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility far exceeds the height of these structures, especially utility (streetlight) poles and trees within the project area. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the neighborhood and will visually degrade the environment and character of the area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. 2. The proposed wireless communication facility is located in a residential area and does not comply with the maximum height limits permitted within the base zone district because the proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the 45 ft. height maximum established by the CZ Overlay and the base zoning districts. Due to the proposed height, it is determined that the facility will be incompatible and a detriment to the surrounding area. lawsuit: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV09-3777 RGK, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case Nos. 10-56877 and 10-56944 ("T-Mobile I"), and related case T-Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV10-1471 RGK ("T-Mobile 11"). RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN ROOM B-8 —4:48 PM STUDY SESSION Revenue and Cost Specialist will present to the City Council a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan of capital needs and acquisitions based upon the growth anticipated under the General Plan. A review of Development Impact Fees necessary to accommodate those needs will also be reviewed with the City Council. RECESS UNTIL 6:00 PM — 5:35 PM 6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS — CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 PM ROLL CALL Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced supplemental communications: #1 (11), #2 (1) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING ITEM(S) (3 Minute Time Limit) None PUBLIC HEARING 1. Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: -2 - City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 with findings for denial. Supplemental Communications: 11 Speakers: 15 Denial Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to deny combined with Consent Item #2 below) CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approve Reject Lease Agreement With T-Mobile West Corporation For Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: Reject"Site Lease Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and T-Mobile West Corporation, A Delaware Corporation at the Springdale Pump Station." Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to reject combined with Public Hearing Item #1 above) 3. Adoption of Successor Agency Resolutions - City Council Resolution Nos. 2012-01 and 2012-02 Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the City Council as the Successor Agency Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Subject to Reservations Herein Stated;" and, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Designating the Housing Authority to Perform the Housing Functions Previously Performed by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Subject to Reservations Herein Stated." Approved 7-0 4. HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING The Mayor will recess the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Special Meeting and convene the Huntington Beach Housing Authority Special Meeting Call the Special Meeting of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority to order Roll Call Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present -3- City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 ® City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 o www.huntingtonbeachca.gov FB�11,1909�p� 0 Office of the City Clerk e Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF ACTION January 17, 2012 Amiee Weeks Coastal Business Group 16460 Bake Parkway, Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 SUBJECT: CDP/CUP: To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility designed as a flag pole with three (3) panel antennas within the pole, including associated equipment within the existing building. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communications facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. APPLICANT: Amiee Weeks—Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT OWNER: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 16901 Algonquin Street, 92649 (northwest corner of Davenport Drive and Algonquin Street— Huntington Harbour Mall) COASTAL STATUS: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone DATE OF ACTION: January 9, 2012 On Monday, January 9, 2012, the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider your application and took action to deny with findings Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at the Springdale Pump Station. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan v Waitakere,New Zealand NOA— Springdale Pump Station Wireless Communications Facility Page Two January 17, 2012 Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14, Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. Attached are the Findings for Denial for Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052, and a copy of pages 2 & 3 of the January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner, at (714) 374- 1547, or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, - an L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk JF:rI c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings for Denial for CDP 11-015, CUP 11-028, and WP 11-052 January 9, 2012 City Council Action Agenda Pages 2 & 3 i FINDINGS OF DENIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028 WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station does not conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program land use designation of Residential Low Density. The project is inconsistent with Coastal Element Land Use Objective C 1.2.2 which requires that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project and objectives for Coastal Zone character. The proposed facility will be out of character with the size/scale of structures and facilities on the project site and within the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proximity of the wireless communication facility to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will visually degrade the natural environment of the area by providing an inadequate and incompatible visual transition between the residential and wetland areas. Existing utility poles and lines are visually concealed within the project area. Allowing the proposed project adjacent to the wetlands will visually degrade the area and be inconsistent with the unique characteristics of the project area. 2. The project is inconsistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District and the base zoning district because the project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility at a proposed height of 55 ft. and designed as a palm tree (i.e., monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment. The proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the maximum 45 ft. height limit for wireless communication facilities. Residential structures within the surrounding zoning district (i.e., single-family detached residences) are allowed a maximum height of 35 ft. However, the single-family residences which abut the Springdale Pump Station maintain an average height of approximately 23 ft. The proposed communication facility will exceed this height by approximately 22 ft. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028 to permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the natural environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The concealment of utilities by undergrounding assists in preserving the wetlands as a public visual resource which the proposed facility will negatively impact. The proposed facility will be incompatible with surrounding structures because the 55 ft. height for the proposed wireless communication facility exceeds the height of any structure within the surrounding area including the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly comprised of one and two-story, single-family residences and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The homes which abut the Springdale Pump Station vary in height at an average of 23 ft. Other utility poles (light poles) located within the surrounding area maintain a similar height as the adjacent residences. The proposed wireless communication facility will be out of scale with the surrounding area, including the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have similar utility poles within close proximity, and will not visual blend into the existing environment in terms of height. Therefore, the additional 10 ft. above the maximum height requirement will make the structure out of scale and incompatible with the site and surrounding environment. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Residential Low Density — Max. 7 units per acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following objective, policy, and goal of the General Plan: Land Use Element Obiective— LU 4.1: Promote the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Urban Design Element Policy— UD 2.1.1:Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. Coastal Element Goal— C 4: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The facility will not preserve or complement the unique character of this area and will serve to negatively impact the wetlands as a public visual resource. 3. The proposed construction of a wireless communication facility (i.e., monopalm) with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The height of the monopole exceeds the maximum building height established for the base zoning district by 10 ft. and 22 ft. higher than residences located adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance Section 230.96(D) the project is required to be compatible with the surrounding environment and consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. The height of the proposed facility is incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding structures as the height far exceeds that of other onsite and surrounding structures, including existing utility poles, which maintain an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the existing neighborhood including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have any similar structures within close proximity. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. The proposed wireless communication facility is not compatible with the surrounding environment because the area is comprised of mainly one and two-story, single-family residences at an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility far exceeds the height of these structures, especially utility (streetlight) poles and trees within the project area. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the neighborhood and will visually degrade the environment and character of the area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. 2. The proposed wireless communication facility is located in a residential area and does not comply with the maximum height limits permitted within the base zone district because the proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the 45 ft. height maximum established by the CZ Overlay and the base zoning districts. Due to the proposed height, it is determined that the facility will be incompatible and a detriment to the surrounding area. lawsuit: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV09-3777 RGK, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case Nos. 10-56877 and 10-56944 ("T-Mobile I"), and related case T-Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. District Court Case No. CV10-1471 RGK ("T-Mobile II"). RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN ROOM B-8 —4:48 PM STUDY SESSION Revenue and Cost Specialist will present to the City Council a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan of capital needs and acquisitions based upon the growth anticipated under the General Plan. A review of Development Impact Fees necessary to accommodate those needs will also be reviewed with the City Council. RECESS UNTIL 6:00 PM — 5:35 PM 6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS — CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 PM ROLL CALL Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced supplemental communications: #1 (11), #2 (1) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING ITEM(S) (3 Minute Time Limit) None PUBLIC HEARING 1. Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: -2 - City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 with findings for denial. Supplemental Communications: 11 Speakers: 15 Denial Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to deny combined with Consent Item #2 below) CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Awe Reject Lease Agreement With T-Mobile West Corporation For Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Springdale Pump Station Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayer and rite Clerk to approve ai;d ovoni i4c Reject"Site Lease Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and T-Mobile West Corporation, A Delaware Corporation at the Springdale Pump Station." Approved 6-1 (Harper no) (Council action to reject combined with Public Hearing Item #1 above) 3. Adoption of Successor Agency Resolutions - City Council Resolution Nos. 2012-01 and 2012-02 Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the City Council as the Successor Agency Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Subject to Reservations Herein Stated;" and, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code Designating the Housing Authority to Perform the Housing Functions Previously Performed by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Subject to Reservations Herein Stated." Approved 7-0 4. HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING The Mayor will recess the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Special Meeting and convene the Huntington Beach Housing Authority Special Meeting Call the Special Meeting of the Huntington Beach Housing Authority to order Roll Call Shaw, Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman All Present -3- City Council RDA/PFA Special Meeting January 9, 2012 AS PUL P. i':.. iry> hEETl � OF REGOVED A TT w n H■■s SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015/ WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11- 015: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 45 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station will conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program land use designation of Residential Low Density. The project is consistent with Coastal Element Land Use Policy C 4.2.4 which requires wireless communication facilities to be sited, to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize visual resource impacts. Minimizing visual resource impacts may be accomplished through one or more of the following techniques: co-locating antennas on one structure, stealth installations, locating facilities within existing building envelopes, or minimizing visual prominences through colorization or landscaping and removal of facilities that become obsolete. The proposed facility will minimize visual resource impacts by incorporating stealth techniques by designing the facility to resemble the numerous palm trees located on the project site and surrounding area. The design of the facility as a palm tree will be consistent with the character including the size/scale of structures/facilities and trees on the project site and within the surrounding area. The proposed design of the proposed facility, placement, and maximum 45 ft. height will not visually degrade the natural environment of the area by providing an inadequate and incompatible visual transition between the residential and wetland areas. The proposed facility will be located on a fully secured flood construal pump station site which contains no public view sheds. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District and the base zoning district because the project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility designed as a palm tree (i.e., monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, associated support equipment, and is conditioned at a maximum height of 45 ft. which is in compliance with the height maximum of the base zoning district including minimum setbacks and maximum site coverage. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed facility will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available, including water, sewer and roadways. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The project will not impede public access or impact public f e/ views to coastal resources as the siting of the wireless communication facility will be located within a fully secured city pumping facility containing no coastal access or public viewsheds. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. Based upon the site plan, elevations, and photo simulations submitted on November 14, 2011, and amended on January 9, 2012, the proposed facility is compatible with the project site and surrounding area. The monopole will be a stealth facility designed as a palm tree which will blend into the natural environment/vegetation (i.e., palm trees) located at the City pumping station site. 2. The proposed facility will be camouflaged into the existing vegetation by designing the wireless communication facility as a palm tree. The proposed palm tree design will match other existing palm trees located on the subject site. As conditioned, the facility will match surrounding vegetation in terms of overall height, appearance, and specie type. 3. The proposed wireless communication facility is located within an established residential area containing one and two-story single-family residences. The proposed palm tree design will be compatible with the Springdale Pump Station as the site contains a number of mature onsite palm trees. The low-profile design of the facility will visually minimize any potential massing/bulk issues. The height of the facility, as conditioned, will be compatible with the height of the existing onsite palm trees. Furthermore, the facility will comply with the maximum height of 45 ft. permitted pursuant to the CZ Overlay and base zone districts. 4. Based upon the location of the project the wireless communication facility will be sited along the southerly portion of the property, approximately 80 ft. from the nearest residential property, and setback a minimum of 5 ft. from the south property line. As a result, no portion of the facility will project over any adjacent property line. 5. The proposed wireless communication facility will not result in any interference issues as the facility will be required to adhere to the provisions established by Section 230.96(D)(6) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-0151WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. The site plans, elevations, and photos simulations dated November 14, 2011, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The maximum height of the proposed monopalm (including all palm fronds) shall not exceed 45 ft. b. A non-perching device(s) shall be incorporated into the design of the monopalm facility. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: r a. Prior to acceptance of the project plans into plan check, written confirmation shall be provided from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Fish and Game authorizing the use of the non-perching device into the design of the monopalm. b. One set of project plans, revised pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, shall be submitted for review, approval and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning and Building Department. c. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire and Planning and Building shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 3. During site development and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. 4. The final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following has been completed.. a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department. c. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them 5. CUP No. 11-015/WP No. 11-053 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning & Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 6. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved en'e &,-6iVtlerk' Signat Council Meeting Date: January 9, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 12-002 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-052 for a wireless communications facility at Springdale Pump Station. Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration are Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 a request to permit a wireless communications facility at the Springdale Pump Station pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 245.06 — Permit Required, Section 230.72 — Exceptions to Height Limits and Section 230.96 — Wireless Communication Facilities. The application represents a request to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high in lieu of 45 ft. monopole designed as a palm tree (monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment located at 18401 Springdale Street (southerly terminus of Springdale Street — Springdale Pump Station). Planning Staff is recommending denial of the requests. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 with findings for denial (ATTAHCMENT NO. 1). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011- 028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 with findings and conditions of approval requiring a reduction in the overall height of the monopalm to a maximum 45 ft. 2. Continue Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-028, and Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 and direct staff accordingly. HB - 223 Item 1. ® I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/9/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-002 Analysis: In response to the action taken on August 30, 2010 by the City Council to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and Wireless Permit for a cell tower within the Bolsa View Park, T- Mobile filed a lawsuit against the City for Breach of Contact. On November 7, 2011 the City entered into a settlement agreement with T-Mobile to process a new Wireless Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit on a parcel owned by the City (Springdale Pump Station) at the southern end of Springdale Ave. This site was identified by T-Mobile as an acceptable alternative to the previously proposed site at Bolsa View Park. The City could not and did not make any representation as to approval on the proposed site other than to agree to process the application. A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Amiee Weeks — Coastal Business Group, 16460 Bake Parkway, Suite No. 100, Irvine, CA 92618 Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation, 2008 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street — Springdale Pump Station Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015 represents a request to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station pursuant to Section 245.06 of the HBZSO. Conditional Use Permit No 2011-028 represents a request to permit wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted pursuant to Section 230.72 of the HBZSO. Wireless Permit No. 2011-053 is a request to demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is (a) compatible with the surrounding environment; (b) screened or camouflaged into the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures as measured from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet); (c) the massing and location is consistent with surrounding structures and the zoning district; (d) no portions of the structure project across property lines; and (e) no signal interference occurs to public or emergency facilities by the ongoing wireless operations pursuant to Section 230.96(D) of the HBZSO. The subject site, known as Springdale Pump Station, is an approximately 0.5 acre city facility located at the southerly terminus of Springdale Street within the RL-CZ (Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay) zone. The site is located within an established residential (tern 1. - 2 HB - 224 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/9/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-002 area comprised of one and two-story, single-family detached residences and adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands to the south. B. BACKGROUND On November 11, 2011, city staff along with representatives of T-Mobile held a publically noticed community meeting at the Huntington Beach Central Library. The intent of the meeting was to disseminate information and obtain feedback from local residents and interested parties related to a proposal to construct a wireless communication facility at the Springdale Pump Station. The project was not well received at the meeting with attendees expressing concern related to the project's potential impacts on property values, health, and the adjacent wetlands. A majority of attendees recommended city staff and representatives of T-Mobile find an alternative location that is less invasive to their neighborhood. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The primary issues for the City Council to consider in evaluating the project is whether the proposed facility is (1) located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate a gap in service coverage, (2) is the one and only location that can possibly meet the objectives of the project, and (3) is compatible with the structures located within the project area. Wireless Permit Pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.96(D), the City Council must conclude that (a) the facility is compatible with the surrounding environment; (b) the facility is either screened or camouflaged into the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures as measured from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet); (c) the massing and location of the facility is consistent with surrounding structures and the zoning district; (d) no portions of the structure project across property lines; and (e) no signal interference occurs to public or emergency facilities by the ongoing wireless operations. The purpose of the project is to increase the existing radio frequency (RF) signal level in an existing coverage area. Based on the existing coverage map provided by T-Mobile dated October 31, 2011, there is a gap in (indoor) coverage. Furthermore, the proposed facility is intended to be sited within a residential district and incorporates stealth techniques. Stealth facilities attempt to minimize the visibility of antennas and ancillary support equipment into the surrounding environment. The design of the wireless facility as a palm tree is considered a stealth facility. However, such facilities are typically located within commercial zones. . Although the proposed facility is designed to be stealth, it is not compatible with surrounding structures or the maximum height of 35 ft. established by the base zoning district or the 10 ft. exception to height (maximum 45 ft.). The surrounding area contains mainly one and two- story, single family residences at an average height of approximately 23 ft. The proposed 55 ft. height will far exceed that of other structures, especially utility (street light) poles within the project area. It is staff's determination that the project design and placement is not compatible with the surrounding area. According to the submitted Wireless Permit application dated October 31, 2011, the proposed site is noted as being the one and only location that can possibly meet the objectives of the project which is to close a significant gap in coverage for T-Mobile HB - 225 (tern 1. - 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/9/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-002 customers. The coverage may be improved for the residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and west of the project site in conjunction to increasing overall "In Building" coverage in the immediate area. Submitted public comments and staff recommendations related to other sites were forwarded to T-Mobile for consideration. T-Mobile reviewed these alternate sites and determined that such locations where unable to meet the objectives of the project. In addition, T-Mobile's response did not include the submittal of a technical analysis/written justification as to the basis of why the alternative sites were unable to meet their project objectives. City staff has no opinion as to the accuracy of T-Mobile's claims. In further evaluating the wireless permit, the proposed facility will be sited approximately 5 ft. from the closest property line and approximately 85 ft. from the nearest residential property. The project will not project over any adjacent property lines or result in signal interference to public or emergency facilities. Coastal Development Permit The proposed wireless communication facility will be located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Pursuant to Section 245.06 of the HBZSO, the project requires the approval of a Coastal Development Permit based upon the findings that (a) the project conforms with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program; (b) is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, base zoning district, and well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; (c) adequate services and infrastructure can be provided consistent the Local Coastal Program; and (d) the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of the California Coastal Act. The proposed wireless communication facility will not comply with the maximum 45 ft. height requirement and is inconsistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Objective C 1.2.2 which requires that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project site and objectives for Coastal Zone character. The proposed facility will be out of character with the one and two-story single-family residential structures, the one-story pump station facilities on the project site and within the surrounding residential and wetlands area. The proposed proximity of the wireless communication facility to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will visually degrade the natural environment of the area. Siting the proposed facility along the fringe of the residential and wetland areas provides an inadequate and incompatible visual transition. Within the surrounding area and along the entire northeastern edge of the wetlands, all utility poles and lines are visually concealed by undergrounding, which assists in preserving the wetlands as a public visual resource. Allowing the proposed project adjacent to the wetlands will visually degrade the area and be inconsistent with the unique characteristics of the project area. Conditional Use Permit The proposed wireless communication facility will be located within an established single- family residential neighborhood. Surrounding structures within the project area are comprised of one and two-story, single-family residences with buildings and utility (light poles) poles not exceeding approximately 23 ft. in height. The proposed pump station site is improved with an existing single-story building and minimal onsite landscaping comprised of several palm trees. Pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.72, a wireless communication facility is permitted to exceed the maximum height of the base zoning district within the coastal zone Item I . ® 4 HB - 226 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/9/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-002 with the approval of a conditional use permit. The analysis must determine that the requested height will preserve and enhance public visual resources where feasible and upon the findings that the project (a) will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; (b) will not adversely affect the General Plan; and (c) will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions within the HBZSO. The proposed height of the wireless communication facility will be incompatible with surrounding structures and the existing onsite building because it exceeds the existing structures in height by more than 20 ft. Within the RL-CZ zoning district the maximum building height for any residential structures is 35 ft. HBZSO Section 230.72 permits wireless communication facilities to exceed the maximum building height an additional 10 ft. above the base zoning or 45 ft. maximum. The additional height of 55 ft. far surpasses the single- family residential buildings in the area and will make the structure out of scale and incompatible with the structures in the area. Furthermore, the proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities and conflict with the City's General Plan Land Use Objective requiring that new development convey a high quality visual image and character. D. CONCLUSION: The basis of the project is to enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. However, the project will not be fully compatible with the surrounding environment because the height of the facility is inconsistent with surrounding structures (i.e., single-family residences) which measure on average approximately 23 ft. in height. Additionally, the project is inconsistent with the height requirements established by both the base zoning and CZ overlay districts. The proposed facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities and will conflict with the City's General Plan Land Use Objective requiring that new development convey a high quality visual image and character. As a result, the wireless communication facility is determined to be incompatible with existing natural environment and structures in the vicinity. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed wireless communication facility (ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Environmental Status: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3—New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which states that the installation of new equipment and structures in urbanized areas zoned for such use and not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services facilities are made available is exempt from further environmental review. The project involves the installation of a new wireless communication facility including associated support equipment on an existing developed site containing a partially enclosed and secured City pumping station. Furthermore, the project site is located adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which is identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Staff contacted the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service who identified that the proposed wireless communication facility would not result in the proliferation of avian bird species to the area. As a result, the proposed design will not disturb the adjacent habitat and therefore HB - 227 Item 1® - 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/9/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-002 the project can be determined to be exempt from CEQA. In addition, T-Mobile has indicated to staff that the monopole may be designed in a manner that will safely deter local avian bird species from perching. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve Internal and External Communication The proposed wireless communications facility will increase telecommunications in an area with a lack of coverage. As technology improves, the necessity for wireless coverage becomes apparent and the capacity for existing wireless communications facilities to carry signal transmissions is limited. Attachment(s): ® - . . 1. Suggested Findings for Denial — Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, and Wireless Permit No. 11-053 2. Site Plans, Elevations, and Photo Simulations dated November 14, 2011 3. Wireless Permit Application and applicable submittal requirements dated October 31, 2011 4. Public Comments Item 1 . - 6 HB - 228 ATTACHMENT # 1 ----Jl .. 229 ,gem ,. . ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF DENIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028 WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015 to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of a 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at the Springdale Pump Station does not conform with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program land use designation of Residential Low Density. The project is inconsistent with Coastal Element Land Use Objective C 1.2.2 which requires that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project and objectives for Coastal Zone character. The proposed facility will be out of character with the size/scale of structures and facilities on the project site and within the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proximity of the wireless communication facility to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will visually degrade the natural environment of the area by providing an inadequate and incompatible visual transition between the residential and wetland areas. Existing utility poles and lines are visually concealed within the project area. Allowing the proposed project adjacent to the wetlands will visually degrade the area and be inconsistent with the unique characteristics of the project area. 2. The project is inconsistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District and the base zoning district because the project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility at a proposed height of 55 ft. and designed as a palm tree (i.e., monopalm) with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment. The proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the maximum 45 ft. height limit for wireless communication facilities. Residential structures within the surrounding zoning district (i.e., single-family detached residences) are allowed a maximum height of 35 ft. However, the single-family residences which abut the Springdale Pump Station maintain an average height of approximately 23 ft. The proposed communication facility will exceed this height by approximately 22 ft. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028 to permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the natural environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The concealment of utilities by undergrounding assists in preserving the wetlands as a public visual resource which the proposed facility will negatively impact. Item 1 . - 8 HB - 230 The proposed facility will be incompatible with surrounding structures because the 55 ft. height for the proposed wireless communication facility exceeds the height of any structure within the surrounding area including the subject site. The surrounding area is predominantly comprised of one and two-story, single-family residences and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The homes which abut the Springdale Pump Station vary in height at an average of 23 ft. Other utility poles (light poles) located within the surrounding area maintain a similar height as the adjacent residences. The proposed wireless communication facility will be out of scale with the surrounding area, including the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have similar utility poles within close proximity, and will not visual blend into the existing environment in terms of height. Therefore, the additional 10 ft. above the maximum height requirement will make the structure out of scale and incompatible with the site and surrounding environment. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Residential Low Density— Max. 7 units per acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following objective, policy, and goal of the General Plan: Land Use Element Obiective — LU 4.1: Promote the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Urban Design Element Policy— UD 2.1.1: Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. Coastal Element Goal— C 4: Preserve and, where feasible, enhance and restore the aesthetic resources of the City's coastal zone, including natural areas, beaches, harbors, bluffs and significant public views. The proposed height of the facility will visually degrade the environment and character of the surrounding area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. The facility will not preserve or complement the unique character of this area and will serve to negatively impact the wetlands as a public visual resource. 3. The proposed construction of a wireless communication facility (i.e., monopalm) with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The height of the monopole exceeds the maximum building height established for the base zoning district by 10 ft. and 22 ft. higher than residences located adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance Section 230.96(D) the project is required to be compatible with the surrounding environment and consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. The height of the proposed facility is incompatible and HB - 231 Item 1. a 9 inconsistent with the surrounding structures as the height far exceeds that of other onsite and surrounding structures, including existing utility poles, which maintain an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the existing neighborhood including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which does not have any similar structures within close proximity. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 11-052: 1. The proposed wireless communication facility is not compatible with the surrounding environment because the area is comprised of mainly one and two-story, single-family residences at an average height of 23 ft. The proposed facility far exceeds the height of these structures, especially utility (streetlight) poles and trees within the project area. The proposed facility will be out of scale with the neighborhood and will visually degrade the environment and character of the area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities. 2. The proposed wireless communication facility is located in a residential area and does not comply with the maximum height limits permitted within the base zone district because the proposed monopalm structure exceeds by 10 ft. the 45 ft. height maximum established by the CZ Overlay and the base zoning districts. Due to the proposed height, it is determined that the facility will be incompatible and a detriment to the surrounding area. Item 1 . - 10 He - 232 ATTAC H M E N T #2 e L,'13157C CITY: HUNTIN T N BEACH SP IN DALE PUMP STATION COUNTY ORANGE RAW LANCE MONOPALM JURISDICTION: CITY CAE HUNTINGT N BEACH,, \RY SHEET INDEX E�TI- MAS BROS. CAJM PACE 85r,CM F-3^ iwn� F'c j 7'1 ».n''.r.tN,`$:>•,.;_.$ -Pl i;C T� x a ., ....§,,...y.,, ... t);�u } Fly.g AMERsii �t JIU 1Sen T t G .. fiY. 7 3 E^� a"aAT7" n M u 1. N;ount Sheet Na. Sheet Title $ > ld'-1 -5 T - T-lU TM D 1 ead r a 2u E z�R wv cix; ' treA".? " M�5y5'� r flit= z�+j♦ Rax� � ! sn' ,Y� �Av #. " 1 :i�" Yze �R S Fr 'r ,� . A-1D SfIE PLAN AXA-L- ) # >x s.3 rn ix tom_a4k R'sx to $ TH Cstis> v r 1; w �+ Ais t� .. _ aATs'L*t D,!`�y ai E,uti.A _1 ar blk� tlA. A-10 PLAN ILA- 3 � �, LEASE AREA P 4 A-30 RWATKk6 tf j 'i �•. a�F z t ) k_ K) ' t T-MOBLE CONSISTING OF. 5 LS-T 'TOPOCRAPW SURVEY .jICK,(8).PATEL ANTENNAS, pis r� r- _ e1 .,;+T`r ��...��.�'.�'svk ...:A ee ;TLq5 �'' � � <' "��` '•£try"`< �'AY;:•� y `r_Y�• . -4 °e $� 3°', � '�' ,+,�� �` °�inna�''����,�:»,A� d�,'�3at�;nF1' �'�,,,,s7 ygu•:r.#a���W�•+�,�y F r 1 � gr .^@.�rtccT!� �� L� •� "�4�w sty Fi D y� x. t .,, � �X��`•'?QYt,�1�s,1 '"' �p","..j $L: � yam. A.�f ,,���y wL PROJECT APPROVALS v .- THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE TIRE - ���S�•_ � , �� ,R' ' CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN.ALL CONSTRUCTk'iN DOCUMENTS ARE SUMCT TO,RENEW BY TH_LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANY CHANGES AND -- �VODIFICATIONS THEY MAY IMPOSE. Name Date Signature' = SltM t" ` atTC E WEST CORP. DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM T-MOBILE'S INIHE OFFICE:(NOI1 McGAW AVENUE) Legal [�g�t)gt ;GAUP AVENUE Lendtord .HERB SOUTHEAST ON McGVW AVENUE TOWARD VON KAeRMAFAVENUE.TURN-RIGHT'AT VON - :AIIFORNI:42611 - - .:, - :'LEGAL UESCRIPTIINK - - - KM"AVENUE.TURN RIGHT ONTO MAN STREET.TURN LEFT ONTO MACARTHLIR OLYO.TURN t REAL ESTATE do ZONING SAC --- _ LEFT SO MERGE ONTO 1-405 N.TAKE EXIT 15 FOR WARNER AVENUE W TOWARD MAG N"SE (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) " .T:DUAN_DAO - - _.<° NT AT THE FORK AND MERGE,ONTO WARNER AVE.TURN LEFT �' 'LOT 109 OF,TRPCT R0.,9219.W,-THE CRY OF HtNTINGTON BEACH,COUNTY-Of ORANGE S7 ,KEEP,RC ONT0 BEACH,BL (714)850=2471 zoning.. ____.._._._. ...______...._..__...__........__.____.. "TURN RIGHT ORTO SLATER AVE.TORN LEFT ONTO SPRINGDALE'STREET. •1,, CALIFORNIA,AS SH M ON MAP OF SAID TRACT,RECORDED IN BOOK 404,PAGES 16 1H)tOU ' INCLUSIVE,OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THIE:RECORDER'OF SAID COUNTY. " t-'ZONIHG k GOVERKNEM AFR'ARS: ARRIVE AT 19401 SPRINGDALE STREET T:.IS7£THOMFSGN - Develop.Mgr - _ - - > M4)8'50-2414 - iu�smoN Conat-Mgr _.,_. _.____._ APPLICABLE CODESRECEIVED K:AnCHAEC OGWRS (213)305-3409 ConaL Mgr ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHIAUL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING; NOV, 1 -2 0 11 ICTION MANAGER.VANTAGE CO. 2010 BUILGRNG STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2010 CALFORNA ENERGY CORE(C.E.C,) t:'ERIC CHAVE2 RF Engineer 2010 CALIFORNIA BU NG CODE(C-84.1 2010'CALIFORNA HISTORICAL&&DING CODE _. { Rim, { E y.nnre+— YP 1 — FE.GIfk Yu lEil4tlYA�clgi2C I�' 4wtrin;;tsn� � rtl'!`#.+ll54-188-t32 A.M.#159-08-03 � E gL E z ......... _....... - r � k APN.4159-VO-05 l-MV R=1655.W 2 ❑ ❑ 9 10 1 Li �i`LJ P ® ' s11-q ......................... - `` r NtP2Y56'E �`'U 31.19' 1 REINED vE AREA EQMMWr w AM SQ.M SVA PM Dept,rof Planning WAMM &Building r,�, SITE ,PLAN I�AIA*-n 4 r„f y f x Jf 42 f / Ix ---- " - la to ® 1% n 1 � To 14 .n -- ^ RE0EI V ED IL PP1MW6 T•MMLE Pt MW TBAo E6 flf`f tiY MM-TO To MMI - �✓ WRA" ^;12, PROW T-MMLE PµM.J�0 TOP,REFER To ' ELCVATIONS ... _ ,,D pt.of Planning Ia LM of Kowp4m G SWN 1301ding STAUX 10. U E OP PALM MOM a J IWLWED IN LEASE AREA ARY ... 7' 15, PRDP09ED T-Mt7 LE GOA7tlAL GABLE TRAY.J PEaESTRlAM 1 LEASE AREA PLAN'@ TRA"I"RATM GoMt TOP OF BRAWMES + - T.a PANEL ANTENNAE + W-6. ART RRO.CM + W-O' 6 ®= 6„ n 4 10 9 4 r FM q {^(UDE NORTHWEST ELEVATION (, \ NORTHEAST ELEVATION! I. EXISTINS DIRT VLOPE —� 1. Ex151T"SEISMIC MOMItOMNS STA174N 5. EXISTINS BLOGY.MALL A, PROPOSED T-MMLE UL,LISTED RADIO EmIPHNT MO MMD TO 6' T T CONTIN144 COWAUTE PLMM ® - 6 5. PNOPOSEP T-MOSILE FO ERI TELC0 ECM MM"TED TO NEtT N-RACK 6. PROPOSED T-MMLE M01,10PALM nl ARTEM46 - T. MONOPA.LM PROMOS,CIVERIWO I INUIJUED IN LEASE AREA BOLMARY . 0. PROPOSED T-MMIX COAXIAL CAME TRAY-w/PEDESTRIAN'. TRAFFIC,RATED C 4R 4L PF4FIDID T-MMLE PAWL.ANTENtAS, 10, PROPOSED T-MMLE 6PS ANTEWA M.OMMO TO EMPMENT CABINET 9 a 5 OEM MD .,. � L RECEIVED - 'r�r�'�r`�. �Tpc. �-rr r ... y....., ;. . ". .,.. x 7:,:r.r;;x.;•r r-L F.zh r-- NOV -14011 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION Dept.of Planning T �,� SOUTHWEST ELEVATION " -- R Ri IdA-- ANb'A5HTic4 suwFy oFkE'FI466sm SOFTWARE FOR THE BOUNDARY ITNFS AND NFIR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ELCiATIOII; 4,5 MET A.V51. (NAVO88)(OAV.;M VERIFIED IN ME PER RECORD INFORMATION AND THEIR LOCATIONS ARE FIELD TO BE WITHIN I-A ACCURACY STANDARDS) APPROXIMATE, PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT: BASIS OF BEARINGS! TITLE REPORT,IDENTRCATION: LmNO PLANTS STATBAENL' IME CENTERLINE OF U V)TTLFFIE DRIVE BEING NORTH 55*33'.V� WEST PER FOUND MONUMENTS ON TRACT NO, Wig, M.M. (PENDING RECEIPT Ot DILE REPORT) 'TREE 404 t6-19, PFCODS OF OR0,GL COUNTY, TW HEIGHTS-AND ELEVA11OW,FOR THE' US, BUSHES AND OTHER LIVING PLANTS SHOIWN HEREON. SHOULD BE ASSESSOR'S IDENTIRCA31ON: EASEMENT NOTES: CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE(+/-) AND ONLY VAUD FOR THE DATE OF tHiS SURVEY, rHLY ARE PROVIDED AS,4 GENERAL ORANGE COUNTY A.P.N. IM 188-05 (PEHDNG RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) REFERENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE JSED'FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, AREA:- LEGAI. DESCRIPTION: 0,501 ACRES PER CALCULATION (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT LOT Ifig OF TRACT Mo. 9219, IN THE CITY OF HQNTIN3TON REACII,COUNTY OF ORANGE.STATE OF CALIFORNIA.AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT, RECORDED IN BOOK 404, PAGES 16 THRCUCH 19, iNCLUSNE, OF MISCELWJEOUS MAPS, IN-THE OFFICE Cr PIC RCCORDER OF SAID COUNTY. N-A BLOCK WALL NE TRACT N 0. 9 219 Iry M,W 404 16 19 NI r LO T LOT 105 N 10B APR 15a-l" DIRT, ' -188-04,f4 APR M 'EXISTING BUILDING, Vk, T ACT NO.436 '3 —9220 W 1 EXISTING BUILDING, 'EXISTING BUILDING, / 3 cc LOT 29 71 w. tO `J "-Av�be ................ V& a LOT '106 ATF z 'ASPHAi T, APR M-M-02 LOT 10 IL 'A Al APR 159-188-03 4 Foll -w Y F —`7 N 0 401� .7—-61LOCK WAU-- `DIRT, 4"W34U' 0 L 0 T w 1 109 AP 101 laiHm A IING BUILDING, 6 'PINT, "6 V�' 'STORAGE'COt TAINER, 'DIRTw GATE L'ASPH T, WORDINATE 'ASPHALT, 00ECDETIC --TOP 07 SLOPZ LOCATION' 7-7 TOE OF SLOPE !V',41 ,1 4 "b COORDINATE I.DING, A. 7VO 'LOCATION ,�57, `DIRT 1�. " 1,i MOCK WALL--' EXISTING BUILDING 4, All, 4 1.h BLOCK WAI I-/ N46 t7soo7l "6 SHkk 'k "Am xS L A 311 -71 -4,Am UrALIVI r? LOCATION a WAX Y' Ail Y. LA, 'M m m tu�.from the Northwest looking Southeast -4: N'T W"' -N, At RECEIVED APPLICANT COF4,T,�tCT 1- IS 7 C NOV 14 20 -Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. 2008 McCaw Avenue Jordon DIB Dept,of Planni U, A. lase n "'Pump $ta 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100, von , & Building Irvine,CA,92614 i . Irvine, CA 92618 _Irngdale St ta W/O t a r" �,. ' . mod:.,,. 75 �F" >" aIY'' Rip FJ. 1- .A jy a e„ n a ,yam -�h.`.... F, -, '+�.,. r•�' a ,. ...s-,"";,o;,; ,,;�. -z-.. Ivy ::��• ^R a r ur d y 4. �a " „rF, .. ..,'S. e , �, .,,,''r'. ',., .. ,' <; .,, ;,,,.^.,.✓;. ,o. .•..<.•< <a41 fix=„ r. _,: t e w; �� MC?NflPALM C3CAT1 AZ v �° ew from the Northeast looking Southwest .. 63��.y z, <�,, r".,• 9e7C'w f, ..yw,gi� '� �� ;,,t � s�;`>,,.a� t�a a 0-i W ;i ^, dk i.= s ^ .. ter✓ v f m Y S' / a• 1 0 1 �d k' �,. "�3"�,.,'r,, „,�.� F€ '��„- ,m�'�r, •d,s ,>h�'r �t��, "` � �;ii,°� x` i� ai as I 4 @"n I F"% 3 '15:7 -C A0PLICANT CONTACT J i E EtV T_Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. NOV, I 2008 McGawAvenue Jordon�DiBiase P Irvine, CA 92614 16460,Bake Parkway"�Suite too'die t:of Ftanni ri!' ' .� � "Irvine, CA 92618 Building N M w wa m 2 'd ""10,0I , ' � �"xl A q p OU" g WW, IR� MR, L "q ow, A .. ........ R1 end V 4 -IT 4'517ft� IN _b A-.4 6 4 P-o ts""'Y t a M "Al", 0 44W F" K PROPOSED� �M MONOPALM M LOCATIONLFY or WN' 'ON ^firWD iew from the Northwest looking Southes A 'IF W st A 'PA R M A j, M, M n RECEIVED APPLICANT CONTACT,,, 3 , 15 7 A T-Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group"Inc. NOV 14 20 OPUMP -stat 2008 McG6w Avenue Jordon Di'Blase De ion Pt,of'Plannj -Irvine, CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 &Building prinQdafe 'St. Irvine, CA 92618 ATTACHMENT #3 winut-S& Aazmt-r 0-aw-o6z- REM, I VOT k- 2_2_Lof altb City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING shunt ikon Plannlngkmisikom Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 Fee$151 Wireless Permit No. aDll 05., (Zoning Letter) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WIRELESS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM This form is designed to elicit required technical information in support of an application for a new or modified permit (generally, the "Permit") for a wireless site within the City of Huntington Beach. This application is a mandatory element of the application process. No application for a new wireless site Permit or for a modification of an existing wireless site Permit shall be considered for determination of completeness until this form and required attachments are provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Every page of this form, including this page, must be completed and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach, and each page must be signed andfor initialed where indicated. Questions about this form or the required information to be provided should be directed to the Project Planner assigned to your project or to the Department of Planning and Building at(714) 536-5271 for the City of Huntington Beach. You are advised to be familiar With the City's Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, which establishes standards and guidelines for the installation of wireless communication facilities in the City of Huntington Beach, `Continue to next page> HB - 243 Item 1 ® ® 21 Prior to submittal of a wireless permit application, an address assignment shall be obtained for all freestanding wireless communications facilities. (http://www.huntinotonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Address Assignment Application 2009.pdf} 1.00: information 1,01: Project Address: 18401 SPRINGDALE ST., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 1,02: Project Assessors Parcel Number: 159-188-05 1,03: Name of Applicant(Primary Contact): APPLICANT:T-MOBILE WEST CORP / CONTACT: AMIEE WEEKS 1.04: Applicant is: Owner x Owner's Representative Other 1.05: Applicant's Address Line 1: 16460 BAKE PARKWAY SUITE 100 1.08: Applicant's Address Line 2: IRVINE, CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Phone Number: (949) 336-1550 1.08: Applicant's Mobile plumber: 1.09: Applicant's Fax Number. (949) 336-6665 1.10: Applicant's Email Address: AWEEKSC@COASTALBUSINESS GROUP.NET 1,11: Name of Property owner: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.12: Property Owner's Address Line 1: 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 1.13: Property Owner's Address Line 2: 1,14: Property Owners Phone Number: (71-4)-556-555�2r N) -7, t,�-4f,?L f If Applicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 2.01. <Continue to next Page> Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW (tern 1 . - 22 HB - 244 2.00: Project Owner Information (i.e.,carrier) 2.01: Disclose the Names, Addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers for all Project Owners (use additional sheets if required and mark as °Attachment 2.01"): 2.02: Project Owner Name (i.e., carrier or licensee): T MOBiLE WEST CORP. 2.03. Address (line 1): 2008 MCGAW AVENUE 2_04: Address (line 2): 2.05: City: IRVINE State: CA Zip: 92614 2.06: Contact Person Name: AMIEE WEEKS-COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP 2.07. Contact Person's telephone numberlextension: (949) 33 6-1550 2.08: If the Applicant is not the project owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Project Owner(s) in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.08°. Initial here AW if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 2.09. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant or Project Owner as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.09°. Initial here if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00, <Continue to next pages Page 3 of 9 Applicant Dust Initial Here: AW HB - 245 Item 1 . ® 23 3.00. Project Purpose 3.01: Justification. Provide a non-technical narrative, accompanied by written documentation where appropriate,which explains the purpose(s) of the proposed Project. Label as °Attachment 3.01." 3.02: Indicate whether the pdm@ff purpose of the Project is to add additional network capacity,to increase existing signal level, or to provide new radio frequency coverage (check only_one). Add network capacity without adding significant new RF coverage area x Increase the existing IMF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a specific area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity (such as roaming agreement with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03: If the answer in 3.02 is not"Other" proceed to 3.05. 3.04: Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the "Other" primary purpose of this project Designate this attachment, "Attachment 3.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 3.04 is attached to this application. 3.05: Provide three (3) sets of site plans, floor plans, and building elevations a maximum of 24"x 36" in size. Plans shall conform to the following applicable requirements: a. Draw to scale (minimum scale 1/80= V or 1"=30); indicate dimensions of building and floor uses; and north direction arrow. Plans shall be oriented so that north points to the top of the page. b, Plot the entire parcel and dimension all pertinent data such as easements,driveways, landscaping, parking,fencing, and distances to all property lines. c. Plot all existing and proposed physical features, fences/walls, and structures on the subject property and abutting properties. d. Dimension to the nearest intersecting street and identify all street names. e. Dimension height of all structures from the highest adjacent curb. f, Building elevations shall depict all sides of building and indicate colors and materials proposed. g. Identify the legal description of the subject property on the site plan. h. Fold all plans to a maximum size of 8-1/2"x 110 (lower right comer out). 3.05: Is the project: x Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.B.8) Completely Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96,13 2) Visible, Not Stealth Office Use Only; RL-` Cil--7 Zoning P1_-T General Plan SiVI1g6rFj E=}-TALJ1%dor Intersection DMA <Continue to next page> Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW Item 1 ® ® 24 HB - 246 4,00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps 4.01: Where the licensee intends to provide radio frequency geographic coverage to a defined area from the Project(including applicants in the cellular, PCS, broadcast, ESMR/SMR categories), the coverage maps and information requested below are required attachments. All others proceed to 5.00, For the coverage maps required here, the following mandatory requirement(s) apply: 1. The size of each submitted map must be no smaller than 8.5"by 11", and all maps must be of the same physical size, scale, and depict the same geographic area Include major streets and street names on each map. All maps must share a common color scheme. 2. If the FCC rules for any proposed radio service define a minimum radio frequency signal strength level, that level must be shown on the map in a color easily distinguishable from the base paper or transparency layer, and adequately identified by RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. If no minimum signal level is defined by the FCC rules you must indicate that in the legend of each RF coverage map. You may show other RF signal level(s) on the map so long as they are adequately identified by objective RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. 3. RF coverage maps with labels such as, "in-Building", "in-Car", and "Outdoor"or referencing a link budget without corresponding signal strengths in units of"dBm"will be rejected. 4. Where the City of Huntington Beach determines that one or more submitted maps are inadequate, it reserves the right to require that one or more supplemental maps with greater or different detail be submitted. 4.02: Map of existing RF coverage within the City of Huntington Beach on the same network. This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project. Designate this map "Attachment 4.02 Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.02 is attached to this application. 4.03 Map of RF coverage to be provided only by the Project. This map should not depict any RF coverage provided by any other existing or proposed wireless sites. Designate this map"Attachment 4.03". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.03 is attached to this application. 4.04 Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map"Attachment 4.04". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application. Office,Up,Only: Check Carrier website for coverage in vicinity Project Planner to verify gap in coverage exists Does coverage exist on carrier's website in project vicinity? '}� Yes No <Continue to next page> Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW HB - 247 Item 1 . ® 25 5.00: Project Photographs and Photo Simulations 5.01: Where an Applicant proposes to construct or modify a wireless site,the Applicant shall submit pre- project photographs, and photo simulations showing the project after completion of construction, all consistent with the following standards: 1. Minimum size of each photograph and photo simulation must be §& by I J'(portrait or landscape orientation). 2. All elements of the project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in one or more close-in photo simulations. 3. The overall project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in five or more area photographs and photo simulations. Photographs and photo simulation views must, at a minimum, be taken from widely scattered positions separated by an angle of no greater than 72 degrees from any other photo location. 4. For each photograph and photo simulation. Show on an area map the location and perspective angle of each photograph and photo simulation in relationship to the Project location. 5. All 'before'and'after' photographs and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do ftW place a smaller'before' photo in a box on the same page as a large"after"photo simulation. The number of site photographs, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photographs and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination. The Applicant must submit photographs and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photographs and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach. <Condnue to next page> Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW Item 1 . ® 26 HB - 248 6.00: Candidate Sites 6.01: For applicants in the cellular, PCS, broadcast, ESMR/SMR categories, and others as requested by the City of Huntington Beach, the information requested in Section 6 is required. All others proceed to 7.00 6.02: Has the Applicant or Owner or anyone working on behalf of the Applicant or Owner secured or attempted to secure any leases or lease-options or similar formal or informal agreements in connection with this project for any sites other than the candidate site identified in 1.01 and 1.02 Yes x No 6.03: If the answer to 6.02 is NO, proceed to 0.05. If no alternate locations are identified the project may be rejected. 6.04: Provide the physical address of each such other location, and provide an expansive technical explanation as to why each such other site was disfavored over the Project Site. Designate this attachment"Attachment 6.040 . Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application. 6.05: Considering this proposed site, is it the one and only one location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the objective of the project? x Yes No * SEE BELOW 6.06: If the answer to 6.05 is NO, provide alternate locations (list with address and map) that can meet the objective of the project. Proceed to 7.00, Note that the project may be rejected since it is not the one and only location that can meet the objective of the project. Designate this"Attachment 6.06". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.06 is attached to this application. 6.07 Provide a technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio frequency data fully describing why the proposed site Is the one and only one location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the radio frequency objectives of the project. Explain, in exact and expansive technical detail, all of the objectives of this project. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 6.0r. Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 6.07 is attached to this application. --Continue to next page> '"THIS APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT OF PENDING LITIGATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR BOLSA VIEW PARK. THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY SUBSEQUENTLY PURPORTED TO REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR BOLSA VIEW PARK. THEREFORE,THIS JS THE ONE AND ONLY REMAINING LOCATION. Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Hers: AW HB - 249 Item 1. - 27 7.00: IdentWication of Key Persons 7.01: Identify by name, title,company affiliation,work address, telephone number and extension, and email address the key person or persons most knowledgeable regarding: 7.02: (1)The site selection for the proposed project, including alternatives; 7.03: Name: DANNY_56ZERMAN 7.D4: Title: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING 7.05: Company Affiliation: T.MOPII i"1. Fgl CcnRa 7.05: Work Address: .20OR MCC Agar nVENI FTE,IRVINE, CA P2614 7.07: Telephone/ Ext: (714) 362-1433 7.08: Email Address: t)ANNY BAZERMAN@T-MOBILE COM (2)The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.09: Name: HENRY HANCOCK 7,10: Title: _RE ENGINEER 7.11: Company Affiliation: T MOBILE WEST CORP 7.12: Work Address: 2006 MCGAW AVENUE, IRVINE,CA 92614 7.13: Telephone/Ext.: (949) 813-6890 7.14: Email Address: HENRY.HANCOCKCTMOBILE.COM (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any: 7.15: Name: HENRY HANCO K 7.16. Title: ERF ENGINEER 7.17: Company Affiliation: T I4 QgILE MJFF;T coap 7.18: Work Address: 2008 bdC;-GAw AVENUE_ IRVINE CA 92614 7.19: Telephone/Ext.: ( 49) 813-6690 7.20: Email Address: (4)Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project; 7.21: Name: DANNY BAZERMAN 7.22: Title: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING .7.23, CompanyAffillation: TMOBILE WEST CORP 7.24: Work Address: 20Q8 MCGAW AVENUE, IRVINE CA 92614 725: Telephone/Ext.: ( 14)362-14B3 726: Email Address: 7.27 If more than one person is/was involved in any of the four functions identified in this section, attach a separate sheet providing the same information for each additional person, and identifying which function or functions are/were performed by each additional person. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 7.27". Initial here AW to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no attachment 7.27, or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.27 is attached to this application. <Continue to next pager Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW Item 1 . e 28 HB - 250 8.00: Form Certification 8,01: The ndersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided here are true T.art' complete to the Best of the undersigned's knowledge. ' / � J AGENT ON BEHALF OF TTMOHILE WEST CORP Signature Title AMIEE WEEKS AWEEKS@COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET Print Flame Email Address COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP (949) 336-1550 Print Co parry (Name Telephone!Number/extension Gl /16 I I, Date Signed 1 <Stop Here. End of Form.> Page 9 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here. HB - 251 Stem 1 . ® 29 Digital Submittal Requirements Design Specifications: • Shall be full size and in compliance with coordinate system o Project: Lambert o Datum: NAD83 o Units: Feet o Spheroid o GRS1980 o Parameters: 0 standard parallel 32 47 0.000 2nd standard parallel 33 53 0.000 ra central meridian -116 15 0.000 ® latitude of projection's origin 32 10 0.000 ® false easting(meters) 2000000.00000 ® false northing(meters) 500000.00000 • Shall be in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance#3809 • Submit a separate drawing file for each individual sheet • Shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names,pens color, and layering convention. Please contact the Public Works Engineering Division at(714) 375- 8444 if you have any questions regarding Huntington Beach Standard Sheets. File Format and Media Specifications: • Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred): o AutoCAD (version 2000 release 4)drawing file -.DWG o Drawing Interchange File - .DXF • Shall be in compliance with one of the following media types in DOS format: o 3.5" floppy diskettes o CD GMORMSIADDRESSFNCRAddress Assignment Application Form.doc Item 1 ® - 30 HB - 252 tit?^1.Ycn`�','m�-•'.�iv-rr;���k t �y Vk September 15, 2011 Department of Planning and Building City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Wireless Permit Application for 18401 Springdale St.,Huntington Beach Enclosed is the Wireless Permit Application Form for the City-owned Pump Station located at 18404 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach. This application is submitted as part of a proposed settlement of pending litigation between T-Mobile West Corporation,the City of Huntington Beach and the City Council. Furthermore,the City has requested that T-Mobile West Corporation submit the application at this time, despite the fact that a lease has not been finalized between the City and T-Mobile for the Pump Station site. T-Mobile West Corporation expressly reserves all of its rights in connection with this matter. Very-truly yours, jV'/ Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP, ONC. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY f) SUITE 100 c 1RVINE, CA 92618 6 POONE. 949,336.1550 FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL.: INPO@COASTAL.BUSINESSGROUP.NE'r 0 WWW,COASTALBU51NE55GROU1',NP*t HB - 253 item 1® ® 31 �1TTP�tirlYh�T a.�i lot 11 NMobilolm 2008 McGaw Ave. Irvine, CA 92614 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION T-Mobile West Corporation, the holder of an FCC license for the Los Angeles market, hereby authorizes Coastal Business Group, its agents, employees and contractors to: ® Negotiate land use agreements with owners of potential telecom sites; • Conduct necessary activities such as site design visits, radio frequency tests;and ® Apply for and obtain all land use approvals and permits, which are appropriate for the installation, construction, and continued operation of a wireless communication facility; In granting this authorization it is understood that: ® Coastal Business Group, its agents, and contractors will be licensed and insured for any work they perform; • Signing this letter does not constitute a legally binding agreement to lease the property on which Coastal Business Group performs the authorized activities. Print Name and Title: Duan Dao Real Estate and Zoning Manager Southern California Market Date: October 27, 2011 'T i.i t.i.!i 1 (tern 1 . ® 32 HB - 254 _ 4t &k rn e �� �a D �r CBG September 15, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Justification Statement Attachment 3.01 T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA To Whom It May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct, operate,and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. The proposed wireless facility will consist of the installation of 8 panel antennas, 3 ground equipment cabinets, coax cables, as well as power and Telco utility connections. The placement of the proposed wireless facility will be located and enclosed inside the City owned pump station property. The proposed wireless facility panel antennas will be concealed in a stealth 55 foot Mono-palm design. The proposed Mono-palm facility will blend in with several existing live palm trees located on the pump station property. The 3 ground equipment cabinets will be located at the base of the facility and will be enclosed and screened off by the property's existing 7 foot tall CM U wall. This particular wireless facility is proposed to replace the T-Mobile Wireless Facility that was originally approved at Bolsa View Park. This location was identified and chosen to help close a significant gap in coverage for T-Mobile customers. The placement of the facility will provide coverage for the residents, business owners,and emergency personnel in the surrounding area. The primary coverage objective for the proposed site is to provide coverage to the residential neighborhoods located to the North, East, and West of the site. As referenced on the coverage maps provided, the approval and installation of the proposed wireless facility will increase "In Building"coverage reaching streets all the way to Bankton Drive and Fallingwater Drive to the North of the site. Then reach streets near Edwards Street to the East, Silverspur Lane to the Southeast, and lastly stretching all the way to parts of PCH California 1 Highway. This site will also support and infill existing sites in the surrounding area by increasing the"in Car" and"outdoor"coverage. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY ® Su1TE 100 ® IRViNE, CA 92618 i PHONE: 949.336.1550 ® FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL: INrO@COASTALEIUSINESSGROUP.NET ® WWW•COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET HB - 255 'term 1® - 33 The proposed location was selected based on the willingness of the City of Huntington Beach to allow the installation on the pump station property, and based on the compatibility of the surrounding area which provides maximum screening of the wireless facility. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o► Ext. 3o6 or via email at awe eks@coastaIbusinessgrgLlp,n0 Regards, /4�' Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP, IMC. Item 1 . - 34 HB - 256 Huntington Beach Existing and Proposed T-Mobile Sites - WIMP Aid I—;w «m ...._ .._^JL.'A 3f T_4VZJJ`lA_...��.... 333� . _ _ . 33 817A��� LR33981.E �:A 2038A € ° ...... -- LAB {��' 'LAO� ALA ° :��" �LA'398!. , w :. -LA02914C. LA2364 `` LAB 09A..__ . ,. � -LA33299X, _ L-A0264.7,X -L•A025A L-`A?243N �Afl3099C, -L Af124 5 -- !LAO J ,'. T11- E"a T- LA02541A `" , r �- ,LA3334i#Ar _ LAU 0916A LAfl30p M€} t_A02066A , r •• ,.. �« �• Li403016A= VVI AM w A02093A .>, '> La1'-31'flSA:: ,=z �1.4i92$408 All QA�.5A (, Fit _ .. # 9 ' y -s L. `''LA02495A' - - LA02t6i1MA y '\ ,a LA02463X'' 6� p,„ ,- }, rr -;E Y �.LA02853D :<. . -, -- 20fi5 - - 1, iL MOLM jl "R � �«r ���.`�°` ?��',•'-� "�:�'cF.°°�rt:� , L ,r�F— .ice€ m� ���# � �`-- ` # LA 12089{1. 40229ti1 ;1 -" 'm r LAa2293A ; _LA02,915H _ LA02267A LA 131 T - ` A02543AivITf `^ q -L-A1_3 2C_,...W OTC_=1 ���� .. ..�=,.'f a...�..y, � .'�L per'�•;`..3 J«:=Fa f< _;: ' LA13158F3 - -LA029t! A 2$52A 'LEA a159WAtt25t7Ag SA z..• . - , LA A" LA02294A .: Owe LA r, a — LA i� `.� ° .� �� _« w�_ 3�_ £ �..,. �x L , aver age ou 'T CACk2853D' � s:'�. 1 Ave � r 'i ods` 17 d W, 49 / . % za .,, ' µ uj Ift / We, r5 �,MI/ar,d �y 5 I I•� 1, I 11 i M. /„ 1, i LAC d;l J i �\:'��f`' .::.:°' i t.Air: i,,, \ ssNN yl.Y \\ IIiJjii' ,., .Y. i�rl �t „ N "1 tee.,, "' ,�j4L;:,, i��!i,.. i'°"� �•�%, ;6-`•� ;a�i i , e °s aA , �.\.<.,li. �,. / � ',� ,^� of' w• � ��, .' ., LO If x r„ e fi�t• :\ 4 \.• ��:. Sri Aj/ ,%;,r 1°' A02;R� tr �r a i /r/. K Prediction Coverage Threshold -76 to-40 On-BuildingCommercial) -84to-76(In-Building Residential) x rc M -91 to-64(to-Car) `.. El _100to .1 (Outdoor) -200to-100 fMirnimal to None) T1klrt!rmari�r,nrc{'4r1/uYT-tl+.#IW.U�..pC, 4Akt 4h,�1C1k{ttlei5rkgf3l elrp+,46i,Itaumalwet zw1mPtl4 fit,ofti4tmO;ri+°.+111f{8I►'bIMA::iIIs it rka4ft 4t! 4IMIAASOil %"O•c ' .,kitPlera•i'arprx�eareaatrvxra.u'1I;:Im:t/clar9ewiriwtlotkx,rtma,ruchrJptxatY:aswtutttttP�IarrncYaxtajP.t�rrmatblctgtalrePaPivY�al49tl'1}f11R QW1u'Itsitdr>.*cng¢afPa,Clef?ar�aetyraitrrrs.arct:u:rNu.�h�targPt, ,,;%'' '• •"`:=Yfdfl}3V:tI1�ne.se r7V73(Yr4i]ea,-ect k wl Il01t nt,a to ma SbP sq tk,,w ii etq r pne ltvFiali,6trtG11rtz,weH1e r.aw obe r c*i(iwkl� pffof(7 "I w16�L61aI se rvl?,gtalt4'.i1damIG't7I11tf,ncrH1119 t1P mllrttb m'I'o reak;k'.a1 r FYta I trgtl calk; - "Nit- ,LY If 'Covera -LA13157G, - w "IpreO�tod" Oul -7- 4 v�! 'AMA 1.314 Wiit ll 0A f 0 > w .......... K, 101 208 ............. A­ 4 4 , q ,I k" n "I ...........;" ww'\ V i7A 11�i mot A AlK rs Corra .......... -xv Prediction Coverage Thresholds -76 to-40(In-Suilclinc q Cornmerciel) N., -84 to-76(in-Building Residential) -91 to-84(in-Car) U 81, -M 7. F 100 to-91 (OtAdoar) -200 to-100(Minimal to None) <1 ON Proposed candidate ;wa mfT-fldtftt LIC�A.heJ,,miftttitaid it IVtd*dokybftkf-tsf OfIlo NMIC 141brmMbi U StFk,*pIA", 'I.Tit("'T pr-dkk al7wimmkilaw Olt 0 aIPIaOIww-_wki_-f Itmatlictick wa7n-m thireajr ztev*mt iatfaliuf ate AA,VBUIOWOIakg+f, x,gla *114ftmtv, e 04 4 rm?it t trail 3VOU Itz,,ImAst"11(i 0'041 woortty,4S w;AfnwIII?r*W$W111 a:Aalw4k 10, 1t ',��� �� �i„i:.. } I �A•� it '.,�y\, :, r„ x AW ee k.1Cc C =-f^+ IF gg 01, ,lN i•� '/'i igv�i. �;�.1,5ro,,,� `.%r,',1i.'" i; � " > r ^, gryyp& / , c� sy. �s Yid.„ \Y" .ay.. �, - .,•5• �l �i s,, • / x, q ; „f �v _ all , w .�, r„c :.tom.%;, „�., rk k,, «,.,,i ,�,........ / /�•�... �+'-,;' :�„r �.. \ q/S i i z, iC l r x \<; ,l- ;;;�rr," •f,✓ �y. .,,//is "a� "�a p,. ,*`��.•� '��/,!O f//%li •fit k', '€. ,xx.�,,,,� ,� i`'r \i"'� \�a?. ';//, 'yam, P"„ „/ ^•e ;'% t ME 2,r�� .,.1..#+i'.'t'V( •�5 v M< / tom' r. r, f t, ;> v �hz t / r rWIMIP r "A'L ' n.: / i/ r /ra / t s��;,: \\� VVII v 4. 'fk H f' _ <��•.' 4, Pre'dictlon Coverage Thresholds . :�".. i -76to-40(In-8a1c#in Commercial) x�' g % ? K.:. .8 to-7 n- Ui 'n Residential %fif, c 4 8 I B 'idt m -91to 84 I Ca c Outdoor-91 to-100:.. Q (Outdoor) cww ✓j r' r /R : Y. r -2 t -1 (Minimal None) y,. '' �. i ab.' Proposed Oazididate tkk NSim.�IYJI.PfC{Y.fFfOfT-fdCYSIk USe-,hwk l ti'G31AItl�i1@CkdipkT�iJt1�21Lf Ut11211Arjkl/dldtti'GV'L�WIGfIi Kk i6''it Q 't tt4,41 dkE ht9)t 6ftk €Yti1M.'�t.'i Yi SII1:9j Y64h44t4.TitS M,�"+.(IE{t4.'"G AtC12�:�5tOTinA'ES 3il.�, / "� `:� S-A 1 rri#14FgGp.vwveaimoftmr3,9'ihkinziecY.iigew1hotic,**.Rinat11cifde6,awatwIbiinredoriCom,rNe.oirmg)zwimgfatitP54rou "a�avillwl eleiWbiiaW.*TrB,atfa,itrtalrtSPlCraiii7 nsicia; ifoo.ckaigei. 4'traflt.%blime,aeryl3e+llti�ts.tciit-11 rtnttlUJia"a UL,41 sit i".)oir_ag i_Ctneit 'tralt.6V lcb rea,'aL'arlP r.ii+1{RYPt CgKlttht�t ItM3p�g�($�tPV Witt A:Gai•PNU.�P. 131 dlfl a7J3R�17i1 NGttQiY 1}E�>lllift}M:'/'Y.ItGkSv,altl malYt91Y.4Ns �„� '"�"a• _._._..�._._ .. _... -- ._. ._....._._..._.__. -_. '-�- _..._ F 4 IR F, "a MA "M 14W 'af, 11 0' -A PROPOSED T "j Ar MONOPALM ' N "I" A' p- A Z A Fill 'M jg "16 W OW J F ew from the Northwest looking Southeast ""eft " "F go", A'AM"'M TV- 4'9 -4� 77-77 L I R. a. Ink RECEIVED I57L APPUCANT CONTACT NOV, 14 20 T-Mobile West Corporation f_' Coastal Business Group Inc.2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase Dept.of Pianni PPS&IMP1011 16460 Bake Parkwa y Suite 100 Buildin UM g Irvine, CA 92614 pringdale St. Irvine, CA 92618 s .i '` .:;'.. ;., .,. •y`\�,yr; ,�>�,`" < v g. r k E e e , a i r , w / m v sa. PROPOSED ; w , . >s, MC3t1tC3PALiV1 - :.. LOCATION r . H s ,v re ; ew from the Northeast looking Southwest 14 r R A. r�. ,\� •;���•. emu. max./ , „ \pa , +v` ;'/ W HIM „ry F 'I " a r mil' R evm�. '�." ✓w h ;'�i.' ✓s „ 's�.,v�vi..' ��/%rr:,✓ ;;;,� rr` '.�^N,"F;z.�..°�,a� � qz\.t� � �'�` '�tt ��', Via,,, � F r/ ,��',�rs � r�' %` ,�/� ,,�• -r \ k r„ x ..•`r"v`.»,....Y' ^a'� .nRi.t;; $e' 2,4• &a'., „/"�£ki;r, .'x',,�"i�'� a`„.,i;,,,' '�ye y $ ',;,f':✓ir, g v.,t,;,•v��q,9 &� ,��, l �'�,•\F ;%„P:w'Nm 5`N. Gov 6 'f`N ,� Y r a• f a ,v ,.,� ., emu ;, ,ye,'S �'�•F;nt 'r�" � £;>��„t• r-\t \. °�Yta \,:�y;,�,v: atT�'%, 'a."' "i,.�r;, .-a. '.:�r.:a � has; �....,:,, �«�� ,rF. �'�," •�,`d,,;i }.. B��« ty. -';`� "�,v ass-'��53 •„�:zvt� .�\..,«?, ,� ;sue :`,,� `� ' RECEIVE APPLICANT, 'CONTACT Coastal Business'Group Inc. 5 TC T-Mobile West Corporation P p Stationru 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase mp .: Irvine, CA 92614 16460 Sake Parkway Suite 100 Egy pt.ofPlannir Dr1h 1 ale S Irvine, CA 92618 uildt TTT� .,t. jig ..... m e: 's k'li gym:' ., ,• ' R i yt a ',: sr r s H 1". e' .: OSED 04 v . .; IVIQAIQPALA9 .; 9!,' '•,.., LQCA I tO .,, _ y � :."f'�>'y ,`ram"-'� �\�•� `„''.6'�" \\ `"�..�^ �. r g iew from the Northwest looking So thet /f, � � � , -, "�k, a v II a is ;;s � •<4'iz „a= a.,' '" `. a �.- %, y,.� �� y ra. f ' a _ ., sA'RY ••,�`�C-.. .;,tom ,a '.s,,,,�, 'F '"Nq, ;m� !� r .r ',mot. �' 9i-"" %:� "'�"yi-;:F�j.��.'.. ,'^i' •�`S d'" �'f���:, ..,.stir. f;. �� :�'.� ���',�'7•'�� si,:atis,�f��, �'"�"� �,,,ri%��/.,..,o�?.,,'ri' /%'sz '; 'ta:>,�/�,'y?e, �z.w„ ^> � ''�� �, /„''"��'�✓ ' ,,� ' i<i„;;;='` ��`��. ;;ai=;<� '�`"�„,��;gay �``� i 6 h'> r l a is r� .ry w 01 v rx RECEIVED 1 57, %MW APPLICANT CONTACT T iVfobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. M' s P,4�.� I Pump Station 2008 Pv'icGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase Dept, Ii Irvine, CA 92614, 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 - uildi prin.q le '' t. Irvine, CA 92618 ."C", .-' A44 D-7 September 15, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Justification as to why this Candidate was chosen Attachment 6.07 T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To Whom it May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp selected the proposed location for the wireless facility,as it is the best location available when considering the needs of the network, land use patterns of the area,willingness of the landlord to work with the carrier,and zoning code requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. The primary coverage objective for the proposed site is to provide coverage to the residential neighborhoods located to the North, East,and West of the site. The placement of the facility will provide coverage for the residents, business owner, and emergency personnel in the surrounding area. As the number of T-Mobile customers within the network increase the coverage area of the existing sites decreases creating areas where it is difficult to place calls or stay connected. The residential area surrounding the proposed site suffers from this gap in coverage. The proposed facility will increase signal strength and network capacity in this residential neighborhood as well as surrounding areas adjacent to the site, This increase in network coverage will help to serve the communication needs of the residents, business owners, visitors,and workers within the City, The coverage maps provided show the existing network coverage and the proposed increased coverage with the addition of this wireless facility. This location was also selected to replace the T-Mobile wireless facility that was originally approved at Bolsa View Park.The proposed location was selected based on the willingness of the City of Huntington Beach to allow the installation on the pump station property, and based on the compatibility of the surrounding area which provides maximum screening of the wireless facility. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY E SUITE 100 C IRVINE, CA 92618 ° PHONE: 949.336.1SSO �' FAX; 949.336.6665 E-MAIL.: INFO@COASTAL.BUSINESSGROIJP.NE7 €: WWW.COASTALBUSINESSGROIJP.NET Item 1 . - 42 HB - 264 After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o, Ext. Sob or via email at aweeks@coa.s'talbusinessgrQup.net Regalds, I'A� !�.� Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP, iwr-. HB - 265 Item 1 . m 43 Attachment #4 — Public Comments is located as a separate e-packet attachment HB - 266 ATTACHMENT #41, January 5, 2012 Members of the City Council C/o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: I am writing to oppose the applications of T-Mobile for a coastal development permit, conditional use permit and wireless facility permit ("WP") in connection with T-Mobile's desire to construct a 55-foot cell phone tower in a residential neighborhood at the Springdale Pump Station. My family lives at 5952 Littlefield Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92648. I estimate that the proposed tower location is 92 feet from my rear deck, 105 feet from my bedroom window and 105 feet from my daughter's bedroom window. For all of the reasons discussed below, I am convinced the City has failed to consider adequately the environmental risks associated with placing the proposed tower next to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. I also believe there are alternative, non-residential sites that would be less obtrusive and still sufficient to avoid purported gaps in T-Mobile's service (if any even exist). The City Council has an obligation to me and my neighbors to investigate and consider such alternatives fully before approving the Springdale Pump Station location. Environmental Concerns: The City has been embroiled in litigation with T-Mobile for a number of years. I understand there is a settlement agreement (attached to this letter as Exhibit A) that provides T-Mobile will dismiss its lawsuit against the City over this tower if the Council votes to approve the Springdale Pump Station location. The settlement agreement further provides that the tower will not actually be constructed"unless and until the City Council approves a CUP and any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act." (Ex. A, Section I.) The CUP is set for a vote January 9, 2012, but so far, the City has done no "related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act." On 12/13/11 I asked the City to provide copies of documents reflecting any such review, and 1 I was told none existed. (I have attached these emails reflecting these communications as Exhibit B.) (Note requested again on January 3, 2012—Exhibit C.) On December 25, 2011, 1 received notice of the January 9 hearing. That written notice says that T-Mobile's permit applications are all "categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act." (The notice is attached as Exhibit D.) The notice does not specify on which particular exemption the City is relying. I am not a CEQA expert, but I skimmed listings of categorical exemptions published on-line (http://ceres.ca.gov/cecla/flowchart/exemptions/categorical.html) and I did not see any exemption applicable to new, 55-foot cell phone towers located adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The City was closed the week between Christmas and New Years, but on January 3, 2012 I asked the City to identify the categorical exemption that the City contends applies. I received a response that: "The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which states that the installation of new equipment and structures in urbanized areas zoned for such use and not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services facilities are made available is exempt from further environmental review. The project involves the installation of a new wireless communication facility including associated support equipment on an existing developed site containing a partially enclosed and secured City pumping station. Furthermore, the project site is located adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which is identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Staff contacted the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service who identified that the proposed wireless communication facility would not result in the proliferation of avian bird species to the area. As a result, the proposed design will not disturb the adjacent habitat and therefore the project can be determined to be exempt from CEQA. In addition, T-Mobile has indicated to staff that the monopole may be designed in a manner that will safely deter local avian bird species from perching." I called Andrew Gonzalez, HB Planning & Building Dept. that day for explanation and he said he CALLED the Dept. of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. After being transferred several times in order to get to the correct person he talked to a staff"turf biologist" at both agencies. Chris Medick at the US Fish and Wildlife Carlsbad ecological office and Matthew Chirdon of the Dept. of Fish and Game told Andrew that this project was exempt from the CEQA and gave the explanations below. But when Andrew said he would send an email for them to reply as written confirmation they "took a step back" and did not want to commit in writing. (This was all by phone conversation. I asked him to send these names to me by email and he said he would later.) (I have attached emails dated January 3, 2012 reflecting these communications as Exhibit E and F.) 2 In reference to "the proposed wireless communication facility would not result in the proliferation of avian bird species to the area", the explanation was: The concern could be that birds would actually WANT to roost on the cell tower and would be attracted away from the nearby wetlands (which is not good for them in the long run). This could potentially result in"proliferation" (I'm unclear if this means just by recruiting nearby birds or by this together with nesting/ procreation.) (Note that this also would make the tower more of a nuisance but has nothing to do with CEQA exemption.) This is why Andrew also included the next paragraph in his explanation for the City's determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA: "In addition, T-Mobile has indicated to staff that the monopole may be designed in a manner that will safely deter local avian bird species from perching." Is that part of the proposed design? Is the City going to require the tower be designed in that manner? I found nothing in the permit applications referencing anything about design to deter bird perching. Saying it's possible if it is not REQUIRED is not helpful. This whole explanation for exemption seems ludicrous to me, although I admit I'm not a CEQA expert. How do you know if there could be an environmental impact without even a cursory study? My neighbor, Gay Infanti, has had previous conversations with a Fish and Game Biologist in the area. She stated that it would take an environmental study and she could in no way quickly make such a determination without extensive research. Did they consider the impact of the noise on the adjacent habitat? What information were they given about the noise? What about the height of the tower? Were they told about the nesting raptors less than 50 feet from the proposed tower? Were they told about the very close proximity to the nearby pond in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve which is the home of numerous migratory birds? If this proposed tower is not categorically exempt (and I remain unconvinced that it is), then the City is required to at least perform an initial study prior to approving T-Mobile's permits in order to assess the potential for adverse environmental impacts. Making a few phone calls does not fulfill this obligation. If such a study were undertaken, it appears there are a wealth of studies that expert biologists would need to consider. I have attached as Exhibit G the bibliography to a report posted by the American Bird Conservancy on-line with literally hundreds of articles discussing how communications towers are deadly to birds. The research comes from reputable sources such as the National Audubon Society and university departments of ornithology. Indeed, the American Bird Conservancy sued the FCC over the threat to birds created by communication towers. The American Bird Conservancy won an order that the FCC was required to give change certain procedures in connection with the construction of communication towers to ensure full public participation in evaluating the potential 3 impacts on migratory birds. American Bird Conservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008). That lawsuit was fought under a federal law requiring environmental review (the National Environmental Policy Act or"NEPA"), but I believe CEQA imposes similarly environmental review requirements on cities. (An Internet article about this decision is attached as Exhibit H.) The U.S. Department of the Interior has even published guidelines for locating communication towers (copy attached as Exhibit I). These guidelines say, "Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration area (e.g., State of Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat of threatened or endangered species." (Guidelines #4.) The tower at the proposed Springdale Pump Station location will be immediately adjacent to wetlands that are also a State refuge. (See map attached as Exhibit J.) There are migratory birds and endangered species at the Bolsa Chica wetlands. The Bolsa Chica Conservancy has published on its website (http://bolsachica.or�-Y/Birders/index.htmi) an extensive list of such species observed at the wetlands. While I understand that these federal guidelines may,not be legal requirements, the fact that the U.S. Department of the Interior recommends against doing the very thing presently under consideration by the City should give the City some pause—especially since the City has conducted no advanced environmental review that would allow the City to safely conclude the proposed tower will not negatively impact birds at the wetlands. The wetlands are an important tourist attraction in Huntington Beach, and the City should not approve the construction of a tower that may harm the wetlands unless and until the City completes an environmental review to support its decision. Community Concerns: The members of the City Council should not let the threat of more lawsuits from T- Mobile cow them into failing to protect the natural resources at Bolsa Chica and the tranquility of my neighborhood near the Springdale Pump Station. The Council is well within its rights to reject T-Mobile's permit applications. The City's notice states that the standard for approving a WP is"to demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service." (Exhibit D) T-Mobile has not presented persuasive evidence that there are any service gaps. To the contrary, citizens with T-Mobile service for their cell phones have driven around the relevant areas of the City, and they maintained coverage. Standard cell coverage in the proposed coverage area is good according to T-Mobile's own on-line coverage map. As indicated in T-Mobile's wireless permit application, this map was used by the city to verify that coverage in the proposed coverage area is good to moderate (Exhibit K, WP Application 2011-052, Section 4.04). Again, there has been no evidence provided by T- Mobile that a significant gap in service exists to justify the proposed WCF. 4 Furthermore, this residential setting is not the least obtrusive site where there are non- residential sites available. I am aware of the earlier vote not to situate this tower in Bolsa View Park, but surely the City Council must realize that if voters do not want cell phone towers where children play occasionally, voters absolutely do not want cell phone towers were children play all the time (which is what the proposed Springdale location is—right next to bedrooms and yards in a residentially-zoned area). Despite the intent to disguise the tower as a palm tree, the tower is aesthetically inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and adjacent wetlands. Birders should have a natural vista when they look to the treetops—not a view of a mechanical tower sticking up above the tree line. At the earlier community meeting on November 16, 2011, Danny Bazerman, Regional Direct Operations & Engineering at T-Mobile, advised that the proposed tower will cause a constant humming noise. Indeed, the permit application page 1 (Exhibit K) under noise says "60 CNEL". This means Community Noise Equivalent Level which is about 60 dB or about the same as a "dishwasher on rinse cycle from 10 foot away"or a "large transformer at 100 feet away". A "quiet cul-de-sac" is about 50dB (which because of the logarithmic scale is half as quiet as 60 dB). This is consistent with the reported experience of other people living near cell phone towers (see 1/24/10 Internet article attached as Exhibit L describing buzzing sound heard by residents of Portland, Oregon). Some people have even recorded the noise and posted the recordings on You Tube (such as http://www.voutube.condwatch?v=-EGcHolliB7A). A location at a commercial site would not force me and my neighbors to have constant noise pollution in our homes (and indeed excellent alternative sites like this have been suggested). Note that one of the main reasons local homeowners bought in this area in the first place was precisely because it is so quiet. There will be additional noise and traffic when the big trucks drive into my neighborhood to maintain the proposed tower. Any workers on the tower will be able to see into my bedroom window. T-Mobile is essentially asking for permission to run a commercial activity in a residential zone about 100 feet from my bedroom. Houses located next to cell phone towers experience a decline in market value. I personally talked to realtors about my situation, and two opinion letters are attached as Exhibits M and N. I also looked at the website of a citizen group in Palo Alto that cites numerous studies supporting the drop in property values (printout attached as Exhibit O). It is not fair to raise revenue for the City overall at the particular expense of those homeowners located near the tower. Again, if the City could only find a location outside of a residential neighborhood(which undoubtedly the City could if it seriously looked), then none of these issues would be a problem. I agree with all of the points made in the Infanti letter dated 1/3/11 (see http://springdalecelltower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Letter-to-City- Council Final 010312 signed.pdf). I did not repeat many of the arguments made in their letter in order not to be redundant. Many Hunting Beach voters agree with me that a residential neighborhood is no place for a cell phone tower. Please side with us the 5 residents against the corporate interest of T-Mobile and vote "no" on T-Mobile's applications. Respectfully submitted, Richard and Shelley Chacon 5952 Littlefield Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement Exhibit B - Request Info from City 12/13/11 Exhibit C - Request for EIR and report info 1/3/12 Exhibit D -Notice - HB City Council Meeting January 9, 2012 Exhibit E - Response to CEQA exemption question Exhibit F - Response to Fish & Game question Exhibit G - Bibliography to a report posted by the American Bird Conservancy Exhibit H - American Bird Conservancy sues the FCC Exhibit I - Guidelines for locating communication towers Exhibit J - Huntington Beach Zoning Map Exhibit K- Spiringdale Pump Station- Entitlement&Wireless Permit Applications Exhibit L - Buzzing sound heard by residents of Portland, Oregon Exhibit - Ives Real Estate Letter.pdf Exhibit N - Debbie Neugebauer letter.pdf Exhibit O - Drop in Property Values 6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL,RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release(the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and among the City of Huntington Beach (the"City") and T-Mobile West Corporation ("T-Mobile"). The City and T-Mobile are referred to herein individually as a"Party"and collectively as"the Parties." This Agreement is made pursuant to the following terms and conditions: RECITALS A. On August 14, 2007 and September 7, 2007,the City issued T-Mobile Wireless Permits pursuant to the City Zoning Code authorizing installation and operation of telecommunications facilities ("Wireless Telecommunications Facilities")at two City-owned parks in the City of Huntington Beach: (1) 16600 Saybrook Lane;Huntington Beach, California, also known.as Huntington Harbour Garden Club Park("Harbour View"), and (2) 5741 Brighton Drive,Huntington Beach, California, also known as Bolsa View Park("Balsa View"). B. On January 20, 2009, the City Council approved Site License Agreements with T- Mobile with respect to the installation and operation of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Harbour View and Bolsa View. On April 1,2009,the City issued building permits to T-Mobile with respect to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Harbour View and Bolsa View. C. Section 612 of the Huntington Beach City Charter ("Measure C") provides that voter approval is required before any structure with a total construction valuation of more than $100,000 maybe built in any City-owned park. After the building permits were issued for the Harbour View Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and the Bolsa View Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,the City took the positions that the total construction value for each of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities exceeded $100,000. Consequently,the City suspended T-Mobile's authority to construct the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities until voter approval was obtained. D. In response,T-Mobile Bled the suit entitled Omnipoint Communications,Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, United States District Court for the Central District of California,.Case No. CV-09-3777,which alleged that the Federal Telecommunications Act (the"Act")preempts the voter approval requirement of Measure C. E. The City moved to dismiss the Complaint, contending that proprietary decisions of local government regarding its own property are outside the scope of the Act. The Court .denied the motion by way of its October 8, 2009 Minute Order. The parties then filed cross- motions for partial summary judgment, which resulted in the July 9,2010 Order of the District finding that the Act preempts Measure C. As part of that same Order,the District Court then "[gave] the city ... a chance to either grant the permits or articulate in writing the basis of denial in a way that comports with the Act." 1 . DWT 18330406v10048172-000388l72017.DOC F. On August 30, 2010,the City Council revoked the Wireless Permits. G. On November 12, 2010,the District Court entered judgment in favor of T-Mobile with respect to its claim for declaratory judgment as set out in the July 9,2010 Summary Judgment Order. H. On December 1,2010,the City appealed the Judgment, and on December 10, .2010,T-Mobile filed a cross-appeal of the Judgment. Together,the appeals are entitled Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 10-56877 and 10-56944. (For purposes of this Agreement,District Court Case No.CV-09-3777,and the related Ninth Circuit appeals will be referred to as"T-Mobile I.") 1. Prior to the District Court issuing the Judgment in T-Mobile I,T-Mobile filed on September 29,2010, a lawsuit to challenge the revocation of the Wireless Permits, entitled T- Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach,Case No. CV 10-1471 ("T-Mobile IT'). For purposes of this Agreement,,T-Mobile I and T-Mobile Hwill be referred to as the"Actions." J. The Parties have vigorously litigated the Actions. The Parties now wish to avoid the expense,delay and uncertainty of litigation and to settle the disputes among them. K. The basis of the Settlement is to permit T-Mobile to locate the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at alternative sites,with the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities being located at the Huntington Harbour Mall; 16897 Algonquin,Huntington Beach, California(the"Mall") in place of Harbour View, and the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities being located at the City-owned,Bolsa Chica Flood Control Pump Station, 18401 Springdale Street,Huntington Beach(the"Pump Station") in place of Bolsa View. L. The Parties acknowledge that T-Mobile's ability to obtain leases for either the Mall or the Pump Station is dependent on discretionary decisions of the Mall owner and the Huntington Beach City Council,respectively. The City makes no commitment that either Lease will be agreed to. M. The Parties further acknowledge that even if T-Mobile obtains the leases for the Mall and the Pump Station,the City Council must'approve a conditional use permit("CUP") pursuant to the Zoning Code for each site and that notwithstanding any term or condition of this Agreement,the City Council retains its full discretion to deny either or both CUPs. N. Given the multiple discretionary decisions involved in this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree that if only one site is fully approved,then T-Mobile will withdraw and release its claims against the City regarding the relocated site from the Actions, and only prosecute the Actions as to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities that-was not relocated. 2 DWT 18330406v1 0048172-000388/72017.DOC AGREEMENT For and in consideration of the commitments made herein, City and T-Mobile agree as follows: I. Settlement Does Not Bind Or Commit The Future Actions Of The Huntington Beach City Council. Neither the Mall nor Pump Station Antenna may be constructed unless and until the City Council has approved a CUP and any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. By entering into this Agreement,the City only agrees to present CUP applications for the Antennas to the City Council for approval. City Staff retains its discretion to recommend denial of the applications,and the City Council retains its discretion to deny the applications. Neither of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall-be approved until the City and the City Council has followed all legally required procedures. . II. Continuance Of The Actions Is A Condition Precedent To This Agreement. 1. Presently, trial is scheduled to begin in T-Mobile Hon December 6,2011. As of the date of this Agreement, it appears that the earliest that the City Council will be able to consider approval of the CUP and Lease for the Pump Station Antenna is December 6,2011. The date by which the City Council will be able to consider the Mall Antenna is uncertain, because the Mall Owner has yet to agree to the necessary Lease. Consequently,the City Council likely will not be able to consider the Mall CUP until early 2012, assuming that the Mall owner and T-Mobile agree to a Lease. 2. The Parties acknowledge that the Settlement of the Actions cannot be completed unless and until the Court continues the trial of T-Mobile II. 3. The Parties shall immediately ask the Court to continue or stay T-Mobile I1to allow this Agreement to be effectuated. The Court shall retain jurisdiction until: (a)all permits and approvals to install and operate the Antennas have been issued; (b)the Antennas have been fully constructed;and(c) the time for legal challenge to the approvals for the Antennas has expired. 4. If the Court should fail to grant the continuance or stay, or grant it in a manner that either Party finds unacceptable, either Party terminate this Agreement. By way of separate letter agreement, Counsel for the Parties may modify this termination provision in response to the actions of the Court. III. The Mall. 1. The City,through its Staff, shall provide its assistance in obtaining the agreement by the Owner of the Mall to enter into a lease with T-Mobile to install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall. 2. If and when T-Mobile obtains the necessary authorization from the Mall owner to apply to the City for land use approval of the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, 3 DwT 18330406v10048172-000388/72017.DOC T-Mobile shall promptly apply to the City for the necessary CUP. The City shall not charge T- Mobile any fees in connection with the permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall, except its out-of-pocket expenses of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars($750.00). 3. Once T-Mobile submits a CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,the City,through its Staff,shall conduct a public meeting to present the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall to the neighboring community. 4. Within seven (7)weeks of T-Mobile submitting a CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, City Staff shall cause to be noticed a public hearing before the City Council to consider the CUP. 5. If the City approves the CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,and the time for filing any legal challenge to the approval has expired,then T-Mobile shall as soon as reasonably possible,remove the vault and shoring at Harbour View. The City shall then, at its own expense, demolish or cover the base,backfill the hole,repair the irrigation, oversee the turf area and provide any other landscaping the City wishes. T-Mobile shall leave the utilities in place. IV. The Pump Station. r 1. The Parties have preliminarily agreed to the terms of a Lease to locate Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Pump Station. T4te+ease-is-teaehpd to this A l ibit—*.T-Mobile agrees to promptly execute the Lease immediately upon approval of this Agreement by the Huntington Beach City Council. The City Council shall consider whether to approve the Lease concurrently when it considers whether to approve a CUP for the Pump Station Antenna. By entering into this Agreement,the City retains its discretion to reject the Pump Station Lease. 2. Promptly upon both Parties executing this Agreement, T-Mobile shall apply to the City for a CUP for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The City shall not charge T-Mobile any fees in connection with the permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or lease for the Pump Station, except its out-of-pocket expenses of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars($750.00). 3. Once T-Mobile submits a CUP application, City, through its staff, shall schedule a public meeting to present the Pump Station Antenna to the neighboring community. 4. Within seven(7)weeks of T-Mobile submitting a CUP application for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,City Staff shall cause to be noticed a public hearing before the City Council to consider the CUP. V. Effect Of Settlement If Neither Antenna Is Approved, Or Only One Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Is Approved. 1. If despite T-Mobile's good faith efforts, it is unable to enter into a lease with the owner of the Malt allowing T-Mobile to install and operate Wireless Telecommunications 4 DWT 18330406vl 0048172-000388n2017.D0C Facilities at the Mall on terms acceptable to T-Mobile, then this Agreement shall be null,and void as to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall. 2. Should the City Council approve the CUP and Lease for the Pump Station,but deny the CUP for the Mall, then T-Mobile agrees to file all necessary pleadings to withdraw and release its claims concerning Bolsa View from.the Actions. Further,the Parties agree that T- Mobile may either resume litigating the Actions regarding Harbour View, or that it will dismiss with prejudice the Actions and instead file a new action in either State or Federal Court to . challenge the City's decision to deny the CUP for the Mall. Alternatively, if T-Mobile chooses to resume litigating the Actions regarding Harbour View, it agrees to waive and not pursue any claims it may possess regarding the Mall site. 3. Should the Mall owner enter into a lease with T-Mobile,and the City.Council approve the CUP for the Mall,but the City denies the CUP or Lease for the Pump Station,then T-Mobile agrees to file all pleadings necessary to withdraw its claims concerning Harbour View' from the Actions. Further, T-Mobile agrees that it will not file any actions in either State or Federal Court to challenge the City's decision to deny the CUP and/or Lease for the Pump Station. Rather,T-Mobile may proceed to litigate the Actions only regarding the Bolsa View site. 4. If T-Mobile is only able to obtain full approval of the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and then pursues the Actions as to the denied Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ,then the claim for costs of the Party that prevails in the Actions as to the rejected Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall be reduced by one-half for the time between initial filing of the Actions through the date the Actions were recommenced after this Agreement was executed. 5. If(1) T-Mobile is unable to obtain a Lease with the Mall Owner or the City Council denies approval of the Mall CUP; and(2)the City Council denies approval of the Pump Station Lease and/or the Pump Station CUP,then this Agreement terminates and shall be of no force and effect. VI. Release If Both Mall And Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Approved. In the event that both the.CUPs and Leases are agreed to for the Mall and Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Parties agree to a full release of their claims,as set forth below: 1. In consideration of the recitals, covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, each Party to this Agreement hereby irrevocably and unconditionally mutually release and forever discharge each other and each of their respective trusts,trustees, successors, assigns, executors and administrators, agents,employees, representatives, attorneys, principals, affiliates, and all persons acting by, 5 DWT 183304460 0048172-000388J72017.DOC through,under or in concert with any of them, or any of them, of and from any and all claims, demands,actions, causes of action, suits, liens,debts, obligations,promises, agreements,costs, damages, liabilities, and judgments of any kind,nature,or amount whether in law or equity, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated,liquidated or unliquidated, including any and all claimed or unclaimed compensatory damages,consequential damages, interest,costs, expenses and fees (including reasonable or actual attorneys' fees), arising from or related to the events as described in the Actions. 2. To effect a full and complete release as described above,the Parties expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits afforded to them by Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and do so understanding and acknowledging the significance and consequence of such specific waiver of Section 1542. Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California provides as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." Thus, notwithstanding the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542, and for the purpose of implementing a full and complete release and discharge of the Parties, the Parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is intended to include in its effect,without limitation, all claims which they do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of execution hereof, and this Agreement contemplates the extinguishment of any such claims. The Parties warrant that they have each read this Agreement, including this waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542, and that they understand the Agreement and the Section 1542 waiver, and so freely and knowingly enter into this Agreement. The Parties each acknowledge that it may hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those it knows or now believes.to be true with respect to the matters released or described in this Agreement,and they agree that the releases and agreements notwithstanding any later discovery of any such different or additional facts. The Parties each hereby assumes any and all risk of any mistake in connection with the true facts involved in the matters,disputes,or controversies described herein or with regard to any facts which are now unknown to them relating thereto. 3. The Actions shall be dismissed,with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees and costs. 4. Each Party shall each bear its own costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, including those incurred in connection with the Action or the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. In the event of any proceedings to enforce this Agreement,the prevailing Party shall be entitled, in addition to any other appropriate relief,to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. 6 DWT 18330406v1 0048172-000388172017.DOC VII. General Terms and Conditions. 1. If T-Mobile obtains a Lease and CUP for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Site License Agreement for Harbour View is terminated, and the City shall- refund all rent or other payments made by T-Mobile pursuant to the Site License Agreement. If T-Mobile obtains a Lease and CUP for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Site License Agreement for Harbour View is terminated, and the City shall refund all rent or other payments made by T-Mobile pursuant to the Site License Agreement. 2. All parties acknowledge and warrant that their respective execution of this Agreement is free and voluntary. 3. . It is understood and agreed that this Agreement and the consideration set forth herein effect the settlement of claims which are denied and contested, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party of any liability of any kind to any Party to this Agreement or any other person, and such liability is expressly denied. 4. This Agreement constitutes and contains the entire Agreement and understanding concerning this subject matter between the Parties and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations,proposed agreements or agreements,written or oral. Each of the Parties acknowledges that no other Party or'any agent or attorney of any other Party made any promise, representation or warranty whatsoever,express or implied,or oral, not contained in this Agreement, concerning its subject matter to induce any Party to execute this Agreement,and each of the Parties acknowledges that it/he/she has not executed this Agreement in reliance on any promise,representation or warranty that is not contained in this Agreement. 5. The Parties each acknowledge that they have had a full and unhindered opportunity to consult with legal, accounting, financial,tax and planning consultants of their own choosing before entering into this Agreement. 6. The Parties represent that they have not heretofore assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer,to any person or entity, any claim or other matter herein related. 7. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California, and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced.and governed under the laws of the State of California. 8. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings of any kind whatsoever, whether written, oral,express,implied or otherwise, between City and T-Mobile, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and must be signed and dated by all of the Parties, and must explicitly state that it is intended to be an amendment to or modification of this Agreement. 9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 10. The Agreement may be executed in counterparts and all such counterparts taken collectively shall constitute one agreement. 7 DWT 18330406v10048172-000388n2017.DOC 11. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission or estoppel on the part of any Party as to any matter,including the legal necessity of the permitting process specified in this Agreement. This Agreement may not be introduced into evidence in any action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding to enforce the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement. C1T'Y Op kGTON BEACH November 21,2011 Dated: l�cxf ya l ,2011 By: 1t CITY COUNC OF THE CITY OF HUNTING ACH November 2172011 Dated: VaWrI// 2011 By: Its: l j T BIL ST CO ORATION Dated: October ,2011 y: , The undersigned attorneys at law for each of threspective Parties rep resent that they have fully explained this Agreement to their respective clients,who have acknowledged an understanding of these terms and conditions and the legal effect thereof. JENNIFER McGRA.TH, City Attorney Dated: By: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach DAMS GHT TREM LLP Dated: October----,2011. By: 1Vlartin L. Finern Attorneys for T-Mobile West Corporation 8 DWT 18330406YI 0048272-00038OR2017.DOC Wednesday,January 4, 2012 1:43 PM Subject: RE: Settlement Agreement with T-Mobile Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:23 AM From: Field, Scott<sfield@surfcity-hb.org> To: Shelley Chacon<shelleyhb@socal.rr.com> Cc: Bob Hall <bhall@surfcity-hb.org>, "McGrath,Jennifer" <jmcgrath@surfcity-hb.org>, "Gonzales, Andrew" <AGonza les@surfcity-hb.org> Just call me Scott; there is nothing honorable about me. I will get back to you on the first item. The last two don't yet exist. Typically they are released after the notices for the public hearings are mailed. Mr. Gonzales can provide these to you when they become public. As to the application, Andrew, would you please provide, it to Ms. Chacon. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach, CA (714) 536-5662 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, is CONFIDENTIAL, and protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. From: Shelley Chacon [mailto:shelleyhb@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:33 PM To: Field, Scott Subject: Re: Settlement Agreement with T-Mobile Honorable Scott Field, Thank you so much for this document and fast response! It is very helpful. (As an aside, on Page 7 VII 1. I think the 5th line of paragraph should read: BOLSA View (not Harbor View) is terminated,) Page 1 of 3 Could you also send me a copy of 1. The proposed lease with T Mobile for the pump station site (referenced in Settlement Agreement IV (1)) 2. T Mobile's application for a CUP (conditional use permit) for the pump station site (referenced in Settlement Agreement IV (2)) 3. City staff reports/analysis concerning whether to recommend approval or denial of the lease or CUP application 4. For the pump station site, "any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act" (referenced in Settlement Agreement I) Thank you so much for your time, Respectfully, Shelley Chacon On 12/13/11 12:09 PM, "Field, Scott" <sfield@surfcity-hb.org> wrote: Ms. Chacon, As requested, here is the Settlement Agreement between the City and T Mobile Scott Field Assistant City Attorney City of Huntington Beach, CA (714) 536-5662 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Page 2 of 3 This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, is CONFIDENTIAL, intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed. It also may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or his or her designated agent is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify SCOTT FIELD immediately by calling collect at 714-536-5555 and destroying the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, printing them or saving them to an electronic medium. Thank you. Page 3 of 3 Thursday,January 5, 2012 8:36 AM Subject: Cell Tower information request Date:Tuesday,January 3, 2012 4:48 PM From:Shelley Chacon <shelleyhb@socal.rr.com> To: "Gonzales, Andrew" <AGonzales@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: "Field,Scott" <sfield@surfcity-hb.org> Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Andrew, Per Scott Field' s prior email, the items below would not be ready until the official public notices were sent. Since this has been done would you kindly send the following to me: 1 . City staff reports/analysis concerning whether ' to recommend approval or denial of the lease or CUP application 2 . For the pump station site, "any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act" (referenced in Settlement Agreement I) . Shelley Chacon 5952 Littlefield Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 714 ) 642-6239 Page 1 of 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028MIREL-ESS PERMIT NO. 2011-052 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY} ARplicant: Amiee Weeks— Coastal Business Group Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach Request: CDP: To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping station. CUP: To permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obstrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street— Springdale Pump Station) Project Planner: Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item #1 is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-015, filed on 11l14l11 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5, 2011 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and 1\nas9\user dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFr AGENDAS\PH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facillty).doc Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your wriften communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 b"://huntingionbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ hftp://Www.hunti.ngtonbeachca.gov/ Unasl\user dirslhbit\EsparzaPIDRAFT AGENDASTH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc Thursday,January 5, 2012 9:04 AM Subject: RE: Information request re: Proposed Cell Tower Date:Wednesday,January 4, 2012 9:16 AM From:Gonzales,Andrew<AGonzales@surfcity-hb.org> To: Shelley Chacon <shelleyhb@socal.rr.com> Cc: "Field, Scott" <sfield@surfcity-hb.org>, Bob Hall <bhall@surfcity-hb.org> Shelley, This following statement is verbatim from the City' s RCA which you will be obtaining a copy shortly. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which states that the installation of new equipment and structures in urbanized areas zoned for such use and not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services facilities are made available is exempt from further environmental review. The project involves the installation of a new wireless communication facility including associated support equipment on an existing developed site containing a partially enclosed and secured City pumping station. Furthermore, the project site is located adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which is identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Staff contacted the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service who identified that the proposed wireless communication facility would not result in the proliferation of avian bird species to the area. As a result, the proposed design will not disturb the adjacent habitat and therefore the project can be determined to be exempt from CEQA. In addition, T-Mobile has indicated to staff that the monopole may be designed in a manner that will safely deter local avian bird species from perching. Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office - 714 . 374 . 1547 Fax - 714 .374. 1540 agonzales@surfcity-hb.org P Please consider the environment before printing this message -----Original Message----- From: Shelley Chacon [mailto: shelleyhb@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9 : 12 AM To: Gonzales, Andrew Cc: Field, Scott; Hall, Bob Subject: Information request re: Proposed Cell Tower Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Page 1 of 2 Andrew, The notice of the Public Hearing regarding Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) stated that "Item 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. " What categorical exemption(s) (Code section or Calif. Code of Regulation name and #) is being asserted to apply in this case? Shelley Chacon 5952 Littlefield Dr. Hunt. Bch, CA 92648 Page 2 of 2 Thursday,January 5, 2012 9:11 AM Subject: RE: Information request re: Proposed Cell Tower Date: Wednesday,January 4, 2012 1:45 PM From: Gonzales,Andrew<AGonzales@surfcity-hb.org> To: Shelley Chacon <shelleyhb@socal.rr.com> Shelley, The confirmation by both agencies were done through phone conversations only. Both agencies were willing to solicit their determinations, but did not want to do so in writing. Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office - 714 .374 . 1547 Fax - 714 .374 . 1540 agonzales@surfcity-hb.org P Please consider the environment before printing this message -----Original Message----- From: Shelley Chacon [mailto: shelleyhb@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04 , 2012 1 :33 PM To: Gonzales, Andrew Subject: Re: Information request re: Proposed Cell Tower Andrew, See 2nd paragraph below: "Furthermore, the project site is located adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands which is identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Staff contacted the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service" Who contacted whom? By letter, email or phone? Would you kindly provide a copy of any/all correspondence ( letter or email) . Shelley On 1/4/12 9 : 16 AM, "Gonzales, Andrew" <AGonzales@surfcity-hb.org> wrote: > Shelley, > This following statement is verbatim from the City' s RCA which you will be > obtaining a copy shortly. > The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the > California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class > 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which states that Page 1 of 3 the > installation of new equipment and structures in urbanized areas zoned for such > use and not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous > substances, where all necessary public services facilities are made available > is exempt from further environmental review. The project involves the > installation of a new wireless communication facility including associated > support equipment on an existing developed site containing a partially > enclosed and secured City pumping station. > Furthermore, the project site is located adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands > which is identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Staff > contacted the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service > who identified that the proposed wireless communication facility would not > result in the proliferation of avian bird species to the area. As a result, > the proposed design will not disturb the adjacent habitat and therefore the > project can be determined to be exempt from CEQA. In addition, T-Mobile has > indicated to staff that the monopole may be designed in a manner that will > safely deter local avian bird species from perching. > Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner > City of Huntington Beach > Planning & Building Department > 2000 Main Street > Huntington Beach, CA 92648 > Office - 714 . 374 . 1547 > Fax - 714 . 374 . 1540 > agonzales@surfcity-hb.org > P Please consider the environment before printing this message > -----Original Message----- • From: Shelley Chacon [mailto:shelleyhb@socal.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 04 , 2012 9 : 12 AM > To: Gonzales, Andrew > Cc: Field, Scott; Hall, Bob > Subject: Information request re: Proposed Cell Tower > Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner > City of Huntington Beach > Planning & Building Department > 2000 Main Street > Huntington Beach, CA 92648 > Andrew, > The notice of the Public Hearing regarding Coastal Permit No. Page 2 of 3 > 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 > (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) stated that "Item 1 is > categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental > Quality Act. " > What categorical exemption( s) (Code section or Calif. Code of Regulation > name and #) is being asserted to apply in this case? > Shelley Chacon > 5952 Littlefield Dr. > Hunt. Bch, CA 92648 Page 3 of 3 REFERENCES SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Aronoff,A. 1949. The September migration tragedy. Linnaean News-Letter 3(1):2 Able,K.P. 1973.The Changing Seasons American Birds. 27:1. pp 19-23 Anonymous. 1961.Large bird kills at TV Towers. Bluebird.28:1. pp 9 Avery,M. and T.Clement. 1972.Bird Mortality at 4 Towers in Eastern North Dakota:Fall 1972.Prairie Naturalist. 4:3/4 pp 87-95 Avery,M.,P.F.Springer and J.F.Cassel. 1977.Weather Influences on nocturnal bird mortality at a North Dakota tower. Wilson Bulletin. 89:2 pp291-299 Bagg,A.M. 1969.The Changing Seasons,Audubon Field Notes. 23:1 pp 4-12 Bagg,A.M. 1971.The Changing Seasons.American Birds. 25:1 pp 16-23 Baird,J. 1962.The Changing Seasons:a summary of Fall migration.Audubon Field Notes. 16:1 pp 4-6 Baird,J. 1964.The Changing Seasons.Audubon Field Notes. 16:1 pp 4-6 Baird,J. 1970. Mortality of Fall Migrants at Boylston television tower in 1970. The Chickadee: 40 pp 17-21 Baird J. 1971. Mortality of Birds at the Boylston Television Tower in September of 1971. The Chickadee pp 20-25 Balcomb,Richard. 1986. Songbird Carcasses disappear rapidly from agricultural fields.Auk. 103:4 pp 817-820 Ball,Lisa G..,K.Zyskowski and G.Escalona-Segura. 1995.Recent Bird Mortality at a Topeka Television Tower. Kansas Ornithological Society. 46:4 pp 3 3-3 6 Ball,R.E. 1973.Bird Mortalities at towers in Marysville,MS:fall 1972.Transactions of the Missouri Acad Sci. 7:8pp 294 Boso,B. 1965.Bird Casualties at a Southern Kansas TV tower. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 68:1 pp 131-136 Breckenridge,W.J. 1959.Spring migration:western Great Lakes region.Audubon Field Notes. 13:4 pp 371-373 Brewer,R and J.A.Ellis. 1958.An Analysis of migrating birds killed at a television tower in east central Illinois. Auk. 75:4 pp 400-414 Browne,M.M.and W.Post. 1972.Black rails hit a television tower at Raleigh,North Carolina. Wilson Bulletin. 84:4 pp 491-492 Caldwell,L.D.and N.L.Cuthbert. 1963.Bird Mortality at Television Towers near Cadillac,Michigan. The Jack-Pine Warbler. 41:2 pp 80-89 Caldwell,L.D.and G.J.Wallace. 1966.Collections of migrating birds at Michigan television towers.Jack Pine Warbler. 44:3 pp 117-123 Carter,J.H.III and J.F.Parnell. 1976.TV tower kills in eastern North Carolina.Chat. 40:1 pp 1-9 Case,L.D.,H.Cruickshank,A.E.Ellis&W.F.White. 1965.Weather causes heavy bird mortality.Florida Naturalist. 38:1 pp 29-30 Chamberlain,B.R. 1955.Fall Migration:southern Atlantic Coast region.Audubon Field Notes. 9:1 pp 17-18 Chamberlain,B.R. 1957.Fall Migration:southern Atlantic Coast region.Audubon Field Notes. 11:1 pp 15-18 Chamberlain,B.R. 1958.Fall Migration:southern Atlantic Coast region.Audubon Field Notes. 12:1 pp 19-21 Chamberlain,B.R. 1961.Fall Migration:southern Atlantic Coast region.Audubon Field Notes. 15:1 pp 23-26 Cochran,W.W.and R.R.Graber. 1958.Attraction of Nocturnal migrants by lights on a television tower. Wilson Bulletin. 70:4 pp 378-380 Coffey,B.B.,Jr. 1964.Two bird kills at WMC-TV,Memphis.Migrant. 35:2 pp 53 Crawford,R.L. 1971.Predation on birds killed atTV tower. Oriole. 36:4 pp 33-35 Crawford,R.L. 1974.Bird Casualties at a Leon County,Florida TV Tower: Bulletin. Tall Timbers Res. Sin. 18 pp 1-27 Crawford,R.L. 1976. Some old records of TV tower kills from southwest Georgia. Oriole. 41:4 pp 45-51 Crawford,R.L. 1978.Autumn bird Casualties at a northern Florida TV Tower: 1973-1975. Wilson Bulletin. 90:3 pp 335-345 Crawford,R.L. 1981.Bird Casualties at a Leon County,Florida TV Tower:A 25 year migration study.Bulletin of Tall Timbers Research Station. 22 pp 1-30 Cunningham,R.L. 1964.Fall Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes: 18:1 pp 24-28 Cunningham,R.L. 1964, Spring Migration:Florida Region.Audubon Field Notes. 18:4 pp 442-446 Cunningham,R.L. 1965.Fall Migration:Florida Region.Audubon Field Notes. 19:1 pp 28-33 Devitt, O. 1984 Birds of Simcoe County,Ontario. Bereton Field Naturalists'Club, Dunbar,R.J. 1954.Bird Mortality-Oak Ridge.Migrant.25:4 pp 63-64 Eaton, S.W. 1967.Recent tower kills in upstate New York.Kingbird. 17:3 pp 142-147 Edscorn,J.B. 1974.The fall migration:Florida Region.American Birds. 28:1 pp 40-44 Edscorn,J.B.1975.The fall migration:Florida Region.American Birds. 29:1 pp 44-48 Elder,W.H. and J.Hansen, 1967.Bird Mortality at KOMU-TV tower,Columbia,Missouri,fall 1965 & 1966.Bluebird. 34:1 pp 3-7 Ellis,C.D. 1997.Back to the Tower:Tower Killed Birds at Putnam County,West Virginia.Redstart. 64 pp 112-113 Feehan, J. 1963.Destruction of Birdlife in MN-Birds Killed at the Ostrander TV Tower.Flicker.35 pp 111-112 Ganier,A.F. 1962.Bird Casualties at a Nashville TV tower. Migrant. 33:4 pp 58-60 George,W. 1963.Columbia tower fatalities.Bluebird. 30:4 pp 5 Gollop,M.A. 1965.Bird Migration collision casualties at Saskatoon.Blue Jay. 23:1 pp 15-17 Goodpasture,K.A. 1974.Fall 1972 television tower casualties in Nashville.Migrant. 45:2 pp 29-31 Goodpasture,K.A. 1974,Fall 1973 television tower casualties in Nashville.Migrant.45:3 pp 57-59 Goodpasture,K.A. 1975.Nashville tower casualties, 1974.Migrant. 46:3 pp 49-51 Goodpasture,K.A. 1976.Nashville television tower casualties, 1975.Migrant. 47:1 pp 8-10 PaRze 20 Goodpasture,K.A. 1978.Television tower casualties, 1976.Migrant. 49:3 pp 53-54 Goodwin,C.E. 1975.The winter season:Ontario region.American Birds. 29:1 pp 48-57 Goodwin,C.E.and R.C.Rosche. 1971.The fall migration:Ontario.American Birds. 25:1 pp 49-54 Green,J.C. 1963.Destruction of Bird Life in Minnesota-Sept 1963.Flicker.35:4 pp 112-113 Green,J.C. 1964.Fall migration:western Great Lakes region.Audubon Field Notes. 18:1 pp 33-34 Gregory,H. 1975.Unusual fall tower kill.Bluebird.42:4 pp 9-10 Hall,G.A. 1975,The Fall Migration:Appalachian Region.American Birds. 29:1 pp 57-61 Hall,G.A. 1976.The Fall Migration:Appalachian Region.American Birds. 30:1 pp 67-71 Hall,G.A. 1977.The Fall Migration:Appalachian Region.American Birds. 31:2 pp 176-179 Hatch,D.R.M. 1966.Fall Migration: northern Great Plains Region.Audubon Field Notes. 20:1 pp 61-64 Herdon,L.R. 1973.Bird kill on Holston Mountain.Migrant. 44:1 pp 1-4 Heron,J. 1997.TV Transmission Tower Kills in Lewis County,West Virginia.Redstart 64 pp 114-117 Heye,P.L. 1963.Tower fatalities.Bluebird. 30:1 pp 7 Hoskin,J. 1975. Casualties at the CKVR-TV tower,Barrie.Nature Canada. 4:2 pp 39-40 James,D.H.and H.Shugart. 1967.Fall Migration:central southern region.Audubon Field Notes. 2 1:1 pp 45-47 Janssen,R.B. 1963.Destruction of bird life in Minessota-Sept 1963. Birds killed atthe Lewisville television tower.Flicker. 35:4 pp 110-111 Janssen,R.B. 1963.Destruction of bird life in Minessota-Sept 1963. Birds killed at the Lewisville television tower.Flicker. 35A pp 113-114 Johnston,D.W. 1957.Bird Mortality in Georgia, 1957.Oriole. 22:4 pp 33-39 Johnston,D.W. and T.P. Haines. 1957.Analysis of mass mortality in October, 1954.Auk. 74:4 pp 447-458 Kale,H.W.,II,M.H.Hundley and J.A.Tucker. 1969.Tower-killed specimens&observations of migrant birds from Grand Bahama Isl. Wilson Bltn.81:3 pp 258-263 Kemper,C.A. 1958.Destruction at the TV tower.Passenger Pigeon. 20:1 pp 3-9 Kemper,C.A. 1959. More TV tower destruction.Passenger Pigeon. 21:4 pp 135-142 Kemper,C.A. 1996.A Study of Bird Mortality at a Central Wisconsin TV Tower from 1957-1995. Passenger Pigeon 58 pp 219- 235 Kemper, C.A. 1964.A Tower for TV: 30,000 dead birds.Audubon Magazine. 66:1 pp 86-90 Kibbe, D.P. 1975.The Fall Migration:western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania.American Birds. 29:1 pp 53-57 Kibbe,D.P. 1976.The Spring Migration:Niagara-Champlain region.American Birds. 30:1 pp 64-66 Kleen,V.M.and L.Bush. 1973.The Fall Migration:middle western prairie region.American Birds. 27:1 pp 66-70 Knauth,O. 1972.Hundreds of Birds die after hitting TV tower.Des Moines Sunday Register. 24 sept pp 3 Laskey,A.R. 1957.Television tower casualties:Nashville.Migrant. 28:4 pp 54-57 Laskey,A.R. 1960.Bird Migration casualties and weather conditions,autumns 1958-1959-1960.Migrant. 31:4 pp 61-65 Laskey,A.R. 1962.Migration data from television tower casualties at Nashville.Migrant.. 33:1 pp 7-8 Laskey,A.R. 1963. Casualties at WSIX TV tower in autumn, 1962 Migrant. 34:1 pp 15 Laskey,A.R. 1963.Mortality of night migrants at Nashville TV towers, 1963.Migrant. 34:4 pp 65-66 Laskey,A.R. 1964.Data from the Nashville TV Tower casualties.Migrant. 35:4 pp 95-96 Laskey,A.R. 1967. Spring mortality of Black poll warblers at Nashville TV tower.Migrant.. 38:2 pp 43 Laskey,A.R. 1968.Television tower mortality at Nashville,autumn 1967.Migrant. 29:2 pp 25-26 Laskey,A.R. 1969.TV tower casualties at Nashville in autumn 1968.Migrant.40:2 pp 25-27 Laskey,A.R. 1969.Autumn 1969:TV tower casualties at Nashville.Migrant. 40:4 pp 79-80 Laskey,A.R. 1971.TV tower casualties at Nashville: spring and autumn, 1970.Migrant. 42:1 pp 15-16 Lavendel,Brian. 1999.Special Report:Menace in the Sky.Animals. 132:4 pp 12 Lister,R. 1965.Fall Migration:Northern Great Plains Region.Audubon Field Notes. 19:1 pp 48-53 Lupient,M. 1961.Fall Migration:western Great Lakes region.Audubon Field Notes. 15.1 pp 42-44 Lupient,M. 1962.Fall Migration:western Great Lakes Region..Audubon Field Notes. 16:1 pp 34-35 Manual,D.D. 1963,TV Transmitter kills in South Bend,Indiana,fall 1962.Indiana Audubon Quarterly. 41:3 pp 49-53 Manville,A.M.11. The ABC's of avoiding bird collisions at communication towers:the next steps. Proceedings of the Avian Interactions Workshop,Dec 2, 1999. Charleston, SCElectric Power Res. Inst. 14 pp. In Press. Mosman,D. 1975.Bird Casualties at All eman,Iowa TV tower.Iowa Bird Life. 45:3 pp 88-90 Nero,R.W. 1961.Regina TV tower bird mortalities-1961.Blue Jay. 19:4 pp 160-164 Newman,R.J. 1957.The Changing Seasons.Audubon Field Notes. 11:1 pp 4-6 Newman,R.J. 1958.The Changing Seasons.Audubon Field Notes. 12:1 pp 4-9 Seasons.American Birds. 29:1 pp 23-28 Newman,R.J. 1961.Fall migration: central southern region.Audubon Field Notes. 15:1 pp 46-51 Newman,R.J. and G.H.Lowery,Jr. 1959,The Changing Seasons.Audubon Field Notes. 13:4 pp 346-352 Niles,D.M.,S.A.Rohwar,J.A.Jackson and J.D.Robbins. 1969.An observation of midwinter nocturnal movement and tower mortality of tree sparrows.Bird Banding. 40:4 pp 322-323 Norman,J.L. 1975.Birds Killed at a TV tower near Coweta,Oklahoma.Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society. 8:3 pp 25-27 Page 21 Norman,J.L. 1976.Birds Killed at a TV tower near Coweta, OK.Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society. 9:3 pp 20 Norman,J.L. 1977,Birds Killed at a TV tower near Coweta, Oklahoma in the fall of 1976.Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society. 10:1 pp 6-8 Norwood,J.R. 1960.TV tower casualties at a Charlotte station.Chat. 24:4 pp 103-104 Ogden,J. 1960. Observations at a TV tower during a bird fall.Migrant. 31:4 pp 65-67 Parmalee,P.W.and B.G.Parmalee. 1959.Mortality of Birds at a television tower in central Illinois.Bulletin of the Illinois Audubon Society. 11:1 pp 1-4 Parmalee,P.W. and M.D.Thompson. 1963.A Second Kill of Birds at a television tower in central Illinois.Bulletin of the Illinois Audubon Society. 12:8 pp 13-15 Peterson,P.C.,Jr. 1959.TV tower mortality in western Illinois.Bulletin of the Illinois Audubon Society. 11:2 pp 14-15 Peterson,P.C.,Jr. 1967.Fall migration:middle western prairie region.Audubon Field Notes. 21:1 pp 44-45 Peterson,P.C.,Jr. 1971.Fall migration:middle western prairie region.American Birds. 25:1 pp 64-66 Peterson,P.C.,Jr. 1968.Fall migration:middle western prairie,region.Audubon Field Notes. 22:1 pp 44-45 Pierce,M.E. 1969.Tall Television tower and bird migration.South Dakota Bird Notes. 21:1 pp 4-5 Poole,A,F.Gills&P.Stettenheim.Eds. 1992- .Birds of North America.American Ornithologists Union.,Acad Nat Sci PA Potter,J.K.and J.J.Murray. 1949.Fall Migration:middle Atlantic coast region.Audubon Field Notes.3:1. pp 8-10 Pulich,W.M. 1962,A Record of the Yellow Rail from Dallas County,Texas. The Auk 78: 639-640 Purrington,R.D. 1969.Fall Migration:central southern region.Audubon Field Notes. 23:1 pp 65-70 Robbins,S.D. 1967.Fall Migration:western great lakes region.Audubon Field Notes. 21:1 pp 36-38 Robbins,S.D. 1969,Fall Migration: western Great Lakes Region.Audubon Field Notes. 23:1 pp 55-56,64 Robertson,W.B.,Jr.and J.C. Ogden. 1969.Fall Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 23:1 pp 35-40 Rosche,R.C. 1970.The fall Migration:western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania.Audubon Field Notes. 24:1 pp 43-47 Rosche,R.C. 1971.The fall Migration:western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania.American Birds. 25A pp 54-57 Rosche,R.C. 1972.The fall Migration:western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania.American Birds. 26:1 pp 60-62 Sawyer,P.J. 1961. Bird Mortality at the WENH-TV Tower in Deerfield,New Hampshire. New Hampshire Audubon Quarterly. 14:2 pp 46-49 Scott,F.R.and D.A. Culter. 1971.The Fall Migration: middle Atlantic Coast region.American Birds. 25:1 pp 36-40 Seets,J.W,and H.D. Bohlen. 1977.Comparative Mortality of birds at television towers in central Illinois. Wilson Bulletin. 89:3 pp 422-433 Sharp,B. 1971.Heavy Mortality of migrating birds at Madison's TV towers.Passenger Pigeon. 33:4 pp 203-204 Stevenson,H.M.1956.Fall Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 10:1 pp 18-22 Stevenson,H.M. 1958.Fall Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 12:1 pp 21-26 Stevenson,H.M. 1958. Spring Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 12:4 pp 344-348 Stevenson,H.M. 1959.Fall Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 13:1 pp 21-25 Stevenson,H.M. 1960.Spring Migration:Florida region.Audubon Field Notes. 14:4 pp 379-3 83 Stevenson,H.M. 1966.Fall Migration:Florida Region.Audubon Field Notes. 20:1 pp 30-35 Stevenson,H.M. 1973.The Fall Migration:Florida Region.Audubon Field Notes. 27:1 pp 45-49 Stoddard,H.L. 1962. Bird Casualties at a Leon County Florida TV Tower, 1955-1961. Tall Timbers Res Stn Bull.I Stoddard,H.L.&R.A.Norris 1967. Bird Casualties at aLeon County Florida TV Tower,an 11 Year Study. Tall Timbers Research Station Bulletin. Strnad,F. 1962.Birds Killed at the KROC-TV tower, Ostrander,Minnesota.Flicker. 34:1 pp 7-9 Strnad,F. 1975.More Birds at KROC-TV Tower,Ostrander Minnesota. Loon.47 pp 16-21 Taylor,W.K.and B.H.Anderson. 1973.Nocturnal Migrants killed at a south central Florida TV tower,autumn 1969-1971. Wilson Bulletin 85:1 pp 42-51 Taylor,W.K.and B.H.Anderson. 1974.Nocturnal Migrants killed at a south central Florida TV tower,autumn 1972.Florida Field Naturalist. 2:2 pp 40-43 Tenessee Ornithological Society. 1973.Bird Kill on Holston Mountain.Migrant.44:1 pp 1-4 Teulings,R.P. 1972.The fall migration: southern Atlantic Coast Region.American Birds. 26:1 pp 45-50 Teulings,R.P. 1974.The Fall Migration:southern Atlantic Coast Region.American Birds. 28:1 pp 37-40 Teulings,R.P. 1975.The fall Migration: Southern Atlantic coast region.American Birds. 29:1 pp 40-43 Tordoff,H.B.&R.M.Mengel 1956.Studies of Birds Killed in Nocturnal Migration. Univ. Kansas Publ.Mus.Nat. Hist 10 pp 1-44 Trapp,J.L. 1995.Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States:The 1995 List. Office of Migratory Bird Management,USFWS,Washington,DC. U.S. Govt.Printing Office 1996:404-991/44014. 22 pp Trott,J. 1957.TV tower fatalities at Chapel Hill.Chat. 21:1 pp 28 Welles,M. 1978.TV tower kills at Elmira.Kingbird. 28:3 pp 159-161 Whelan,P. 1976.The bird killers.Ontario Naturalist. 16:4 pp 14-16 Willard,D.E. and B.J. Willard. 1978.The interaction between some human obstacles and birds.Environmental Management. 2:4 pp 3 31-340 Zimmerman,D.A. 1975.The Changing Seasons.American Birds. 29:1 pp 23-28 Paae 22 P®®KS AND P®PULAR ARTICLES Avery,M.L..,P.F. Springer and N.S.Dailey, 1978.Avian Mortality at man made structures: an annotated bibliography. USFWS, National Power Plant Team. FWSIOBS-78158 pp 108. Bell,Robert N. 1998.Towers in city parks draw opposition. The Indianapolis Star. April 16, pp B3 Bell,Robert N. 1999.Parks board OK's wireless-tower contract. The Indianapolis Star. February 17.pp. B3 Borestein,Seth. 1999.Towers serious threat to birds. The Denver Post. August 8.pp.A4 Bowman,Lee. 1999. Communications Towers Disorient,Kill Thousands of migrating birds.Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Sept 25 Braile,Robert.1999.Proliferation of towers poses threat to birds. The Boston Globe. May 23, 1999 New Hampshire Weekly,p.l Craig-Lich,Alicia. 1998.The hazards Indy park towers pose to birds. The Indianapolis Star. March 9, 1998.Editorial,p.5 Jaroslow,B. 1979.A Review of factors involved in bird tower kills,and mitigative procedures. The mitigation symposium: a national workshop on mitigation losses of fish and wildlife habitats. U.S. Forest Service General Technical report RM-65. pp 469-473 in G.A.Swaison,tech. Coord. Jones,Meg. 1999.Fast-multiplying communications towers signal lethal threat for migratory birds.Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 27.News,p.l Kelly,Dan. 1999.Local zoning boards win cell phone ruling.Eagle Times. September 27 Lafee,Scott and Mark Sauer. 1999.As cellular phone sales increase,so do bird deaths; Sound Effect, The San Diego Union-Tribune. October 6.Lifestyle,p.E1-2 Olendorf,R.R.1986.Raptor Collisions with utility lines and fences:an annotated bibliography(rev,draft). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California.pp 14. Pittman,Craig. 1999.Proposed tower might endanger birds.St. Petersburg Times.November 1 pp 1B Tordoff,H.B.and R.M.Mengel. 1956. Studies of birds killed in nocturnal migration. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History pp 10(1):1-44 Vosburgh,J.; 1966.Deathtraps in the flyways.Pages 364-371 in: A. Stefferud,ed. Birds in our lives. USFWS; Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife. Watson,Traci. 1999. Communication Towers are Silencing Songbirds. USA Today. Sept 2. Weindensaul,Scott. 1999.Tower lights can fatally attract migratory songbirds.Philadelphia Inquirer.July 27,pp.D3 Weir,R.D. 1976.Annotated Bibliography of bird kills at man made obstacles:a review of the state of the art and solutions. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region, Ottawa.pp 85. Unknown. 1973.Bird Kill on Holston Mountain. Tennessee Ornithological Society. Unknown. 1999.Wildlife Refuge no place for tower. The Tampa Tribune.November 9 Nation/World,p.6 Unknown. 1999.Towers make skies dangerous for birds. The Arizona Republic. Aug 13.pp.B4 WEB SITE ADDRESSES American Bird Conservancy: http://www.abebirds.org/TowerKills.htm Bird Studies Canada: http://www.bse-eoc.org/migmain.html Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology: http://birdsource.come11.edu/conservation/TowerkiI1.htm Fatal Light Wareness Program(FLAP): http://www.flap.org/ National Audubon Society: http://www.audubon.org/bird/watch/ Tower Kill.Com: http://www.towerkill.com USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/issues/tower.html and http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/agenda.html. WWF Canada: http://www.wwfeanada.org/ Paae 23 Federal Court Orders Cell Tower Safeguards for Migrating Birds Page 1 of 2 7 z: ._ . AMER1CAN BIRD00NVN u. I HOME 1 SUPPORT ABC ABOUT US j ABC PROGRAMS BROWSE BY TOPIC:. NEWS&REPORTS ! INTERACTIVE CONTACT US Federal Court Orders Cell Tower Safeguards for Migrating Birds For Immediate Release: February 19,2008 Contacts: Kathleen Sutcliffe,Earthjustice,(202)667-4500,ext 235 Steve Holmer,,American Bird Conservancy,202/234-7181 j Decision could save millions of birds killed each year in tower collisions i Washington,DC—Afederal court of appeals today issued a ruling ordering the Federal Communications Commission to carefully evaluate the potential adverse effects of communications towers on migratory bird populations of the Gulf Coast region.A panel of federal judges ruled that national environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require the FCC to more carefully consider these possible adverse effects in its tower permitting process. "We are very pleased by today's ruling which will require the FCC to assess the environmental impacts of towers," j said Darin Schroeder,American Bird Conservancy's Executive Director of Conservation Advocacy."Given the large number of bird deaths caused by towers,an environmental review is long overdue.This is a huge victory for migratory birds and the millions of Americans who love to see them each year.' The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service estimates between five million and fifty million birds are killed each year in I collisions and other accidents caused by communications towers.In its decision,the court critidzed the FCC for refusing to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when approving such towers. The court also said the FCC failed to sufficiently involve the public in its tower approval process. "The Catch-22...is that the Commission provides public notice of individual tower applications only after approving them,"the court wrote in its decision. Tens of thousands of communication towers dot landscapes across the country.In Texas alone,there are over 10,000 of these towers.Each month,the FCC receives more than 20 new applications for tower construction. The situation is critical along the Gulf Coast where thousands of communications towers dot the 1,000-mile stretch of coastline between Pt.Isabel,Texas and Tampa Bay,Florida.Towers along this major migratory bird route threaten many different bird species.Exhausted from theirjoumey across the Gulf of Mexico,these migrating songbirds collide with towers or the accompanying guy wires.in some cases,the birds confuse the blinking lights atop the cell towers with the night stars they use to navigate theirjoumey.The birds become disoriented and begin circling the tower until they collapse from exhaustion and plummet to the ground. The public interest law firm Earthjustice broughtthe case to federal court on behalf of the American Bird Conservancy.Earthjustice attorneys argued that FCC violated federal law by approving dozens of new towers each i year with little or no environmental review. "The court has dearly directed the FCC to respect national environmental laws when handing out permits for these tower."said Earthjustice attorney Steve Roady."FCC now must go back and carefully evaluate the environmental impacts of these towers.' i A copy of the decision can be found at http://pace r,cadc,uscourts,gov/docs/common/opinions/200802/06-1165a.pdf American Bird Conservancy works to conserve native wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas.ABC acts to safeguard the rarest bird species,restore habitats,and reduce threats,while building capacity in the conservation movement.ABC is a 501(c)(3)membership organization that is consistently awarded a top,four-star rating by the independent group,Charity Navigator. Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places,natural resources, and wildlife of this earth,and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment Earthjustice brings about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, ! coalitions and communities. i I http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/080219.html 12/29/2011 ENT OF ry�y� ��v7cswnva.�s AUnited States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE gRCH 3, sa Washington, D.C. 20240 In Reply Refer To: FWSIFHC/DHCIBFA Memorandum To: Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 From: Director/St Jamie Rappaport Clark P S 4 Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers Construction of communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) in the United States has been growing at an exponential rate, increasing at an estimated 6 percent to 8 percent annually. According to the Federal Communication Commission's 2000 Antenna Structure Registry, the number oflighted towers greater than 199'feet above ground level currently number over 45,000 and the total number of towers over 74,000. By 2003, all television stations must be digital, adding potentially 1,000 new towers exceeding 1,000 feet AGL. The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species ofnight-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 50 designed to implement the MBTA. Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Service personnel may become involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or in the evaluation of tower impacts on migratory birds through National Environmental Policy Act review; specifically, sections 1501.6, opportunity to be a cooperating agency, and 1503.4, duty to comment on federally-licensed activities for agencies with jurisdiction by law, in this case the MBTA, or because of special expertise. Also, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be determined as compatible with the Refuge system mission and the Refuge purpose(s), In addition, the Service is required by the ESA to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any action they authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened species. This is your future. Don't leave it blank. -Support the 2000 Census. 2 A Communication Tower Working Group composed of government agencies, industry, academic researchers and NGO's has been formed to develop and implement a research protocol to determine the best ways to construct and operate towers to prevent bird strikes. Until the research study is completed, or until research efforts uncover significant new mitigation measures, all Service personnel involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or the evaluation of the impacts of towers on migratory birds should use the attached interim guidelines when making recommendations to all companies, license applicants, or licensees proposing new tower sitings. These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in several eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional review. They are based on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent and effective measures for avoiding bird strikes at towers. We believe that they will provide significant protection for migratory birds pending completion ofthe Working Group's recommendations. As new information becomes available, the guidelines will be updated accordingly. Implementation ofthese guidelines by the communications industry is voluntary, and our recommendations must be balanced with Federal Aviation Administration requirements and local community concerns where necessary. Field offices have discretion in the use ofthese guidelines on a case by case basis, and may also have additional recommendations to add which are specific to their geographic area. Also attached is a Tower Site Evaluation Form which may prove useful in evaluating proposed towers and in streamlining the evaluation process. Copies may be provided to consultants or tower companies who regularly submit requests for consultation, as well as to those who submit individual requests that do not contain sufficient information to allow adequate evaluation. This form is for discretionary use, and may be modified as necessary. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department ofthe Interior. While the Act has no provision for allowing an unauthorized take, it must be recognized that some birds may be killed at structures such as communications towers even if all reasonable measures to avoid it are implemented. The Service's Division of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. While it is not possible under the Act to absolve individuals or companies from liability if they follow these recommended guidelines, the Division ofLaw Enforcement and Department oOustice have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the past regarding individuals or companies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take ofmigratory birds. Please ensure that all field personnel involved in review ofFCC licensed communications tower proposals receive copies ofthis memorandum. Questions regarding this issue should be directed to Dr. Benjamin N. Tuggle, Chief, Division of Habitat Conservation, at (703)358-2161, or 3 Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, at(703)358-1714. These guidelines will be incorporated in a Director's Order and placed in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at a future date. Attachment cc: 3012-MIB-FWS/Directorate Reading File 3012-MIB-FWS/CCU Files 3245-MIB-FWS/AFHC Reading Files 840-ARLSQ-FWS/AF Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Staff 520-ARLSQ-FWS/LE Files 634-ARLSQ-FWS/MBMO Files (Jon Andrew) FWS/DHCIBFAJRWillis:bg:08/09/00:(703)358-2183 S:\DHC\BFA\WILLIS\COMTOW-2.POL Attachment Service Interim Guidelines For Recommendations On Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning 1. Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 2. If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level, using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, etc.). Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration regulations permit. 3. If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each individual tower. 4. If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters of towers). Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat ofthreatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings. 5. If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum amount ofpilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used. Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current research indicates that solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet been studied. 6. Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State ofthe Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.c., 78pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power Lines. Edison Electric InstituteiRaptor Research Foundation, Washington, D. C; 128pp. Copies can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.eei.org/resources/pubeat/enviro/. or by calling 1-800/334-5453). 7. Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or minimize habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower footprint is preferable to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be minimized to reduce or prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground obstacles to birds in flight. 8. If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the proposed tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this is not an option, seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance during periods ofhigh bird activity. 9. In order to reduce the number oftowers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to design new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise unlighted and/or unguyed tower. 10. Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within the boundaries ofthe site. 11. If tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts of various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems. 12. Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months ofcessation ofuse. In order to obtain information on the extent to which these guidelines are being implemented, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, letters provided in response to requests for evaluation o fproposed towers should contain the following request: "In order to obtain information on the usefulness of these guidelines in preventing bird strikes, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, please advise us of the final location and specifications ofthe proposed tower, and which ofthe measures recommended for the protection of migratory birds were implemented. If any of the recommended measures can not be implemented, please explain why they were not feasible." e,i Y ,d \ \ q �j6 i 1 �f Designations L itI-, / �• - ,r4Y. Mixed Use Mixed Use Transit Center ensity Coastal Conservation k n" Public zpit Open Space Parks z . r and Recreation Subdistrict a Shorelftle Subdistrict 4 ate Stion Su i trict a / a i 6 a• i Specific l i s' Qualified Classification Parcels Rigbt �y / \ r� a K w rt nood zone Overlay ,� For your convenience,you may request an appointment to submit your entitlement application by contacting, IB the Planning Department at 714-536- 5271 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY HUNTINGTON BEACH Present Zone— �--' DM 6 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Designation Planning Department PLANNING APPLICATION NO. c�. �� '�y'f('J ► 2000 Main Street ENTITt.FMFNT $FEE CASE# Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r� (714)536-5271 Coastal Development Permit''3, f CDP Il -V is www.surfcN-hb.org/CitvDepartments/Planning Conditional Use Permit t CUP li- Desian Review DR - Entitlement Plan Amendment EPA - GENERAL APPLICATION: General Plan Amendment GPA it Local Coastal Program Amend LCPA - Planning Commission Planned SioProg[r M PSP ❑ Zoning Administrator Sign Code Except SCE - ❑ Staff Review TemnoraryUse Permit TUP - ❑ Design Review Variance V - Zoning Man Amendment ZMA - AMLEE WEEKS AGENT ON BEHALF OF T-MOBILE WEST CORP Zoning Text Amendment ZTA Applicant or Authorized Agent (Contact Person) 16460 BAKE PARKWAY SUITE 100 Environmental Review Flood Zone Mailing Address _Exempt Earthquake Fault Zene f IRVINE CA 92616 See. Class Oil District A City State Zip Assessment Req.. Methane District �{� " EA / Redevelopment Area . Telephone Number: (949)336-1550 Coastal Ares Yes✓Noi Noise/CNEL " _Categorical Exclusion Seismic Hazard Zone 9 Fax Number: (949)336-6665 _Appeal:_Non.App Scenic Corridor IN' A- Exempt Sec. Military Buffer.Zone. �c�i v ce�es c1 earh>lannit (rerl?ces) E-mail Address: AWEEKS@COASTALBUSlNESSGROUP.NET �} 2 CITY nF Hi immwG'rr)N RFAr.H 16wnership Verification Pursuant to: L��✓ , Property Owner ✓Applicant Authorization 2QQn MAIN.riTRFFT ✓APN" .7n Lieu of:. Mailing Address Plans HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264E t Narrative nReq. _ Date Received 1(I, !@ Narrative Receipt# City State Zip -Photographs/Slides Received by s— Telephone Number: (714)536-5544 EEutertainmentPe?mit Project Planner WOA approval Distributed by Fax Number: �omputer Log Concurrent Cases _L/ylap Book Log E-mail Address: LUIS.GOMEZ@SURFCJTY-HB.ORG plans Date Stamped Previous Cases " REQUEST(Use additional page if necessary): INSTALLATION OF AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. PRQPOSING A 55'TALL MONOPALM TREE WITH 12 PANEL ANTENNAS SCREENED INSIDE THE TREE PLACEMENT OF 3 EO ][Ply^ENT c,ARLNFTS I OC"A-r DON THE(-ROL IND NFXT TO THr moNOPALM. ALL EOL IIPM NT WI RF SCREENED AND LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY'S WATER PUMP STATION PROPERTY. EXISTING USE: CITY WATER PUMP STATION-PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: • Street Address: 18401 SPRINGDALE STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 • Nearest Major Intersection: TALBERT AVENUE&SPRINGDALE STREET • Assessor's Parcel Nurnber(s): 159-186-05 Lot Area: • Tract: 9219 Block: 404 Lot: 109 1,(Prim PromrtvOwneesname) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH am the property owner of the subject property and have read and understand all statements including the filing requirements on the reverse side of this application. I hereby authorize PrintAgent's name) CnAsi&i R IsINFGS C CORP to act as my representative and to bind me in all matters conceming this application. I hereby affirm under pen, , of"perjury that the foregoing statements, facts and attachments are true and correct. I understand that this application for entitlem,�;,��jjl or variance may be denied,modified or approved with conditions and that such onditions or modifications must be satisfied prior to l�Zaiice of building permits.it '% } /(..� � t 5 Signature of €i".� ':t4.}�i i?t tClln- "✓� � _roperty Owner ; Date Authonzed Agent Dat6 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: (Complete/submit the following circled items prior to submittal and return this application with your submittal) This application must be typed or printed and filled in completely. 2. If the applicant is not the property owner,the property owner shall designate the applicant as the authorized agent to act on his/her behalf and loth shall sign this application. 3. Proof of property ownership,e.g„deed,title insurance policy. #Vx:,� +r. zsl�,it it.'ax7,r�piev�t Chain of tide indicating prior ownership and date of lot creation,Certificate of Compliance,or copy of recorded map. 5, Enyirottmen Assessment Form if determined necessary per California Environmental Quality Act(see attached). �6. Ialxxx3e mrsszen: Twelve(12)preliminary,site plans,floor plans and building elevations(and for new construction submit preliminary grading plans) a maximum of 24"X 36"in size.Upon acceptance and scheduling of hearing date,eight(8)additional full sized sets,two(2)sets of plans reduced to 8-If2"X 11"and one(])set of plans colored to illustrate the design and development concept of the project shall be submittal. Other plans may be required depending on the complexity of the project. 7. Zoning Administrator:Twelve(12)sets of,sitq plans,floor plans and building elevations(and for new construction submit preliminary grading plans)a maximum of 24"X 36'in size,and one(1)set of plans reduced to 11"X 17". Other plans may be required depending on the complexity of thelroject. 8. Staff Review or Design Review: Twelve(12)sets of site plans,floor plans and building elevations a maximum of 24"X 36"in sue. A materials palette,preliminary landscape plans,and colored elevations of all proposed walls are also required for design review. (No additional plans required for PC/LA projects requiring Design Review).Administrative Permits require only three (3)sets of plans. 9. Preliminary Grading Plan with all existing and proposed grades as well as all walls/fences shown on plan. 10 Plans conforming to the following requirements: (a) Draw to scale(minimum scale 1/8"=I'or 1"=30');indicate scale;indicate dimensions of building and floor uses;and north direction arrow. Plans shall be oriented so that north points to the top of the page. (b) Plot the entire parcel and dimension all pertinent data such as easements,driveways,landscaping,parking,fencing;and distances to all property tines. Indicate any grade differential between adjacent properties,alleys,or streets. (c) Depict existing property improvements on abutting parcels and across streets and/or alleys within fifty(50)feet of the subject parcel. Improvements should include location and dimension of parking,landscaping,driveways,building layouts and uses, windows and entryway locations and any other information useful to analyze the project. (d) Plot all existing and proposed physical features,fences/walk,and structures on the subject property and abutting properties, (Window locations on adjacent properties required for all Residential Infill properties.) (e) Dimension to the nearest intersecting street and identify all street names. (f) Dimension height of all strictures from the highest adjacent curb to the top of slab and to the roof peak on all elevations. (g) Building elevations shall depict all sides of building and indicate colors and materials proposed, (h) Locate and dimension existing and proposed reciprocal driveway access and parking. (]) Include a legend(locate in lower right corner of the site plan)which lists the name,address,and phone number of the recorded owner and the applicant. 0) lden)ify the legal description of the subject property on the site plan. (k) Label existing and proposed uses of each room on floor plan. (1) Dimension section drawings for walls,grade differential,and buildings. (m) Provide a zoning conformance matrix on the cover sheet of the site. The matrix shall include information on bow the project complies with all aspects of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. (it) Fold all plans to a maximum size of 9-1/2"X 14"(lower right corner out). 1 Public notification requirements for Coastal Development Permit,Variance,Conditional Use Permit,Zoning Map Amendment, Precise Plan Street Alignment,General Plan Amendment,and Sign Code Exception(See attached sheet).1030Z'W4!*V W S 12. A letter from the Property Owner Association or Architectural Committee,if applicable,shall be submitted indicating that the proposed project has been approved,denied,or that the CC&R's do not require Association or Committee review. All entitlements require photographs of the subject site and surrounding properties. 4 All Plarming Commission applications require slides or digital photographs of the subject site and surrounding properties. 1 A written narrative of the proposed use or project. The narrative shall contain the following minimum information: (a) Description of project and services,including proposed use,square footage,hours and days.of operation,number of employees,and other information as appropriate. (b) Reasons for initiating this application. (c) Description of surrounding uses to the north,south,east and west. (d) Description of population served by the proposed use or project. 16. A massing model for all commercial development and for all residential developments often(10)units or more(three[31 units or more in redevelopment project areas). Models shall be submitted prior to sending out the public heating, Models can be simple and have a minimum scale 1/8"=]'or V=39. 17. Draft Affordable Housing Plan for residential projects with new construction of three(3)or more units. 18. In order.to support findings.for approval for a Variance,respond to the following on a separate page; (a) What exceptional circumstances apply to the subject property(including size,shape,topography,location or surroundings) that deprive it of privileges normally enjoyed? (b) Explain why the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege. (c) Why is this request necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights when compared with other properties in the same zoning designation? (d) State reasons why the granting of the request will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. 19, Entertainment permit requests shall be accompanied by evidence of review and conceptual approval by the Police Department. 2t1. Photographs of all existing signs on the subject property and at surrounding businesses. 21. Design Review c}iecklistw. FOR YOUR D"AMATION:Staff may deem other submittal information necessary. Completion of the application does not presume approval of the application. Such approval is discretionary with the Director,Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may deny,modify or conditionally approve the application.The Design Review Board's action is a recommendation to the . Director,Zoning Administrator,or Planning Commission unless the application lies been submitted for Design Review Board final approval, All entitlement decisions are final unless appealed within ten(10)days of such decision The appeal shall be in writing specifying the areas of aggrievement.in no case shall building permits,certificates of occupancy,or licenses be issued until the appeal period has elapsed. All applicable fees shall accompany appeals.All applications shall become null and void if the approved use or project has not been initiated within one(1)year from the approval date unless it later date is granted. giforms5ptatminglgenappla Revised:May 30,2007 RECEIVED NOV 14 2011 Dept.of Planning &Building November g, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Written Narrative Application Requirement 15 T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 To Whom It May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. The proposed wireless facility will improve network coverage forT-Mobile customers in and around.,the area of Springdale Street. This particular wireless facility is proposed to replace the T-Mobile Wireless facility that was originally approved at Bolsa View Park. This location was identified and chosen to help close a significant gap in coverage for T-Mobile customers. The placement of the facility will provide coverage for the residents, business owners, and emergency personnel in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is comprised entirely of residential homes to the North, South, East, and West of the proposed site location. Due to the nature of the proposed project it is difficult to determine the exact number of the City's population this facility will serve, however, the coverage maps provided depict the signal range and area this site will cover. The proposed wireless facility will serve the residential neighborhoods located to the North, East, and West of the site. As referenced on the coverage maps provided,the approval and installation of the proposed wireless facility will increase "In Building" coverage reaching streets as far as Bankton Drive and Fallingwater Drive to the North of the site. Coverage will also reach streets near Edwards Street to the East, Silverspur Lane to the Southeast and, even as far as parts of PCH California 1 Highway. This site will also support and infill existing sites in the surrounding area by increasing the "In Car" and "Outdoor" coverage. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY 6 SUITE 100 ® IRVINE, CA 92618 6 PHONE.: 949.336.I SSO i FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL: INFO@COAST'ALBUSINESSGROUP.NET 0 W.WW.COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is unmanned therefore;there are no set hours of operation and no need for on site employees. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o, Ext. 306 or via email at aweeks.�a�coastalbusinessgroup.net Regards, Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP, INC. RECEIVED Dept.of Planning & Building November 9,2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Height Justification letter T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 To Whom It May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is disguised as a 55'tall Monopalm located within the City's Water Pump Station property. The property located at 18401 Springdale Street is zoned RL— Residential Low Density and has a maximum height limit of 35 feet. This facility is proposed at a height of 55 feet which is the height needed to meet the coverage objective for this area. The additional 20 feet will allow the antennas to have a clear signal path without obstruction from the existing live palm trees and near by residential homes. This property currently has several existing palm trees located within the pump station, most of which are 6o feet tall. Due to the height of the existing trees and the heights of the nearby residential homes, it's necessary to have this facility at the proposed height of 55 feet. If this facility was proposed at a lower height, the signal will not be able to reach the areas illustrated on the coverage maps provided. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o, Ext. 3o6 or via email at awe..eks@;Qasta[businessgroup.riet Regards, Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP, INC. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY ® SUITE 100 6 IRVINE, CA 92618 ® PHONE. 949.336.1550 ® FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL: INFO@COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET 0 WWW.COAST'ALBUSINESSGROUP.NET City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 .: ,.� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonb each cagov Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 November 15,2011 Amiee Weeks On Behalf of T-Mobile West Corp. 16460 Bake Pkwy. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 ENTITLEMENT: Coastal Development Permit No. 2011-015; Conditional Use Permit No.2011-028 PROJECT ADDRESS: 18401 Springdale St. PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 DATE RECEIVED AT ZONING COUNTER: November 14, 2011 PROJECT PLANNER: Andrew Gonzales,Associate Planner(714)374-1547; AGonzales�a�,surfci -hb.or Dear Applicant: Thank you for submitting your entitlement to the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department. The assigned Project Planner is responsible for processing your entitlement and will be responsible for the following tasks: ✓ Reviewing your entitlement for completeness; ✓ Evaluating the project for conformance with the General Plan; ✓ Reviewing plans for compliance with the Zoning Code,Design Guidelines,and applicable City Ordinances; ✓ Preparation of environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); ✓ Analyzing the site plan layout and,if applicable,the floor plans and elevations; ✓ Evaluating the proj ect for compatibility with,and potential impacts to,surrounding uses/structures; ✓ Coordinating issues related to the Fire Dept.,Public Works Dept.,Building Division, etc.; ✓ Obtaining other City department's comments relative to the project; ✓ Coordinating any necessary community meetings; ✓ Preparing a staff report and recommendation (approval/denial)with suggested findings and conditions of approval ✓ Scheduling the proj ect for a public hearing;and ✓ Assisting you with any follow-up actions and/or conditions of approval. Entitlement Page Two Please be advised that a Notice of Filing Status letter will be sent to you regarding the status/completeness of your entitlement(s) notifying you of the pending hearing date within 30 days of receipt of the entitlement(s) at the zoning counter. The letter will indicate one of the following circumstances: o Entitlement—Deemed Incom— plete;-additional ihforma io�equired (�:g., revised plans, -- supplemental plans, environmental information,additional entitlements, etc.); or ❑ Entitlement Deemed Complete; the Project Planner is continuing to process your entitlement(s) and you will be notified as to when your project will be scheduled for a hearing by (1) the Design Review Board,(2)the Zoning Administrator,or(3)the Planning Commission. The three scenarios listed below are the subsequent steps to the above notification: ❑ If the project is subject to Planning Commission review, a staff report with a full analysis of the proposal will be prepared. Your plans and supplemental information will be attached to the staff report. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing; ❑ If the project is scheduled for Zoning Administrator review, an executive summary with staff s recommendation for the project will be prepared. A copy of the executive summary will be mailed to you prior to the hearing-, ❑ If the project is scheduled for Design Review Board action, no staff report will be prepared, however staff will advise you of the staff recommendation prior to the meeting. Generally, the complete processing time from submittal to final action by the reviewing body and expiration of the appeal period is as follows: ❑ Design Review Board: 30-45 days(dependent upon the complexity of your project) ❑ Zoning Administrator: 2-3 months(dependent upon the complexity of your project) ❑ Planning Commission: 4--6 months(dependent upon the complexity of your project) Please note: When Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments, Tentative Maps, or preparation of environmental documents are involved,additional processing time is necessary. Please direct your questions and communications to the assigned Project Planner. If you have any subsequent comments or need additional clarification, please contact me at 714-536-5271. Thank you in advance for your interest in Huntington Beach-we look forward to working with you! Sin rely, Herb Fauland Planning Manager xc: Property Owner Project File I , � I �ram- � _ � v� y ✓ .. 3 y r , PROPOSED i MONOPALM LOCATION f ' r , , . I w: v Y 4 S J I x N from the Northwest looking Southeast l i � { , r .... .. .. .��'� +mr c�s'.;•a' `*`�-£,: er1�7,..a'F. ,� '�"": r �;S a��?.�"'+`ti.t,� .yvrw",� �" .. .. .: _^, wfn}"Y M � {'P", �. 1 Y "V (r''G�.YJ J .Y.J,.Z'SN .:t 'w i �' ✓?,yf L •go �,,,,. s�' t,.. ..✓,.:rl.'-''� �'3 e.,.�" i F^a J?� Lai .a's y .:."+gym..,'� ;4"_ -�.`�•t. a ava "' r 3,yti' ...,s »-W w.�,j.ay.,,,w,•-„., .s��a �.ly. ,. .A..`.ram`„-„�'Wa r r _ �"_j-"•�`,'.^a •r;'�`t�,s.'''�4�' ',r:w tv r c, u-`"r�A'¢', V� :,s�rxT',--�'F"'-;;?� "�f�• ""e .. v .,� - ,��� ��,. �V. r.. .� ,. y _ _ ._, :.•a�Jcr �' t�-u��r -�s�'�'^�y � .r:i ,� J�`s s- � 'x- er s''^"y'�"a'.�.ksa "'�_'. ,..�M. _ r ,�' y k• �_ r��.; bW�;����"t�'�,r`. tL Asg1�3't+>} �:. .ex .Pa��'F,�'`�r"�Itp"k � � •W. `;;�r - �'� -Pr�'.'� P�7' ?;?'ap>7'�ir�r r�3s N it '-i7,.�� zx 5 �.r __ - ;pia. .d",.s%u'•.�.°, ,, __ i... �!6r.;tS,L. ...?�`,r.: I 157C APPLICANT CONTACT E _ f::...... ... T Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. b PUMp� � ���� 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase r _ rY �W% Irvine, CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 Iir dale Ste Irvine, CA9261$ g�f y f #-�L If. . i•. X Vwr 1->4- 3 r. r. . PROPOSED MONOPALM LOCATION a , v from the Northeast looking Southwest a { tl+ M 1 , .._. .....-. :....:.:.,_ ..,...,: .., ..._......y_..,. �.:.«. /•'ter: :-:c, :,-.. .,.:.,:: ..z- ti, .<., y r 'yu -:... .::... ........ .:.:... .. .-.:.::...... 4 i' ✓...r. ,.:.. ,.,-«..G..r.J.._.,. i}u^ r. Erb -�}1' � i ........ .. ..>.: :,:..:.. ..•.:.:.. ., ...:... »:. .,n+-r-Z+'+f --.,,c.";'.,v, J $ 4: f ,.'�... ,,1r... > .. ,�Z.:f", s1' .y..L \ .u.'3 '"+.4"4^�' ..-,s�,,,,, :..::.. : .,. ..... .. :.. .. .:.:.. �-w'�`",. „J""v -:'✓. f� 1'J. '.J .,. -„i6rs 1. � v .r.,/., M nf. C-. `��a�� .,. .Y:... :.. �::: ::.:.: ..• ,.. ,...:... Y xi av v ,. v",r.. r .. ..-.:.: .. � eR9v ✓' i `7 ,v�/„-�aY✓� .w ,r r 3:• ,� EI , -i ,,'"a.i' fis° SyW 's'�'' �r �,-,.o''^c t -,✓ ?J 7 =6�:..,„'a,,".��, w ............. :..:::,.1 ........ :... ...........,,:..... ,r-'�`-.�.. .ovx`,:..,,-,.,_fs ✓., re r,,.�.-r,xe a,. -^^�� ;�x!;z^�: ,t... , :J M,,,:::,_ . ," .t` ,A.,ac:C,..:+:,.-, r. - ,,:;: ray.,...-- .. .s's �.c r a,.,<..,ars.,.. •. " "` +::.F r l�✓ -r- r t�v _.> -r+r" c'7� t 'a'".L, �:r,-?-. �� .:;fa km- ..,< m -..i.�. ✓i^- �, .�'�.:.G'.., ..,.�;,,.." ,r✓..i�+"�, :.. ',:...... .;. ,.,... : - :.. >.,,.,.3. •, -,...,..............t..�-•1.,:„«. ....:: .:s". .:..,�",�� s -.y, Sa�.;-.r f..b!' .l,r,.,L..._a rr. „a, -a�� lz. 's"' s a'''.. � ✓�-sa=:.. .. .,.. ..:.,: .. .,....:.:. ::: ...: ...., v _,.,". ,b ,r r^ ,r»..-.• ,...,.. ..+pJ' '•r'-�,'�'",- ,i.. -3. .,s. 4,4„";,. �raaw�➢'y' �T . ..... ::,: . ..... :.:, .� ..... ..:.... r.w -,....rrz"�.,:Sa...H: •:;rs,: .ar�y5 '+e ,�,��'�. r��: ,.wN -..z ,r y,.,.a+�- ,,�' . .., '..... .:.:... .. ..:.._ :..... .::;:.. . .... ,..... ,..-a,._ S,,:,. M..,..-W =... ..,rz., -�`., ✓.,, n� ,.. -.:. ... .:..... .... ...... ., . ...�-: ...... s �, ._.... r,..;..>. rram�,, " :rw:-'a+./. !,--+•y ,'�::. i .�J.�+.,..,ra r�f-3 '4...✓.,...1'....y'- Y �ea,,.. -d" .-s., ',"�:..... ..... ::: .... „ ;.c^'.. „. ,<.. -r ,r`:, ,.., .. ..4 a ,r,.,.-;•s' ,`y .a:.� .f� .t.J ,:�:�Y.Gcs..,; y t '- _:..:.. .,:..... ..... .-. ..._.:::.: :.;........ .::_. .:. ...,f�,. ..,d�,:^..,_ .<..�""r,r•. u � '^'r-5 e,!:;,'::,�c.�:r::'sc'•::ce> �.c.�s.•,xz�...0 ,.r-'.✓,�r .,.-r,. y�rry.� ,. ....:... ., """*,w::ri'�i 'n_`.�4t.. ,. _,.;fr •: l'.e:,.;✓ s.^"�,,,,",t,.., < s f s�_�r.^^,,n t ...��.....v .:._ .:.:: ,f..,..»,� „<� +L4,„r � .' 'S- .3)F..:.....✓: > :,1,.„-..+T*,:;:,r` .r 4 ''��' .'1Y.^'�X..... .,... „_:: _... _,,,r,�✓'•,-v,... ra-...a�,s .:.. ,r." ,-^' .• x;'''� -yc:. r-,-' a�''c7»4,,.-=acr- Y ,-,:ya.r.,-.,rT .�.4 - :.. J.., �> �r''.1r,.>rs»,.,r._• .°•.. +'....=x� &. .es .r .n=. :'w3-ra-',,.` '' - *'-.`^''K ..' ," ,r/''�..�'�'�.^�`�. ?• .,.y v.;F`,-; :�3�����.:.�.':a. "rxf ,,'. .Z✓�axsra*,,,°;s;�;.oa;,,;.; -•..-pia,.', 1. Tw.w�' ti/�'Ewn�,✓ >-. �,v.. ::�''' "-:�»^Y' -r,� ..� >f c,��f�1T�l.,ivlx"�:-"'=3�� 7.".� :�� -a,�:"°�{"'�:.-{ ��4 r"cfs-,.:�?;� -'r„�'�-� ,,�;�"�-.�, ��`». 3rn`:- e 1'�ic.-. ,'o'.Yxrlr'��� �'�✓,t'w.._ �-�r,. ,:n e,;.:r,r,., ...:'" :.,�„F6� s�����u..�..: �:,: Y l"4 �y v"s J�,Y,�.:C^» i 'i• 'Y' C.h`�^`T'i"" ��....�:'�:_` .Sy 4.�,r.�-,.. "� ^� ' Z',�,.- r :......� :,•K•:.r".u:tw:a��y�.w,-.- ,.-.v /"'-d..w,,.<.„,,..r>,tc.,,.,,.�';' "40 .l.>;� .:�� �E;! ,, ' , ✓•�,'. ,;,;. s! :..,:.. ,-,;>` p„ ..}+J.(>»' •.G:s?.:sfan,,w:,vr""r='.rrXl� s _r-(' .Y'-: f4," .:.� "im' _';' ,:��� - ",.._.�r :.�4'������rl, rzY..�.'� :%*•«' _ � �:z«%-"'--�.:� - ,,r tic:^' '«%yes':`,.,=,K�S,� �_, .. ,..:... rr" ry" :n r. : � .. 9's > '1J' ,r° M..? o-.,r,c':,„.✓"." *=� ✓ y v y,ry A,.," r�r,� ,�s..-n^. :Jr�'.,, �.:. -��� -°��'�,�'' ~»•'�' a�l r - �r7%'" �'- ..vwef�y.aC"",'s'�Grr �yY��i�,Tt�yz;^,�rr,�sy N w,���',��,'�' ✓.ri,-..c a r ,=',,��.� �. _ 5.^�r• > ,�''i''`^�' .-'"''^^^���r�'rJr�.�'A�,✓.�'"t�!",3 �r�y�, dn� z ��i' ��t,yh���•f�� n .%� �""' /"awl ''r x���;rt,Ec,��^r;�ii.�s,-•'.�'L`r"'� _'� '. Y^i',,u�'tx�, u.„F•', 1 f ni l "z,,,.,...+• I `1r'' `%w s r3s N •n✓z'i",,-'x�,iw:.. h- �*i -�'�2� c'", ' f} .r .> f .ut.J t r l >�.� ,�� ,�.� �.s i'-.��✓c :'c'�E" �.z "•y�./z st`ktw, -'.�n s'^' �.� :s�i,,, ,':� �:� ,c'.✓ 6,��a � .�. •rr✓- a �"rcv7✓.r „� °�V 'r .�.,✓+".N� �.-' `=` '- .�...2.-ac,:; a:s rl.rgs�»:� r r,.• �-.'���gyJ. ,T, 's'.:✓,� '> �f'r^�,+s�T ,,,.,��•ru.�:. .,s; _:r �,-�.� M'✓ k0. .✓SJ�i.J >%�."'f� f.>,h' nr✓ r d' .'ti "•^�".�.:J^' .F".y` ".t„r'U �.GY ✓,.ry=v,�'-n�v,' °��� � ^ �; .•z..•k.'s.'^:,a.�'r.'^dr-� Via'; � .,c-` ^"sma„ ,'�;j"id r s.- ✓ iJ'., � s:.�is, ¢d$�rr�,. f,,., ..v+ "Fi,R, ✓- s c' �i,;: r.:,�%>,.r; ,•,sc .2"-'�:�b+.;:b:JT ",+;,,?�. ;J•'. .C; ..'�'. }�1;�:r'w�?"is3.<a ^^ •r v �""'�:✓�.-''>�`� ,,...,,. -s• a„ di ✓, r n �:' '+ »�:-..+r Lf 'W,^`z%-Fe ..x .46` ',�,�,,E. S•� �,. c3 zr.' `'" ¢ -. �'fsz!y, r",^r,r�' ��b �;5. .,+ �. � ;J', '.;•- k' �Pv.^' J� 1�v' ,:.«"'� yr�� ',.a.:��4; .r a�'- 'Gr t^s"rr �.�✓y-,r ,.a�i r,✓6' ,r.` �'^ a �5,/-'°�"✓,a ��;�-r,T„ ��'?•,.,. •,%3'".>„?'�" y ," �"a5'+r'� '" �-'+�!';•,ya'..,v' ��"1 2'y'� `v ',�Y'-. �.,1 h . ..'�' '�.� " �'�'v �}���'���� fJ �-�..,",! ''e '"=+E-Gyr'�„' ey. t 'r2i� ?,}z3+?a Y,a .F t`�:r��N.-,-3,?.P�,".r.f,�'<'.'�-�y}�>�s��';�. ,3, '� d� ,.".cs.5u• �,,,,'.rr7;,✓. ��," y4. �. ��'.4?�; k✓�"'c�'lys�,.sjzXr.' �...Z„-n ,, .�s yF,r, r..r..?;T✓�I,F:,,- 1,1., � .,,� ,P _.s,::. f ,r-.v,-'�'S�" c�a `���:'.��Sr,'C�c. T�,cGr.,,yy��r.Gr.�••'��'�a-::n� -"r r,?u. .�-�4�..a,�:,::ivz'=,s�'�Y'a6.>4�•E',?.1r,.y..-':i. V, ..a} '.s, � .,.:uj'. .'G�3.,, ,��.,��,-'user""",w`�3�„�9,, ;a;✓, _ ..,.,r{7�, h 4!' "`y',r�"��r.��Y"�x,,�i�r �°-'••%���''rYr,✓,Mi' ��j - � ,�� 'Y' �•„ s�'„^'..< v.s��4, �'a ,�,sv. ?ur -� •,w«.Kfr„���, 'rs_ +ry^ R-+, ..J„1r q a! ..a .5":.✓^it ✓ ,:, `< a,.L :f.'1 y*� .u, ,.„m�,'w..{' �"n°9" " , " M ... �.:.., �+:s.... ^.1'..n��.°^"d], S_F>, lh ....r f;Y%v'.,'1�3: APPLICANT' CONTACT 157C T Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc, r b Pump Stati®n 2008 McCaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase :_,..,.y;.,;,, n Irvine, CA92614 16460 Bake ParkwayC S8uite 100 !rin dal St. Irvine, f T)1 _ AVI_ .- _ -- T j F4 � t �. iMONOPALM PROPOSED ,. LOCATIO fed j M N from the Northwest looking Southeast ' • r' #..� tY i - . i v a. .,.:."'",�,Cc-y¢ S'".°^Y-.,-a'"�'���,.�r r �`�.✓ '•.y✓r ^{y" „'�,, r -� ''e�,' .. ;"f.` ti :um�, r i f '��y�¢re,�>µ�*��`�^�., �?,r`�,� y "'"`� �.�r-�' ".""?r.Nr�" —�.��,a,,z�Y'�'-tA'e,�✓. 11 57C APPLICANT CONTACT E T Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. L Pumm 2008 McCaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase n T� �1 16460 Bake ParkwaySuite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Irvine, CA 92618 . I ............ ... . .... ... ...... . .... .. .. -gene xlstin Coverage Without LA1315%�, � C) LA42#b3A _..� 1 1Maa afl �Aive f t — C: _ L� - Betty Cyr r_ Q 11-CI� N El l.Gi Q.i J .��.L, � �2i"v�' to �` er�� d j .�., Q h7r b r i i raw �' J a anht n c Imo' I.,QYli Y Q 5 all r � ngflQ a t � � y�JNtYy}5 `•. L✓'�y""'J"1" �, r'„ \ — - •u / ernar D� `Iitiy LAO2�81A ' v ,^,/�•_,..r;,G. ";��r� \.,,.,.-..� �. � s.y,,,�, /' � l/ r � V :�Imo( ��i Ra ���`" ���/'A'vs;'��?c�r-`fig�.,�, f�„'s, ' - •..,_ ��rz �� +1 ��-� tr ��rn. � 4. -SfaM"u�V LA 12267A t E, ,, ': rye •,, rrMr ? �. Pq J•ti�.�- .:r - M„ �' .. . .v� yitlfC&1-lrlr - LA025�3A I w r �p�f J• JS r Prediction Coverage Thresholds k � -78tn 40(In—Building Commercial) - Residential)_ ❑ 0 76 In Boil � ) din Re ' 'al nn y ;ln. 91 to-84(In-Car) r' -100to-91 (Outdoor) t - ❑ -200to-1 O0(Minirna4 to htone) Proposed candidate r �.:Ti4 1171 IlifomY,prry FrtrM7-ff 1+1k U..4,IYc,G m►ri'1?Yaalald b I►tr•1?dolleytrtie w.rYriA LdY!Y.IYaI�teYUt°t V►CfiY Ilti�I:Ir?5bet1.�Y'••ntler Yse.�rrll tl3lG]1 OY11V Il wroalbi 1>str►:U;:pro?l NFd.TM In:j pw:R G rtul Jynto!In cs orr o Alreks:w.mr,Ylear?aoltksars.AtY►maFclaYgexlrinrtYollx.ttlra;lYalicFf��riYtAIi111nlPcfarYoa�,rtale. Yrrrc�;t4aYch�YanE:Fr.laxoff�I:II1tr.E�YA^R11Yaxr,���earea.tlereareattvralXrbls.aYr_f :>et6+?If.,_i,bN?., w,;.!?<garl};r»IImE,SErL'kP r�YttCrE'a,4C114-.:zil tlit ltN?Ya.il)tal strE Yutl,,%oi r eglter,e Yt 1?rralY,zlwte?s„wearier.auliri tcoldlrUYS Ua[rnh lY#�rf rE+Y•fi16 a�fi�l sert=?-e.g Yalu aYrl Y.CllkYilfli, lYcl1{IIY IIYF.IiIIIE t�mroE,TFCk4k.iY•:1�7:i1Y't•�lY i�l4:. t A. I �• y ;.. _ LA02G3A f;, 1l cry - , r— _r-, cn � ��- ., Patj LA02$53b " � l 4 y r E `. �-� fpett�Rr' n r i� �� c -- almoral D # ' rmra�rxiar D NQ 4 If f 71 Vf IL o- 1i w LA022G7k LAlpi57t ° ar aWs, }�utoQack az1t-�I LA02543A . Carrir P Id• o Thresholds s Prediction age 7 �h -76 to-40(In-Building Commercial) Residential) to 84 t 713(In-BuildingR . 'al ® -91 to-84 in-gar •' k ❑ -1 04 to-91 (Outdoor) y, Ur ❑ -200 to-100(Minimal to None) — Candidate v: Propor,=d C roe 11;IMITO19m.1mix1t{MT-L1fM%Ul-A.,Ito,V"I:Nrtil all ls 1iie(kcl;0 t,rtle+se aftle he 0,14alorekt%,b-Nlon It allreswl.iri abf,r rse,orOtbotmcntrIs Iktrmawk 1;ttrl-uti rolb1fu4.T1V Ifij>pied M, abd-,j.frcdn,*s rmr I� xlit l�.stm.,erale area ottwwr,i"rn3rclalgenmO1tr'm*.RMN1ra11SYh7I171vNMII1M1 Iorlowxrxle.Q it win,Y,iotgimitemvik* R'eiwMliaoA4 rage area,tit toarv,wvtal"Is,cto%x:tewmv,daiqps. �tr=rfMwifine,serul c+eta;as,tdiUAllrtilt jkc,skialatkigtl,aired:Ii541t,t..Frail.ttlCtre 'w"1lfar,wirier)wlmiswatmajwerrre;i•smwhalsewl*,9 1aitke,aid anIMI ',UN1cIli lie*11f,bmafp,reclew,a0malibli'7,iw. d l v tRr eve 1 LAUZ' 5:v t Q1I- ' ImI Cp Llj LI I W,— t C Qj 11+ Aft W,ir'�"' Y-�2r^.,,,�j.�.�" 'ram Y ✓ �: (r W � „? I Sclyfort z Balmoral Dr (t_- ' �rH$nlpr�r j ' ll � ,✓���?�<. "�•,�-, � Tom:; I � �, - �^ ",�•�. ..c,' ,'r"r��rrr' ✓at-. .r '� r i %I .t.}... fil •:: ��'� �' ,,�' .� � ✓� + � �r,".:sue I�: fl3� �ln :-,�i� '�S'�.�r �.-✓,,y,,�, � �r''--.s--Y-r-r � �.1 . ;; ., � f'� I� C"' � (7 (� tvxt ... fit ' ... �Tayl r y !. ,�' a NIS c �aan r I I r r r y ,y LA425�3A C€irral�l.rlr � ^� R. a prediction Coverage Thresholds / ✓ :: — — - ..... a +�+v: I �•:• - - ,. g al) t34to-7t3 fln Buildin Commercial) i I ' ❑ -91 to-84(In-Gar) r - (outdoor) _ 00to-100(Minimal to None) 1 % _? ' A Proposed candidate > Tifbltxi tin atf:,t,I?o:pert;'oYT-6itrlfitU,.6,tic,4citiTktUauIWGECk v(3kyihrfitueCylath(lbLhal4re1ilt,-bA'ic4ntt��:kIM1E6tI.ar••;•ntyerrse,�irtl pill)rFfd t-AkIjf,F•3>,inaE - xireW.sso74vutieareaottfxrs,x11irna+ciatge <muttrotlx.Itmai velvPFxz6)iswhflnre(ior Dtsttiltaox rxiearea.'det,,are;ewrattxZr;,saias:VeU*tic4aitles. mQ,�rylctr,lone,attvYxotta�Ns.tafthallintt�lf�ta,si�talshee�tl„ntrNtljxnNYt rrilt.s4tttrrea aettitr arirtentrmtctlb,tstl ift.vi rf.wiwri"al tr t� gialfR 1Yrl�.4iIrd). Y,IICII<IIIi�,tiN�:IIII-ttn9+,rtckt° atdrnaut,ItratG .-_ rT DM 37 ,P.CTIQNAL DISTRICT MAP NOTE: AOOPTED AUGUST 19.1960 0°�°`"'�aE 7EeT awr 1arc.n.loaalN•Rr aaaa.a CI�Y OF L G E�m IU M CBaEa CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. 767 «yid 1yp7 p7 py LEGEND- CITY �ORO.NO. AMENDED ORD. 0!»7r 04- 7-IT-71 7-9 6619 © r u AFNCr 9-I3-73 74-0 ZM JUi�.`TF .' 1� -TI■=`/..''y`�r�■■■y�� �WT{1 7-2-6a ..-7 27OB l mgta�iVE ¢eaan+a< . •Tj • V'�.A.O3.', \ .'.B.EA' _ r3Ft00�3iE2E0G I+nw WAn:-mccmc " AMENDED 9Y ZONE CASE. N T7 33 S� 20 �r1[ tc foti Ri p / 1 'o %'4 b y* �I. 77 aN a 7 213 9 4 Microsoft®Virtual Earth- PROPdS � ED� v E r i . f' i' � 6 ,.^ L..•: Y f to / ' Q �r PROPOSED of MONOPALM LOCATION L > , 3 � , from the Northwest looking Southeast � f e r r„ I t' 1 r H , L . -::. n....,..r .. :: ... .:: .._ . ; .. ...� r1"- �tY,�C:Lr a,.,..,.;re7 � � 3rti hr t ➢ °�».; 1R.. -',s ., ,.... .: -;,'��;r.c25r�.a.tx-u.�Z%o_. r?w'r- s '�'"-:s' 'r,,•.r„Gw�rn ;r„rt r. {.. + i .:. >',�`><- ,. ✓%r: .a-r-�"f. y-'sr n.,..,,, T S�...+ � i.z, ar..0 .r"' .eF.:'✓rnI':'.r z, .k+7'r- �r n '` "" rr.4�, '� 'i^C^ n) ,r.wr: ,)✓ � 'K� i'sR. '...... .. '. .. :. ..:.-.' :' .' :. .7?,n.,�. ..s".. .:�i'ro. w3:.-u-�..,o-5-;._..:Cva...:'.q?.✓'.•7 _,_, n-......r:�.tr I r�'�y,.��f .. ,. :..: . . ... ..:.:.. .rr.�' .y �,- ..r-'�"Y.....,r;y._..�s�^•r+,K �,rr,.•-.✓!' f...,,,...�,.. ....Ar:-.:s}r:? �,u: >+z<r n+ ^v x s: r .F.}s, t-. . >..gC"'3?"�"':.. . ...:.. .: .. ......... ,, .,v:. ,..:.. ..,. ..?"_ _:!,tt .� ...'��. .J:�.y: ,r..�w ..�.',;�v ,i.. „f.�sy�`.. .,,�:,s�•^.;c•�,-::-x:��:,:_.µ- ...r.er: . .... . .. .. :. ..:,:. ;..R. „-��ntr. .,;'..y;; �J.'. ..c �i.,,�. �,fi�'. ..t�r,..s�3tw;c{,:s�t'i +..�'..a•s�•..cr�.s ,.w.,z_✓Nr,<.:c?.;.�%•�.z:£�:"!t•`nrf::: y.1.. . : µ. a. .,z.w - -vr.Y-''���^;.,,,,i-�% -�i-��t l�t s5'.-9 PCs>;;T�: .�` ,r. �s,.",u�-r3'.-.«�":+� f•e�. v r Y '„e ,.�" :. .' :�•::..:r :'.. .:.:.: :.... �� ..,� ,�.[•�f.+'G' ;a,r.,.4 -l„•✓�*Mh1,,;,ya-,t 'r-.? y {. ':a r�'a.y-o,+'. .'�"_. �f;sn::-ir•;r:s--,_...t:Sg...u.L�i'r.,:�x«.� r - :. r a. . .�'r n•2. '*�`r i z a I"'ra' + i, �^,. .r�j:vr.;tr.:� .�, 1�a - `r" - ,4�;'?^ FfYe.�-". � �w %•ii�/� ^`v Fcr,' �y,fv'd �")- 5�..'"'9� SUM '�:�.''q-.'+x,Y �',�"5:�'�� ��jri'1 t''• �� � �-:' : � - �. ._3 i".v?z-�'''�����v�.,?.'y� zr3rrr-�:,..Sr s.'r...::-'I�•!` rt�:4z ,t r r r a'�,re ✓ ..,. r-� "f rt� .t,g 3J'r..t�x Y,+7.t .s ,�: - ''�'.���» '.:'3'' ,i.?'?�a �ya,�+„�''z'�r`��'i'i'as i„r,;::.rr:-�. s h,r #,,. ?.,f'� yr„�,.•�7.s�.,�iovN:'r�,'„zs�#`3�✓r ,�. �"',�`Kr�"r'' .er c�-:=,�r✓r r s�,r.;,y y�.'trirs u .. ,; .' ..,,,, 'h�'r�..'bf`.��- ''^�s.✓s,..y��,,, rr'res- '"aa.- a;,,'1�'.,w?-rr:.. �+F�•t��-��u � -�.l�a,s' i- 'ems.' -L ::::::; ,. � 3,: .... ...-_, ro, •. v s. ".v.,r?✓.•;,,ux,. ,,�,h'•�;l-t t,,, c;'7-� .��.,,vy,..;.:,,°n? .xn'�ihu .� �.I;.; -,r.,.�..:-,�:�-*•irk ..>zr i, .J.: ��,,� -w:. , `E,r-t. , .,�...,. �.Y,�'. f•��/+..'^�znl✓ „aS:-•:v<�`ht,.-.L rr,�';°��, r- ^s ..�^? .."ai„"-' .,' �',-arh,+- �,ei4'3"y�' a ..s �� '?=-' _ `�"�<:.!� ..,.�.-. ,. � •.73,5,.,,r.3t,:='t,,.r,,,I.-:Sri' -.:�"�I, �,�,.:dc;=� .✓. :'�: ..�,�.,^. "�.. d _3�i'a .,;-r- �r ::� '� ..:; r- "� �• �✓<.,Z,��v*dr_2v✓e,,, r u,w?�'; ',r,�.� ,,xv�r,.r'�,' _`- � .. � �Y,r7 � fr. s t a .... :* - ,�. r �"�:^ ..:.". w'. ,�_,.,, .�'�•., Z�,...s•M'.r�,w¢ ,-.� "'i•,`•:JraZ:r ��r•^' ..� r�y.,�,,c'<�v r�,3 ,t. I '.rr°oi �w ;iy 5 ,....,.w� .,���--ry����,�y����,}}}{.,,,.., '- _, �:��,�y,'-f✓S^'.,,y,.w•J. �,J�._ y �. .,r✓. r� ,;.r; ,h s , i -f.,r' trr' �.ew� .. s�....✓: -'^!On.Y+ ;.'s^.- �' G 'v.t '.4 '�'kt .�� .::-:. "h^,:y�•:'Lj'. """W�f'"' `.� :...�7^:. "� ��::� t�Fk' f b��y,�,n.'7.-hv�.:"l S 1 I .k` r h,�:s...> Y ..:. ...._-,-: .:-_ .._ er ..,, .., , _.r=',�"�«,��,, �li�r� yr. �..;.„'�;x��:: ;� '-a^'� � •',..^�,.q;; ..',�' � --;- ,F C Vt_.,.-.n.t'� .-.: ..,:;: .,,, ...-, rV „_yr .' '3'df. „ .. 1 l Pl!'r:'_1.. d' ',J"'"' a�_.?✓ 't _c-l. "r.sR q.*' :Sf � ,^- r .__:..,, w, -.::. ... _ �; ^I� .. ,�,✓.,.. -,a.C:aw � �'_,,.•' ��: z,� '-�'.a, .<. :sr,. �.:., ,r. .: -. � `�..��» c•r oa ,:ret. N� �" fi ,rrry'-,�ir�"._ .uy :::',i" �`,'>"r ,,. ,. '...�:..,. : a, ,. :_ sTt:r'"�p`�;+"����,a. - .;�'�,u::� •,r :rz! 's"r��"�ia r2z. .n �, ..�*•_; �.tr�-sr. C�r✓cat � - :y,s..; w"^3��:s�-`',✓�,�,t•�`�t��. � zqa]� �r"' � }r's '�,�'-::PCs' tw"r' � ' ::,c`�. ; },'. :Sr..."�,'`y,x�� k � 3+ 5-r'', a•:�3+�• na,: _�,�t^:.``�„}',*.c" - `Y'�''^+^' ,'�, �e:'Z� rix✓,.,7^2.�� x;.t�e,9.. x�e .y .:t x?r'�'F�����'•'-'- '�Ei-r�a r•^<r"'✓ r -.��>" _ `+,'s�,c'.y` 'sa :�.s�U'S +�u,:��:,c .,,,". .�.�LL *r'S:rs:: ���•rau S,�' K✓�4h�� f� ��:.'7�� �`�:>�?r✓ �.. „`�„°.'w�' a, � 5 r �,. < y�, ;, ,.;,..-rt - � .. r' .,.:d"�'' �vcr ',;tr, i�3�t ar'x�?"' �. t •'x _.,� , ... n. ';��„-.��s tcic.„�:.:... .:.:..v.:...�'uy',.:.:,,�.. .;.:' � ..;:..:�.. „$+ r�!� 'Yq�"'r� '9.. -w3 '�,���,,?��..•��.-�- �.Yh•`:<:�� rk` :ivN,y.- ..,I�.,.�.,. _ c/r. Cor APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE � 157C T Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. btuewc a1, mp Smuon 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase � �' " Michelle Irvine, CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 14 'En ale S , Irvine, CA 92618 p . _.. �� . _ ___ ni IVT_ f 949.2 Microsoft"Virtual Earth- PROPOSED r-�•--�:"mot ' ,a � _ r: stt r i PROPOSED R E r MONOPALM LOCATION �x n J 4 � i trorn the Northeast looking Southwest - " ..... ...:. ......: ......: r�`,`..n,as't vJx rs ..c... s �" ;,a',.r'i,.✓ "�, s ... .... :......._. '-': ... ..: .._...�... .r. r..'.l..rc ,..+ .,. : ,.- „ ...,,,-•. .-^v , .sn t£:.�. ,a" ,�'5;;. a .) 3,- r :"t .,. .. .. ...:........ ..... ......: ...... :. _ .. _1, ,.u_.AI3� .,.,..�,-.F ., .. 1. � 'J G• :t.. I,5 4' .�'.: L �r,Y t•' y.^"_' i'! .. :..... ........ .. :.:... .........:. . ......: .,.:�.�, ,, t..� ,�_,w �•s< c .,.r,�,,...... -:w,. �S,. ,:�. a ���,( n c .n7r_,'. icl�W,s-,,;, s.,r rc.' ,� ... ,. •?.,_ .,,.,,-.x, .., r :..,. >c s.. c ..�.F.-Y,;' .. s'o b s..r- r.:saM t'DES- ,b .r, .` .±.. _4 ...>,... .. ......'.z:,... }. ,.'.:,:_ ..-:,.. ,... . d..„ ,.-. .-..t.. _.. .M f _.:..,,....c.✓.4,. t., .e.., .� �rw.a �Lr a�.� _,o-•e , .. .. ..:: µ.,...,� ,. ;✓.,.> •.. .n t .w. ,r ,,. r�.:i. ....c ,.r s. :.,+...� ..,,�, :::r_,- :r...: y, ,,.,Y.1 .:�+.JJ ............ .,..;., ._. :. ,.... __: :,,:.. ...,_...:,.., ..r.. 1 ,....,a„..Csi. 'xx...e.,_.«3' :.:...�,.+.. ) . - „�v"s!.>�, �,. ,>-. 1 'Y' ,9•ih`<>3,,,..i... s J .^. �r1^, ,s, 1,.< z;>,x rT...:?�'4 c• ✓ ...::..:.: .....:: ......:. ......i '::...:. ...:..:.... i,,. '# i ..,r,:✓,,.:,.,,. -.,,- l.•`M •' ' .�^„ ,� I, r-1.�.,'yiu'l�..i, .t, -:' F"'J''.F� ......:.:.:. ......:.:.... ......,: .z; :,ar .r'T•:Y '�.._ a _... rf-.« J' ,1. :,.,t.Yl c y✓-1... -5'-- ..r F- ..... ....:.. :_:- ... ,...-,. ........ ......... .... ..w,`�>.,7u 1.,,,.,r. ''_. .. N ..:>,.�o-n w.. ., :, ..,r++� ..,-f:•.':� '�'- f "¢..,� f !v.'.-,'uf3>; ,u.- ,%,i.f. ...--..... ..:......: .......... .:. .. ... .,..f'...-.t.............r{w. »a.. „i r�[r,." i.•.... ._ Via- r.. ,>F "2- f :4 -�>✓'�, i „A--�Ew'? i'»,-.,h. ,3r J.•-_'� l...r ", S7:t�, .......... ..'u..- ....- ...:.. ..:...: ... -......- J.,- __ .,.o.«>�X ,...<.4 -rf r--, - ,'Y!' � J.lc w ..r 'r. ..?,n .,•.s-_,J,.ics%..,;>s,.. a, '•xv'-."3,�'^>, :z#!•. ,.�'., ,�••: ....._... ..., ._-.... .:....... ..';.::...: ,....:. ,.. ,-:.m.,-..... ...._. ,a: �' .s.. ,-S`. "'�v�'�y"u c, r•9��.. .uus•.. ."z>;�.`c".r'•ss rr ate' �,.:.. z P-r.^-,. k �^S..a,::•'.:,.> a:v,..,f�..+i; .qY s., .✓3,.5 ,l -,f;F'. .a`x.., ....ice'.-,-'r ...a�� ^sm ,:�'.f'., r- .%-a' .: ..... '.._:....,. :�.....,:. -..:..... .. .. ,r, .,:.e.,_S„-,..,. 5,. e_.,s..iyy:r_„..-,,.� � ,+'•', '.... b. s ':R:.- ,..,,:� r r .. ... :.......... ,_.:.:,. ...._. ....,..._, ._. ::_. :c. .-„_...,....i,.v .,.. .,.,:,.r-si.,, .�.. ..✓••u ,.1.::, s.r.+' ,y 'p•3.."f',. a..--� "�' rr ,<m.•.y.. �.t:�" _,a�iLs.!"ro..:. :....... ... .. ... ..,. .... :.......... .... .... ..... k..- T 4,.:.v..._.... T .+r v..,,r.. ".n.n.,.-,t{ .,'�, ,v�J: .5" t .✓.,�,,..t:::'- 4 i.,:. l 4.J' S'fix` .,L ll>1-�- .^ ......: , .:.... .,..:. .n�,-•l J. ... .E 1>-u'-•ysa�.C�,lS�.}1,-.=avr »y.ye .. "�, ..,,.4 C / �,l' S' ,i»'_.....:.: '._,.:.:... ..... ..: ..1.. 'p N t^c. ..'..,%,�. .LS ,--3, r.`:r. „ ,,.�:::- ,A7� k..,.c.,, i1 3 ...../^ ✓;;R t� ..*�?. t• 1 i x,... .,,.2 r�' . > •'r.' ,ai ,tc >a,, � ,.� 7,'` ,xl.. a c. �. .�"%r,:e, vG.'.£`<'•�✓�x�'r 3 :�� ...u£:✓ r ,.: .. ...... :........ ......:.... .,,...... , ..: .... .. FfM.:,.,'�F„ .l z..,✓. -n ,k+...:: „�' .;e.. 'r`k,.t;�r ���> .�+ 6i, 7f..,...»,2'J'., f-`..✓.r, .:�..'�, :. :.:.�:: ,......_. -....::.:. ..::. :.. ?,.. ,...,.`>s. a.� „yt✓'^e„£a,� '�`.vt,-•" 'P ..�eL' :fS=>` ,„^,'s "r,"..t h'".. :r� £.; 5�„. ..s ,nJr 7„-r:^ `• ..,`�' ....... .:......... ,,. " .,r;r..,z- -•`..�f�. ..:...rwl'tt,-'„a� •.,,1`. -.>' � :;:.'.ux''^ 3pw: 1. ',r(•":F ,r .:' :r` .' r��;�.-^>p .+, ....... ., w» h3' i p...r.. .. -.,". --• ......: .. ..r:;".t r-:.�.u, r ..a�„, i- r ..5,�`Sn:E`,.E , M `tom .., ..:.... ......... .. ...:....: ... ...:......_.., a ,!�.,3" , �,-,>. ,_.,a .'s,-- .r .,.�"dF�3'.Y�'r- ^rs,.-...df,•Fxz-�'.`-••.. a.,�y=,,,, rC >t ,•�, �, :..,..,... ..:.: ............. .__.:... .'�`-....t r,ks~u.,.,,,.. ,,��F,..i:�..:.Ye .,.. _ .....>r: �� .�. K.ni,�cm-,. - ::r�'.� ,>r-_ ��., ,..n fw. .,,� ,1'x, o;'� ✓..� .. :�, ��c� ., .,.._.... -._...:.: vc„1:.....s t,..er. �,„L _l"...r,�". s �.a., n .,,ti: -ntnr,. ..ff•:c"-'w .. �}:.,t. :.r�,.t`• ,�",y:•s„ r';',•m :.r •r ..)...^'°_.•.� .4 �>",6>,2,Yi+n^^�'*„^`_!` _ �. .Tf"vY��.�+�.., - ek�ry,3> :,..} :(, ,.y Lyy� yx .T, A y�•,3v s .,r,� .:::_. .::: ...... .. :';:�'.:: L3r�Y..-.;r „"k^—'.,s :.�• ^� ..'_ '�"„ <v A rl,, -',?•,.... nYi'r. ,- .t: J�3.^�' .'2`,g.a l'� .�.. ....�i �Y��:b' ,,...... ..._ ....: ...--, .-, rn T ..My»rS ...: .✓.,- ..,` n..Pif.•P,,,• i^'3,:,'Y ,r»>!='t ->. ,r"'7' ::.f•.✓ .✓� .,J,Cr,Y� ,,�j ..... ..:�:. ,:•:: ..::. .:.;::; ,Y....1.'rsfr�•�>%✓`<.J� .,• _..:..., s:... :.:a'v w• ..:rac`' �r v" ::�-. �2. �,z ,�y '..,c.,,�-'�' ..-..�:� ?y'�• ^5"z.,,--��cv'' ..... :... .. .. � ��-•..-:r.v�^.la:,Fl;6 ........"r����^v��'�,,t � �,. '� ..p.: ,J..'tt^;..,. ..�,.:°,�>-- •,,j•;c.•-�'z:.> r.'a:,.rZ. •7,'?tr+,,...rr^3,�'F^$Est,<,^�..h�.. .,.r1,'w' „2,,,., e' r :p-a'c"�z, M .;P >',��.,,�" s y%' N.'tsrf "nr r >f> v::r .ydd'r r^,n•'"" �- f .r ir%-.. >.�,:..-.,^� „ia .. ... N,,, ..:i%'f �,'.r� '- a,- �.r »r_ .i'»�, sfsra�., ✓ '"k:' ...d Via'. ,7,,!.,x .., ✓ ,r, -,`„�.a::>.a•- ,.v.. •,�>.. .:,,:::• :'., ,...sn'„-.-r,x; �✓7„t,,. d ,........ `"'.. ,-. - _ ...rr„�'' •.,F>hl.._. ..,d "^�2c,xrmaa,:9�^:�'.: :✓a:,-5,. r- a* , •'•�"�s••s ,-�,?,rrf>z�c' _r,;.�,'^*• ^:E�:.� j::,?h7x- _...� H` .'�i�a,� as [,:'�-,5- ..,sx,•.S„, t3 ;n' r,.t";':l s "..;y,.£�u7.'»>... ..zs..�.;� „^»x"'��,�',' .: - .. .;. I .: .?.•, :,, .f.'`. Taste �r r ..1. _ •� rS-;,• �:,•r•, .-� u.:crs :,,. ...' fir„ •... ✓z. ,-.:.. -:. u��� ,u.r!" w�h'rt"- env�(�s'ix,., :n„-'.'?+k,r 'F s•�: ..1, rS;s rr^.•r,-v:.�, a -"� r,�� af^,.:c ?,edr'='r31, .;�;,. ���.^•r 9 { .•' ..!,'S_zf•;y�'�"..r rY-}=sez•.S;�r> 'u ��'" •r>,�'r:,,� wR'."` _�..,c. .,,.:.7-3*'� .;a t n �.:z •,c,- J'-;.... .✓. •.^:5;; 2 ✓ ,;tv a�. <�v^.»�'Z,�. .r%±c=;-- �,.<,���:,k �� ..,.i,:.n, ,��3�.r W�'y�.•(''� .`.•.3„'•$� £fit;£"- ckir rr"�Y _ - .J�ir i" f: �,'• "'�-+.> � h � ✓- � k£,- ..,G' _� �,,,., `mow;^=4.,. ,r �",,'r' ,;:�:d :.r,+.�s„ry rw.�^r 'G-.s v :'s""'° ,'� N ,'r"5 r'�w.•a..lc s5 >'`r"reaJ�.r f..,,-�s vS'a'¢."•�,'x_' :✓ 4�t,-''�-s >'j,�. 'rx"'�'•y�� f .,9 _ :[xs,,s,^ � .:;:��h�', t•xi:>�''x '�:,� §a.<✓, 3, r- "r`"..`...;,rft��i.��''�'Y�✓"' rfc !a�..r,,:_�'t�,„.x, r�"v�I��-i- .{',t' i�m�d�;f��..�r.:w�'A .s,�y �, x �t.y✓j :' ;' �✓ �'r`,.s, �;.; r � •� "~G�"�C~y„ -.w,r jr�'t�,',,,»,,�,.wF,.'�'�?�>- �r'��3 ✓'c°��it"�+1`:';,5^;�s;rFff'.rv-�i�,5-'�3�d�] .?,,.^�+3 J,�s J14�"t' •j: , "0.' '.N' N�Z;s �'" ��•��'.N,3 [�`tS'�".' � Jf j•,y.J.S�YA .f.,.,✓ �,�?N.,'*S "�,,�t-� y���r�1��, xs-- '�����.�.'i�:�ret::'a '1' •'.� .�.��r,Lv.<L'-r'.9- Lw'� .E s,f �,"�.-r��5 ,g'•r��'� �� si.•' :3yi. 'fir >ro. :.5 's 7 r.:; #.r �•' �- e� ,Y,.,.+�nc�'.c -.x., „,,-s ✓.2 - �:,-.". �� w'';�.:sx"<as'. .2'�>. �:t,.�>,�,t�„u✓,. >✓'aJ of ,e }Y: .s..s^.> t K ...( ..,a•.-d,3..,,>.Y :3Aa., >s+et' ..c3 ��. �5..I .m�a' a;.,:v..,;:, ,>�w +'- ti� ^aw✓,,,,>_ u' .r, r. ,rta� -.�.,.J,:J. ..r-- t rnr,.,,L .,.rt+,.,,�.r",. ,t ,s '.,�.,-..,,. w"� -.7 �% :,,„k''.'„u`- v'� .:> x.r...�_•-, •;r,..,.., ✓ t*2% ,5v,� {M,...-,,,f;.. N^ >I''`w,••,' �' f.`�;��`, x!� �'>t„f`r. �':� sr,4. :„r .✓ .1 5 ��sn' ,✓��x.^r�b�"T.,w.--„ �'..,:a,•r�" ._y.>..Y I n ,<,,: `�Yx.,-�^.', v :�'.o-.u"' ^s •�: �'s�'•a.(f .s.. rr.4 :�r .3„ �„u.✓ a.�.,,.,.._..,a .r- ai s �:Ek:" .�,, '�: ^^:,aSi'•r d is✓";,d"w�+�:...",?'�::a:.G,�.. .6 .;:t„, „���.r..,:FxiiY a,r-a£%.�i,�..,�,.< ,,..s,..r•^ u .dal;,! :::,.rw'�`.rra -.:.:�. „-, .Jr r,p�''•,'s>'.. ':� .'&,d'. .�. ,,.z'-,s=�.s. �% 'r,. r".+>,r. v u.�l� � ':�^ �>x,�t-�'vt,'f- r ,�k�,»„f'Fs z y;,,�, :;t1 s{.,t �' v.^�i- ::� �. "���•- �i"z_ r•✓, ��{r. > -w,=i= -�. ��✓_r•, .�.,r,.: ✓. ,.�v>:.:a.. 'f';Sw' :z�-Tlt:�'...r �`;s'�," ��€f'.a§: ->,> ,!, `�1 f s t � r,�'�4 y:w;s%.� !^'f',r 7„n,r S?rr .•' '.��>.r� r'r"�'F �,� ,� sz.>r yv�,�:�t .a ':a?'' r rt,.,y,,�., "��z .:'3 v.ter.., �x�`r I�'�".'c�'',,y .,;;� -, , ,r,y„ ,:,cs.".x,:; •,:rr.� r. .e-,.-,w.�.,� .� :f d "s' d��- :c.:r.•,i-"+rsrn W r i`�r•.:r::�-t, _=� f Y:"�"^ ?.:c?z`•�.�, �t, .'.,yi.,.3x F':+✓/r. .r9 r ..L'xr t�- �.,s:.,_�.'�". .v >�''.+`�' ,�... .t- >(. :3_? �r �s>^y.,. Ys•„ .sue.. r. .�.,.�^�.r✓.�'. �,1,. .✓. ..,v'. .Y ...v.,u...,r, -..r.., .ram"•",' rt. :r�, ..v a'rx.✓�' r:,..•'y:., ,.�. a,n':�',Zx?�z ,+ ,. y;+�?:s:..Jr,• y .k ) .C.. .:'-t-z. .> .-r-^r..,•.,S_;,';�''cz*,:-;� „rt ro. .E�'"!�' .,n„ -_'^�,..x 7-U,�;!rm..r.. ,.r• 9 •< Ci., >uf-n..rr a; �•� ..p i- 7~-....L��t-✓-� F � ,�.,.�,ssn»� °'� 's o, ..✓�,'"i-+m�',<.� "'..,'.,`` r ;;;1'e,-�.,,:,,x„r:..� .� T,,P't ,t':a.»ru' � ,#. t- s 21�'zr�S '.r -x .'„ a r''r•`,7�,,lw-r..rl�+"'1,'Yn;,q ,n`. v ».cc"s,4yR�, , r, r' �a'W���� ,��V� �S ;W%.�'.��,�"vz`, ,�; ._J,",M f',..�H- J s. r.,�:;p � ,r.;�a•.,y�,;r�'',� /�`��;�<r�-:r�,:.q ;,5-�� '. '�.,. r �i��r r ,-1 :r' G+-t v..•}^y��Gry„'.:f;�: �i�" ,r y ,:cc�r'S�.'-•'t ay'�tt --.;, s ,r,, .'� f'L.�. 1' ur. ?�-.%4T��.v>f.�:._�✓x ) -s" .a.�•.��� < - .v �.�. 's y,' 3�N s�`�' r.zt �� -:,z..',..' �;. ,'�=-t4 � �. art',", d, E .� 7a �^✓ 3_ c �.tt�.c%��"�.,- .,•+_.4� +> "; -,n';s"`F' � � `�� or .�"�.:,r ✓ r ar, z...a�' -�-. ,sss,'•�H:S. `a„�:, c �. x »u_N.>. :�_er^' � +. .�r „?tfi �=;'= •n1'v-,.,rK,.,K c,fr,�4'i£.r`u..a?��'�'��f<'x .;:�T .,-s;•;w,,;.�s�,.�S S ,,, �•'-,�.._�,s.,,.r�v-s>'s>d it•:t<.7 ,v. .tr,�,:- ..s^i, .ts°.:v�•yy .u�.,, era': r� ,>z.�sr>",:•-.i.>=n.. .n.,. -._<G�-r•.r ..^�•. 3 .✓'. .� ,.r.. ,L _.;: •ru.....Y,..rvr� 'ro-S?=�;a.i '<=�• °'- ✓� .��'>'s_r i i »LLF r.. ::,ka=. -? .Lz°'.i .�''+ 'r :'< `mS� .5 �: >' 1., i�'�'-�.- '<x v 2' ,� ,,,�,,. '''!�s?'' w-,.»f(Rs:,«-:�;t:' �d..:;.ixs,„5- .>.,..< a v✓�ci-�� .>e ,Ja" 'S`i`' f ,.,r,: ��¢¢:r�' � ,r � �} --^� •c ��` v ..t ,(;.kid/•>y�y .f" 3-,-s•^"-:r;¢f d M.�.__,�, ,a s t.V l 4- t,s,. >ly �(�.,,,> 3 T>�'"'�'•r"rJ "Yd. "� } .Y`P W'_.l 3 A:,» �'•f*'Q•�' 't'''kts�:�'s�', t :x�;;>x (, x '�-`na"n� 9...r•-•. :.v��'.s•'.-f �YrUlu`���, •�y� ,�,'" � ,.>�`•"" dc�b'� Srrd• �. �, •'s^ >�^s�h.�, .f',� '�r'er ,•vs'`�.»?a"�lu�{ '4fa�rt-rr�`,r�y_� r. .',�. y/' �r.1M t ��f.iSk�`93�y ...L�r'�.,!9:f. I,r �f'(:ri'�. � ".,�r• r �J h 8a(•K, `Si�+3?� .:,' ,J y XI r: gF. l ,f...T X »:3.": `r•- �� .,.Fi' rcJ.�+������� �„ Y'^�L.. x. t.- M:<n,.. 'r ,r.>«;:>.,,?:• FF:: :y.m rf. .a.-. .t-. ..O.J"' .:<..�.,:�•�:a'- .:CF,.. i ,..�t,''n�w'.��,. f., ..k:,':Y%' to, �`�,'�'' ;•k'.!" vM''i'•?. �, � "`i2,,_t Fh <. 7. t S' ..� t- of 'C-t.�Yi' 'r�y�.m)..,-: ra8-;,,-,e,r/•. ,_f�.. .>, '�;�> s `y. ;£j ,.� .zr ��r', .,� v" „A- ""�!"rer^:a.;.+.r _ti, yrr "'F,r! .r4 ,.,?`';...:.__'�"r�sa,.. N.�3 „� ?.?ice..,.. 'us., .!y..,zr__- ...xi ,:.f�:.,,. '• '�^.r,. "�:8: -,,.,:ufr ;• --cam t�>_„':s:r,;-.,,n:.st+.vh. ��tr� _e.�y,�• .x?a.. `_i>A' -+✓.:x. m.a• •.Ya�s's>:: y„'� j-: JF-.SY `i-4P :/., .� �'4,- f. �. :��.2>�r.S>}�.. ,L.,.nl.�t�^u C.�'�''�., `�T.'l:^: ...,R.'4 Nri'.Ln✓'. 43,. .•2, s ''^��rs;.s,..r< 73 `3 r'c..✓.'r"�"-� � :r'>^.. '�*'•' i ,c � :,a',::<, ii�>r..,, a"�-• .,kv�-.x;c3'G`.... S5�- � ...f s..y�a^[+..:. ..,,,r .?t^ : �. .�„, ..'� t xr°,��,'� ''�."�w„rt�,:,,-:.„�.�.�'.•�.� :` .. >'a.� :^�t3: a?;.�< d,.v�l..,�,,,mr,,,�>,c�s�, ..ta.i�Zi'`:�d>.�.,.:,.,�5,,s,,...,r.,.x'a;.tut;�_as3 s'?�.+,,.„„�,.-,.-ft,: LL • s Corr 157C APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE T Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. ,: r raluev<ra lumpt1o11 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase michelle( 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 ''ti°::'F > -r! Irvine, CA 92614 Y � G p 7 9 4 4 Irvine, CA 92618 { � s T-)1_.. - Xv7_. ..__ ._ f 949.2 1 �Gc c PROPOSED MONOPALM LO z � fj ram"'"" - 01 1ppp � 'l. S y.ry�t.4 f�•*C h r r `,�frW� '. r'�;" .r ,; .' ii `!"'�y,°x•,, 9 ��. .,-.... __. _ ._ .�. x�����71� �,C;.. 5 >�- _ n.t�u:�k ks�+Sss:7,_s-" -`i• ^, t .-3 .l -fs—a' i"'* *Nfni1���S�..c`Wl�]. R ..i,...y. 4. J x•llw'p, F ..+ J. �.�.... �. 'v"' :+�L LryM.111Y 1 . d lf'". 1, •" § � y � .Lg3"',i ' ..,:s.. �_ �'.,_m . :.c.:t;: :'. .'%.,. J^ '1^ '��•��•�"��•�"Wl� Y � ,`'r�� �'�j�f��f'K� �cc��* � L't* Y' A' �r 1N 5� k 1 r < x °"���.`r - �!, ny `fi1�+ +�. .�+ ?: "'aF"r •..� .u-st _ •""a ,��:'e' -£:, - i'¢ ,I. ,.cc'��i '."'�_ $�''"r "a'd?�..�i�,'� "K 1'';,� r.'f+�_ ✓'.r r�� � f .19.�✓� y3.rt 1f '� 'v �.tr.�r;;,���tt.,�� ,.�h+s > • Iwo IV 50, ma LA13157C CITY: HUNTINGTON BEACH SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION COUNTY ORANGE RAW LAND MONOPALM JURISDICTION: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IY SHEET INDEX REFERENCE THOMAS BROS.MAP GJ[k PAGE 857 GRD F-3 ' e , ( s , t , -utlrtr s� I A4 r s`, j Count Sheet No. Sheet Title s 1 4T;L � �L y 1 !„KS k (rr y� a F a C rTLYe a x 53� _ `3r, �1 , 7 T WN:avwt tcc aN f^t u bA �: s�ikati o5 c c. 1 +t ,FLi fit` 1 R F t T-1.0 TITLE SF�T .:VY 3^f a1:ir4 1 {1 y 'B Q' rti r `�,� [•4 ln.. I v! ..�.., r'v y.J�,�� .. Fi>� r• tz;A a 1 eT I k ° 1r y t%:>v v ! Y .,/ r `y.r :e z er. sj;+I:aF..s�. I I. L �.. I .n•3 L r a Y As its.. C+t v s i i s Cy� `"><s 1, 1 _S-•� k y.-! -nC •,,�'" +,C # G i ,�1 2 A-1.D SII1:PLAN AA , n - .4'• ! �— �, 1`r �a t � c tie r� c a�� "` _N �&3 wSl.-;a.Ea M� �I n FS �EIY aL.Za 4f.A^2A L.EA.SE AREA PLAN i 4 A-3D BkVAT1C)HAS 3 Kam, hlTi r'! tv, -LIORILE CONSISTING OF; S LS-1 TOPOGRAPHIC SLRVEY f F 3r yr nEiY t t K x Ga ssa. AGHT(8)PANEL ANTENNAS, �� t >••,+'.-.•µ b s .. �� >FT •�"L i b n r4 4 p�—.t@ iis tl vss s x.L '3), rYk'f19{ TA: .s.> 9 l�u S av� U"t 5 Y .p, b 't> i a1 IT+G 1 C+ Y 3""'- c � »,¢� .,,,'� c�Y'^k�"Rt�� 1 C� s a W ♦:~ r _J1�1 5-t>. i 4 5 Ito. kt•yLr�. 3�' ICf t = '�i{i t�$' sai r t OfW r. Irq��,4 }" ., ^ } 7V`..+K"Y:y � ��J t.�\ yx ssl�Yc..I8 9 1�'�i>1�T" ..'F�...�.��'j, l^•' � �7 r�'1�i.Ya. ""' `� �` :� a� �"" t�'r�a�f°�a� c AtALCN 5u"'�.,.�xc �� � i,►, � e� T` U " ,�6", '• R• ° r" iup� �E 31R DRY!�, � w�,t�i :� k .�, I. .s sY a k.yi.. b `msnyr-wtir-ar 'S,`�.4"�Vv ,. .1�sth•c�fi _ � G.>!,: >� _. ```` a✓ilil �' '>., � �' `:;r1. '� � cr•s � Tcs " Via, �„�* �. �� f 'T exie .s �, t: 'y � ?) G"• `�`' +��,,, brt``'.�utcV`!zliak4�'� yl. t l „1 PROJECT APPROVALS I THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE �^+� CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN.ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANY CHANGES ANDF- MODIFICATIONS THEY MAY IMPOSE. �' Jtl xxs-`" NNW III ® Name Date Signature WEST CORP,kW AVENUE Landlord DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM T-MOBILE'S IRVINE OFFICE:(2008 MI AVENUE) Le CT(ptI0F1al Des .IFORNIA 92614 - HEAD SOUTHEAST ON McOAW AVENUE TOWARD VON KpRMAN AVENUE TURN RIGHT AT VON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: KARMAN AVENUE.TURN RIGHT ONTO MAIN STREET.TURN LEFT ONTO WACARTHUR BLVD.TURN 1EAL ESTATE&ZONING SAG LEFT TO MERGE ONTO 1-405 N.TAKE EXIT 15 FOR WARNER AVENUE W TOWARD MAGNOLIA ST. (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK AND MERGE ONTO WARNER AVE.TURN LEFT ONTO BEACH BLVD. DUAN DAG TURN RIGHT ONTO SLATER AVE,TURN LEFT ONTO SPRINGDALE STREET, LOT 109 OF TRACT NO,9219,IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATI 714)SM-2471 Zoning CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT,RECORDED IN BOOK 404,PAGES 16 THROUGF INCLUSIVE,OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAD COUNTY, !ONING&GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ARRIVE AT 19401 SPRINGDALE STREET ME THOMPSON Develop, Mgr 714)950-2414 APPLICABLE CODES SITIDN Canat,Mgr APPLICABLE DOWNS 213)305-3409. Const. Mgr ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: [ION MANAGER,VANTAGE CO. 2010 BUILOINO STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE(C.E.C.) ERIC CHAVEZ RF Engineer — 2010 CALIFORNIA BUIIAING CODE(C.B.C.) 2010 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE - A.P-q 4159-138-02 I I APN.d159-111-03 _ I i '� � N�8'7T021Y 199.98' T A.P.N.#159-18D-05 TIR-1�6 s 4r-e• o 4 � �a I S d !� i y Nfl'22'58•E ___. I O' .. `.�� db Et- NIg37'021Y N18'77'021Y 19&00' PROPOSED T-MOBILE LEASE AREA AREA 40 SQ.Fr.ro Naux 6QVPA@Nr ADP WD"MM SUAL7H PM naR n SITE PLAN SCAB r_V lA-1,0 I I i i : I 17 ff .......... • i r 1Ili,_ - lti� Z7 14 I 1+ip i4nl 4'•9. l-0. 4'-8' I.,d. 4,_3. 6•.6• 11, PROPOSED T-MOBILE POWER/TE w EQUIPMENT MOUNTED TO NEVI N-RACK 12. PROPOSED T-MOBILE MONOPALM rJ ANTENNAS o TOP,REFER TO ELEVATIONS 19. LINE OF MONOPALM C ALf.ON ATION 14. LINE OF PALM PRONDS OVERHM6/INLWDED IN LEASE AREA 15. PR T-MDBILE f.UA7QAL CABLE TRAY n/PEDESTRIAN (+� �LEASESE AREA A PLAN SCAM3/8'_Y-0' TRAFM AFFIC R RATED COVER A-2.0 ik TOP OF BRANCHES L0.PANEL ANTENNAE + -6• rts AN7 PAD.CTR. __0 3 6 a 10 3 } 3 10 9 a - " FINISH GRADE _ ..... .. -... - NORTHWEST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION —a.o A—a.G ----• 0 KEY NOTES- I. EXISTIN&DIRT SLOPE 5 r. r A Z. EXISITN6 SEISMO MONTORIN6 STATION S. EXISTING BLOW WALL a. PROPOSED T-MOBILE UL.LISTED RADIO EQUIPMENT MOUNTED YO 6- T T OOWIKO"CONCRETE FUNTH �6 -- 6 S. PROPOSED T-MOBILE POWER/TE.CO MIPMENY MOUNTED TO NEVI H-RACK 6. PROPOSED T-MOBILE MOtYWALM W ANTENNAS T. MOHOPALM FROND$OVERHANG/INCLUDED IN LEASE AREA BOUNDARY _ - 6. PROPOSED T-MOBILE COAXIAL CABLE TRAY W PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC RATED COVER 9, PROP05EP T-MOBILE PANEL ANTENNAS - 10. PROPOSED T-MOBILE 6P5 ANTENNA MOUNTED TO EQUIPMENT a 4 CABIN BEHIND lQ 3 10�a = ET WALL 1 _ r SOUTHWEST ELEVATION n SOUTHEAST ELEVATION AND ASHTECH SURVEY GRADE PRECISION SOFTWARE FOR THE BOUNDARY LINES AND THEIR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON POST-PROCESSING. ELEVATION: 4.3 FEET A.M.S.L. (NAVD88) (DATUM VERIFIED IN ARE PER RECORD INFORMATION AND THEIR LOCATIONS ARE FIELD TO BE WITHIN 1-A ACCURACY STANDARDS) BASIS OF BEARINGS: APPROXIMATE, PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT. TITLE REPORT IDENTIFICATION: LIVING PLANTS STATEMENT: THE CENTERLINE OF LITTt AFIELD DRIVE BEING NORTH SS'33'37" WEST PER FOUND MONUMENTS ON TRACT NO. 9219, M.M. (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) r 404/16-1% RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. THE HEIGHTS AND ELEVATIONS FOR IHE TRE,S BUSHES AND OTHER LIVING PLANTS SHOWN HEREON, SHOULD BE ASSESSOR'S IDENTIFICATION: EASEMENT NOTES: CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE (+/-) AND ONLY VALID FOR THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY. THEY ARE PROVIDED AS A GENERAL ORANGE COUNTY A.P.N. 159-188-05 (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) REFERENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES. AREA a LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0.50t ACRES PER CALCULATION (PENDING RECEIPT OF TITLE REPORT) LOT 109 DF TRACT NO. 9219, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT, RECORDED IN BOOK 404, PAGES 15 THROUGH 19. INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, R L qo 1 p� SCALE. 1 = 10' DRNE --~ BLOCK WALL EFIEI-D - _... �..rrT!y�'_ ----- - N, �- TRACT NO. 9 219 � N55'33'37 W laa.BO' f _ l . M.M. 404 / 16 - 19 PIPE h LOT 105 � 'Aa°p LOT 108 u� a0 A.PN.159-188-04 h - ; : I DIRT, F 1 lEXISTFNG BUILDING. $ 1 l0 � TRACT N0. 922E z1.w `EXISTING BUILDINGS t A G 'Sq� 11 PY T7 `EXISTING BUILDING, lC, M.',VI. �•3V / 33 — ` . t c I LOT 29 ! J "° l•,� I E¢r = ''TIP° I. r to . J * LOT 106 I APA 159-188-08 LOT 107 h A.P.N.t5g-188-02 I _ _, a I M GATE `ASPHALT. AP.N.1WI88-03 h -- - i a e>� I � oo �& 0.0. o hG 430 -;: _ -_ (TOP GF SLOPE �P / zo am 11 4- -. ti e N483702"W 199 88' O a`� J tpvM Y "-_�_I-I I0'60 ma's a 50 gyp, N �� Rt E1fiV. j"t'1q tp 5L u`,��.em IPPW E1NN NG I I s ■ BLOCK WALL J $fe °40, s>� �Ci DIRT 4 P. t ,°,5E eO CF 0 0 �� e4 I- I I 70E DF SLOPE {0 LOT 109 >"'1� ,0' c I I DIRT, "� a� lob Y .I to I a 9.^A58�° -ice eyY3 !a ft mv0 ft 7-�' `EXISTING BUILD,NG� AP.N.159-188-05 u tau p �"� � L=78.d4' ar Ts1 10 q,,E • '1.3° gi^� ° 0 y� +l If P,• RL-7EL800' -'!;:° Gn 'y 'a... DIRT. 1 f• • a • • • �ft �,''4 z '�i' � �'� I 7°� i 1 ,// -/ 41. wm tiN' •7'S `STORAGE CONTAINER: :,+. - -- / , Y'W 94.1E •✓ :.:/�'`..' P a' GATE `ASPHALT. ,� i `DIRT, `ASPHALT. ?.g �' GEODETIC z 4' / / COORDINATE 4 TOP OF SLOPE q*4' F°.10 .•F` LDCATION ' Y _ �`A 6 >,i°Brea]r iL w Mk � 'M` P y a= I TDE OF SLOPE) .. -_.I V .� w�$ `DIRT, J�1 �\I Site z � ta.so Q L '3'yt?`0y19/ vq� •1' GEODETIC I �/ (a'8°t R L a' ;i m `DIRT, COORDIN � I + I ':� EXISTING BUILDING i tDA % �jyg�As2A ;d L` Wa I 1.5E -...::• II I '—�,.7.90 ................ i !�°.y i BLOCK WAL N4f'2 37 EXISTNG BUILDING2'58"E 4 L Ay6b 7. BLOCK WALL-' N78'37b2^W nrr I�Ini-n•r t trnr.-+.� 'M1ti° ro�fis�w `uko �� "..- '�, ry� XAOl1A1 LLANO iNACILSS b c *Ali-DvFa iwT CitV of nuntinLyton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 Fee 151 Wireless Permit No. . 9 -05-4�- (Zoning Letter) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WIRELESS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM This form is designed to elicit required technical information in support of an application for a new or modified permit(generally, the "Permit) for a wireless site within the City of Huntington Beach. This application is a mandatory element of the application process. No application for a new wireless site Permit or for a modification of an existing wireless site Permit shall be considered for determination of completeness until this form and required attachments are provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Every page of this form, including this page, must be completed and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach, and each page must be signed and/or initialed where indicated. Questions about this form or the required information to be provided should be directed to the Project Planner assigned to your project or to the Department of Planning and Building at (71.4) 536-5271 for the City of Huntington Beach. You are advised to be familiar with the City's Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, which establishes standards and guidelines for the installation of wireless communication facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> J . Prior to submittal of a wireless permit application, an address assignment shall be obtained for all freestanding wireless communications facilities. (http 1/www huntingtonbeachca govlfiles/users/planning/Address Assignment Application agg0 .t�df 1.00: Information 1 01: Project Address: 18401 SPRINGDALE ST., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 1,02: Project Assessors Parcel Number. 159-188-05 1.03: Name of Applicant(Primary Contact): APPLICANT:T MOBILE WEST CORP 1 CONTACT: AMIEE WEEKS Applicant is: Owner x Owner's Representative 1.0�1. Other 1.05: Applicant's Address Line 1: 16460 BAKE PARKWAY SUITE 100 1.06, Applicant's Address Line 2: IRVINE.,CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Phone Number: (949) 336-1550 1,08: Applicant's mobile Number: 1.09: Applicant's Fax plumber: (949) 336-6665 1.10: Applicant's Email Address: AWEEKSOCOASTALBUSINESS GROUP.NET 1.11: Name of Property Owner: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 112. Property Owner's Address Line 1: 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 1.13: Property Owner's Address trine 2: 1.14: Property Owner's Phone Number _ -7 7- If Applicant is the Properly Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 2.01. <Continue to next Page> Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Mere: A___� 2.00: Project Owner information(i.e., carrier) 2.01: Disclose the Names, Addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers for all Project Owners (use additional sheets if required and mark as "Attachment 2.09"): 2.02. Project Owner Dame (i.e., carrier or licensee): T MOBILE WEST CORP. 2.03: Address (line 1): 2005 McGAw AVENUE 2.04: Address (line 2): 2.05- City: IRVINE State: CA Zip: 92614 2 06: Contact Person lame: AMIEE WEEKS-COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP 2.07: Contact Person's telephone number/extension: (949) 336-1550 2.08: If the Applicant is not the project owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Project Owner(s) in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as"Attachment 2.08". Initial here AW if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 2.09. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant or Project Owner as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.09". Initial here if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. {Continue to next page> Page 3 of 9 Applicant lust Initial Here: AW 3.00. project Purpose 3.01: Justification. Provide a non-technical narrative, accompanied by written documentation where appropriate,which explains the purpose(s) of the proposed Project. Label as "Attachment 3.01." 3.02: indicate whether the Rrimapurpose of the Project is to add additional network capacity, to increase existing signal level,or to provide new radio frequency coverage (check only one). Add network capacity without adding significant new RF coverage area X Increase the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a specific area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity(such as roaming agreement.with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03: If the answer in 3.02 is not"Other" proceed to 3.05. 3.04: Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the"Other".primary purpose of this project. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 3.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 3.04 is attached to this application. 3.05: Provide three(3) sets of site plans,floor plans, and building elevations a maximum of 24"x 36"in size. Plans shall conform to the following applicable requirements: a. Draw to scale (minimum scale 118"= 1'or 1"=30');indicate dimensions of building and floor uses; and north direction arrow. Plans shall be oriented so that north points to the top of the page. b. Plot the entire parcel and dimension all pertinent data such as easements,driveways, landscaping, parking,fencing, and distances to all property lines. c. Plot all existing and proposed physical features,fencestwalls, and structures on the subject property and abutting properties. d. Dimension to the nearest intersecting street and identify all street names. e. Dimension height of all structures from the highest adjacent curb. f. Building elevations shall depict all sides of building and indicate colors and materials proposed. g. Identify the legal description of the subject property on the site plan. h. Fold all plans to a maximum size of 8-112"x IT' (lower right comer out.). 3.06: Is the project: X -- Stealth (HI3ZS0 Section 230.96.13.8) Completely Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.8.2) Visible, Not Stealth Office Use Only: RL" C-27 Zoning RL- 7+ General Plan spriNapl o*Tpt �jor Intersection 3 DM <Continue to next page> Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps 4.01: Where the licensee intends to provide radio frequency geographic coverage to a defined area from the Project(including applicants in the cellular, PCS,broadcast, ESMRISMR categories), the coverage maps and information requested below are required attachments.All others proceed to 5.00. For the coverage maps required here, the following mandatory requirement(s) apply: 1. The size of each submitted map must be no smaller than 8.5'by 11", and all maps must be of the same physical size, scale, and depict the same geographic area. Include maior streets and street names on each map.All maps must share a common color scheme. 2. If the FCC rules for any proposed radio service define a minimum radio frequency signal strength level,that level must be shown on the map in a color easily distinguishable from the base paper or transparency layer, and adequately identified by RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. If no minimum signal level is defined by the FCC rules you must indicate that in the legend of each RF coverage map.You may shown other RF signal level(s) on the map so long as they are adequately identified by objective RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. 3. RF coverage maps with labels such as, "in-Building', "in-Car", and "Outdoor" or referencing a link budget without corresponding signal strengths in units of"dBm"will be rejected. 4. Where the City of Huntington Beach determines that one or more submitted maps are inadequate, it reserves the right to require that one or more supplemental maps with greater or different detail be submitted. 4.02: Map of existing RF coverage within the City of Huntington Beach on the same network. This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project Designate this map "Attachment 4.02". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.02 is attached to this application. 4.03 Map of RF coverage to be provided 2nly by the Project. This map should not depict any RF coverage provided by any other existing or proposed wireless sites. Designate this map"Attachment 4.030 . Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.03 is attached to this application. 4.04 Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map"Attachment 4.04". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application. Office;U a Only Check Carrier website for coverage in vicinity Project Planner to verify gap in coverage exists Does coverage exist on carrier's website in project vicinity'? Yes No <Continue to next page> Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 5.00: Project Photographs and Photo Simulations 5.01 Where an Applicant proposes to construct or modify a wireless site, the Applicant shall submit pre- project photographs, and photo simulations showing the project after completion of construction,all consistent with the following standards: 1. Minimum size of each photograph and photo simulation must be 5��b _1t 1�(portrait or landscape orientation). 2. All elements of the project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in one or more close-in photo simulations. 3. The overall project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in five or more area photographs and photo simulations. Photographs and photo simulation views must, at a minimum, be taken from widely scattered positions separated by an angle of no greater than 72 degrees from any other photo location. 4. For each photograph and photo simulation. Show on an area map the location and perspective angle of each photograph and photo simulation in relationship to the project location. 5. All`before`and 'after' photographs and photo simulations must be of the same sole. For example, do nW place a smaller`before' photo in a box on the same page as a large"after"photo simulation. The number of site photographs, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photographs and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination. The Applicant must submit photographs and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photographs and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must initial Here: AW 6.o0: Candidate Sites 6.01: For applicants in the cellular, PCS, broadcast, ESMRISMR categories, and.others as requested by the City of Huntington Beach,the information requested in Section 6 is required.All others proceed to 7..00 6.02: Has the Applicant or Owner or anyone working on behalf of the Applicant or Owner secured or attempted to secure any leases or lease-options or similar formal or informal agreements in connection with this project for any sites other than the candidate site identified in 1.01 and 1.02 Yes x No 6.03: If the answer to 6.02 is NO, proceed to 6.05. 1f no alternate locations are identified the project may be rejected. 6.04: Provide the physical address of each such other location, and provide an expansive technical explanation as to why each such other site was disfavored over the Project Site. Designate this attachment"Attachment 6.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application. 6.05: Considering this proposed site, is it the one and only one location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the objective of the project? x Yes No * SEE BELOW 6.06: If the answer to 6.05 is NO, provide alternate locations (list with address and map) that can meet the objective of the project Proceed to 7.00. mote that the project may be rejected since it is not the one and only location that can meet the objective of the project. Designate this"Attachment 6.06'. Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.06 is attached to this application. 6.07 Provide a technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio-frequency data fully describing why the proposed site is the one and only one location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the radio frequency objectives of the project. Explain, in exact and expansive technical detail, all of the objectives of this project. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 6.0T, Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 6.07 is attached to this application. Continue to next page> *THIS APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT OF PENDING LITIGATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR B.OLSA VIEW PARK. THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY SUBSEQUENTLY PURPORTED TO REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR BOLSA VIEW PARK. THEREFORE,THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY REMAINING LOCATION. Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must initial Here: AW 7.00: Identification of Key Persons 7.01: Identify by name, title,company affiliation,work address, telephone number and extension, and:email address the key person or persons most knowledgeable regarding: 7.02: (1)The site selection for the proposed project, including alternatives; 7.03: Name: DANNY BAZERMAN 7.04: Title: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING 7.05: Company Affiliation: T f ogil F wFgT c'c.)RP 7.05: Work Address: POOR Mr-C, ns AVENUE IRVINE CA P261 7.07: Telephone/Ext.: (714) 362-1433 7.05: Email Address: DANNY.BAZERMAN@TMOBILE.COM (2)The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.09: Name: HENRY HANCOCK 7.10: Title: RF ENGINEER 7.11: Company Affiliation: T MOBILE WEST CORP 7.12: Work Address: 2008 McGAW AVENUE,IRVINE, CA 92614 7.13: Telephone/Ext.: (949) 813-6890 7.14: Email Address: HENRY.HANCOCK@T-MOBILE.COM (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any: 7.15: Name: HFNgy HANc-c)c.K 7.16: Title: RF FNQINEER 7.17: Company Affiliation: T Mc)F31[ F WEsT C,ogp 7.18: Work Address: 2008 nar-GAW AVENUE IRVINE CA 92.61.4 7.19: Telephone 1 Ext.: (949)813-6890 7.20: Email Address: (4)Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project; 7.21: Name: DANNY BAZERMAN 7M- Title: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING 7.23: Company Affiliation: T MOBILE WEST CORP 7.24: Work Address: 2008 MCGAW AVENUE. IRVINE CA 92614 7.25: Telephone/Ext.: (714) �_ 62-1433 7.26: Email Address: 7.27 If more than one person is/was involved in any of the four functions identified in this section, attach a separate sheet providing the same information for each additional person,and identifying which function or functions are/were performed by each additional person. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 7.27". Initial:here AW to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no attachment 7.27, or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.27 is attached to this application. Continue to next page> Page 8 of 9 Applicant must Initial Here: AW 8.00: Form Certiification 8.01: The'undersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided here are true a omplete to the best of the undersigned's knowledge. AGENT ON BEHALF OF T-MOBILE WEST CORP Signature Title AMIEE WEEKS AWEEKS@COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET Print Name Email Address COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP (949) 336-1550 Print Company Name Telephone Number/extension �,,3 I Date Signed <Stop Here. End of Form.> Page 9 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: Digital i r is Design Specifications: a Shall be fill size and in compliance with coordinate system o Project: Lambert o Datum: NAD83 o- Units: Feet o Spheroid o GRS1980 c Parameters: ® 1st standard parallel 32 47 0.000 2nd standard parallel 33 53 0.000 0 central meridian -116 15 0.000 ® latitude of projection's origin 32 10 0.000 false easting(meters) 2000000.00000 ® false northing(meters) 500000.00000 ® Shall be in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 43809 * Submit a separate drawing file for each individual sheet Shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets,drawing names,pens color, and layering convention. Please contact the Public Works Engineering Division at(714)375- 8444 if you have any questions regarding Huntington Beach Standard Sheets. Fide Format and Media Specifications: G Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(Auto CAD DWG format preferred): o AutoCAD (version 2000 release 4)drawing file-.DWG o Drawing Interchange File- .DXF ® Shall be in compliance with one of the following media types in DOS format: o 3.5" floppy diskettes o CD GAF0RMSIADDRESS1NG\Address Assignment Application Form.doc September 15, 2011 Department of Planning and Building City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Wireless Permit Application for 18401_Springdale St.,Huntington Beach Enclosed is the Wireless Permit Application Form for the City-owned Pump Station located at 18404 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach. This application is submitted as part of a proposed settlement of pending litigation between T-Mobile West Corporation,the City of Huntington Beach and the City Council. Furthermore, the City has requested that T-Mobile West Corporation submit the application at this time,despite the fact that a lease has not been finalized between the City and T-Mobile for the Pump Station site. T-Mobile West Corporation expressly reserves all of its rights in connection with this matter. Very truly yours, i" •._./'s_ v' E✓.i����� - .,ter Amiee Weeks gg y 16460 BAKE PARKWAY c SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92618 PHONE: 949.336,1550 FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL' !NF"O@COAS'TA.L-Bi)SrNESSGROtJP.fSET' -' WWW.COASTA€.BUSINESSGROOP,NET ATTKAim"T a-CPO ilk a WMobiloz 2008 McGaw Ave. Irvine, CA 92614 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION T-Mobile West Corporation,the holder of an FCC license for the Los Angeles market, hereby authorizes Coastal Business Group, its agents, employees and contractors to: • Negotiate land use agreements with owners of potential telecom sites; • Conduct necessary activities such as site design visits, radio frequency tests; and • Apply for and obtain all land use approvals and permits, which are appropriate for the installation, construction, and continued operation of a wireless communication facility; In granting this authorization it is understood that: • Coastal Business Group,its agents, and contractors will be licensed and insured for any work they perform; • Signing this letter does not constitute a legally binding agreement to lease the property on which Coastal Business Group performs the authorized activities. Print Name and Title: Duan Dao Real Estate and Zoning Manager Southern California Market Date: October 27, 2011 �=� �==� � � �� � � �� �� �� September 15, zo11 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department z000 Main Street Huntington Beach, [A9zb48 Re: Justification Statement Attachment 5'o1 l-W4ob8e Wireless Facility Proposal at 184o1 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA To Whom |t May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. The proposed wireless facility will consist of the installation of8 panel antennas,3 ground equipment cabinets, coax cables, as well as power and Telco utility connections. The placement of the proposed wireless facility will be located and enclosed inside the City owned pump station property. The proposed wireless facility panel antennas will be concealed in a stealth 55 foot Mono-palm design. The proposed Mono-palm facility will blend in with several existing live palm trees located on the pump station property. The 3 ground equipment cabinets will be located at the base of the facility and will be enclosed and screened off hv the property's existing 7 foot tall [0NUwall. This particular wireless facility is proposed to replace the T-Mobile Wireless Facility that was originally approved atBo|sa View Park. This location was identified and chosen to help close a significant gap in coverage for T-YNobi|ecustomers. The placement of the facility will provide coverage for the residents, business owners, and emergency personnel in the surrounding area. The primary coverage objective for the proposed site isto provide coverage to the residential neighborhoods located to the North, East, and West of the site. As referenced on the coverage maps provided, the approval andinsta||ationoftheproposedvvire|essfaci||tvvviUincrease"}nBui|ding''covenagereachimgstreetsaUthe way to 8ankton Drive and FaN|ngwater Drive to the North of the site. Then reach streets near Edwards Street to the East, Silverspur Lane to the Southeast, and lastly stretching all the way to parts of PCH Califomia 1 Highway. Thissitevvi|la|sosupportand |nfiUeuistingsitesinthesurnoundingareabyincreasingthe'^|nCar'/ and''Outdoor'' coverage. 16460 o^nE p^Rmw^, 0 su,rE 100 0 /Rv'Ns. cAe2efS 0 peoNE. e*9.336.15500 r^x' e4e.336.6ee5 s-m^'L` /w=omCo^s-r^Laus,wEyssnoup.ms` 0 ",Ww.CuASr*Lauy/wESsaRovp.wET The proposed location was selected based on the willingness of the City of Huntington Beach to allow the installation on the pump station property,and based on the compatibility of the surrounding area which provides maximum screening of the wireless facility. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-1550, Ext. 3o6 or via email at awe eks@coastaIbLlsinessg-oUp reef Regards, f✓; Amiee Weeks Huntington Beach Existing and Proposed T-Mobile Sites 25 5 rE�ill—,i LIM lVAI L 33-37 A LAII:981,r- AMAqB-;' 3008- ......... . k-A:1.6ffiO'TL-40 02615A t D LA -T ---7'T 1 =-iT 3,35 LA3 ILA LA02068A 02914- W-3019 C L A'33 U9A -.=- �66 6AU2453A 299 r MAUZ 7t�j I L 9 IAH =tit-14 =0 71'Li - LAO�O LA334IN At' �,�L , 01 6A, CQt LA -t�- P-47- ------- 33828A 2207A IUMA ZIA-, L LA020 3829z- U AUZ4�M !-ILAUZUDDA- L 02a. 5 J=, LA3 3- 2 L'LA31-31 6WA 'A '02292fi? -LA02 LA02267A LA13157C<-- ?'� 75D IA33512 El LA02543- 3205C '-F LA 13158F,71 LA33509R�i� 0� tLA0285 two AL U PWF i#-3-38 L-AU- of 5- 591 U, 15A A, -4 L 55A 0 �38 LAI `4 xis in Without LA1315 7 C kmw $ � � �'� `a✓ �.,c s' �T j � '"LA02853D I ,� � -� - . � .� �•,, 1Ct � -� � f �r,t1vs II I L, Eli. I °�° - JJ{{ Zonis Ir �I t �t�� r J r .r i-... a w ru5 .._r.�rl _ %prd bf r eo� I_ anhatt n r J C r . I I 1. Dr 4 � :y „9� .. .. �aa, •� +y.v-s-�i`�' Z.:..._ mat '�i:Nk .L_ �almoYal D_ ema�r Dry ( ,; ,.., �" ,f''�mS• -uF"r a� �� -^ram^-e,e�- .�''` :ns � � - � ._._. I� R w � ' � u ,",r�,��,�-�����.^a'x"'��4.Y�w'� n _s a ✓..�.z ' � —_..e I� �i ��� r i E �^' ��✓ -;�.✓'�✓�--� �,is,� sz 5 },r 1. i 0QL 5 .n"`ivwtry �✓ k3".r r r� ,r ��s"i"} .Ll:} !�. T� i . �/"c„ ' � �x �{°,.u✓ ,v'Y' �4- E vy fi \ ''V �3 �i r�s s"r 1� "'ter -ter LAUZ'267A n^:. ,! .F`�,.,/ ..�r^C.�-�'x".z,.�`'=s."'�a �z>°' »� ° r_A... IJd�I c A- .r� - `- s' ... '� �ia"" a f-`X- +�� r ac'k-ur. L s 'h:r'�,•! � b. top t �a �.r n ex.' }V'.'.� � u'i. ysi✓7.ry Cyt -� yl-J .. G C -.ozIrcr . ... 7. - ` �'` s Prediction Coverage Thresholds Y.,.^t�.�cf'-cam ti"`.r'. 3r ?y� �1 E � �s ': �'�. M"kY w 76 to 40(In-Building Commercial) I i _ ;. ., 84to 76(In-Building Residential) -91 to-64(In-Car) urge.- i lop y F ` El -1 auto-91 (Outdoor) s rt •' - — -- ❑ -200to-1 ao(Minimal to None) � f ?e'�et Prpposedr"atuhdatE T►k hrirroa�l,prgxrt MT-ftH>Ik U^°..Ilr„ rnlYlktA31d1�I1 114C13tliOkyl?f U¢ISe MU¢IIi1F.'r.IraloralIA twlcm i 1.'V.l:irA"0.ar;Apr lte,ortlSVUItl?I rntIG IlTimatl I R atrktlfproYUI�cLT1&mq preclht red�y>rcxlniEs�lr X11%kkttW'*rzypateaogb►ort.%11-,I[Rafdalge'jV Mott lrJU_e.Rihaf11011Ckh,w,kz'#n( 1►n MCI artooy,*Wc 0,01rftwIn CID irAg1arl4et40_4'alkl;IlHf.B:w1'a'Itlllampragearea,+l¢reares4�. ralYa.br<.z1c1a<:I4fAr�tl;cialget. 1 �h tfallF'a?hirre.3¢NISniti:l¢S.t:C1i{.alIInR•Atilt,S►Jlalttr4l[(tY,l4Ll ?IIt21C'prraii..urtlr4t.wiA*i.amc4eirwimwtlilrlif[it rRf¢iwlditlalt4l'!W.±Ililllf.ah:lcY:21kY)III��,nchclllciti¢al?III+t?make,r4r,.1?cr.al�imahtahcalk. .1 I�f?Y t W`Y}-�i i{������� r i�t.�^ * .�.• 1� �.'. �<� i �.w!i r,�n�poh■�kkkiii�` r f�, t� rG(i�' L i+s',tu.. kd r `�Y� /•�� � ,atea,{H}j � �`u�2�. n&�¢�>.•ri�a' " sa��x�`-r`�Zb�g ��'�''��s�{ s2s tv - c I! - � E tE e �.x }��"F`I4[f� ���Ykrru<dF tsr+°'? .n 1 :th�e �7 j{r k' z 7 ■ Lim Xg - SxF ".4 ,all � � a':W _ - rn- •1rr a r °�{'^ :yp iK� l �"2.e ds.s,F;{ a ,'x�1G.`(r z..n�r: •� s t ��Y}"` sP: ��'€ �r�■• ■ / �'• i, �."G� -F ,7 P t} '4 ,�.�$ r -L�r t �t x y r.� P Y ), �`• k orb,°" c� t#{k"'`" �a������{�';' ��. :3S�'t 1� � , k;F` 'M �,�. 5�. ,, � n u�..f 4' qF��'t�. �y:.,s d�` z'fz�,�r.'}F �l. 4`�; '•a't-. '/. �:.. ' -., �::: �a�zr..;: t. �., }.a)es!�r,. - .�. �� .:' � ,■ tY'�� :� 15',."bE�Sa�. E,Y.E d4•...s.:: �"�3. !. i �.. .. �. '� Y" }' �71,. X 6..,'_t!mod., i N'��t�1�4 4.t �.T,,y° !F!"��, � r��Y� - a 1 x'�34*,-�'._I�..t"'.LFYI�A1 F�i t'Ftf.N��{rt��� ;��„.ys Yi. 2L�•.l!. '�..A... YF,,c V�.� d ��.,- ;- �.r� .k, ,.�, �.r� �.. � s�t, � _14° t��f�=,•d:.;t�d�i r•:k;:�'.-°�. 7 '�'� c� s,...r..Js* ..r-,°s��,•.;., :,y �;-„?-�rh;>?,a.s. �.," .-F:. 'u si s3°. j •� -M'�,{{ � r t_ n. �>f. 'rr-�. •;A� �F.'� r.t. P_.a .n�;',-e:- ,..t_ r,Y�r:.t!��r::°"k: F�,e. � rt,.,t{ r a9~Fsa:r: ��{�'yy,t•A 'Mtt„t�7n.(..�.1t ,5' .r,.•h. ��y.�,� .; '•.`N'�` - 's4.,.. t+. aev.. �� a�--f•: �f..��.7k_F }y":,! .4'- "7.;+:11'•,r'w�.. ;�'?` ;,�"se} L fva: .s59 .i. ('. ,}: ,.'tti- ,,.`g ,..�-,.?tx.. A v�.x�l�. �`" i�:P - is -�.. �•vx!•�e.Ma,.o. M3.v« 'i"�i`en.. �... -'.^^._' 8 -4 , ,� its ".� �,�° �'1[': ,.,. ``i'`- �. 7- -'m<Z�m ,�2, •.w "# !to<i';: r;•-�' t. �I itc;,s. �ra�- :�"'i •§�"t' z. i:l- { i' '� k_, .,€: A'F: t. .w<� �.W � sr.t 'r Y,< .® �•`ifb'' r' ;`h.,.err, t "3 "r z`w..".,' i+� .,. �i7. �.., .�, .�.�. .�... r. t�,r�: _..,. ..�< �"`k.�x ?e,,.�.. Y;;... a. ...-� .r. :C:,: .:• �,s `°�.} +-r;� �.�� "JS :. "-S.t+-. e:.. t ii�. F` w. � sc.�_€r. ( a-x, tt d t<�;�,, a•:;.•!3sr�p :.,i.- s� �e� ` •T:�} ,,...;t....l `din. '� a;rx, �,:: ,.._ �f...<rm � [�, c�'� t! '..-f 'v..'.girt Y {' ���^ -«'.. .•:,< .. t :.,� _,:�;."„.,� "m..� -t.;^tMm„- 7'.'^4 i..,>B- ai,;.t R`°T ;�}.... 57 s:,{k a?,. J'e>> !i .'F•..i"�,*n .r }�,cs,r- r,.;fi:a���,�.?EG. •-q.,x.,��'#„t. _i .xr k u..�,•.k �£' � .t.s �:t -�3if�.y.. :�'S• �£,.. r:_.-ra:. fz.i. c t�•; g�'• ,-�.,:'�r+�" 7� ..,--'E`-.�Pt:r,•i;.^,$.£.,,z,.[.,���..,,-�.^�n�,.�•;�t^�e ass. 'het. :e:,-'�&< f=w�:.;:.. ye,4, i" �..s#•sa .rrt� �,"7" .ti ;ane ':,'"�'`f�,..°k�° t< �?z-...r ;�� •e_�" �' 1,.��*3" _�.. :..t. .'� W:�:[_: ;: z P:3"'r:`R s a } 7•':..�..A1 >� � "t�q. e.e.� _f s•••!., �}t• ey` :�F' w„ifs[€+! P,reu�,•.�z.#�'.�'•€'3;s:.� a :��� G w,r .�;w z.v'Yi. i ;%�JAp:ad ., �..••t E ° ,..A::S x s:,y : -,';`1•v •_ !Ffi,}( F�... f..�'4 �":45 t +3`+ r•.d ,. ., .•l:[,...:)' .•,x <•i•.. A! ..HA"t?si[: ;ti.4 �' � .8,r.e�•#i 3.� P I,� a�&,-!=,Gw, }, �,.�,t� .'`�" -S 1.+.. •gin 1<:.'�--,�ri ?``_ ..'::a '`„ ..s.. .�p{i # ..�,.v :.t•..<J'� -., 5...«..�. • .• i_.:F"it.,r- .: "x�.^[�-... •..+�:. ! Y.L.�.:.. ,J$'j5.{ .. ., x—m.na �... ,rY. -<S .Y ^F � ..:.��.,..� a :. T-^<a• •t,. 'f.p£...1 i.{ i. �:- ,.tea... ��i-T•Y. :«.:.....i.. � �!.s 7k�'' �'i -.•E.. ::...2's'�,. 7�x.:.... t i �$7 73,.,G-.t.. n.�.+...,.: .�[..�„"t_..I.... [£`d°_r . ��,,rr r:�f .•ir.,, .! ( -i d: ,.C.. at:. .� z-,. 2t.., � .,�7 -a.^ .?w.ti< ..,"At,. 3"�,. ..P ..,t..,�,. .c.<.VV L i' .,fix a<"Y' �,- r_. �� e•t�s s.- { e I . -. .>.. }, �. 7- ::" "'.'31•.�'. ti<<. .. .+ it .�1,-�'.. .{:< .f T. .,s"f9', 1t��"tu"�Y.. M t, ;L. 4 hl•Cf}('. 2Fi7` a.- >r .Pa =r•l, .�. �., .'� ��,_a..,,,}.� �M<:Pr: ..,r @-.. -.. �:x,.o.*.f�, w r{ 7 a�l P � ;} �. k'r ,s,,t,rrY�.<U N, - S yr Fr✓1 k•:� l ,,.,�f,� $ :Ir 2e <§ 3 vF€z3:* :r:,'x 7 .,�. :'•w- _ r: '�i .t ,d. S-•. .,f.+ .c. � .5.:1. ,�,t h', '' u,st, .a.:'k+ 'tie.^_<�. /� �+`�.,.�... 1,d ^dzu t � "�:'�,>,.r'.:ic;,�,�^ rx;;:1.:::.� :fi R k �: •v��- ' -: �•x Ii"r x.. ♦ # z 4., .�� s r �.�f. -�. �.�• �.• ., �:'t�� -tv[ �n,. H �� ., .<c-��.: ��.r.tv:� ..F. ,1+,..,;, ..;.. '(i< ,� ..: «.., i5:n. 6 .,I., ,i?,. �� k�e-a ;4w,+}S., r.k, �•cr�rt"r`,,3 [. �::i•4<, -� '�, �fn.1�_..J..•:s i.�..�.t,to„,f.e .. ...,.��r ., ._-k•, . r....� .{x .-..? �. �+�:�:u r„4 r.-x� rY 9.E,,a♦ r � �' -Z.,3. f3a sr,'.rxn k �-3.. �+ ,aa•., �:.a ,"�.,x '� �,�� , � �5o r-+C. ia� max° 1 �� -f' �:9 r� '� n1�i ,�•as �� �� Ji',h,.zy s. .•: Sf ti.1 <; ;+,, ._,,q�r ..•, '�x€rr i a.rrsa Tr f""� „.}�;si4`t^:`7.7 }:1 r.G, ;°/I't + a�:.,� �,rs '�. :t .._... .,°J'� t1 'C YV!` - a } yS ':'' F N•Fr P-t<.rr�'�A��-�F ,�+r7Yt't:}iM... ��zi�`4� , i;�,.: t W� �.� I {� RY} �t: .'i i"":zr.. �•..' • / �a' aK r r•sir. ." t q U' {.`� d� v&t< { '�'6t w#� <r. .� Q� +.t�"_ a , a, � tr z� t� dP� ,r,`�{a: n-�s';���rm! #�--t-�,�- �,r,. � r< � � n ,..}',�.�• ;��':� � '�"x�a, P{ r ., jzh rx Serf t- da tom" s:�:�x z't�t;•;".I _a,r ...�; �� i�t�a id tj� £t .,��4^�•�:•1t� { �2i j� �,+'�',� -. .,f �F t�� w(�k� � t 6 ,t$r�3 ■ r�'�f��'t,��$ ?'net au£{,iF{e�;2�t�qk A� t�'��y�i '�?i'. �"ldt f; 2a` ® i w3+.r'r� �tr yc - � r {� S 1•s. �.,, t G�x<l�i..$ .3u,:p ti' l�!�' �■: -- -' � �4�iikt r,,,�l� ��u'? trj' t. _ � � : �' `�•... ,. ti kPs 3iu �i,}h4 !7 t rt�G z� �t Fi * t s av ptr. 5°� a M _ u �,n'+i. ���'.TS�✓nn� ��� e. �9�y�s�ht�t �` �i� u`��c"'i Sr.tt{���f�i�.�� ��f "•'���t��x� °i..� � .k t f rtlb�r ,Ic}wi r� �'d'€e� t�t� 3)u`''+w i .2 tl� •� � � � kj # '^, t �.� I ���� �'� !'T tt .<.. ! ��; ?, £+4��• '4 Y,-y. z. t � ;N r "-h � .. �.KT�C;aF���-:� 'r a '�J ��3� � Y `r�-i tn� #�n" �t*�`s 2�;.f a..k sJ fS'xn� y Y:.. "5 �-}L'Y+•. -ixzf_.,..a^ nh -� t 1E � -rffi qt r,S �g S-}�?,ct [ d rtsJ r'`s c„�s' Q} ar. �� •, gSf '# �cr'irry,�i�i� otf}, � �i'"rr::,"t t .Ss,� :: t +1• y �' '�E } -'t 2 x a>�ra 1ar; r"!�• ,. �'-,S i �F`� '+��a°tL�ay� ra s� '�-t->, r v r.., - j1�[K -f��b • IMI T QY r d,r9�t�M r��..t,x+;,t zl I � ,• I I s�a`t,>� i�� #� .a �; -+�" . _ I WIN �s i ,� Ist �"i� x �"�ykz5,)�j lk rL �Y�7x� }�€fir � � !s st�`,� [ s -tt�x�d' ��:' ■ s r tt`sI,1 's a'�,,� r ���¢'# 1F�At1�'r� ,, i r, � f^[ / t ■ .�e t t t ,�L �,��^y f 3 F 4 L{j�c,- � t/�,, 1s as L{: ^4 • • ■ '1 - ■ _ _ S y�yt. � ,2Eii� � �, - R ✓k. � _ �_ - i! �xA tee r,''zt! u� �Zr;q�.. ■ - � � 11 ■ 11 - ■ . I w! r - ��L ti AY�lq��.. �■� � r r < a a ,,t .,■ �� Predicted Coverage With. LA131 LA42463, fn C w r A42853D _ J -,� ������• ��.�� ��r Ava , � i-r r - L Its I � 4 an is it C mil, 'aL. Ch ... _ etty d��,•.•. ht�rlt Lt q Pic w ;J 6Q! - Merl anhatt�n iDr 1fo w } fir....- J O .. —I..- ^f _,,,',1r".��.= �'r~'.,,,. ,f-',,`' ✓ "��,rr -`7',a.�',£ �f .. � '*�j`'',s``:� ��� -���1L!7tQ� ------'^j�3: ',� _ .+„� �,�-� u_ ;ryai'^/� �,�.� �'��..„wr�r�• :� .i' `..,Q' �---- _almoral Dk ' Ic. 1 1 1 02089 �yl m B'raernar D!r Mir,u ,,,M^\l.: V"r�'w� m_' 1f .� �/y/�+�Q Lf 111 I 'F'I..:. % E v ~ wt - �i Rv ^,a"" '�.'- > .'y �„'".,z r"v'�'r r r .Ci... I'l^'6 It-- .). _ .. I. ._m.._., SI .,.+ .•'tom »�-'ti^'�':�.:-,:w,.�`r--t?',,,� P,�• ..' �' �4' F;� £'_ � 4 {.' i TaYi4iLQr LA42267At r rem a:-;,'".'„^. r rr-�.rsw,...,""z.;�i,' ...,,.vr ��.T';��!ap:-^sue .:,:",,. '. �7�{3* •::. � � !"' I (`"yN '',tit P f I I lift ....._..... : INr— s ? I3 azl'4r ar _ � l .it � ,� �: ,� ��•�-� W-Ln1- I ? ,.y^E» C,m.r y>k r"`y^ v r 7 �j•- ..� tila{..7�-I a. "+�i" . 1Prediction Coverage Thresholds -76to-40(In-Building Commercial) ❑ 64to-76(In-Building Residential) -91 to-04(In-Car) -1ooto-91 (Outdoor) gi .: ❑ -200 to-100(Minimal to None) loom =w Proposed Candidate - :Tlkht,rmilhl.pre�?PrF,+9TT-Lid)fIeU-A.lie.k:vorYMMilaeAtht✓clEclaaRS"-1 eUO4ffeUaf+kualotwntwirtnttkal:tressed.arvntlellie.orCIMAWNOIIkKlit_ffftAW_II;0rC,pioktlV(I,Ti4:mal)l1te(IL'tcawTpP_ErtilaEsnll irekssaeerxJeareaoiti55r.Aiidrrrar'eiai96wrdoitifJ6e.ftma,liolvlktcawirwrdlrerredorrox+ rale..+lnnl6ti iotgwit•4S 'WA"L'alMllttr.0.ei`Nttlll eweraparea,Wm are de:?ralk+-tls,slcla:leue.e:clarge % .baifhnllma serli5Pe�4Ias.�ciiYq[EirIIt�U3rt skl�alsti�yS,'y��legltmeit4rraii.stichras wearier,aidotierrnidl£Ylistlatrnar'litrRre' 'ullia.dalsarlip,cl�3lfi aitxcalLtlllq a urlu7Ueal)Iltttna�Fr.iecN',e.aiclniahtih ills Residents worried about noise from communications tower kgw.com Portland Pagel of 3 Residents worried about noise from communications tower E � y x' i+ i7 4 yyy 1 by Randy Neves kgw.com Posted on January 25, 2010 at 6:40 PM Updated Tuesday,Jan 26 at 11:26 AM Recommend PORTLAND, Ore. --A communications tower planned in a Northeast Portland neighborhood has homeowners there worried. And not just because of radiation. Noise is now becoming an issue. The equipment on communications towers can buzz and hum as it's automatically heated and cooled. As Beaumont-Wilshire residents consider a new tower project in their neighborhood, a Southeast Portland homeowner wants to warn them about his noisy experience with newly installed Clearwire wireless Internet equipment next to his house. For George Polas, the noise began in October, 2oo8, when a large metal box appeared on a utility pole next door. "You can hear this constant humming all the time. Hummm," explained Polas. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communications-tower... 12/29/2011 Residents worried about noise from communications tower I kgw.com Portland Page 2 of 3 He and his wife, Sue, complained immediately. "You sit there and think, 'is my dryer on?"' The box appeared 20 feet high on a utility pole without warning. Clearwire installed the equipment in order to improve Internet service to customers in the area. Polas says the company came by twice and tinkered with the equipment, but 14 months later the buzzing problem persists. "It may be great for you if you're living several blocks away and you have your nice Wi -Fi system set up," said George. "But there are folks like us who have to live with this and they're continually putting more and more of these things up around the metropolitan area." Clearwire sent NewsChannel 8 a statement, saying "we regret any time our neighbors may be inconvenienced due to a noisy site ... although we are in compliance we continue to work on this." Noise is one of several concerns in the Beaumont Wilshire neighborhood where a similar tower is planned in the parking lot of a convenience store near houses. "This is the first application we've had under the new regulations," said City Commissioner Amanda Fritz. Her office in charge of regulating communications industries at the municipal level. Fritz says the city is handcuffed by federal law and couldn't stop certain tower projects even if it wanted to. But unlike when the Polas's woke up to find the box installed next door, brand new city regulations require companies like Clearwire to give notice and participate in public meetings before installing such equipment. If anything, companies face bad press if they bully a neighborhood, she says. "It's not in the company's interest to have complaints from neighbors." Later this week during a town hall-style meeting, the Beaumont Wilshire Neighborhood Association will vote whether to support or oppose the Clearwire communications tower project there. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communications-tower... 12/29/2011 Residents worried about noise from communications tower I kgw.com Portland Page 3 of 3 George Polas says everyone in the city should pay close attention. "You may wake up one day and find out, 'well, look what happens. I'm having one of these units outside my house." That Beaumont Wilshire neighborhood vote is ceremonial in nature. Federal law says Clearwire can install its approved equipment on a utility pole in a public right of way without permission from cities or their citizens. Add another comment http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communications-tower... 12/29/2011 ON IAW�Ll Alicia Ives 5515 E. Stearns St. Long Beach, CA 90815 (562)431-2525 fax (714) 642-9900 cell c21 aliciaives(d�netscape.net www.myagentaliciaives.com January 3, 2012 RE: 5952 Littlefield Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Dr. Chacon, It is my understanding that the city is considering placing a cell phone tower directly behind the backyard of your home. This would be most unfortunate for you, your family, and your property value. As a local Realtor for over 10 years and long time resident of Huntington Beach, I can assure you that your property value will be adversely affected. I am also hired by banks as an evaluator to give written opinions on properties the banks must sell. I can assure you that a communication tower will cause your property and the property values of the neighborhood to become non-conforming in relation to the rest of the area. With the public perception of health risks and the unsightly intrusion where formally there was only open space, you can expect a decrease in property values of at least 20%-30%. It is my professional opinion that a utility tower of any type visible from your home would have a negative impact on your property value. The unobstructed view from your backyard attracted you to this property and caused you to purchase it over the many other homes available at that time. It would be unfortunate to loose the value in your home that you have work so hard to build and maintain. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Century 21 On Target 714-642-9900 Debbie Neugebauer Associate Broker Office: (714) 842-3203 Facsimile: (714) 847-4902 Tuesday,November 15, 2011 Shelly Chacon 5952 Littlefield Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Shelley, This letter is to confirm our conversation from yesterday. I completely understand your great concern over the possibility of a cell phone tower being placed directly behind your home . As we discussed, this would definitely have a negative impact on the'value and ability to sell your property. The area that is directly behind your property which currently contains the pump station is already a`negative factor which decreases the desirability of your, property. Adding a cell phone tower to that area would be a further detriment to the property. It Would be a huge eye sore and would add insult to injury to your property.„ I would estimate the decrease in value to your property would be a minimum of 20%. The properties in the Bolsa Landmark tract are averaging in the $875,000.00 range. That would be a devaluation of a minimum of $175,000.00. That would be assuming we. would be able to find a buyer that would find the property acceptable with that type of problem located directly behind the property. Your home may very well become un saleable unless at a deeply discounted price. I am not aware of any cell phone towers that have been placed directly behind a residential neighborhood. I have always seen them in commercial areas of the cities. I think this is a very poor choice for placement of a cell phone tower, certainly there are other options for placement that would not have such a negative impact on a community. Sincerely, Debbie Neugebauer Associate Broker EVEMKi CWm Rem R E A L E S T A T E 19440 Golden West Street, Huntington Beach,.Calibmia, 92648 No Cell Tower at 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Page 1 of 4 No Cell Tower at 1095 Search this site Channing Avenue, Palo Alt®, CA READ ME FIRST AT&T community READ ME FIRST meeting Compare ordinances` Develop a wireless See our Facebook page plan -- .............-_......_------,— .................—.__...................... -— ------ Letter to the City, 3/22/2011 1 Seethe permit i application Sign the on-line petition Take action! Catholic Church in the! TAKE ACTIONI Call or send email to contacts for City of Palo Alto,Roman Catholic Welfare Corp.of San cell tower business Diocese of Oakland Jose,NSA Wireless,AT&T. Roman Catholic Welfare Corp of San 4/27/2011 Confirmation received from the City that the application has been dropped. Jose j The Vatican cancer': We encourage AT&T to try to find lawful means of improving service to the Cluster neighborhood. Contact Us Health issues 4/18/2011 Application to be dropped. Reporting does not mention significant objection that Cell towers cause cancer and more tower proposal violated city zoning ordinances.Waiting for confirmation from the city. Related reading American Association for Cell 4/7/2011 ARB"slams"aesthetic appeal of cell tower. Phone Safety Ar&Ts network(updated 3/14) 3/22/2011 Kristin Parineh sends a notice that the City is about to issue a preliminary Cities exercise their i decision on the CUP and has scheduled an ARB meeting for April 7th, 2011. Our response rights ' is here. Cities reject cell towers Coalition for Local i 3/18/2011 The Palo Alto Weekly agrees that Palo Alto should adopt a more rigorous Oversight of Utility Technologies process for cell towers. Fighting against cell; towers Other news AT&T apparently has a new plan to deploy 80 antennas around the City of Palo Alto, and a Sitemap meeting was held on March 8th where only a fraction of the residents affected by the overall - - — - plan were notified. Read about it here-Palo Altans continue to butt heads with AT&T over project proposals-and here-AT&T pets more resistance to new antennas from Palo Alto- and here-AT&T plan pets stormy reception. Read about the AT&T community meeting on January 11,2011 where AT&T"failed to connect,"and tell AT&T,"No tower!" i Complain to AT&T and get a free microcell-no tower required. No need to inflict your neighbors with your choice of carrier. 1 Read about AT&Ts network,and how improvements have been deferred despite years of increasing profits. Why bother to upgrade now?Could it be the Verizon iPhone announced on January 11,2011? New 311 412 0 1 1:AT&T plans to implement caps on its broadband service,how AT&T totally flubbed 4G. Read the Palo Alto Weekly stories, published 1 2/1 71201 0: f http://www.nocelltoweratl095channing.com/ 12/29/2011 No Cell Tower at 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Page 2 of 4 ■ Calling out?Telecommunications industry,carriers say they need more cell towers but residents are concerned about health effects and property values ■ Are the towers a health hazard?Experts cannot agree if there has been adequate research on the effects of radio-frequency emissions("Experts cannot agree"is a Vied-and-true tactic by industries that want to protect their profits and delay or discredit independent research,from climate change to cell phone safety.) Read/watch for yourself: n Read in Tim Wu's THE MASTER SWITCH about how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabled the rebirth of AT&T as a"monopoly without a soul."Read about how AT&T owns the FCC. a Read in Devra Davis'National Book Award Finalist DISCONNECT about the"don't ask,don't tell" approach of the cell phone industry to real science,leading to an"immense disconnect between common opinions about cell phone safety and the actual data." e Watch Full Signal,a movie about cell phone technology,its impact,and its proliferation."There is growing evidence that cellular technology is harmful to us.This has not been proven,but by the time it could be proven,4 could be too late to do something about.So now is the time to err on the side of caution." ` Say no to the proposed cell tower at 1095 Channing Avenue! i ■ 1095 Channing Avenue is a property of the Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation of San Jose.It is zoned R-1,single family residential.The Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation of San Jose has a conditional use permit(CUP)to operate St.Albert the Great Church and St.Elizabeth Seton School on the property.Catholic churches are increasingly trying to monetize their property-for which they pay no property tax-by leasing to tower companies and wireless carriers.The Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation of San Jose wants to further monetize 1095 Channing Avenue by leasing to a cell tower company(NSA Wireless)and a wireless carrier(AT&T). Why are we against a cell tower at 1095 Channing Avenue?A telecommunications business is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood,and we want the City of Palo Alto to deny AT&Ts permit application.Show Silicon Valley technology leadership through responsible,planned development of wireless communication facilities. ■ PROVE THAT THIS TOWER IS NECESSARY The City can require that the wireless carrier prove that i a significant gap in coverage exists, and that engineering of existing facilities cannot be modified to address the gap.Common re-engineering techniques include changing tilt of antennas,changing their azimuth(angular orientation),or installing amplifiers to boost the return signal from phones. Technological advances have made it possible to reduce the separation of antennas on a tower, allowing an existing tower to utilize more spectrum.Wireless carriers don't like to re-engineer their existing facilities because it's"too expensive"to actually drive around and study the coverage area,and it's easier tojust build new towers.The Town of Duxbury,VT,has written into their wireless ordinance that,"Pursuant to 24 V.S.A.§4407,the Selectboard is authorized to hire qualified persons to conduct an independent technical review of applications and to require the applicant to pay for all reasonable costs thereof.Additional costs,at the applicant's expense,may include the Selectboard hiring a facilitator to assist the Selectboard in coordinating all the information necessary for review of the application,"reflecting the need to have experts hold the wireless companies accountable for their claims:http://www.duxburvvermont.org/telecomord.html.The City of Modesto, CA,also wrote their wireless ordinance to incorporate the expertise of independent consultants:http:/Mww.ci.modesto.ca.us/sirer)ub/view.aspx? cabinet=published meetings&fileid=72381.So did the Town of Olive,NY: http://www.town.olive.nv.us/govtadm/htmI/meetings2k/iuneO6mtgminph.him.The City of Palo Alto should require AT&T to prove that this tower is necessary to an independent expert;there are 13 existing towers in commercially-zones districts within 1 mile of the proposed tower-6 are registered to companies acquired by AT&T,and there are 7 others on which AT&T could co- locate. m ENFORCE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE The City of Palo Alto's existing wireless communications facilities ordinance requires the removal of abandoned equipment:"Wireless communication facilities, or any components of a facility,that are no longer in use shall be removed by the applicant,service provider,or property owner within three months of the termination of use.No new permit shall be issued to a carrier if that carrier has not removed abandoned equipment."The intent of this clause is to prevent wireless communications facilities from becoming storehouses for obsolete equipment,preventing new http://www.nocelltoweratl095channing.com/ 12/29/2011 No Cell Tower at 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Page 3 of 4 equipment from being installed on existing tower locations.The Planning Department currently believes that Code Enforcement handles this,while Code Enforcement thinks that the Planning Department enforces it.The City of Palo Alto should enforce this provision of the ordinance,and require AT&T to prove that they have no abandoned equipment in any of their nine towers in Palo Alto before any new permit can be issued. ® DEVELOP A WIRELESS PLAN The City of Palo Alto has a very weak zoning ordinance for wireless communications facilities.The City's Comprehensive Plan makes no mention of wireless communication facilities whatsoever.Compare the City of Palo Alto wireless Communications facilities ordinance 18.42.110 with the City of Glendale Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permits. The Glendale ordinance extensively incorporates a city's right to require that a new tower be proven necessary(see"Findings of Fact"),where the Palo Alto ordinance does not.The City of Richmond's . permit application process requires an applicant to,"Identify and indicate on a map,at a minimum,two I (2)viable technically and economically feasible or superior alternative locations outside the disfavored areas which could eliminate or substantially reduce the need to locate in a restricted area. Richmond, CA's new wireless Ordinance No.09-10 N.S.was unanimously approved by its Mayor and City Council on February 16,2010.It can be found on-line on the City's website at: http:/Awm.ei.richmond.ca.us/archives/66/0rd.%2009-1 0%20WireIess%20Communications% 20Facilities-CONFORMED.odf.North Merrick,NY,has just rewritten their code to make it illegal to place a cell tower closer than 1500 feet from a residence:http://northmer6ckcivic.org/cellantennas.htmi.What happens when another wireless carrier wants to co-locate on the proposed tower at 1095 Channing Avenue?Does it get taller?Does it hum j louder?Do competing wireless carriers double the amount of maintenance happening at 2 AM?The City of Palo Alto should not cede municipal planning of wireless communications facilities to the tower companies and the carriers;develop a plan to keep this commercial activity on existing towers in commercially-zoned districts,and at minimum 1500 feet away from schools, churches,parks,hospitals,and libraries,using the professional help of experts in the wireless industry to fully protect ourselves using all the means made available to us in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The proposed tower at 1095 Channing Avenue should be denied for the following additional reasons: ra DEVALUATION OF HOMES A number of organizations and studies have documented the detrimental effects of cell towers on property values.Peer-reviewed studies find that property values decline by 20%near cell towers,found at hftp://Qoliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi 01 99-501 1 857/The-impact-of-cell- phone.html and http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sfD8353.html.See also press coverage at I hftp:/Mww.nvtimes.com/2010/08/29/realestater29Lizo.htmi? r-1&ref=realestate;real estate devalued when cell towers are erected: http:f/www magdahavas com/2010/08/31/real-estate-devalued-when-cell-towers-are-erected/;more documentation of reduced property values and lawsuits from residents http//sites aoogle com/site/nocelitowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value; tax rolls reduced by the presence of cell towers hftp://spot.colorado.edu/-maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43- Lowered Pro pe rtyVal yabon/.Reductions in property value will have a negative effect on Palo Alto's neighborhoods and schools. ® VISUAL NUISANCE and PRIVACY CONCERNS The proposed cell tower is 50 feet tail,twelve feet higher than surrounding structures.Anyone working on the tower would have an unobstructed view down into children's bedrooms across the street. ® NOISE POLLUTION Noise levels of cellular tower hum and onsite maintenance have been cited repeatedly as reasons to keep cell towers out of residential neighborhoods.See what it's like to live next to a cell phone antenna http:UwHw voutube com/watch?v=QCaOazOauvc&feature=plaver embedded.Hear the noise of Clearwire's wireless communication facilities http://mtna-landuse blogspot.com/2010/01/noise-of-dearwires-vAreless-internet.html and go here to watch and hear the loud"refrigerator box"cell tower in action with this local KUTU-TV news report:http:/Mww.katu.com/news/35688754.html?tab=video.Wireless carriers require access for maintenance 24 hours a day,365 days a year,and maintenance(often done at night)brings trucks with lifts,radios,and lights,and from a tower noise and light can propagate in all directions and affect many neighbors.Current noise ordinances do not adequately protect neighbors that can currently sleep comfortably with open windows on a summer night.This commercial activity is not appropriate in a residential neighborhood directly across the street from children's bedrooms. s HEALTH ISSUES The International Association of Fire Fighters has declared a moratorium on new cell tower construction at fire department facilities until credible science is i h4://www.nocelltoweratl095channing.com/ 12/29/2011 No Cell Tower at 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Page 4 of 4 developed:http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CeIlTowerFinal.asp.As covered recently at at http://eliehouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/how-safe-are-the-workers-who-work-in-close-proximity -to-cell-phone-antennae/and in the New York j Times http:/Awm.nvtimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html,there are a number ofconclusive scientific studies stating that electromagnetic radiation effects can include sleep disruption,impairment of memory and concentration,fatigue,headache,skin disorders,nausea,loss of appetite,tinnitus, cardiac problems,and possibly several forms of cancer-most notably leukemia,breast cancer,and brain tumors.No studies have been done to measure the effect of cell phone radiation on children. These are also summarized at http://www.sixwise.com/newslefters/05/0/28/what are the dangers of living near cell phone towers.htm.Tim Magazine has a story published in October 2010 detailing flaws in FCC handset testing:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0 8599 2027523.00.htmi.Wired Magazine hftl)://www.wired.r-om/oadciets/wireless/news/2005/08168600 has a story on St.Louis denying a permit based on concerns about health of children and devaluation of homes.Harmful radiation effects are reported to reach up to a mile from tower locations. Subpages(6):AT&T community meeting Compare ordinances Develop a wireless plan Letter to the City. 312212011 See the permit application Take action! _...- ------ ............. -- —.._.._.............__. --.....-.__........------.-............... i Sign In I Terms i Report Abuse Print page Powered by Googie Sites http://www.nocelltoweratl095channing.com/ 12/29/2011 ' January 3, 201Z 202 JP,—,H ' `^' '~ °w Members of the City Council C/o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk - City ofHuntington Beach 200O Main Street, 2"« Floor Huntington Beach, CA9264O Re: Coastal Permit No. 21'0l5/Conditiona| Use Permit No. 11'02A/VVire|ess Permit No. Z011-OS2 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobi|eWireless Facility) Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: On December 27, 2U11, we received notice of the January 9 hearing before the City Council onT' Mobi|e'sCoasta| Development Permit no. 11'015/Conditiona| Use Permit No. 11-038/VVire|ess Permit No. I011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T'Mobi|e Wireless Facility). (Ex. A) We are writing to oppose these permits, which will allow T-Mobile to install a 55-foot cell phone tower and supporting structures at the Springdale Pump Station in our residential neighborhood (zoned RL with 35' height limit). VVe live nn Foss Lane. Our property backs onto Springdale and is directly across the street from the proposed tower site at the Springdale Pump Station, approximately 35yords distant. The proposed location of this tower will be directly opposite the window of our master bedroom, close enough to pose o serious nuisance to our peace and safety. |n addition, the proposed site borders a year-round pond in the Bn|sa Chica Ecological Reserve, winter home of many migratory birds, and for several years has itself been a nesting site for red-tail hawks and rare songbirds. For these reasons, and those discussed in more detail below,we are convinced that the City has failed to consider adequately the interests of its citizens and the environmental risks associated with placing the proposed tower next to the Bo|sa Chica Ecological Reserve. T-Mobile is essentially asking for permission to construct and operate a commercial facility in a low- density residential zone within 50 yards of our homes and within 50 feet of an environmentally sensitive area. The members of the City Council should not let the threat of more lawsuits from T-Mobile coerce them into failing to protect the tranquility of our neighborhood surrounding the Springdale Pump Station and the natural resources at Bo|sa Chica. The Council is well within its rights to rejectT-Mobi|e's permit applications. Issues with Permit Applications: Significant Gaps in Service Not Demonstrated The [ity's Notice of Public Hearing on January Bth states that the standard for approving a wireless permit (VVP) is "to demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible soasto eliminate any gaps inservice." T-Mobile's stated purpose for this project is to improve network coverage for T-Mobile customers in and around the area of Springdale Street by increasing the existing RF signal level in this existing coverage area. T'Mobi|e further states that the Springdale Pump Station location was chosen to close a significant Page 1of7 gap in coverage. (Ex. B) However,T-Mobile has not presented persuasive evidence that a gap in coverage exists. When T-Mobile's Mr. Bazerman reported at the November 16th community meeting about this proposed project,that additional 4G coverage was required in the proposed coverage area, citizens living in this area with T-Mobile's 4G cell phone service responded that they experience no service problems either inside or outside their homes. In fact,according to an article published on December 20`h by the Wall Street Journal,T-Mobile is the only national carrier that isn't building its own next generation high speed network(4G). Standard cell coverage in the proposed coverage area is good according to T-Mobile's own on-line coverage map. As indicated in T-Mobile's wireless permit application,this map was used by the city to verify that coverage in the proposed coverage area is good to moderate (Exhibit C, WP Application 2011-052, Section 4.04). There has been no evidence provided by T-Mobile that a significant gap in service exists to justify the proposed WCF. Least Obtrusive Site Not Demonstrated T-Mobile's wireless permit application asserts that the Springdale Pump Station is the "one and only one location within or without the City of HB"that can meet the objective of this project(Exhibit C,T-Mobile WP Application 2011-052,Section 6.05),yet the application also indicates that no other candidate sites were pursued by T-Mobile (Exhibit C,T-Mobile WP Application 2011-052, Section 6.02). A site cannot be demonstrated to be the least obtrusive when no other sites were considered. We believe there are alternative, non-residential sites that would be less obtrusive and still sufficient to avoid purported gaps in T-Mobile's service (if indeed such gaps exist). On November 23, 2011, in a letter to Andrew Gonzales (Ex. D),we suggested four alternate sites for consideration, and another site was suggested to Mr. Gonzales on December 2"d by Stephanie Lewson, a resident of Littlefield Drive (Ex. Q. This fifth site is private property on Edwards Street, which the owner is willing to lease to T-Mobile for a wireless communications facility (WCF). The City has an obligation to its residents to fully investigate all available alternatives before considering the Springdale Pump Station location. Furthermore, a residential setting cannot be the least obtrusive site when there are non-residential sites available. We are aware of the earlier vote against situating this tower in Bolsa View Park, but surely the City Council must realize that if voters do not want cell phone towers where children play occasionally,voters absolutely do not want cell phone towers where children live and play all the time (such as the proposed Springdale location—right next to bedrooms and yards in a residentially-zoned area). Despite the intent to disguise the tower as a palm tree,the tower is aesthetically inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and adjacent wetlands. Residents should be able to enjoy a natural vista when they look to the treetops—not a view of a mechanical tower sticking up 15-20 feet or more above the tree line. Additionally,the 55 foot height requirement for the proposed tower to fulfill the need appears to violate a City zoning ordinance for the Coastal Zone Overlay District. (Ex. F) Section 221.28 of this ordinance, Maximum Height,says in Paragraph A: "The maximum height limits within the CZ Overlay District are 35 feet for a residential structure and 50 feet for a commercial structure, or the base district height limit, whichever is lower." The base district height limit in this RL zoned neighborhood is 35 feet. (Ex. G) We urge the City to abide by its zoning ordinances for low density residential neighborhoods and the Coastal Overlay Zone and deny T-Mobile's request for the height variance required for this project. Page 2 of 7 Perceived Misrepresentations in T-Mobile's Characterization of the Project Design We measured the height of what appears to be the tallest existing palm tree at the Springdale Pump Station's entrance by measuring its shadow from its base, and comparing it to the measurement of the shadow of an object of known height. The tree's height is approximately 43 feet. This agrees with the measurement performed by another neighbor. A third neighbor was granted entrance to the pump station and similarly measured the trees located next to the proposed tower's placement. Those trees are much shorter—the proposed tower, at 55 feet,will exceed them by at least 20 feet and, according to the schematic contained within T-Mobile's permit application,will be at least 3 times their diameter making it a hazard to birds (as well as extremely unsightly). (Ex. H) The T-Mobile permit application includes photographs of the proposed site with a representative stealth palm shown at the same height and width as the existing trees (View 1, 2 & 3 attached as Exhibits I-K). This appears to be an inaccurate representation of what T-Mobile has requested in the same application. It is also inconsistent with the "Height Justification Letter" (Ex. L)from Amiee Weeks of Coastal Business Group on November 9, 2011 which states: "This facility is proposed at a height of 55 feet which is the height needed to meet the coverage objective for this area. The additional 20 feet will allow the antennas to have a clear signal path without obstruction from the existing live palm trees and nearby residential homes.This property currently has several existing palm trees located within the pump station, most of which are 60 feet tall." We are aware that T-Mobile's permit application says the existing trees are taller, but we believe that data inaccurate. The City should not make a decision based on the representation that the proposed tower will be unnoticeable among the existing trees without verifying these measurements. Community Concerns: Decreased Property Values It is well-documented that homes located next to cell phone towers experience significant decreases in their market value. (Ex. M & N) One concerned neighbor contacted an experienced local realtor about the impact on her home value should this project be approved, and was told her home value would decline by 20%due to its proximity to the proposed tower, assuming she was able to sell it. We've received advice from counsel that it's already too late to sell in order to prevent this loss because we would be legally bound to disclose the pending project to prospective buyers. It is patently unfair to enter into an agreement that will generate corporate revenue, as well as revenue for the City, at the particular expense of those homeowners located near the tower. To avoid these issues, and enable settlement of the lawsuit over the Bolsa View Park location,the City must find a non-residential location as an alternative to both Bolsa View Park and the Springdale Pump Station. Significant Increase in Ambient Noise Levels At the November 16th community meeting,T-Mobile's representative, Mr. D. Bazerman, advised in response to a resident's question that the proposed tower will make a constant humming noise. T- Mobile's permit application indicates noise levels of 60db CNEL(community noise equivalent level)for the proposed tower(Ex. 0), where typical CNELs for quiet suburban cul-de-sacs, like ours, are only 50db (Ex. P). When a noise level of this magnitude is added to previously ambient levels, it will destroy the peace and quiet that was one of the principal reasons we moved to this Huntington Beach neighborhood 15 years ago. 60db (twice as loud as 50db) is equivalent to the noise of a dishwasher on rinse cycle from 10 feet away. No resident should be forced, involuntarily,to endure noise levels of this magnitude day and night. This projected noise level is consistent with the reported experience of other Page 3 of 7 people living near wireless facilities (see 1/24/10 Internet article attached as Exhibit Q describing buzzing sound heard by residents of Portland, Oregon). Some people have even recorded the noise and posted the recordings on You Tube (such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGcHolhB7A or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvh6fHPFDUs). An alternative location in a commercial or industrial site, where there are no residents to disturb with constant noise pollution, is the only reasonable alternative to placement of a WCF in a residential neighborhood. There will also be additional noise and traffic when construction and maintenance vehicles come into our neighborhood to "install, upgrade, operate and maintain" the proposed tower on a 24 hours a day and 7 days a week basis, as allowed by the proposed lease agreement. (Ex. R,Article 3,Section 3.01 (g)). In addition, our privacy will be violated as workers on the tower will be able to see into the windows, patios and gardens of the surrounding homes at all hours of the day and night when their bright lights will disturb us as well. Click on https://sites.google.com/site/noceiltowerinourneighborhood/home/noise-and-nuisance to hear about the experience of Glendale residents who live next to a T-Mobile cell tower relative to noise and other disturbances caused by cell tower maintenance. Environmental Concerns: Non-Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) We know that the City has been embroiled in litigation with T-Mobile for a number of years. We understand there is a settlement agreement (attached to this letter as Exhibit S)that provides T-Mobile will dismiss its lawsuit against the City if the Council votes to approve a lease for T-Mobile to locate a wireless communication facility at the Springdale Pump Station location in place of the Bolsa View Park site. The settlement agreement further provides that the tower will not actually be constructed "unless and until the City Council approves a lease, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act." (Ex. S,Agreement Section I.) The City Council vote on the CUP is now set for January 9, 2012,following the public hearing, but so far, it appears that the City has done no "related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act." The notice of Public Hearing on January 9th says that T-Mobile's permit applications are all "categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act." (Ex. A.) The notice does not specify on which particular exemption the City is relying and upon review of the categorical exemptions listed in CEQA, published online at (http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/flowchart/exemptions/categorical.htmi), we saw no exemption applicable to new, 55-foot cell phone towers located adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. If this proposed tower is not categorically exempt(and we remain unconvinced that it is),then the City is required to at least perform an initial study prior to approving T-Mobile's permits in order to assess the potential for adverse environmental impacts. If such a study were undertaken, it appears that expert biologists would have a wealth of studies to consider,from organizations such as the National Audubon Society, university departments or ornithology, Partners in Flight, and many others. Attached as Exhibit T, is a paper that summarizes some of the available data on the harmful effects of cell towers Page 4 of 7 on migratory birds. It is a statement by Janet Newton, President of the EMR Policy Institute, a non-profit educational organization, before the Connecticut Siting Council considering a proposed tower at Beebe Hill in that State. Project Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Area and Potential'Threats to Wildlife The American Bird Conservancy sued the FCC over the threat to birds created by communication towers. The American Bird Conservancy won an order that the FCC was required to give change certain procedures in connection with the construction of communication towers to ensure full public participation in evaluating the potential impacts on migratory birds. (American Bird Conservancy, Inc.v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008). That lawsuit was fought under a federal law requiring environmental review (the National Environmental Policy Act or"NEPA"), but we believe CEQA imposes similar environmental review requirements on cities. (An Internet article about this decision is attached as Exhibit U.) The U.S. Department of the Interior published guidelines for locating communication towers. (Ex.V) Guideline#4 says, "Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas(e.g., State of Federal refuges,staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat of threatened or endangered species." The tower at the proposed Springdale Pump Station location will be immediately adjacent to wetlands that are also an ecological reserve operated jointly by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. (See map attached as Exhibit W.) There are migratory birds and endangered species in the Bolsa Chica wetlands. The Bolsa Chica Conservancy has published on its website (http://bolsachica.org/Birders/index.html) an extensive list of such species observed at the wetlands. While we understand that these federal guidelines may not be legal requirements,the fact that the U.S. Department of the Interior recommends against doing the very thing presently under consideration by the City should give the City some pause—especially since the City has conducted no advanced environmental review that would allow the City to safely conclude the proposed tower will not negatively impact birds or other wildlife in the wetlands. The wetlands are an important tourist attraction in Huntington Beach, and the City should not approve the construction of a tower that may harm the wetlands unless and until the City completes an environmental review to support its decision. Failure to Provide 100 foot Buffer Zone between Proposed Site and Bolsa Chica Wetlands The location also falls within the Coastal Zone Overlay District. In Chapter 221 of the HBZSO,Section 221.02 Buffer Requirements (Ex. F), it states: "As a condition of development adjacent to environmentally-sensitive habitats delineated in the General Plan and,for development in the coastal zone, environmentally-sensitive habitats identified in the Local Coastal Program, a minimum 100-foot buffer from the edge of the habitat as determined by a site specific biological assessment area shall be provided...." The Springdale site borders the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the proposed tower location on the site is approximately 41 feet from the edge of the wetlands and approximately 55 feet from the open water used by the local and migrating bird populations, as well several nesting areas. Page 5 of 7 Summary We hope you agree that there are many significant reasons to deny the permits for this project at the Springdale Pump Station, primarily among them the destruction of neighborhood aesthetics, peace and quiet, and the economic and environmental harm it will cause to the residents and wildlife, none of whom will benefit from this corporate project. As with Bolsa View Park, which was determined by the City to be an unsuitable location for a T-Mobile wireless communication facility,there is not only a lack of need for this project but also a lack of customer demand for it. The unsightliness and nuisance of a 55 foot monopole with numerous antennas in multiple arrays, a GPS antenna, and support equipment would be even less compatible with the Springdale Pump Station site, a much smaller site that T-Mobile hopes to substitute for Bolsa View Park. Furthermore, the location of the Springdale Pump Station next to an environmentally sensitive area and closer to homes makes it even less suitable for a project of this nature. Many Huntington Beach voters agree with us that a residential neighborhood is no place for a cell phone tower. We,the residents of Bolsa Landmark, location of the Springdale Pump Station, don't want an unneeded tower in our backyards that will destroy our quality of life, harm us financially, and potentially harm endemic and migratory wildlife. We hope you agree that T-Mobile should not be permitted to build it. Please side with us,the residents, against the corporate interest of T-Mobile and vote "no" on T-Mobile's permit applications. Thank you, (�? Mark and Gay Infanti List of Exhibits -These Exhibits are posted online at the following link: http://springdalecelltower.com/?page id=453. A complete copy of this letter with exhibits will be delivered to the City Clerk's office on January 4, 2012. Exhibit A—Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council on January 9, 2012 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile WCF) Exhibit B—T-Mobile Letter to Planning Dept., re: Written Narrative,Application Requirement 15 Exhibit C-T-Mobile WP Application 2011-052 Exhibit D—M. Infanti Letter to Andrew Gonzales—Alternative Sites Exhibit E—S. Lewson Letter to Andrew Gonzales—Alternative Site Exhibit F—Section 221.22 of HBZSO, Coastal Overlay Zone, Buffer Requirements Exhibit G—Section 210.06 of HBZSO stating base height limit in RL zone Exhibit H—Plans showing existing palms placement and size compared to proposed tower Exhibit I —T-Mobile Photo/Photo Simulation View 1 (WP 2011-052,Section 5.0) Page 6 of 7 Exhibit J—T-Mobile Photo/Photo Simulation View 2 (WP 2011-052, Section 5.0) Exhibit K—T-Mobile Photo/Photo Simulation View 3 (WP 2011-052, Section 5.0) Exhibit L—T-Mobile's Cell Tower Height Justification Letter Exhibit M—Paper by Dr. S. Bond, published by the Appraisal Institute Exhibit N—List of Sources on Effects of Cell Towers on Home Property Values Exhibit O—T-Mobile General Application to request WCF at Springdale Pump Station Site Exhibit P—Representative examples of Measured Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) and Sound Levels (dB) and Relative Loudness of Typical Noise Sources Exhibit Q— Internet article describing wireless communication equipment noise heard by residents of Portland, Oregon Exhibit R—Site Lease Agreement (11/2/11),Article 3—Improvements and Access, Section 3.01 (g) Exhibit S—Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, Agreement Section I (page 3) Exhibit T—Threat of Harmful Effects on Migratory Birds and Endangered Species from Proposed Cell Tower Exhibit U - Internet Article on American Bird Conservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Exhibit V- U.S. Department of the Interior published guidelines for locating communication towers Exhibit W—Map Showing Springdale Pump Station's Proximity to Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Page 7 of 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-0281WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 2011-052 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY) Applicant: Amiee Weeks — Coastal Business. Group Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach Request: CDP: To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping station. CUP: To permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obstrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street— Springdale Pump Station) Project Planner: Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-015, filed on 11/14/11 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5, 2011 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and \\nasl\user_dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFT AGENDASTH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk city of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 ht- 1/hunfill tonbeaclica-ROV/1-IBP JcQomn'ents/ http://www.huntingtonbeachca-gov/ \\nasl\user dirs\hbit\Espar7aP\DRAFT AGENDASTH Notice(Springdale Pump station Tmobile facility).doc Aibtf Ij ( � �Z./ RECEIVED YV 14 2011 Dept,of Plamniing &Building November 9, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Written Narrative Application Requirement 15 T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 To Whom It May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. E The proposed wireless facility will improve network coverage for T-Mobile customers in and around-the area of Springdale Street. This particular wireless facility is proposed to replace the T-Mobile Wireless facility that was originally approved at Bolsa View Park. This location was identified and chosen to help close a significant gap in coverage for T-Mobile customers. The placement of the facility will provide coverage for the residents, business owners, and emergency personnel in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is comprised entirely of residential homes to the North, South, East,and West of the proposed site location. Due to the nature of the proposed project it is difficult to determine the exact number of the City's population this facility will serve, however, the coverage maps provided depict the signal range and area this site will cover. The proposed wireless facility will serve the residential neighborhoods located to the North, East,and West of the site. As referenced on the coverage maps provided,the approval and installation of the proposed wireless facility will increase"in Building" coverage reaching streets as far as Bankton Drive and Fallingwater Drive to the North of the site. Coverage will also reach streets near Edwards Street to the East, Silverspur Lane to the Southeast and, even as far as parts of PCH California 1 Highway. This site will also support and inf ill existing sites in the surrounding area by increasing the "In Car" and"Outdoor" coverage. 16460 BAKE. PARKWAY ® SUITE 100 9 IRVINE, CA 92618 s PHONE.: 949.336.1 SSO ® PAX: 949.336.6665 E—MAIL: INFO@COAST'AL.BUSINESSGROUPeNE-T 0 WWW.COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET 13 The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is unmanned therefore; there are no set hours of operation and no need for on site employees. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o, Ext.Sob or via email at aweeksocoastalbusinessgrot]p,net Regards, Amiee Weeks COASTAL.. BUSINESS GROUP, INC. IREMEiVOT �A 2City 2000[MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www huntingtonbeachca eov Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 Fee 1151 Wireless Permit No..��4?5-,)L- (Zoning Letter) CITY OF IFIUNTINGTON BEACH WIRELESS PERMIT APPLICATION FOIE This farm is designed to elicit required technical information in support of an application for a new or modified permit(generally, the "Permit") for a wireless site within the City of Huntington Beach_ This application is a mandatory element of the application process. No application for a new wireless site Permit or for a modification of an existing wireless site Permit shall be considered for determination of completeness until this form and required attachments are provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Every page of this form, including this page, must be completed and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach, and each page roust be signed and/or initialed where indicated. Questions about this form or the required information to be provided should be directed to the Project Planner assigned to your project or to the Department of Planning and Building at.(71.4) 536-5271 for the City of Huntington Beach. You are advised to be familiar with the City's Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, which establishes standards and guidelines for the installation of wireless communication facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> CyAi6i* 0, Prior to submittal of a wireless permit application, an address assignment shall be obtained for all freestanding vAreless communications facilities. Address Assignment Application 2009.Ddf) im: Information 1.01: Project Address: 18401 SPRINGDALE ST.. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA,92649 1.02: Project Assessors Parcel Number. 159-188-05 1.03. Name of Applicant(Primary Contact): APPLICANT:T-MOBILE WEST CORP/ CONTACT: AmIEE WEEKS 1.04: Applicant is: Owner x Owner's Representative -Other 1.05: Applicant's Address Line 1: 16460 BAKE-PAREWAY-SUITE 100 1.06: Applicant's Address Line 2: IRVINE.,CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Phone Number: (949) 336-1550 1.08: Applicant's Mobile Number: 1.09: Applicant's Fax Number: (949) 336.6665 1.10: Applicant's Email Address: AWEEKSCaCOASTALBUSI NESS GROUP.NET 1,11: Name of Property Owner: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.12: Property Owner's Address Line 1: 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 1.13. Property Owner's Address Line 2: 1.14: Property Owner's Phone Number: if Applicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 2.01, <Continue to next Page> Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW C_ 2.00. Project Owner Information(i.e.,carrier) 2,01: Disclose the Names, Addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers for all Project Owners (use additional sheets if required and mark as"Attachment 2.01"): 2.02., Project Owner Name (i.e., carrier or licensee): T-MOBILE WEST CORP. 2.03: Address(line 1): . 2008 McGAw AVENUE 2.04: Address (line 2): 2.05: City: IRVINE State: CA Zip: 92614 2.06, Contact Person Name: . AmIEE WEEKS-COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP 2.07: Contact Person's telephone number/extension: (949) 336-1550 2.08: If the Applicant is not the project owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Project Owner(s) in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as"Attachment 2.08'. Initial here AW if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 2.09. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant or Project Owner as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as"Attachment 2.09". Initial here if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. <Continue to next page> Page 3 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW C � �� - 3.00: project Purpose 3.01: justification. Provide a non-technical narrative, accompanied by written documentation where appropriate,which explains the purpose(s) of the proposed Project. Label as"Attachment 3.01 3.02- Indicate whether the prims[y.purpose of the Project is to add additional network capacity,to increase existing signal level, or to provide new radio frequency coverage (check only ones. Add network capacity without adding significant new RF coverage area X Increase the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a specific area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity(such as roaming agreement.with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03: If the answer in 3.02 is not"Other proceed to 3.05. 3,04: Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the"Other"primary purpose of this project, Designate this attachment,"Attachment 3.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 3.04 is attached to this application. 3.05: Provide three(3)sets of site plans,floor plans, and building elevations a maximum of 24"x 36" in size. Plans shall conform to the following applicable requirements: a. Draw to scale(minimum scale 118"= 1'or 1"=30')-,indicate dimensions of building and floor uses; and north direction arrow. Plans shall be oriented so that north points to the top of the page. b. Plot the entire parcel and dimension all pertinent data such as easements,driveways, landscaping, parking,fencing, and distances to all property lines. C. plot all existing and proposed physical features,fences/walls,and structures on the subject property and abutting properties. d. Dimension to the nearest intersecting street and identify all street names. e. Dimension height of all structures from the highest adjacent curb. f. Building elevations shall depict all sides of building and indicate colors and materials proposed. g. identify the legal description of the subject property on the site plan.. h. Fold all plans to a maximum size of 8-1/2"x 11" (lower right comer out). 3.06.- Is the project: X Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.B.8) Completely Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.B.2) Visible, Not Stealth Office Use Only: RL- C-� Zoning RL-T General Plan SrP1N,CrP,LC- -1 94-Tior intersection DM <Continue to next page> Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps 4.01: Where the licensee intends to provide radio frequency geographic coverage to a defined area from the Project(including applicants in the cellular, PCS,broadcast, ESMR/SIVIR categories),the coverage maps and information requested below are required attachments.All others proceed to 5.00. For the coverage maps required here, the following mandatory requirement($) apply: 1. The size of each submitted map must be no smaller than 8.5"by 11", and all maps must beof the same physical size, scale, and depict the same geographic area. Include fflgjqr streets and street names on each map.All maps must share a common color scheme. 2. if the FCC rules for any proposed radio service define a minimum radio frequency signal,strength level,that level must be shown on the map in a color easily distinguishable from the base paper or transparency layer,and adequately identified by RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. If no minimum signal level is defined by the FCC rules you must indicate that in the legend of each RF coverage map.You may show other RF signal level(s) on the map so long as they are adequately identified by objective RF level and map color or gradient in the map legend. 3. RF coverage maps with labels such as, "in-Building", "in-Car", and"Outdoor"or referencing a link budget without corresponding signal strengths in units of"dBm'will be rejected. 4, Where the City of Huntington Beach determines that one or more submitted maps are inadequate, it reserves the right to require that one or more supplemental maps with greater or different detail be submitted. 4-02: Map of existing RIF coverage within the City of Huntington Beach on the same network. This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project.Designate this map "Attachment 4.02". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.02 is attached to this application. 4.03 Map of RF coverage to be provided only by the Project. This map should not depict any RF coverage provided by any other existing or proposed wireless sites. Designate this map"Attachment 4.03". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.03 is attached to this application. 4.04 Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map"Attachment 4.04". Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application. Oace,,U0'e Only: Ou" IAI Check Carder website for coverage in vicinity Project Planner to verify gap in coverage exists Does coverage exist on carrier's website in project vicinity? Yes No MtvEp icy <Continue to next page> Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 6.00: Project Photographs and Photo Simulations 5.01, Where an Applicant proposes to construct or modify a wireless site,the Applicant shall submit pre- project photographs, and photo simulations showing the project after completion of construction,all consistent with the following standards: 1. Minimum size of each photograph and photo simulation must be (portrait or landscape orientation). 2. All elements of the project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in one or more close-in photo simulations. 3. The overall project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in five or more area photographs and photo simulations. Photographs and photo simulation views must at a minimum, betaken from widely scattered positions separated by an angle of no greater than 72 degrees from any other photo location. 4, For each photograph and photo simulation. Show on an area map the location and perspective angle of each photograph and photo simulation in relationship to the Project location. 5. All'before'and 'after'photographs and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do nLW place a smaller'before'photo in a box on the same page as a large"after'photo simulation. The number of site photographs, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photographs and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination, The Applicant must submit photographs and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photographs and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> AW Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: 71 6.00: Candidate Sites 6.01: For applicants in the cellular, PCS, broadcast, ESMR/SMR categories,and others as requested by the City of Huntington Beach,the information requested in Section 6 is required.All others proceed to 7-00 All 6.02: Has the Applicant or Owner or anyone working on behalf of the Applicant or Owner secured or attempted to secure any leases or lease-options or similar formal or informal agreements in connection vAth this project for any sites other than the candidate site identified in 1.01 and 1.02 Yes X No 6.03: If the answer to 6.02 is NO, proceed to 6.05. If no alternate locations are identified the project may be rejected. 6.04: Provide the physical address of each such other location, and provide an expansive technical explanation as to why each such other site was disfavored over the Project Site. Designate this attachment"Attachment 6.W. Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application. 6.05: Considering this proposed site, is it the one and only one_location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the objective of the project? X Yes No * SEE BELOW 6,013: if the answer to 6.05 is NO, provide alternate locations(list with address and map) that can meet the objective of the project. Proceed to 7.00. Note that the project may be rejected since it is not the one and only location that can meet the objective of the project. Designate this"Attachment 6.05?". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.06 is attached to this application. 6.07 Provide a technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio frequency data fully describing why the proposed site is the one and only one location within or without the City of Huntington Beach that can possibly meet the radio frequency objectives of the project Explain, in exact and expansive technical detail, all of the objectives of this project. Designate this attachment "Attachment 6.07. Initial here AW to indicate that Attachment 6.07 is attached to this application, <Confinue to next page> *TFiis APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT OF PENDING LITIGATION WITH THE CITY REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR BoLsA VIEW PARK, THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY SUBSEQUENTLY PURPORTED TO REVOKE THE PERMIT FOR BoLsA VIEW PARK. THEREFORE,THIS is THE ONE AND ONLY REMAINING LOCATION. Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 7.00: Identification of Key persons 7.01: Identify by name,title,company affiliation,work address, telephone number and extension, and email address the key person or persons most knowledgeable regarding: 7.02: (1)The site selection for the proposed project, including alternatives; 7.03: Name: DANNY BAZERMAN 7.04-- Title: DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING 7.05: Company Affiliation: T MqR„ E WFS1 CORP 7,06: Work Address: 2Q08 M�1A7�VFNI iE, r� '� CA g?614 7.07: Telephone/Ext.: (714)362-1433 7.08: Email Address: DANNY BAZER MAN @T MOBILE COM (2)The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.09: ;Warne: HENRY HANCOCK 7.10: Title: RF ENGINEER 7.11: Company Affiliation: T MOBILE WEST CORP 7.12: Work Address: 2008 McGAw AvENUE, IRVINE,CA 92614 7.13: Telephone/Ext.: (949)813-6890 7.14: Email Address: HENRY.HANCOCK@T-MOBILE.COM (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any: 7.15: Name: }-ENRY HAN O K 7.16: Title: BE Ir NCINFFR 7.17: Company Affiliation. Sal E31 F)&EST c-,()Rp 7.18: Work Address: 2008 MCGAvv AVENUE 1RVINE CA 92614 7.19: Telephone/Ext.: (949)813.6890 7.20: Email Address: (4)Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project; 7.21: Name: DANNY BAZERMAN 7 22 Title DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING 7.23. Company Affiliation: TMOBILE WEST CORP 7.24: Work Address: 2008 MCr AW AVENUE IBVINE,CA 9 614 - 7.25: Telephone/Ext.: «14_ 62-1433 7.26: Email Address: 7.27 If more than one person is/was involved in any of the four functions identified in this section, attach a separate sheet providing the same information for each additional person,and identifying which function or functions are/were performed by each additional person. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 7.27". Initial here AW to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no attachment 7.27, or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.27 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> Page 8 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: AW 8.00: Form Certification 8,01: The'undersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided here are true and/'complete,to the best of the undersigned's knowledge. AGENT ON BEHALF OF T-MOBILE WEST CORP Signature Title AmIEE WEEKS AWEEKSgCOASTALBUSI.NESSGROUP.NET Print Name Email Address COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP (949) 336-1550 Print Company Name Telephone Number/extension Date Si6ned <Stop Here. End of Form.> Page 9 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: Page 1 of 2 MARK INFANTI From: "Gonzales,Andrew"<AGonzales@surfcity-hb.org, Date: Wednesday,November 23,2011 4:29 PM To: "MARK INFANTI"<minfanti@verizon.net> Subject: RE:Cell Tower site Alternatives to Springdale Pump Station Marl<, Thank you for taking the time to furnish the City with the Information provided. We will review and evaluate the information of the alternate sites.You will be contacted in the event any modifications are made Lo the Springdale Pump Station proposal. Andrew Gonzales.Associate Planner Gity of Huntington Beach, Planning&Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 U?`ice-714.374.1547 Fax-714.374.1540 gcLom._a!esi5s:rfci tv-hb,ora Atease s de-the ci went f fire pn tinq thisme—ce From:MARK INFANTI[mailta:minfanti@verizon.net] Sent:Wednesday,November 23,2011 4:21 PM To:Gonzales,Andrew Cc:Gomez,Luis;Hall,Bob;Scott.hess@surfcity-hb.org Subject:Cell Tower site Alternatives to Springdale Pump Station Alternative cell tower site recommendations to the Springdale Pump Station Prepared by Mark Infanti representing the concerned residents of the Balsa Landmark residential area. - As HB residents that live within 1000 feet of the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at 18201 Springdale St(Springdale Pumping Station),we would like to help provide alternative locations for the proposed cell tower. It appears to us after speaking with three planning commission members Mr.Patrick Munoz - (Rutan and Tucker LLP),as well as visiting the Huntington Beach City Planning and Zoning office, that there are at least 4 possibilities for alternate sites. The map below provides approximate locations and scale.These alternatives,in no particular order of preference,are as follows; 1. Fire Station#6 at 18591 Edwards Street a. There is an existing tower at this location b. The T-Mobile representative at the information meeting on November 16th said that T-Mobile tested that location and found it inadequate but did not say if raising the tower(it is currently approximately 30'tall)or putting a second tower on the site would be adequate. 2. PCH lifeguard station in Bolsa Chica State beach a. There is an existing tower on the state beach(at a lifeguard station according to the T-Mobile representative)that appears to be a better solution than any city property 3. Vacant County Property north west of the flood control channel,East of Bolsa Chica St next to an agricultural zone 4. County Property currently in use under the ail production lease in the Balsa Chica Ecological Reserve a. A tower could be located in the southeast corner of the property near the oil company storage and machinery yards at the base of the hill below the Fire Station#6 location b. The existing oil company access roads would provide maintenance access and this location would not be near any parks,schools or homes. 1/2/2012 Est . D r Page 2 of 2 G.a- Es , "u A s e� s <p- Q H T R v 20�0011 � .P # . z Thank you for your consideration. The residents of Huntington Beach Bolsa Landmark residential area. Contact or reply to:Mark Infanti r::nfanti^veriza:�.net home 714.840.4641 mobile 714.475.4190 1/2/2012 'Gay Infanti From: Stephanie Lewnon [steoh.lewno ircoum] Sent: Fridoy, DeoemberU2. 2011 0:22 AM To: Goy |nfond- 8he|levCh000n; MARK|NFANT| Subject: FVV: Another alternative t-mobi|e site From: Gonzales, Andrew Sent: Friday, DecemberU2, 2011 8:5UAM To: Stephanie Lewson Subject: RE: Another alternative t-mobi|esite Stephanie, Thank you for the information. | will investigate this site further. As | had mentioned inmy previous email to you, | will keep informed on any changes to the project proposal. Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department 2OOO Main Street Huntington Beach, C/\O2G48 Office -714,374.1547 Fax 714�374�1540 ��Pease consider'dheepviroomeint before-printing tms����s���L__ From: Stephanie Levvson Sent: Friday, DecemberU2, 2011 8:46AM To: Gonzales, Andrew Subject: Another alternative t-mobi/esite Andrew Gonzales Associate Planner Department of Planning and Building City of Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Gonzales, I am a resident of Huntington Beach and live on Littlefield Drive approximately 150 feet from the proposed T-Mobile tower at the Springdale Pump Station site. | have attended the two Community meetings on November 16m and 17m and a Planning Commission meeting on November 22 d, and have spoken to you on the phone and in person. | am strongly opposed to a cell phone tower going into my neighborhood or in any Huntington Beach residential neighborhood due to decreased property values and health risks. Asmuchas | ano against havin0a cell tovverinnoy neighborhood I do understand that an alternative site must be located in order for the Springdale Pump station to be dropped asa potential site. Hopefully the suggestions that have been given will produce a more amicable and workable solution for all the parties involved. On November 23, Mark |nfanti, a resident and spokesman representing the Bo|sa Landmark residential area, sent an e- mail to you with four potential alternative sites for the cell tower. | would like to recommend an additional site to be investigated byT-Mobi|e and the city. |tis located on Edwards on the west side,just north ofEllis. There is road access toa gated area,which isa convenient plus. |t would not beas close toa residential area and may not need tobeastall as the projected fifty—five foot tower atthe proposed Springdale Pump Station, but it is close enough to provide coverage into the original area. | am not fully aware of who officially owns the property or what it is being used for 1 other than some obvious drilling, but I think it is worth investigating. The only information I could find was a sign poste indicating that it was Upper Bolsa, with a name of Thomas and a phone number 714 556-1834. Thank you for your consideration, Stephanie Lewson 5991 Littlefield Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg cony Version: 2012.0.1873 /Virus Database: 2102/4652 - Release Date: 12/02/11 2 Gay Infanti From: Gay Infanti [ginfanti@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 3:53 PM To: 'agonzales@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: FW: Another alternative t-mobile site Hi Andrew, The address of the Thomas Upper Bolsa Lease,to which Stephanie refers in her letter below, is 18393 Edwards. There is also another leased oil operation on the opposite side of Edwards at 18462 that might be a possible alternative site to the Springdale Pump Station as well. Thank you, Gay Infanti From: Stephanie Lewson [mailto:steph.lewsonCa)socal.rr.coml Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:22 AM To: Gay Infanti; Shelley Chacon; MARK INFANTI Subject: FW: Another alternative t-mobile site From: Gonzales, Andrew [mailto:AGonzalesCslsurfcity-hb.oral Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:50 AM To: Stephanie Lewson Subject: RE: Another alternative t-mobile site Stephanie, Thank you for the information. I will investigate this site further. As I had mentioned in my previous email to you, I will keep informed on any changes to the project proposal. Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Peach Planning & Building Department 2000 Fain Street Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Office- 714.374.1547 Fax - 714,374,1540 agonzalesCc)surfcity-hb.org m- Please consider t:he environment before printing this message ..... ...... ....... ._...... ___. __.._. ____. From: Stephanie Lewson Imailto:steph.lewson@socal.rr.coml Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:46 AM To: Gonzales, Andrew Subject: Another alternative t-mobile site Andrew Gonzales Associate Planner Department of Planning and Building City of Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Gonzales, I am a resident of Huntington Beach and live on Littlefield Drive approximately 150 feet from the proposed T-Mobile tower at the Springdale Pump Station site. I have attended the two Community meetings on November 16" and 17t" 1 R, J- B. Any alteration of the natural landform of the bluffs seaward /PshalI ast Highway including grading and the development of parking 1 prohibited. /dstabilization Alterations necessa for develo ment of ublic trails of bluffs �' p p maybe permitted subject to approval of a coastal de lopment permit. (3334-6/97) 221.16 Community Facilities Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, e Director shall determine that adequate public services and facilities will be availa e to serve the proposed development, consistent with the General Plan. 221.17 Phasing The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development (such as but not limited to public accessways, public bike paths, habitat restoration and enhancement, etc.) shall be phased s rlt that the public benefit(s) are in place prior to or concurrent with the private develop ent but not later than occupation of any of the private development. (3834-7/09) 221.18 Diking,Dredg' g, and Filling Diking, dredging or fillin shall be permitted only where there is no feasible, less environmental ly-damagi g alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided, consistent wig the Coastal Conservation District in Chapter 216. (3334-6/97) 221.20 Haza ds As a condition o new development, the applicant shall be required to submit a report evaluating geol gic, seismic, flood and fire hazards, and shall be designed to: /DDevelopment omply with all recommendations and provisions contained in the Alquist- iolo Special Studies Zones Act (California Public Resources Code Chapter 5) for identified seismic hazards. omply with all provisions relating to the FP Floodplain Overlay District, if plicable. omply with all provisions relating to Methane Districts as defined in Chapter 7.04. in Subarea 4K as depicted in Figures C-6a, and C-10 of the Coastal Element Land Use Plan, shall comply with the approved Hazard Mitigation and Flood Protection Plan required in Table C-2 of the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. (3834-7/09) 221.22 Buffer Requirements Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 221 Page 4 of 16 12/15/10 As a condition of development adjacent to environmentally-sensitive habitats delineated in the General Plan and, for development in the coastal zone, environmentally-sensitive habitats identified in the Local Coastal Program, a minimum 100-foot buffer from the edge of the habitat as determined by a site specific biological assessment area shall be provided. In the case of substantial development or significantly increased human impacts, a wider buffer may be required in accordance with an analysis of the factors identified in A through C below. If the existing development or site configuration cannot accommodate a I00-foot buffer,then the buffer shall be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game and designed to: (3334-6/97) A. Protect the functional relationship between wetland and adjacent upland; B. Ensure that the most sensitive species will not be disturbed significantly by permitted development, based on habitat requirements of both resident and migratory species, and the short- and long-term adaptability of various species to the presence of human beings; and C. Allow for interception of any additional material eroded as a result of the proposed development, based on soil, vegetation, slope and runoff characteristics, and impervious surface coverage. 221.24 Energy Facilities New, mo ' ied or expanded energy facilities shall comply with the following requirements: A. Ot traction operations shall be located where there are no other feasible, less enviro entally-damaging locations based on the following priority, with the first locat being the most preferable. 1. Existing co olidated islands; 2. New consolidate ' lands; 3. Existing oil extraction ' es; 4. New sites outside the coasta ne; and 5. New sites within the coastal zone. B. New pipelines shall be underground and: 1. Be consolidated in existing pipeline corridors nd shall avoid recreation areas and environmentally- sensitive habitat are unless there is no feasible, less environmentally-damaging, alternati location; 2. Incorporate automatic shutoff valves to isolate any seg ents carrying hazardous liquids; (3334-6/97) 3. Be constructed with erosion control measures and without the e of any chemical herbicides; 4. Shall mitigate to the maximum extent feasible adverse environmental impacts; and (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 221 Page 5 of 16 12/15/10 (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. ; (I) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. f (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. ,f (M) Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporar;y Structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (3334- 6/97,3410-3/99) f' (N) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sates Of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22�/Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) s (Q) See Section 23010: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) (R) Small lot de elopment standards for RM, RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the P. anning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also Section 230.24: Small Lot Development Standards. (3455-5/00) (S) See Coastal Element Land Use Plan, Table C-2, for permitted uses, development requirements and restrictions applicable to development within Subarea 4K as depicted in Figures C-6a and C-10 of the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. Subdivision design and development within Subarea 4K shall incorporate the information from the plans and studies required in Table C-2 for development of that Subarea. If there is a conflict between the requirements and restrictions of Table C-2 and other provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the requirements and restrictions included in Table C-2 shall prevail. (3832-7/09) 210.06 RL,RM,RMH RH, and RMP Districts: Property Development Standards The following schedule prescribes development standards for residential zoning districts and subdistricts designated on the zoning map. The columns establish basic requirements for permitted and conditional uses; letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to "Additional Development Standards" following the schedule. In calculating the number of units permitted on the site, density is calculated on the basis of net site area. Fractional numbers shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number except that one dwelling unit may be allowed on a legally created lot complying with minimum lot area. All required setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way and in accordance with the definitions set forth in Chapter 203, Definitions. Any new parcel created pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions, shall comply with the minimum building site requirements of the district in which the parcel is located unless approved as a part of a Planned Unit Development. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 5 of 22 8/18/10 Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RNIH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Building Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac. (A)(B)(C) (3410-3/99) Width (ft.) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (3334-6197,34M3/99) Minimum Setbacks (D)(R) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Front (ft.) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334-6/97,3410-3199) Side (ft.) 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 3;5 - (G)(I)(J) (3334-6/97,3410-3199) Street Side (ft.) 6;10 6;10 5 6;10 6;10 10 (H) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Rear(ft.) 10 10 7.5 10 10 - (I)(J) Accessory Structure (U) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Garage (K) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Projections into Setbacks (L)(R) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Maximum Height (ft.) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 1.5 (M)(R) (3410-3/99) Maximum Floor Area - - 1.0 - - - (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Ratio (FAR) (3410-3/99) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) 6,000 2,904 * 1,742 1,244 - (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Maximum Lot �/ Coverage (%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Minimum Floor Area (N) (3334-6197,3410-3/99) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (3334-6/97,3410-3199) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (3410-3/99) Waterfront Lots (R) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (3334-6/97,3410-3199) Fences and Walls See Section 230.88 Lighting (T) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17.64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230.76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230.78 (3410-3/99) Antenna See Section 230.80 (3410-3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230.82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 & Section 210.12 (3885-8/10) Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 Accessory Structures See Chapter 230.08 (3706-6/06) * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width = 1 unit per 1,900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 6 of 22 8/18/10 T . .Mobile a A sick together' M.,-GW A11111 I - I AACIR,Lnr C IIIomMB2— r.R. CARNEY p, Archbects, Inc. II:.4:A.,.Are Tvsn,G 91Jg0 Pk M41 66g-9500 Fax IMI 665-9501 �a., V/❑ T / tCa U oPOUP 9��m4v P—y g 1 T ] x gea1¢-ease \ - I\��^!W„y j Gaslen RavieW-90X ZUe i 9/i]/il g / I — �I �� 11� �1 � fix• - � - 9 � >^ to I❑d I❑° =(�1 I � � '�fl ��I� "�t103B �eDMM. e snarn eTSL � F � g.eLA13157C Springdale Pu Station g Pump O g i , _ ..............n ....— _ ....-. ._. ._____T_=. ..m _,.- - 18401 Spw&fe Street __ -_ H_UOgt n Beach,CA 926a9 KEY NOTES: - I. EpgnXE dRf°AOPf it M1MO&L¢PowiRl lfLLO E4�VMEHf Rpw1E0 i0 P&1 '.]. [wSnx6 PRP AREA I u!-IL'&LE HLxCP4liN N+l£1wAge*LP.PZfHt TO g, EASMgUR.In Flff Y RZVAPIgS ♦, ¢MS'iltl AS9NL!AFPA 19. LWE OF ItlNLaAtM LAypN rxee,,ILte A EnSMg SPAS ✓cWIfpYNG Si/.nON I UM M PKM PFrifo3 b°YfN.Ws/11CLL'09 p L¢A5E AGEA 6 1p4nxg n�to RUww(M) A BPADARY �Egn� �L g. �Ao Iµ ABEmA,NPECESm x r1 LEASE AREA PLAN LEASE AREA PLAN scAL¢ue•-r-rc 1 1 0 �[ G.EnSxxg PARR VALW. le.PROPoEEo i.1a%(HLE PAeA Ax@aW5 - e ! Y 4' NORTH •� L ENgnxg PROPlNtt LwE Ii.PepvJv�Ed,atl&lE beg uartFW'CI.xRd,O lQIRQIlyk RxeYi xURe[n n/ 10.PPOPYvEd P-M¢IL¢UL.LI9ftOFA0i]EOIIPNEM MGtxR],a b' C/PI�T A-2eO GOxlnudS LLIYRElE 0.wM - �l h A a T - ob1e,- , LOCATION ; Microsoft'Yrtual Earth- PROPOSED • j PROPOSED d , s LOCATION t• pp a' N !I l View from the Northwest looking Southeast - EXISTING 'i'� - i own IMMEMMEMN r r �c�� s x F�"y'r�' _ � �, �� `Via.. "r �s rk r,`���w u' yip� * ':� .; a• a- _ , Completed:Septe b^ 15 2011 LA 13 1 5 7 C APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN T-Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. « biuewater-clesign.net Springdale Pump Station 2008 McGawAvenue Jordon DiBiase � michelle@bluewater-design.net �y py Irvine,CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 °{ p 714,473.2942 1840 8 Springdale St. Irvine,CA 82618 f 949.271.2560 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 p 949.336.1550 Blue Water D ES I G N VIEW I " Ptloto simulation accuracy is based on inronnation provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant a _ - T -Mobile . LOCATION _ Microsoft'Virtual Earth- - PROPOSED 1' yr �� VY PROPOSED v MONOPA M t LOCATION 4`r rt � View from the Northeast looking Southwest r EXISTING 4 f f G� -,,: •,..;i; -.: ..; .' -; ' rV.µ.' � �' :.ax{ v`��� fimcx'�-�"�'-�:� s '€-:Y k �- '�n, 1+ ,:30"'�sr ti _�� s � ��''`� :: . � _� - '� •�S ..: � ��' �s ,«��r 3�"���k::.� s+ ,� ,y � ,:?�`�rsy�i ,����''Et�1 c �' z�. �i.'� ,: m rWc...,i. ��� '..,,. -•su•3�' l -Sy r s`t'N 1 9 ,{'r ik _� -.:. tfi ="`%.b'� �u� '� u.�+�"i�-h� 'n � c � �1 ti F +� .0� 9 Completed:September 15,2011 LA 13 1 5 ® C APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN a.� eee T-Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. bluewater-design net Springdale Pump Station 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase michelle@bluewater-design.net Irvine,CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100 18401 Springdale St. Irvine,CA 92618 1 949.271.2560 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 p 949,336.1550 Blue Water � D E S I f N `\ VIEW 2 Photo simulation accuracy is based On information provided to Bue Water Desgn by the applicant !v`. 31 LOCATION Microsoft-Virtual Earth^' PROPOSED . --Mobile ,,, de ' -2 71 "z I 4 \JV r MONO` ; PROPOSED - ' PALM LOCATION - l View from the Northwest looking Southeast EXISTING .I s e. c � WE_ � 2 t ; I® �s mallm 1211 /� Completed:September 15,2011 L �b� 13 1 5 7 C APPLICANT CONTACT BL1JE 1XlATER DESIGN L./ ! T-Mobile West Corporation Coastal Business Group Inc. IM r r bluewater-design.net Springdale Pump Station 2008 McGaw Avenue Jordon DiBiase michelle@bluewater-design.net Irvine,CA 92614 16460 Bake Parkway Suite 100tu1� �sl.�� 18401 Springdale St. Irvine,CA 92618 f 714.271.25602 � Huntington Beach, CA 92641) p �a9.s�v.1 sso Blue Water D E S I G N VIEW3 Photo simulaton accuracy is based on information provided to Blue wale,Design by ne applicant �. RECEIVED NOV 14 2 Oil Dept.at Planning .. ._ .. &Building November 9,2011 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Height Justification letter T-Mobile Wireless Facility Proposal at 18401 Springdale Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 To Whom It May Concern: T-Mobile West Corp proposes to construct,operate,and maintain a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility located at 18401 Springdale Street. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is disguised as a 55'tall Monopalm located within the City's Water Pump Station property. The property located at 18401 Springdale Street is zoned RL— Residential Low Density and has a maximum height limit of 35 feet. This facility is proposed at a height of 55 feet which is the height needed to meet the coverage objective for this area. The additional 20 feet will allow the antennas to have a clear signal path without obstruction from the existing live palm trees and near by residential homes. This property currently has several existing palm trees located within the pump station, most of which are 6o feet tall. Due to the height of the existing trees and the heights of the nearby residential homes,it's necessary to have this facility at the proposed height of 55 feet. If this facility was proposed at a lower height,the signal will not be able to reach the areas illustrated on the coverage maps provided. After your review of the enclosed documents, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. I can be reached at(949)336-155o, Ext.3o6 or via email at aweeks@a coastalbuslnessgroup.net Regards, Amiee Weeks COASTAL BUSINESS GROUP'', INC. 16460 BAKE PARKWAY • SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92618 ® PHONE: 949.336.1550• FAX: 949.336.6665 E-MAIL: INFO@COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET 8 WWWX-OAST'ALBUSIN£SSGROUP.NET y Ninth Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia 19-22 January 2003 The Impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station 'Powers On Property Valves Sandy Bond, Ph.D., MBS,ANZIV, Senior Lecturer Faculty ofArchitecture, Property, Planning&Fine Arts University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019 Auckland, New Zealand Work: 64 9 3 73 7999 8898, Fax: 64 9 373 7410 E-mail:s.bond@auckland.ac.nz Si-Yeoul Mun, PhD Candidate Faculty ofArchitecture, Property, Planning&Fine Arts E-mail:symun@world-net.co.nz Pornsiri Sakornvanasak, Master or Property Candidate Faculty ofArchitecture, Property, Planning&Fine Arts E-mail:psak003@ec.auckland.ac.nz Nick McMahon, Bachelor of Property student Faculty ofArchitecture, Property, Planning&Fine Arts E-mail: nickmcmahon@hotmail.com 1 1x Af ( z The Impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Values Keywords: Electromagnetic fields - radio frequency& microwave radiation - cellular phone base stations—property values - stigma Abstract: Studies show that devices that emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are no longer seen as a welcome sign of progress. Media attention to the potential health hazards of EMFs has caused changes in public perception. The introduction of cellular phone systems and a rapid increase in the number of users of cellular phones in the last decade has increased the exposure of the population to EMFs quite considerably. Health consequences of long-term use of cellular phones are not known in detail, but available data indicate that development of non-specific health symptoms is possible (Szmigielski & Sobiczewska, 2000). Conversely, it appears health effects from cellular phone equipment (antennas and base stations) pose few (if any) known health hazards (Barnes, 1999). A concern associated with cellular phone usage is the siting of cellular phone transmitting antennas and their base stations (CPBSs). These are appearing at an alarming rate across the country mainly on the rooftops of buildings but with numerous base stations installed on towers. These towers are occasionally located in close proximity to houses and schools. The extent of opposition from property owners affected by the siting of these is increasing due to fears of health risks from exposure to EMFs (despite the research reports to the contrary), changes in neighbourhood aesthetics and loss in property values. However, the extent to which such attitudes are reflected in lower property values affected by proximity to CPBSs is not known in New Zealand. This paper outlines the results of a pilot study carried out in 2002 to show the effect of CPBSs on residential property values in Auckland, New Zealand. The research examines residents' perceptions toward living near CPBSs and how they evaluate the impacts of these structures. A case study approach was used. The results were mixed with responses from residents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proximity to a CPBS. Consequently, how these perceptions impact on property values was also mixed with responses from residents ranging from being prepared to pay the same to being prepared to pay more than twenty percent less for a property located near a CPBS. Interestingly, in general, those people living near the CPBSs were much less concerned about issues such as future health risks or the aesthetic problems caused by the sites than people who lived in areas further away from them. A more in-depth study to confirm these results is to follow in 2003 that will include econometric analysis of sales transaction data. Ie Introduction Understanding the effects of CPBSs on property values is important to telecommunications companies in helping plan the siting of these and for determining likely opposition from property owners. Similarly, property valuers need to understand the valuation implications of CPBSs when valuing CPBSs-affected property. The owners of affected property also want to understand the magnitude of effects, particularly if compensation claims or an award for damages are to be made against such property. 2 CPBSs are increasingly in demand as the two major cellular phone companies, Telecom and Vodafone, seek to upgrade and extend their network coverage. This demand could provide the owner of a well-located property a yearly income for the siting of a CPBS (Williams, 2001). However, new technology that represents potential hazards to human health and safety may cause property values to diminish due to the existence of "widespread public fear" and "widespread public perceptions of hazards". The increased media attention to the potential health hazards of CPBSs has caused a spread of such fear with a resulting increase in resistance to CPBSs due to the perceived negative effects on health, aesthetics and property values in close proximity to CPBSs. Studies (for example, Krause et al. 2000 and Fesenko et al. 1999) suggest a positive correlation between long-term exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by CPBSs and certain types of cancer. Yet other studies (for example, the World Health Organisation 1993, Royal Society of Canada 1999, and the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones 2000) report inconclusive results on health effects.Notwithstanding these results,recent media reports(for example, Fox 2002) indicate that the extent of opposition from some property owners affected by the siting of CPBSs is still strong. However, the extent to which such attitudes are reflected in lower property values affected by CPBSs is not widely known in New Zealand. The two studies that have been conducted (commissioned by Telecom in Auckland (1998/99) and Christchurch (2001)) to ascertain the adverse health and visual effects of CPBSs on property values but these have not been made publicly known. Further, although the researchers reported through personal correspondence with Bond in 2002 that the results showed that property prices are not statistically significantly affected by the presence of CPBSs, their research involved only limited sales data analysis. Further, no surveys of residents' perceptions were undertaken, nor of the media attention to the sites and the affect this may have on saleability of properties in close proximity to CPBSs. Hence, this initial study aims to help fill the research void on this contentious topic. The research develops a case study approach to determine residents' perceptions towards living near CPBSs in two Auckland neighbourhoods and to quantify these effects in monetary terms according to an increasing or decreasing percentage of property value. A more in-depth study will be undertaken in 2003 in Christchurch, NZ using both an opinion survey and econometric analysis of sales transaction data. The final results can then be used to help resolve compensation issues and damage claims in a quantitative way. Further, they will provide a potential source of information for related government agencies in assessing the necessity for increasing health and other information pertaining to CPBSs to help allay public concerns about these. The paper provides a brief review of the cellular phone technology and relevant literature. The following section describes the research procedure used, including a description of both case study and control areas. The results are then discussed. The final section provides a summary and conclusion. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Background: Cellular Telephone Technology' Increasing demand for a more convenient communication system has led to the emergence of the wireless (mobile) telephone technology through the allocation of a portion of the radio frequency I The information in this section was sourced from http://www.telecom.co.nz,http://www.mfe.govt.nz and http://www.moh.govt.nz. 3 to this and through interconnection with the existing wire telephone network. Mobile phones are sophisticated two-way radios that use ultra high frequency (UHF) radio waves to communicate information. The information is passed between a mobile phone and a network of low-powered transceivers, called mobile phone sites or cell sites. As mobile sites are very low powered they serve only a limited geographic area (or"cell"), varying from a few hundred metres to several kilometres, and can handle only a limited number of calls at one time. When a mobile phone user on the move leaves one"cell" and enters another, the next site automatically takes over the call, allowing contact to be maintained. When a mobile phone connects to the network, it uses radio signals to communicate with the nearest mobile phone site. All of the mobile phone sites in a network are interlinked by cable or microwave beam, enabling phone calls to be passed from one cell to another automatically. Mobile phone sites are also linked to the public telephone network so callers can access other networks, cities or countries. A mobile phone site is typically made up of a mast with antennas connected to equipment stored in a cabinet. Power is fed into the cabinet by underground cable. The antennas are designed to transmit most of the signal away horizontally, or just below the horizontal, rather than at steep angles to the ground. The actual use of radio frequency transmission requires only a small amount of energy, making mobile phone technology one of the most efficient forms of communication available. Unlike television and radio transmitters which work at full power all the time, a mobile phone site is designed to control its output so that it provides exactly the signal strength required to handle the number of calls being made at that moment, no more and no less. Therefore, if no calls are being made at any one moment, the cell site will virtually shut itself down. As mobile phone sites can only accommodate a limited number of calls at any one time, when this limit is reached the mobile phone signal is transferred to the next nearest site. If this site is full or is too far away, the call will fail. One way of achieving an increased capacity is with the use of micro-sites or infill sites. These are mini mobile phone sites that can be mounted on street light poles, traffic lights or building verandas. They are common at busy intersections where they can help handle the increased capacity at rush hour and during the day they will rarely be required. Micro-sites only have a range of one to two hundred metres, and therefore cannot be used everywhere. They are designed for operation in dense urban areas in conjunction with conventional sites. 2.1.1 NZ Adoption of Cellular Phone Technology The cellular telephone service first became available in New Zealand in 1987. By mid 1988 there were approximately 2,300 customers throughout New Zealand. In the late 1990's over 300,000 customers had cellular phones. This figure has continued to balloon in recent years. It is estimated that today over 2.3 million New Zealanders have a mobile phone and it is expected that 80 percent of people will be mobile within five years(Telecom, 2002)2. Cell site capacity is a major issue that the telecommunication companies are faced with at present. As the population continues to grow and so does the number of people using mobile phones, more and more cell sites are going to be required to meet customer demand for reliable coverage. In 2 At the end of March 2002,Telecom had more than 1.3 million mobile phone customers and more than 750 mobile phone sites throughout New Zealand(a 54%share of the mobile market).Vodafone had over 1.1 million mobile phone customers throughout New Zealand(a 46%share of the mobile market),(Vodafone,2002). 4 �9 areas such as Auckland where almost complete coverage has been achieved, the main issue is ensuring that there is the capacity to handle the ever-increasing number of mobile phones and calls being made. 2.2 Locating Cellular Phone sites Unlike higher-powered transmission sites such as television and radio, mobile phone sites are very low powered. Therefore, if cellular service companies are to provide a reliable service to their customers they are required to locate their sites where the service is needed. For cellular phone service providers the main aims when locating cell sites are finding a site that provides the best possible coverage in the area without causing interference with other"cells" and one that causes the least amount of environmental impact on the surrounding area. Where possible service providers will attempt to locate cell sites on existing structures such as buildings where antennas can be mounted on the roof to minimize the environmental impact. Where this is not possible the site will require a mast to be erected to support the antennas. For service providers, the preferred location for cell sites is in commercial or industrial areas due to the previous difficulty in obtaining resource consent for towers located in residential areas under the Resource Management Act.3 Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), resource consent may be required from the local council to establish a cell site in the area. This may be either notified or non-notified. If the council decides it is to be notified this allows anyone in the community to have their say about it. Once submissions have been received and a hearing is held (if required) the council decides whether or not to grant the consent. One of the positive outcomes of the RMA resource consent procedure is the resulting unobtrusive nature of most cell sites. Some sites have even been incorporated into clock towers, building's chimneys and building signage. There is no concern of the providers running out of room to locate the towers in the short term, however, it is expected that in the future, service providers will be required to share sites as they do overseas. If the service providers were to use the same mast they would have to be well separated meaning a much higher mast and a more undesirable structure in the community. Despite the high level of demand for better cell phone coverage, the location of cell sites continues to be a contentious issue. The majority of people want better cell phone coverage in areas where they live and work, but they do not want a site in their neighbourhood. Thus, cell sites in or near residential areas are of particular concern. Concerns expressed usually relate to health, property values and visual impact(Szmigielski and Sobiczewska, 2000 and Barnes, 1999). In general, uncertainties in the assessment of health risks from base stations is presented and distributed by organised groups of residents who protest against settlement of base stations. These reports appear to be exaggerated with a frequent tendency for including incredible extrapolation of results from microwave exposure systems which do not resemble either the intensities or the frequencies applied in the cell phone systems being tested. When the media publishes these stories it serves only to amplify the negative bias in these results and raises public concern. According to Covello (1998), this leads to incorrect assessment of risks and threats by the public with a tendency to overestimate risks from base stations and neglect risks from the use of cell phones. 4 This has now been amended and replaced with a much simply consent process. 5 2.3 Assessment of Environmental Effects 2.3.1 Introduction: The Resource Management Act 1991 Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).an assessment of environmental effects is required every time an application for resource consent is made. Information that must be provided includes the following: "An assessment of any actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects may be mitigated". (Section 88(4)(b), RMA). An assessment of the environmental effects (AEE) of cell sites would take into consideration such things as: �l Health and Safety effects �l Visual effects �1 Effects on the neighbourhood �1 Interference with radio and television reception 2.3.2 Radio Frequency and Microwave Emissions from CPBSs According to the Ministry for the Environment (2000), the factors that affect exposure to radiation are as follows. �1 Distance: Increasing the distance from the emitting source, decreases the radiation's strength and decreases the exposure. Q Transmitter power: The stronger the transmitter,the higher the exposure. Q Directionality of the antenna: Increasing the amount of antennas.pointing in a particular direction increases the transmitting power and increases the exposure. �1 Height of the antenna above the ground: Increasing the height of an antenna increases the distance from the antenna and decreases the exposure. C1 Local terrain: Increasing the intervening ridgelines decreases the exposure. The amount of radiofrequency power absorbed in the body, the dose, is measured in watts per kilogram, known as Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The SAR depends on the power density in watts per square metre. The radio frequencies (RF) from cellular phone systems travel in a"line of sight". The antennas are designed to radiate energy horizontally so that only small amounts of RF are directed down to the ground. The greatest exposures are in front of the antenna so that near the base of these towers, exposure is at minimum. Further, power density from the transmitter decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. However, it should be noted that by initially walking away from the base, the exposure rises and then decreases again. The initial increase in exposure corresponds to the point where the lobe from the antenna beam intersects the ground. For instance, on the ground within 7-10 meters from the cell site, power densities are about 0.2 W/mz while within 100 metres, power densities will be around 0.0003-0.005W/m2 (Ministry for the Environment,2000 and Szmigielski and Sobiczewska, 2000). 2.3.3 Adverse health Effects According to Barnes (1999) and Szmigielski and Sobiczewska (2000) the analog phone system (using 800-900 Megahertz band) and digital phone system (using 1850-1990 Megahertz band) expose humans to electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions: radio frequency radiation (RF) and microwave radiation (MW), respectively. These two radiations are emitted from both the cellular phones and CPBSs. For years the cell phone companies have assured the public that cell phones are perfectly safe. They state that the particular set of radiation parameters associated with cell phones are the same 6 as any other radio signal. However, reported scientific evidence challenges this view and shows that cell phone radiation causes various effects, including:4 -Alters brain activity - Disturbs sleep -Alters human reaction times: responses and speed of switching attention significantly worse - Weakness the blood brain barrier - Increased auditory brainstem response and hearing deficiency in 2 KHZ to 10 KHZ range -Causes significant changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the cardiovascular system - Causes memory loss, connection difficulties, fatigue, and headaches - Increases blood pressure - Reduces melatonin, etc.. According to Cherry (2000), there is strong evidence to conclude that cell sites are risk factors for: - Cancer, specifically brain tumours and leukaemia - Heart attack and heart disease, particularly arrhythmia -Neurological effects including sleep disturbance, learning difficulties, depression and suicide - Reproductive effects, especially miscarriage and congenital malformation - Viral and infectious diseases because of reduced immune system competency associated with reduced melatonin and altered calcium ion homeostasis. The main health concerns relating to EMF emissions from CPBSs are caused by the fact that radio frequency fields penetrate exposed tissues. Radio frequency energy is absorbed in the body and produces heat. All established health effects of radio frequency exposure are clearly related to heating. Public concern regarding both cell phones and CPBSs in many countries has led to a number of independent expert groups being requested by governments and cellular service providers to carry out detailed reviews of the research literature. . Research on the health effects of exposures to RF are reviewed by, for instance, The New Zealand Radiation Laboratory (2001), the World Health Organization (1993), International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (1997,1998), the Royal Society of Canada (1999) and the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (2000). The reviews conclude that there are no clearly established health effects under low levels of exposure. Such exposures typically occur in publicly accessible areas around RF transmitters. Various epidemiological studies' have been undertaken on the health effects of exposure to RF/MW radiation. However, most of these studies are conducted with occupational groups exposed to the radiation at work rather than with the general population in the home environment. The results of such studies provide insufficient evidence of the linkage between exposure and cancers in the general population due to the different intensities and duration of MW exposure in workers compared to those in the general public. The MW exposure in the home environment is typically continuous but not exceeding 0.1 W/m2 while in the working environment, the duration is 5 Mann&Roschkle(1996), Krause et al.(2000),Borbely et al.(1999),Kellenyi et al.(1999),Khdnisskil,Moshkarev &Fomenko(1999),Hocking(1998),Burch et al.(1998)and others as resported in Cherry,N.(2000). 6 Epidemiological studies study the relationship between exposure to EMFs and health in a population through observation.It is employed to provide evidence of EMF's association with any diseases,statistically.However,these studies cannot control for the degree of exposure.In the real world there are multiple exposures(such as radiation from television and radio). 7 limited to 1-2 hours period but intensities range between 2-lOW/m2 (Szmigielski and Sobiczewska, 2000). According to Barnes (1999), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found no health hazard associated to cell phone use. Laboratory studies revealed no related cancer symptoms in people exposed to levels at or below current standards (refer to the discussion on standards, below, in section 2.3.4). Furthermore, Szmigielski and Sobiczewska(2000)add that MW radiation from cell phone systems contribute only 10 percent of the total MW energy emitted from other sources such as TV and radio signals. They conclude similarly to Barnes (1999) that there is currently no valid scientific data providing evidence of bio-effects from weak MW emission. However, there are questions over the delayed effects of exposure. The Royal Society of Canada (1999) reports that biological effects, such as cell proliferation, are found at low levels of exposure and depend on other exposure conditions, stated earlier, but are not known to cause any adverse health effects. Nonetheless, at high exposures, heating is produced and can eventually damage tissues. Szmigielski and Sobiczewska (2000) state that at intense exposure the "thermal effect" from MW energy absorption inside tissues is associated with DNA damage. Further, they add that other non-specific health symptoms (NSHS) such as headaches, fatigue and small changes in blood pressure are also found. While, at present, medical and epidemiological studies reveal weak association between bio- effects and low-level exposures of RF/MW fields, controversy remains between scientists, producers and the general public. Information from scientific or technological experts must be provided to the public to help allay fears about cell phone systems and help them to make rational investment decisions when considering the purchase of a property located in proximity to a CPBS. However, risk communication ("the exchange of information about the nature, magnitude, significance, acceptability and management of risk", Covello 1998) has always posed a challenge to the policy makers (usually politicians) responsible for communicating risk data to the general pubic. Risk communication usually involves the provision of information about the probability of exposure to the risk and about the nature and extent of the consequences. Yet, events of a probabilistic nature relating to an uncertain science are not well understood by the general public. This, together with negative media attention, results in the perception of uncertainty over the health effects from cell phone systems. 2.3.4 Radio Frequency Exposure Standards 2.3.4.1 International Standards Despite ongoing controversy, the reviews of research on the health effects of exposures to RF helped establish the basis for exposure standards that will limit exposures to a level for safe and healthy living and working conditions. Most standards set by, for example, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (IC.NIRP), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and New Zealand are based on the most adverse effects. These standards have been developed to give people an assurance that what cellular service providers are doing complies with safety guidelines. The 1998 ICNIRP guidelines have been accepted by the world's scientific and health communities as these are not only consistent with other stated standards but are also published by ICNIRP, a highly respected and independent scientific organisation. ICNIRP is responsible for providing guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-ionising radiation for the World Health 8 l'2/ Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Office (Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health, 2000). 2.3.4.1 The New Zealand Standard When a mobile phone site is being planned, radio frequency engineers calculate the level of electromagnetic energy (EME) that will be emitted by the site. The level of EME is predicted by taking into account power output, cable loss, antenna gain, path loss, height and distance from the antenna, etc. These calculations result in figures that allow engineers to calculate maximum possible emissions in a worst-case scenario—as if the site was operated at maximum power all the time. The aim is to produce EME levels that are below international and New Zealand standards in areas where the general public have unrestricted access. It is a requirement that all mobile phone sites in New Zealand comply, in all respects, with the New Zealand Standard for radio frequency exposures, NZS 2772.1:1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part I: Maximum Exposure Levels— 3kHz to 300GHz. This standard, which was adopted in April 1999, was based largely on the 1998 ICNIRP recommendations for maximum human exposure levels to radio frequency. The standard also includes a requirement for: "Minimising, as appropriate, Radio Frequency exposure which is unnecessary or incidental to achievement of service objectives or process requirements, provided that this can be achieved at modest expense."(National Radiation Laboratory, 2001, p.7). Currently this standard sets out a limit of continuous exposure to the public for radio frequency levels from mobile phone sites of 450 microwatts per square centimetre. This standard is the same as used in most European countries, and is more stringent than that used in the United States, Canada and Japan. This exposure level has been lowered even further in some cases. For example, the Christchurch City Council has made their allowable standard 200 microwatts per square centimetre (which is less than 50% of the New Zealand Standard). In reality however, mobile phone sites only operate at a fraction of the level set by the standard. The National Radiation Laboratory has measured exposures around many operating cell sites. Maximum exposures in publicly accessible areas around the great majority of sites are less than 1% of the public exposure limit in the standard. Exposures are rarely more than a few percent of the limit, and none have been above 10%. 2.3.5 Effects on Property Values in New Zealand In New Zealand, based on two court cases: McIntyre and others vs. Christchurch City Council [1996] NZRMA 289 and Shirley Primary School vs. Telecom Mobile Communications Ltd [1999] NZRMA 66, there are two main alleged adverse effects of cell-phone base station on property values: Q The risk of adverse health effects from radio frequency radiation emitted from cell-phone base stations Q The adverse visual effects Very few cell site cases have actually proceeded to Environment Court hearings. In McIntyre and others vs. Christchurch City Council, Bell South applied for resource consent to erect a cell phone base station in Fendalton, Christchurch. The activity was a non-complying activity under the Transitional District Plan. Residents' objected to the application. Their objections were related to the harmful health effects from radio frequency radiation. In particular, they argued it would be an error of law to decide on the present state of scientific knowledge that there were no harmful health effects from low-level radio frequency exposure levels. It was also argued that the Resource 9 Management Act (1991) contains a precautionary policy and that section 104 requires a consent authority to have regard to potential effects of low probability but high impact in considering an application. The Planning Tribunal considered residents' objections and heard experts' opinions as to the potential health effects, and granted the consent, subject to conditions. It was found that there would be no adverse health effects from low levels of radiation from the proposed transmitter, not even effects of low probability but high potential impact. In Shirley Primary School vs. Telecom Mobil Communication Limited, Telecom applied to the Christchurch City Council for resource consent to establish, operate and maintain a CPBS on land at Shirley Road, Christchurch, adjacent to the Shirley Primary School. This activity was also non- complying under the Transitional District Plan. Again, the Council granted the consent subject to conditions. However, the school appealed the decision, alleging four main adverse effects, as follows: - The risk of adverse health effects from the radio frequency radiation emitted from the cell site - The school's perception of the risks and related psychological adverse effects on pupils and teachers - Adverse visual effects - Reduced financial viability of the school if pupils were withdrawn because of the perceived adverse health effects The Court concluded that the risk of the school children or teachers at the school incurring leukaemia of other cancer from radio frequency radiation emitted by the cell site is extremely low, and the risk to the pupils of exposure to radio frequency radiation causing sleep disorders or learning disabilities is higher but still very small. Accordingly, the Telecom proposal was allowed to proceed. In summary, the Environmental Court has ruled that there are no established adverse health effects arising from the emission of radio waves from CPBSs as there is no epidemiological evidence to show this. The court was persuaded by the ICNIRP guidelines that risk of health effects from low- level exposure is very low and that the cell phone frequency imposed by the NZ standard is safe, being almost two and a half times lower than that of the ICNIRP's. However, in the court's decisions they did concede that while there is no proven health affects that there is evidence of property values being affected by both of the above allegations. However, the court suggests that such a reduction in property values should not be counted as a separate adverse effect from, for example, adverse visual or amenities effects. That is, a reduction in property values is not an environmental effect in itself; it is merely evidence, in monetary terms, of the other adverse effects noted. In Chen vs. Christchurch City Council the court stated that valuation is simply another expert opinion of the adverse effect (loss). Further, in this case the court established a precedent relating to the effects on property values. In Goldfinch vs. Auckland City Council (NZRMA 97) the Planning Tribunal considered evidence on potential losses in value of the properties of objectors to a proposal for the siting of a CPBS. The Court concluded that the valuer's monetary assessments support and reflect that the adverse effects of the CPBS. Further, it concluded that the effects are more than just minor as the CPBS stood upon the immediately neighbouring property. 10 2.3.6 Research on Property Value Effects While experimental and epidemiological studies focus on the adverse health effects of radiation from the use of cell phones and CPBSs few studies have been conducted to ascertain the adverse health and visual effects of CPBSs on property values. Further, as there has been very few cell site cases proceeding to the Environment Court little evidence of property value effects has been provided by the courts. Thus, the extent to which opposition from property owners affected by the siting of CPBSs are reflected in lower property values is not well known in New Zealand. Two studies have been commissioned by Telecom in Auckland (1998/99) and Christchurch (2001) but these have not been made publicly known. Further, although the researchers communicated with the authors that results showed that property prices are not statistically significantly affected by the presence of CPBSs, their research involved only limited sales data analysis. Further, no surveys of residents' perceptions were undertaken, nor of the media attention to the sites and the affect this may have on saleability of properties in close proximity to CPBSs. This initial study aims to help fill the research void in this area. 3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 3.1 Research Objectives and Methodology An opinion survey was conducted to investigate the current perceptions of residents towards living near cell-phone base stations and how this proximity might affect property values. Residents were asked questions, about: how they rate the suburb they live relative to other similar suburbs; when the CPBS was constructed and the proximity of it in relation to their home; the importance they place on the CPBS as a factor in relocation decisions and on the price/rent they were prepared to pay for their house; the degree of concern of the effects of health/stigma/aesthetic/property values, etc. Two case study areas in the city of Auckland, New Zealand were selected for this pilot study: the residential suburbs of Clover Park, Manakau in south-Auckland and St Johns in east-Auckland. Each case study included residents in two areas: the case study area (within 300 metres of a cell phone tower) and a control area(over 1 km from the cell phone tower). Both areas within each case study had the same living environment (in socio-economic terms) except that the former is an area with a CPBS while the latter is without a CPBS. Sixty questionnaires were randomly distributed to each of the areas (case study and control) in each neighbourhood (i.e. 240 surveys were delivered in total). As time and cost in conducting the survey were both limited delivery of the surveys was by hand to the property owner's letterbox. Respondents were instructed to complete the survey and return it to the letterbox. These were collected by hand two days after delivery. The surveys were coded and the property address of each, once delivered, was recorded. This enabled each respondent's property to be located on a map and to show this in relation to the cell site. With a sample size of just 60 for each area within each neighbourhood the results are not fully representative of how the entire population perceive cell sites. However, the results do provide a gauge of the perceptions that people have about living near a cell site, or moving to an area near one, and how this might impact on values of properties in proximity to a CPBS. The analysis of responses included the calculation of means and percentage of responses to each question to allow for an overview of the response patterns in each area. Comparison of the results between the case study area and the control area reveal any significant differences. 7 Approved by the University of Auckland Human Subjects Ethics Committee(reference 2002/185). 11 3.2 Case Study Areas 3.2.1 St Johns The east-Auckland suburb of St Johns was selected (see Appendix A for a location map) as there are two CPBSs within close proximity of each other on St Johns Road near its intersection with St Heliers Bay Road. It is a medium to upper priced residential housing suburb?in a generally sought after neighbourhood due to its close proximity to beaches, schools, shopping, recreational facilities and the Auckland CBD. 3.2.2.Manakau The south-Auckland neighbourhood of Clover Park, Manukau City was selected (see Appendix A for a location map) as it is also proximate to a CPBS but it provides a different (lower) socio- economic sample to the first study area. The address of the CPBS site is 726 Great South Road, Manukau City and is located on a BP petroleum station property. It is situated among trees between Valentine Restaurant and Rainbows End Theme Park, at the corner of Great South Road and Redoubt Road, Manukau City. The questionnaires were distributed to properties in Sikkim Crescent, the residential area that runs off Great South Road. The area is an older, lower-priced residential suburb area characterised by houses in a poor state of repair.8 It has good access to the Auckland-Hamilton Motorway and is within close proximity to a primary school and recreational facilities such as the Cycling Velodrome, Manukau Sports Bowl and the Greyhound Race Track. However, there are no shops nearby apart from the basic supplies available from the BP petroleum station. Some properties are also near a high voltage power pylon. 3.3 Control Areas 3.3.1 St Johns The control area for St Johns is located further away (over 1 kilometre) from the CPBS in the case study area and is in the same suburb. The area contains a living environment and housing stock very similar to the case study area, as stated above, the only exception is that there is no cell site. 3.3.2 Manakau The control area for Manakau is in the neighbourhood of Manukau Heights, Manukau City. It is located further away (over 1.5 kilometre) from Clover Park. The area contains a living environment and housing stock very similar to Clover Park, as stated above, the only exception is that there is no cell site. The questionnaires were distributed to properties in the streets of Sidey Avenue, Dillion and Darrell Crescents. Manakau Heights has good access to the Auckland- Hamilton Motorway and is within close proximity to a primary school and recreational facilities (Totara Park and Murphys Bush Scenic Reserve). 4. Research Results Appendix B provides a summary of the main findings from the survey. These are outlined and discussed in more detail below. 8 The median house price for Auckland city in October 2002 was$335,000 and for St Johns it was$375,000.St Johns borders the high-priced Eastern Suburbs where the median house price was$515,000. 9 The median house price for Auckland city in October 2002 was$335,000 and for Manakau it was$278,000. 12 4.1 Survey 1: Cell Site: St Johns Of the 60 questionnaires mailed to homeowners and tenants in the study area, 53% were completed and returned. Over half(56%) of the respondents were homeowners. 4.1.1 Desirability of the suburb as a place to live One-third (34%) of respondents have lived in St Johns for between 1- 4 years, and 40% for more than five years. Two-thirds (66%) rated St Johns as either desirable or very desirable as a place to live when compared with other similar suburbs. The reasons given for this include that the suburb is within walking distance to shops and is clean and relatively graffiti-free. The reasons 17% responded that St Johns is less desirable compared with other suburbs is that it is not as close to the waterfront/beaches as the adjoining suburbs of Kohimarama and St Heliers. 4.1.2 (Feelings towards the CPBS as an element of the neighbourhood The CPBS was already constructed when 81% of the respondents bought their house or began renting. Of these respondents, 21 (80%) said the proximity of the tower was of no concern to them. For the 20% of respondents' that said the proximity of the tower was of concern to them the most common reasons given for this were: health reasons, as proclaimed by the media, and that it obstructed their views somewhat. Of the 19% that said the CPBS was not constructed when they bought the house or began renting all said they would have gone ahead with the purchase anyway if they had known that the CPBS was to be constructed. 4.1.3 Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent The tower was visible from the house of 60% (19) of the respondents, yet the majority (13) said it was barely noticeable. Over two-thirds (71%) of the respondents said the location of the cell site nearby did not affect the price they were prepared to pay for the property. Ten percent said they were prepared to pay a little less (between 0-9% less)and the remaining 19%bought their property before the cell site was constructed. 4.1.4 Concerns About the Proximity to the CPBS Generally, residents were not particularly worried about the effects that proximity to a CPBS has on health, stigma, property value or aesthetics. Of the concerns about towers that respondents were asked to comment on, the negative effects on aesthetics and future health were what respondents were most worried about, but only to a limited degree. Over two-thirds were not worried about the possibility of harmful health effects in the future (28% were somewhat worried) and 72%were not worried about "stigma" associated with houses near CPBSs (18% were somewhat worried and 10%were very worried). The majority of respondents (90%)were not worried about the affect that proximity to a CPBS will have on property values in the future (10%were somewhat worried) and just over half(53%) were not worried about the aesthetic problems caused by CPBSs (47% were somewhat worried). 4.2 Survey 2: Control Group: St Johns Of the 60 questionnaires mailed to homeowners and tenants in the study area, 57% were completed and returned. Nearly two-thirds(65%) of the respondents were homeowners. 4.2.1 Desirability of the suburb as a place to live Nearly a third (29%) of respondents have lived in St Johns for between 1- 4 years, and over half (53%) for more than five years. Over three-quarters (76%) of the respondents rated St Johns as either desirable or very desirable as a place to live when compared with other similar suburbs. The reasons given for this include that the suburb has cheaper house prices but is still central to 13 services and the beaches, it has good views, the houses are of a good quality and the area is well serviced by public transport. The reasons 6% responded that St Johns is less desirable compared with other suburbs include its proximity to lower socio-economic areas and the high number of sub-standard rental properties in the area. 4.2.2 Feelings towards a CPBS as an element of the neighbourhood Two-thirds (65%) of the respondents would be opposed to the construction of a cell phone tower nearby. The location of a CPBS would be taken into account by 82% of respondents if they were to consider moving. 4.2.3 Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent If a CPBS were located nearby over half (53%) of the respondents would be prepared to pay substantially less for their property, and nearly one-third (29%) would be prepared to pay just a little less for their property. 4.2.4 Concerns About the Proximity to a CPBS Of the concerns about towers that respondents were asked to comment on, the negative effects on aesthetics and future health were what respondents were most worried about. More than half (59%) of the respondents were worried somewhat and over one-third (35%) were very worried about the possibility of harmful health effects in the future and the aesthetic problems caused by CPBSs. Similar responses were recorded for the "stigma" associated with houses near CPBSs (59% were somewhat worried and 23% were very worried) and the affect that proximity to a CPBS will have on property values in the future (53%were somewhat worried and 35%were very worried). Other comments provided by respondents at the end of the survey, include: Q "In no way would I choose to live near such a cell phone site at all". Q "A decisive statement on the health, aesthetic and property value issues by the authorities concerned is long overdue — there seems to have been a great deal of procrastination to date". Q "This survey appears to be biased as you haven't asked, for example, how important coverage is, and if this meant putting in a cell phone site what would this mean for you. Also, a lot of people are complaining about roads being dug up to lay phone cables — at least cell sites are not disruptive to the same extent when being installed". 4.3 Discussion of the Results: St Johns From the above responses it appears that people who live near cell sites seem to be far less concerned about the possible associated health risks and aesthetic issues of the sites than those people who live further away from the sites. An explanation for the difference between the case study and control groups' responses is that the case study group are those people that have already purchased or rent in an area where a CPBS is constructed and may not represent the entire population of potential land purchasers/renters. Such residents are, by the very fact that they have purchased/rented in an area where a CPBS is located, less sensitive to this than might be the case for the market as a whole. Such people who live near something that is perceived but not proven to be a risk tend may pass the threat off and take the view that there is no evidence of it being a problem so why worry about it. Alternatively, the case study residents' apparent lower sensitivity to the CPBS than the control group residents may be due to the possible affect of cognitive dissonance reduction. In this case, 14 they are not necessarily less sensitive to the CPBS but are unwilling to admit, due to the large amounts of money already paid, that they may have made a poor purchasing/renting decision to buy a property located in close proximity to a CPBS. 4.4 Survey 1: Cell Site: Manakau Results After the distribution of the questionnaires, the collection of survey responses resulted in only 3 responses (5%) from each area. With such a lower than expected response rate, the results are unlikely to be representative of the total population and the impact that CPBSs have on property values could not be conclusively determined. However, some interesting perceptions were revealed and are described generally below. 4.4.1 Desirability of the suburb as a place to live Two-thirds(67%) of the respondents were homeowners and have been residing in the area for over 5 years. Half of the respondents rated Clover Park as desirable and the other 50% rated it as less desirable as a place to live compared to other similar suburbs (for example, East Tamaki and Manakau Heights). 4.4.2 Feelings towards the CPBS as an element of the neighbourhood Two-thirds of the respondents did not know about the existence of the CPBS when they brought or began renting their house. The remaining third said it was not constructed. Consequently, the proximity of the CPBS was not of concern to them. If they had known at the time of purchase or rental that the CPBS was to be constructed half said they would not have gone ahead with the purchase/rental whereas the other half said they would have. 4.4.3 Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent None of the respondents could se the CPBS from their house. Consequently, it did not affect the price or rent they were prepared to pay for the property. 4.4.4 Concerns About the Proximity to a CPBS Of the concerns about CPBSs that respondents were asked to comment on two-thirds (66%) were somewhat worried about the possibility of harmful health effects in the future, the stigma associated with houses near CPBSs and the affect on property values. The remaining one-third was not worried about these things. All respondents were somewhat concerned about the aesthetic problems caused by the towers. 4.5 Survey 2: Control Group: Manakau Two-thirds of the control group respondents were tenants living in the area between 6 months and 4 years. They rated their suburb as either desirable or very desirable as a place to live compared to other similar suburbs due to the easy access to amenities. 4.5.1 Feelings towards a CPBS as an element of the neighbourhood Two-thirds of respondents would be opposed to the construction of a CPBS nearby. Yet, at odds to this response, only a third said it would be a factor to consider when relocating. 4.5.2 Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent One-third of the respondents said they would be prepared to pay 0-9% less for a property nearby a CPBS, one-third were prepared to pay 10-19% less and the remaining one-third would pay 20%or more, less for such a property. 15 4.5.3 Concerns About the Proximity to a CPBS All of the respondents were greatly concerned about the harmful health effects from proximity to a CPBS while two-thirds were worried a lot about stigma, loss in property values in the future and aesthetic problems associated with houses near CPBSs. The remaining one-third or respondents were only somewhat worried about these factors. 4.6 Discussion of the Results: Manakau From the responses above, it appears that the effects of CPBSs tend to be ignored in Manakau if the residents are unaware of them in their neighbourhood, as would be expected. Yet, there are strong concerns about the effects of CPBSs from residents in the control area. Nonetheless, these survey results are inconclusive due to the limited response rate. 5. Limitations of the Research There are a number of limitations affecting this survey in addition to the limited response rate for Manakau. There was a time constraint in locating an appropriate CPBS that was visible to the residents in the Manakau case study area. The selected site is situated amongst trees and not highly visible. Many of the residents were not aware of its existence that likely affected both he responses and response rate. Further, giving respondents only two days to complete the survey may have been insufficient. Fortunately, this time constraint did not adversely affect the St Johns area response rate. Finally, it must be kept in mind that these results are the product of only two case studies carried out in a specific area (Auckland) at a specific time (2002). The value-effects from CPBSs may vary over time as market participant's perceptions change due to increased public awareness regarding the potential adverse health and other effects of living near a CPBS. Perceptions toward CPBSs can change either positively or negatively over time. For example, as the World Health Organisation's ten-year study of the health effects from CPBSs is completed and becomes available consumers' attitudes may either increase or decrease depending on the outcome of those studies. To confirm this, many similar studies, of similar design to allow comparison between them, need to be conducted over time and the results made public. As a result of these limitations caution must be used in making generalisations from the study or applying the results directly to other similar studies or valuation assignments. 6. Areas for Further Study This research has focused on residents' perceptions of negative affects from proximity to CPBSs rather than the scientific or technological estimates of these risks. The technologists' objective view of risk is that risk is measurable solely in terms of probabilities and severity of consequences, whereas the public, while taking experts' assessments into account, view risk more subjectively, based on other factors. Further, the results of scientific studies about the health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation from CPBSs are not always consistent. Residents' perceptions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of processes including psychological, social, institutional, and cultural and a reason why their assessments may be at odds with those of the experts. Given the public concerns about the potential risk arising from being located nearby a CPBS it is important for future studies to focus more attention on this issue. More information is needed on the kinds of health and other risks the public associates with CPBSs, and the level of risk 16 perceived. How far away from the CPBS do people feel they have to be to be safe? What are the social, economic, educational and other demographic variables that influence how people perceive the risks from CPBSs? Are these perceived risks reflected in property values and to what extent? Do these perceived risks vary over time, and to what degree? Answers to these questions, if shared amongst researchers and made public, could lead to the development of a global database. Such a database could assist valuers in determining the perceived level of risk associated with CPBSs from geographically and socio-economically diverse areas to aid in the valuation of property affected by these, anywhere in the world. Similarly, knowledge of the extent these risks are incorporated into property prices and how they vary over time will lead to more accurate value assessments of properties in close proximity to a CPBS. 7. Summary and Conclusions This research report presents the results of an opinion survey undertaken in 2002 to residents' perceptions towards living near CPBSs and how this impacts on property values. From the results it appears that people whom live close to a CPBS perceive the sites less negatively than those whom live further away. As research to date (ICNIRP, 1998)reports that there are no clearly established health effects from RF emissions of CPBSs operated at, or below, the current safety standards the only reason a rational investor might continue to avoid property near a cell site would be because it was intrusive on the views received from the property or because of the adverse aesthetic effects of the CPBS on the property. Yet, recent media reports (for example, Fox, 2002) indicate that people still perceive that CPBSs have harmful health effects. Thus, whether or not CPBSs are ever proven conclusively to be free from health risks is only relevant to the extent that buyers of property near a CPBS perceive this to be true. Consequently, values of residential property located in close proximity to CPBSs may be adversely affected by the negative perceptions of buyers, regardless of research evidence to the contrary. Further research is needed to provide more statistically valid conclusions than this pilot study provide about the public perceptions towards the health and visual effects of CPBSs and how this influences property values. To this end a larger study is to be conducted in 2003 that will include, in addition to a survey of affected residents living in close proximity to a CPBS, econometric analysis of the sales transaction data. The results from such studies can provide useful information to related government agencies in assessing the need for increasing the public's understanding of CPBSs of how radio frequency transmitting facilities operate and of the strict exposure standard limits imposed on the telecommunication industry. A lack of understanding of these issues creates public concern about the location of CPBSs. As more information is discovered that refutes any adverse health effects from CPBSs and as this, together with information about the NZ Standards for high safety margins regarding the emission of RF and MW radiation, are made more publicly available, the perceptions of risk may gradually change. The visual effects can still pose a concern to residents, however, but this may vary according to the size, height and design of the CPBSs as well as the landscape surrounding them. 17 References Barnes, J. R. (1999), "Cellular phones: are they safe?" Professional Safety, Vol. 44 (12), pp. 20- 23.Available from: htti):,•//progLIest.Limi.com [Accessed 21 May 2002]. Borbely, A.A., Huber, R., Graf, T., Fuchs, B., Gallmann, E., Achermann, P., (1999), "Pulsed high- frequency electromagnetic field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram", Neurosci Let, vol. 275(3), pp. 207-210. Burch, J.B., Reif, J.S., Yost, M.G., Keefe, T.J. and Pittrat, C.A., (1998), "Nocturnal excretion of urinary melatonin metabolite among utility workers", Scand J Work Environ Health, Vol. 24(3), pp. 183-189. Cherry, N. (2000), "Health Effects Associated with Mobil Base Stations in Communities: The Need for Health Studies," Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University, June 8. Available from: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm. Christchurch City Council website. Available from: www.cce.govt.nz/index.asp Covello, V. T. (1998), "Risk Perception, Risk Communication and EMF Exposure: Tools and Techniques for Communicating Risk Information" Risk Perception, Risk Communication and Its Application to EMF Exposure, Vol (5), International Commission Non-IONIZ, Radiation Protection, Munich, Germany, pp 179-214. Fesenko, E.E., Makar, V.R., Novoselova, E.G., Sadovnikov, V.B. (1999), "Microwaves and cellular immunity: Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells". Bioelectrochem Bioenerg, 49(1):29-35. Fox, S. (2002), "Cellphone Aantenna worries family", East & Bays Courier, Fiday November 8, p.1. Hocking, B., (1998), "Preliminary report: symptoms associated with mobile phone use", Occup Med(Lond), Vol.48 (6), pp.357-360. Kellenyi, L., Thuroczy, G., Faludy, B., and Lenard, L. (1999), "Effects of mobile GSM radiotelephone exposure on the auditory brainstem response (ABR)", Neurobiology Number 7, pp.79-81. Khudnitskii, S.S., Moshkarev, E.A., Fomenko, T.V. (1999), "On the evaluation of the influence of cellular phones on their users", [Article in Russian]Med Tr Prom Ekol, Number 9, pp. 20-24. Krause, C.M., Sillanmaki, L., Koivisto, M., Hagggvist, A., Saarela, C., Revonsuo, A., Laine, M. and Hamalainen H., (2000), "Effects of electromagnetic field emitted by cellular phones on the EEG during a memory task", Neuroreport, 11(4): 761-764. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones:[Chairman, Sir William Stewart], (2000),Mobile Phones and Health. Report to the United Kingdom Government. [www.iegmp.org.uk]. 18 International Commission on Non-Ironizing Raditation Protection (1996), "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand Held Radio Telephone and Base Transmitters", Health Physics, 70(9): 587- 593. International Commission on Non-Ironizing Raditation Protection (1998), "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)",Health Physics, 74(4): 494-522. Mann, K. and Roschke, J. (1996), "Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep", Neuropsychobiology, Vol. 33(1), pp.41-47. Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health (2000)National guidelines for managing the effects of radiofrequency transmitters. [online] Available from: http://www.Mfe.,ovt.nz and http://www.moh.novt.nz [Accessed 21 May 2002]. National Radiation Laboratory(2001), "Cellsites", March. Available from: http://www.nrl.moh.govt.nz Repacholi, M.H., Basten, A., Gebski, V.,Noonan, D., Finnic, J., Harris, A.W., (1997). "Lymphomas in E mu-Piml transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHZ electromagnetic fields", Radiat Res, 147(5):631-640. Royal Society of Canada(1999), "A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices". An expert report prepared at the request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada, Ontario. [www.rse.ca] Szmigielski, S. and Sobiczewska, E. (2000). "Cellular phone systems and human health — problems with risk perception and communication",Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 11 (4), pp 352-368. Available from: httE://halv.emerald Iibrarv.com/v1=10902366/cl=13/nw=1/fin=htm 1/rpsv/cw/mcb/09566163/v I ln4/ s5/p352 [Accessed 21 May 2002]. Telecom (2002), httL)://www.telecom.co.nz/coiitent/O...3900.27116-1530,QD,bLniI [Accessed 19 December 20021. Williams, R. (2001), "Phone zone— renting roofspace to Ma Bell", The Property Business, April, (12), 6-7. WHO (1993), Electromagnetic fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz), Environmental Health Criteria 137. World Health Organization, Geneva. Vodafone (2002). http:/.,w%N,,w.vc)dafc)iie.co.iiz/aboutus/vdfi-i about cellsites. df I Accessed 19 December 20021 and htt ://xvww.vodafone.co,nz/aboutus.'vdfn about health and safety.)df Accessed 19 December 2002]. Acknowledgements: Telecom New Zealand. Maya Marshall, Project Administrator. Vodafone New Zealand. Rapheal Hilbron, Community Relations Manager. 19 At Appendix A- Survey Location Map I 20 Appendix B - Survey Results Case Study Area: Questions St Johns Manakau Response *%,n=32 Response(*%,n=3) LWhich one of the following categories -Homeowner(56%) -Homeowner(67%) best describes you? -Tenant(44%) -Tenant(33%) 2.How long have you lived at this -Less than 6 months (12%) -Less than 6 months (0%) address? -6 months— 1 year(12%) -6 months— 1 year(0%) - 1 --4 years(34%) - 1 --4 years(33%) -More than 5 years 40% -More than 5 years(67% 3. Comparing your suburb to other -Very desirable(22%) - Very desirable(0%) similar suburbs,how do you consider - Desirable(44%) - Desirable(50%) your suburb: -Less desirable(19%) -Less desirable(50%) -About average(15%) -About average (0%) 4. When you purchased this house/ - Yes(81%) -Yes(0%) began renting,was the cell phone tower -No(19%) -No(33%) already constructed? - I don't know(67%) 5. Was the proximity of the cell phone - Yes (80%) -Yes (0%) site of concern to you? -No(20%) -No(100%) 6. If you had known at the time of -Yes (100%) -Yes(50%) purchase or rental that a CPBS was to be -No(0%) -No(50%) constructed,would you still have purchased or rented? 7.Is the cell phone tower visible from - Yes(60%) -Yes(0%) our house? -No 40% -No 100% 8.How did the cell phone site affect the -Substantially more(0%) -Substantially more(0%) price or rent you were prepared to pay -A little more(0%) -A little more(0%) for this property? -No Influence(71%) -No Influence(100%) -A little less(10%) -A little less (0%) -Substantially less(0%) -Substantially less(0%) Tower not constructed(19%) 9. Concerns associated with properties near a CPBS: -Not worried(69%) -Not worried(33%) (a)The possibility of harmful health - Somewhat worried(28%) - Somewhat worried(67%) effects in the future. -This worries you a lot(3%) -This worries you a lot(0%) (b)The stigma associated with houses -Not worried(72%) -Not worried(33%) near cell phone sites. - Somewhat worried(18%) - Somewhat worried(67%) -This worries you a lot(10%) -This worries you a lot(0%) (c)The affect on your properties value in the future -Not worried(90%) -Not worried(33%) - Somewhat worried(10%) - Somewhat worried(67%) -This worries you a lot(0%) -This worries you a lot(0%) (d)The aesthetic problems caused by the tower -Not worried(53%) -Not worried(0%) - Somewhat worried(47%) - Somewhat worried(100%) -This worries you a lot(0%) -This worries you a lot(0%) * Valid Percentage: This indicates the percent of those respondents that answered that specific question (it does not include non-responses). 21 . o (2zz) Appendix B continued - Survey Results I Control Area Questions St Johns Manakau Response(x%,n=34) Response x%, n=3 1.Which one of the following - Homeowner(65%) -Homeowner(33%) categories best describesyou? -Tenant 35% -Tenant(67% 2.How long have you lived at this - Less than 6 months (12%) Less than 6 months(0%) address? -6 months — I year(6%) -6 months-- 1 year(33%) - 1 —4 years(29%) - 1 --4 years(,,%) -More than 5 years 53%) -More than 5 years(33% 3. Comparing your suburb to other -Very desirable(35%) - Very desirable(33%) similar suburbs,how do you -Desirable(41%) - Desirable(33%) consider your suburb: - Less desirable(6%) - Less desirable(0%) -About average(18%) -About average(33%) 4. Would you be opposed to the - Yes (65%) -Yes(67%) construction of a cell phone site -No(35%) -No(33%) nearby? 5. If you were to consider moving -Yes(82%) -Yes(33%) houses, would the location of a -No(18%) -No(67%) CPBS be a factor? 6. How would a cell phone site -Pay substantially more(0%) -Pay substantially more(0%) nearby affect the price or rent you -Pay a little more(0%) -Pay a little more(0%) would be prepared to pay for this -No Different(18%) -No Different(33%) property? -Pay a little less(29%) -Pay a little less (0%) -Pay substantially less(53%) -Pay substantially less(67%) Please specify as a%of total property price -+20%or more(0%) -+20%or more(0%) -+10%to+20%(0%) -+10%to+20%(0%) - 1%to+9%(0%) - 1%to+9%(0%) --9%to 0%(47%) --9%to 0%(33%) --19%to-10%(0%) --19%to-10%(33%) --20%or less 53% --20%or less(33%) 7. Concerns associated with properties near CPBSs: - Not worried(6%) -Not worried(0%) (a)The possibility of harmful health -Somewhat worried(59%) -Somewhat worried(0%) effects in the future. -This worries you a lot(35%) -This worries you a lot(100%) (b)The stigma associated with -Not worried(18%) -Not worried(0%) houses near cell phone sites. - Somewhat worried(59%) - Somewhat worried(33%) -This worries you a lot(23%) - This worries you a lot(67%) (c)The affect on your properties value in the future -Not worried(12%) -Not worried(0%) - Somewhat worried(53%) - Somewhat worried(33%) -This worries you a lot(35%) -This worries you a lot(67%) (d)The aesthetic problems caused by the tower -Not worried(6%) -Not worried(0%) - Somewhat worried(59%) - Somewhat worried(33%) -This worries you a lot(35%) -This worries you a lot(67%) 22 s` a/ Residents and real estate professionals have also informed city officials out the detrimental effects of cell towers on values. 1. Glendale,CA: During the January 7, 2009 Glendale City Council public hearing about a proposed T- mobile cell tower in a residential neighborhood, local real estate professional Addora Beall described how a Spanish home in the Verdugo Woodlands, listed for 1 million dollars, sold $25,000 less because of a power pole across the street. "Perception is everything," said Ms. Beall stated. "It the public perceives it to be a problem,then it is a problem. It really does affect property values." See Glendale City Council meeting,January 7, 2009, video of Addora Beall comments @ 2:35:24: http://glendale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=12&clip id=1227 2. Windsor Hills/View Park, CA: residents who were fighting off a T-Mobile antenna in their neighborhood received letters from real estate companies, homeowner associations and resident organizations in their community confirming that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antenna in their neighborhood. To see copies of their letters to city officials, look at the . Report from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding CUP Case No. 200700020-(2), from L.A. County Board of Supervisors September 16, 2009, Meeting documents, Los Angeles County website, http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.pdf a. See page 295, August 31, 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna, President/Realtor of Solstice International Realty and resident of Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining negative effect of cell tower on property values of surrounding properties. "As a realtor, I must disclose to potential buyers where there are any cell towers nearby. I have found in my own experience that there is a very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable." b. See page 296, March 26, 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark, "Those who would otherwise purchase a home, now considered desirable, can be deterred by a facility like the one proposed and this significantly reduces sales prices and does so immediately...I believe a facility such as the one proposed will diminish the buyer pool, significantly reduce homes sales prices, alter the character of the surrounding area and impair the use of the residential properties for their primary uses." c. See Page 298,The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum, about the reduced value of a home of resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved the CUP for a wireless facility there: "The property owner has listed the property...and has had a potential buyer back out of the deal once this particular information of the satellite communication center was announced....there has been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevant and determined that this new planning decision can have some negative effect on the subject property." d. See Page 301, PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values: "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 https://sites.google.com/sitehttps:/ site/noceiltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-valuehome/decreased-real-estate-value and surrounding' it. This includes 'nuisances' and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses." e. See Pages 302-305 from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association, the United Homeowners Association, and the Windsor Hills Block Club, opposing the proposed cell tower and addressing the effects on homes there: "Many residents are prepared to sell in an already depressed market or, in the case of one new resident with little to no equity, simply walk away if these antennas are installed. f. See Pages 362-363, September 17, 2008, Letter from resident Sally Hampton, of the Windsor Hills Homeowner's Assoc., Item K, addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values. 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Also attached is a story about how a preschool closed up because of a cell tower installed on its grounds; "Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation," Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 17, 2006; Source, EMFacts website: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=466. 4. Merrick, IVY: For a graphic illustration of what we don't want happening here in Burbank,just look at Merrick, NY,where NextG wireless facilities are being installed, resulting in declining home real estate values. Look at this Best Buyers Brokers Realty website ad from this area, "Residents of Merrick, Seaford and Wantaugh Complain Over Perceived Declining Property Values: http://www.bestbuyerbroker.com/blog/?p=86. 5. Burbank,CA:As for Burbank, at a City Council public hearing on December 8, 2009, hillside resident and a California licensed real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agree about the adverse effects the proposed cell tower would have on property values: "I've done research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area, and they all agree that there's no doubt that cell towers negatively affect real estate values. Steve Hovakimian, a resident near Brace park, and a California real estate broker, and the publisher of"Home by Design" monthly real estate magazine, stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10%of their value due to proximity of the cell tower...So even if they try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees, as a real estate professional you're required by the California Association of Realtors:that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of a property including conditions that are known outside and surrounding areas." (See City of Burbank Website, Video, Alex Safarian comments @ 6:24:28, http://burbank,granicus.com/MediaPlaVer.php?view id=6&clip id=848) Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009,signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T-Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done,to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as https://sites.google.com/site/nocelitowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city,which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010, To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click"Subpages" or go here: http://sites.google.com/site/noceIItowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate- value/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement ) Here is a list of additional articles on how cell towers negatively affect the property values of homes near them: • The Observer (U.K.), "Phone masts blight house sales: Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles," Sunday May 25, 2003 or go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25Zhouseprices.uknews ® "Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places,"The New York Times,January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 40 percent because of neighboring cell towers) • "Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court's Call," Chicago Tribune,January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered property values due to cell tower) • "The Future is Here, and It's Ugly: a Spreading of Techno-blight of Wires,Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt," New York Times, September 7, 2000 o "Tower Opponents Ring Up a Victory," by Phil Brozynski, in the Barrington [Illinois] Courier- Review, February 15, 1999, 5, reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value of twelve homes following the construction of a cell tower in Lake County, IL. See attached story: http://spot.coIorado.edu/—maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43- LowerecIPropertyVaIuation/ ® In another case, a Houston jury awarded 1.2 million to a couple because a 100-foot-tall cell tower was determined to have lessened the value of their property and caused them mental anguish: Nissimov, R., "GTE Wireless Loses Lawsuit over Cell-Phone Tower," Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999, Section A, page 11. (Property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower.) https:Hsites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value For your convenience,you may request an appointment to submit your 0 entitlement application by contacting- the Planning Department at 714-536- 5271 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY HUNTINGTON BEACH y� Present zone = DM " City of Huntington Beach General Plan Designation__- ` Planning Department PLANNINGAPPLICATIdNNd. � 2000 Main Street EINTIT AIENT $FEE CASE# Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)536-5271 Coastal 136elo went Permi.4 F 1 CDP Q -:fig$ www.surfcity-hb-orq/CitvDepartments/Planning Conditional Use Permit CUP JJ- DeMen Review DR . Entitlement Plan Amendment "EPA GENERAL APPLICATION: General Plan Amendment GPA Local Coastal Program Amend LCPA Planning Commission Planned SighProu; m PSP. ❑ Zoning Administrator Sian Code Exception SCE O Staff Review Temporarv`Use Permit TUP O Design Review Variance V ::`: Zoning Map Amendment ZMA - AMIEEWEEKS-AGENT ON BEHALF OFT-MOBILE WEST CORP Zoning Text Amendmeut &A Applicant or Authorized Agent (Contact Person) 16460 BAKE PARKWAY SUITE 100 Environmental Review:` Flood Zone Mailing Address �:Exempt Earthquake Fault Zone. ff C IRVINE CA 92618 Sec. Class_ Oil District f City State Zip _Assessment Req Methane District EA Redevelopment Area Tele»hone Number! (949)336-1550 Coastal Area Yes/No� Notse%CNEL Categorical Exclusion Sersroic Hazazd Zone Fax Number: (949)336-6665 _Appeal Non App Scenic Carridoz. l'I„ Exempt Sec Military Buffer,Zone.. E-mail Address:AWEEKS@COASTALBUSINESSGROUP.NET Ml�" "ryts"'�0`slC' CITY nF Hi rnrnnlr_Tnnl REACH wnership Ver7fication Pursuant to:: Property Owner �plicarn:Atttliprization '2000 MAIN S"-TRFFT ✓AI'N 1n;Llenof _. Mailing Address Plans t NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648otrficationReq 1?ateReceived I4 19 HL © Nazrattve Receipt#City State Zip _Photographs/Slldes.. Recetyed.by, 11 Telephone Number (714)536 8544EntertapvmentPemiit FojectPlanner HHOA approval Distributed by Fax Number: omputer Log Concurrent Cases vt i lap Book Log E-mail Address: LUIS.GOMEZ@SURFCITY-HB.ORG lens Date Stamped. Previous Cases REQUEST(Use additional page ifnecessary): INSTALLATION OF AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. PROPOSING A 55'TALL MONOPALM TREE WITH 12 PANEL ANTENNAS SCREENED INSIDE THE TREE PLACEMENT OF 3 EQUIPMENT CARIN TG I O AT D ON THE(-ROUND NEXT TO THE MONOPA M. ALL EQLJ1PMrNT WILL RF SCREENED AND LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY'S WATER PUMP STATION PROPERTY. EXISTING USE: CITY WATER PUMP STATION-PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: • Street Address: 18401 SPRINGDALE STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 • Nearest Major Intersection: TALBERT AVENUE&SPRINGDALE STREET • Assessor's ParcelNumber(s): 159-188-05 Lot Area: • Tract: 9219 Block: 404 Lot: 109 I,(Pri i Property owners name) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH am the property owner of the subject property and have read and understand all statements including the filing requirements on the reverse side of this application, I hereby authorize Prinl Anent s name) CQASTA ICINESS C'ROIIP A('EN—ON BEHALF OF TM— -W S ORP to act as my representative and to bind me in all matters concerning this application. 1 hereby affirm under pen ty of"perjury that the foregoing statements, facts and attachments are true and correct. I understand that this application for entitlemzor variance may be denied,modified or approved with conditions and that such onditions or modifications must be satisfied prior to JssZarce of building permits. f Signature of�4. v � lihE@t ?4��; ) l . f Property Owner Date Authored Agent Date Representative CNEL examples FIGURE AJ)- RFPRE4ENTATBT EXAMPLE,-CIE MIA. T-RED CONIMU LAITY-NOF1 EQTIVALENT L E VE L;, CNEL t> CommunitV Noise Qualitative Outdoor ECluivilent Level Descriptions Locations 1010 - 90 — NI Ir kl ao k;`08 nr fiilllwww HAfii-EM I Apallw:, l �TCY NK ISI UP"9AN 70 BOSION o, V,s ,f Avona,, %AW IS %A,�;-Aapnit 60 J'URBAN E C- L T 50 40 L- U ted xX nvirc-mitntal Pro-ec:lon Agrn-Cy, hifccm,1-1011 Oil Le el of Ew-Irown,nivil Rt, ms,.re;o PI-Orect Publ ,- Healtl-i mid wiea ni Adttao:e 'vfai-ginaf Table B.1 Sound levels(dB)and relative loudness of typical noise sources in indoor and outdoor environments SUBJECTIVE . DB(A)' OVERALL COMMUNITY NOISE LEVELS(OUTDOORS) HOME AND INDUSTRY NOISE LEVELS LOUDNESS(RELATIVE LEVEL TO 70 DB) Uncomfortably Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 120 Oxygen Torch. .. 121 dB ',32 times as loud Loud 50 ft.. . 130 d B Riveting machine. .. 110 dB 110 Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft. .. 118 dB 16 times as loud Rock band . . . 108-114 dB Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft)before landing.. . 106 dB 100 Very loud 8 times as loud Jet flyover at 1000 feet. .. 103 dB Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft.. . 100 dB ......... Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile(6080 ft)before landing. ..97 dB 90 Newspaper press. ..97 dB t times as loud Power mower.. .96 dB ,Motorcycle at 25 ft. ..90 dB Car wash at 20 ft.. .89 dB Food blender. ..88 dB Propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft. ..88 dB 80 Milling machine. . .85 dB 2 times as loud Diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft.. .84 dB Diesel train 45 mph at 100 ft.. .83 dB Garbage disposal. ..80 dB High urban ambient sound. ..80 dB Moderately Living room music. ..76 dB 70 Passenger car 65 mph at 25 ft.. .77 dB 70 dB(A) loud Radio or TV-audio.vacuum cleaner. .70 dB Freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. .. .76 dB Cash register at 10 ft.. .65-70 dB Electric typewriter at 10 ft.. .64 dB 60 Air conditioning unit at 100 ft. . .60 dB Electric as loud Dishwasher(Rinse)at 10 ft.. .60 dB Conversation.. .60 dB -g- ........_ X. 50 Quiet 'Large transformers at 100 ft. ..50 dB 1/4 as loud 40 Bird calls.. .44 dB Lowest limit of urban ambient sound. ..40 dB 10 Just audible ..... 0 Threshold of Hearing N E-XAi6�� q Residents worried about noise from communications tower kgw.com Portland Page 1 of 3 a r , Residents worried about noise from communications tower _4� d by Randy Neves kgw.com Posted on January 25, 2010 at 6:40 PM Updated Tuesday,Jan 26 at 1126 AM Recommend PORTLAND, Ore. --A communications tower planned in a Northeast Portland neighborhood has homeowners there worried.And not just because of radiation. Noise is now becoming an issue. The equipment on communications towers can buzz and hum as it's automatically heated and cooled. As Beaumont-Wilshire residents consider a new tower project in their neighborhood, a Southeast Portland homeowner wants to warn them about his noisy experience with newly installed Clearwire wireless Internet equipment next to his house. For George Polas, the noise began in October, 2oo8,when a large metal box appeared on a utility pole next door. "You can hear this constant humming all the time. Hummm," explained Polas. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communi cations-tower... 12/29/201 l Residents worried about noise from communications tower kgw.com Portland Page 2 of 3 He and his wife, Sue, complained immediately. "You sit there and think, 'is my dryer on?"' The box appeared 20 feet high on a utility pole without warning. Clearwire installed the equipment in order to improve Internet service to customers in the area. Polas says the company came by twice and tinkered with the equipment,but 14 months later the buzzing problem persists. "It may be great for you if you're living several blocks away and you have your nice Wi -Fi system set up,"said George. "But there are folks like us who have to live with this and they're continually putting more and more of these things up around the metropolitan area." Clear-wire sent NewsChannel 8 a statement, saying"we regret any time our neighbors may be inconvenienced due to a noisy site... although we are in compliance we continue to work on this." Noise is one of several concerns in the Beaumont Wilshire neighborhood where a similar tower is planned in the parking lot of a convenience store near houses. "This is the first application we've had under the new regulations," said City Commissioner Amanda Fritz. Her office in charge of regulating communications industries at the municipal level. Fritz says the city is handcuffed by federal law and couldn't stop certain tower projects even if it wanted to. But unlike when the Polas's woke up to find the box installed next door,brand new city regulations require companies like Clearwire to give notice and participate in public meetings before installing such equipment. If anything, companies face bad press if they bully a neighborhood, she says. "It's not in the company's interest to have complaints from neighbors." Later this week during a town hall-style meeting, the Beaumont Wilshire Neighborhood Association will vote whether to support or oppose the Clearwire communications tower project there. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communications-tower... 12/29/2011 Residents worried about noise from communications tower I kgw.com Portland Page 3 of 3 George Polas says everyone in the city should pay close attention. "You may wake up one day and find out, 'well,look what happens. I'm having one of these units outside my house." That Beaumont Wilshire neighborhood vote is ceremonial in nature. Federal law says Clearwire can install its approved equipment on a utility pole in a public right of way without permission from cities or their citizens. Add another comment http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Noise-enters-heated-debate-over-communications-tower... 12/29/2011 ,n�c�,�trt' Lem, >/ f2c�/ � xti;,6i4-k >y zJ s¢ DO NOT RECORD attributable to the Facilities. If such taxes are not assessed separately to T-Mobiie, City shall timely provide T-Mobile with evidence, reasonably acceptable to T-Mobile, of such tax assessment and the amount due, which is attributable to the Facilities, sufficient to allow T-Mobile to consent to or challenge such assessment. Section 2.02 Utilities (a) T-Mobile shall pay for all utilities attributed to the use, operation and maintenance of the Facilities during the Term of this Lease, or any extension thereof at the rate charged by the service provider and hold City free and harmless from all utilities furnished to the Property. The term "utilities" means electricity, gas, water, telephone and waste removal. (b) T-Mobile shall have the right to keep current utilities and to improve the present utilities on or near the Property and to maintain all at T-Mobile's sole cost and expense. Subject to City's contracting power, and at the reasonable discretion of the City Attorney, City agrees to execute such documentation as may be required by the servicing utility provider in order for T- Mobile to acquire necessary utility service at no cost to City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that such documentation must be commercially reasonable and nothing herein will waive City's right to determine in consultation with the servicing utility provider the route of.T-Mobile's utility easements. (c) T-Mobiie shall, wherever practicable, install separate meters for utilities used on the Property by T-Mobile. In the event separate meters are not utilized, T-Mobile shall pay the charges identified herein for all utilities attributable to T-Mobile's use. T-Mobile shall have the right to place utilities on City's Property in order to service the Property and the Facilities, provided that T-Mobile obtains prior consent from the City of the location of such utilities and the servicing utility provider, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be given within thirty (30) days of a request to locate utilities from T-Mobile. (d) T-Mobile shall be responsible to relocate its utilities or other substructures, at T- Mobile's sole cost and expense, within forty-five (45) days after receiving written notice to do so by City. City shall only require relocation of T-Mobile's utilities or other substructures if City reasonably determines that relocation is necessary to permit City's ordinary use of the Property for public purposes. T-Mobile shall comply with all requirements to underground utilities. ARTICLE 3—IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS Section 3.01 The Facilities (a) During the Term or any Renewal Term, T-Mobile shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain and operate the Facilities. After obtaining all necessary City permits and approvals, T-Mobile shall have the right to perform all work necessary to prepare, maintain and alter the Property for the Facilities. City shall endeavor to approve within forty-five (45) days, all plans and specifications for such work, in writing, before any work, except technician maintenance or repair, may begin and does not require plan approval. (b) City reserves the right to add additional telecommunication or other equipment as may be needed by City andlor enter into additional agreements with any third party to install and operate additional telecommunication equipment on the Property so long as the equipment does not interfere with the Facilities. City reserves the exclusive right to negotiate and collect all rents, Lease fees or any other payments from any arrangements it enters into with such third party. Page 6 of 20 -11/2/2011 fix• r J DO NOT RECORD (c) Except as provided herein, City shall not have the right to install equipment on the Facilities or within the area depicted on Exhibit B as designated for T-Mobile's exclusive use. (d) Any and all modifications to the Property must meet all applicable structural engineering, building and safety standards for this type of public facility. (e) T-Mobile shall hold title to the Facilities and any equipment placed on the Property by T-Mobile. The Facilities shall remain the personal property of T-Mobile and are not fixtures. (f) T-Mobile shall remove all of the Facilities at its sole cost and expense on or before the expiration or termination of this Lease; provided that such removal shall be done in a workmanlike and careful manner and without interference or damage to any other equipment, structures or operations on the Property, including the use of the Property by City or any of City's T-Mobiles, assignees or T-Mobiles. T-Mobile shall repair any damage to the Property caused by such removal and will leave those portions of the Property impacted by License's use in the same condition they existed in prior to the Commencement Date, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted. (g) T-Mobile shall be required to remove all of its Facilities and improvements, including antennas, and restore the Property within ninety (90) days of the Termination of the Lease. Should T-Mobile fail to timely remove it Facilities and restore the Property, the City may elect to provide T-Mobile an additional 90-day removal reminder notice, at the expiration of such 90-day removal reminder notice, at T-Mobile's sole cost and expense remove and store its Facilities. Rent shall not cease, unless and until all the Facilities are removed or City has taken title to them as set forth herein. (g) T-Mobile shall be required to provide for electrical service including separate sub- metering as provided herein to and through the Property at T-Mobile's sole cost and expense. Any encroachment necessary for such utility service will be at a location reasonably acceptable to City and the servicing utility. (g) Upon the fully executed date of this Lease, City shall provide T-Mobile and its employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors access to the Premises and the Facilities twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week or as designated in permit approvals. Except in the case of emergencies, T-Mobile shall give City twenty-four (24) hours notice prior to entry into the Property- City represents and warrants that it has full rights of ingress and egress to and from the Property, and hereby grants such rights to T-Mobile to the extent required to construct, maintain, install, and operate the Facilities on the Property. T-Mobile's exercise of such rights shall not cause undue inconvenience to City nor shall any such exercise interfere with the use of the premises by City or its lessees, guests, or assignees. City shall contact T-Mobile's emergency hotline at the telephone number listed under the notice provision of this Lease in the event of an emergency threatening the health or safety of persons or property. Upon receiving such notice, T- Mobile shall promptly address the issue and take such actions as are reasonably required given the nature of the emergency. Should changes be made to the contact names and telephone number, City shall be notified prior to the change. (h) Unless caused directly by City, its agents, employees or contractors, T-Mobile shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain and repair the Facilities including, but not limited to, the removal of all trash debris and -graffiti therefrom. City may exercise its right to self-help and bill T- Page 7 of 20 -11/2/2011 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release(the"Agreement") is made and entered into by and among the City of Huntington Beach(the"City") and T-Mobile West Corporation ("T-Mobile"). The City and T-Mobile are referred to herein individually as a"Party"and collectively as"the Parties." This Agreement is made pursuant to the following terms and conditions: RECITALS A. On August 14,2007 and September 7,2007,the City issued T-Mobile Wireless Permits pursuant to the City Zoning Code authorizing installation and operation of telecommunications facilities("Wireless Telecommunications Facilities") at two City-owned parks in the City of Huntington Beach: (1) 16600 Saybrook Lane,Huntington Beach,California, also known.as Huntington Harbour Garden Club Park("Harbour View"), and (2) 5741 Brighton Drive,Huntington Beach, California, also known as Bolsa View Park("Bolsa View"). B. On January 20,2009, the City Council approved Site License Agreements with T- Mobile with respect to the installation and operation of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Harbour View and Bolsa View. On April 1,2009,the City issued building permits to T-Mobile with respect to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at Harbour View and Bolsa View. C. Section 612 of the Huntington Beach City Charter("Measure C") provides that voter approval is required before any structure with a total construction valuation of more than $100,000 may be built in any City-owned park. After the building permits were issued for the Harbour View Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and the Bolsa View Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,the City took the positions that the total construction value for each of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities exceeded$100,000. Consequently,the City suspended T-Mobile's authority to construct the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities until voter approval was obtained. D. In response,T-Mobile filed the suit entitled Oinnipoint Communications,Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, United States District Court for the Central District of California,.Case No.CV-09-3777, which alleged that the Federal Telecommunications Act (the"Act")preempts the voter approval requirement of Measure C. E. The City moved to dismiss the Complaint, contending that proprietary decisions of local government regarding its own property are outside the scope of the Act. The Court denied the motion by way of its October 8,2009 Minute Order. The parties then filed cross- motions for partial summary judgment,which resulted in the July 9,2010 Order of the District finding that the Act preempts Measure C. As part of that same Order,the District Court then "[gave] the city ... a chance to either grant the permits or articulate in writing the basis of denial in a way that comports with the Act." 1 DwT 183304060 0048172.000388/72017.DOC F. On August 30,2010,the City Council revoked the Wireless Permits. G. On November 12,2010,the District Court entered judgment in favor of T-Mobile with respect to its claim for declaratory judgment as set out in the July 9,2010 Summary .Judgment Order. H. On December 1,2010,the City appealed the Judgment, and on December 10, .2010,T-Mobile filed a cross-appeal of the Judgment. Together,the appeals are entitled Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 10-56877 and 10-56944. (For purposes of this Agreement,District Court Case No..CV-09-3777,and the related Ninth Circuit appeals will be referred to as"T-Mobile I") 1. Prior to the District Court issuing the Judgment in T-Mobile 1,T-Mobile fled on September 29,2010, a lawsuit to challenge the revocation of the Wireless Permits, entitled T- Mobile West Corporation v. City of Huntington Beach,Case No. CV 10-1471 ("T-Mobile If'). For purposes of this Agreement, T-Mobile I and T-Mobile H will be referred to as the"Actions." J. The Parties have vigorously litigated the Actions. The Parties now wish to avoid the expense,delay and uncertainty of litigation and to settle the disputes among them. K. The basis of the Settlement is to permit T-Mobile to locate the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at alternative sites,with the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities being located at the Huntington Harbour Mall, 16897 Algonquin,Huntington Beach, California(the"Mall")in place of Harbour View, and the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities being located at the City-owned,Bolsa Chica Flood Control Pump Station, 18401 Springdale Street,Huntington Beach(the"Pump Station")in place of Bolsa View, L. The Parties acknowledge that T-Mobile's ability to obtain leases for either the Mall or the Pump Station is dependent on discretionary decisions of the Mall owner and the Huntington Beach City Council,respectively. The City makes no commitment that either Lease will be agreed to. M. The Parties further acknowledge that even if T-Mobile obtains the leases for the Mall and the Pump Station,the City Council must approve a conditional use permit("CUP") pursuant to the Zoning Code for each site and that notwithstanding any term or condition of this Agreement,the City Council retains its full discretion to deny either or both CUPs. N. Given the multiple discretionary decisions involved in this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree that if only one site is fully approved,then T-Mobile will withdraw and release its claims against the City regarding the relocated site from the Actions,and only prosecute the Actions as to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities that.was not relocated. 2 DWT 18330406v1 0048172-000388n2017.DOC AGREEMENT For and in consideration of the commitments made herein,City and T-Mobile agree as follows: 1. Settlement Does Not Bind Or Commit The Future Actions Of The Huntineton Beach City Council. Neither the Mall nor Pump Station Antenna may be constructed unless and until the City Council has approved a CUP and any related environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. By entering into this Agreement,the City only agrees to present CUP applications for the Antennas to the City Council for approval. City Staff retains its discretion to recommend denial of the applications,and the City Council retains its discretion to deny the applications. Neither of the Wireless,Telecommunications Facilities shall be approved until the City and the City Council has followed all legally required procedures. . I1. Continuance Of The Actions Is A Condition Precedent To This Agreement. 1. Presently,trial is scheduled to begin in T-Mobile II on December 6,2011. As of the date of this Agreement, it appears that the earliest that the City Council will be able to consider approval of the CUP and Lease for the Pump Station Antenna is December 6,2011. The date by which the City Council will be able to consider the Mall Antenna is uncertain, because the Mall Owner has yet to agree to the necessary Lease. Consequently,the City Council likely will not be able to consider the Mall CUP until early 2012,assuming that the Mall owner and T-Mobile agree to a Lease. 2. The Parties acknowledge that the Settlement of the Actions cannot be completed unless and until the Court continues the trial of T-Mobile II. 3. The Parties shall immediately ask the Court to continue or stay T-Mobile II to allow this Agreement to be effectuated. The Court shall retain jurisdiction until: (a)all permits and approvals to install and operate the Antennas have been issued; (b)the Antennas have been fully constructed;and(c)the time for legal challenge to the approvals for the Antennas has expired. 4. 'If the Court should fail to grant the continuance or stay,or grant it in a manner that either Party finds unacceptable, either Party terminate this Agreement. By way of separate letter agreement, Counsel for the Parties may modify this termination provision in response to the actions of the Court. III. The Mall. 1. The City,through its Staff,shall provide its assistance in obtaining the agreement by the Owner of the Mall to enter into a lease with T-Mobile to install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall. 2. If and when T-Mobile obtains the necessary authorization from the Mall owner to apply to the City for land use approval of the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, 3 DWT 18330406v10048172-000388/72017.DOC T-Mobile shall promptly apply to the City for the necessary CUP. The City shall not charge T- Mobile any fees in connection with the permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall,except its out-of-pocket expenses of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars($750.00). 3. Once T-Mobile submits a CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,the City,through its Staff,shall conduct a public meeting to present the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall to the neighboring community. 4. Within seven(7)weeks of T-Mobile submitting a CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,City Staff shall cause to be noticed a public hearing before the City Council to consider the CUP. 5. If the City approves the CUP application for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,and the time for filing any legal challenge to the approval has expired,then T-Mobile shall as soon as reasonably possible,remove the vault and shoring at Harbour View. The City shall then,at its own expense,demolish or cover the base,backtill the hole,repair the irrigation,oversee the turf area and provide any other landscaping the City wishes. T-Mobile shall leave the utilities in place. IV. The Pump Station. , 1. The Parties have preliminarily agreed to the terms of a Lease to locate Wireless = Telecommunications Facilities at the Pump Station. RyAtibit-A.T-Mobile agrees to promptly execute the Lease immediately upon approval of this Agreement by the Huntington Beach City Council. The City Council shall consider whether to approve the Lease concurrently when it considers whether to approve a CUP for the Pump Station Antenna. By entering into this Agreement,the City retains its discretion to reject the Pump Station Lease. 2. Promptly upon both Parties executing this Agreement, T-Mobile shall apply to the City for a CUP for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The City shall not charge T-Mobile any fees in connection with the permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or lease for the Pump Station,except its out-of-pocket expenses of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars($750.00). 3. Once T-Mobile submits a CUP application,City,through its staff,shall schedule a public meeting to present the Pump Station Antenna to the neighboring community. 4. Within seven(7)weeks of T-Mobile submitting a CUP application for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,City Staff shall cause to be noticed a public hearing before the City Council to consider the CUP. V. Effect Of Settlement If Neither Antenna Is Approved,Or Only One Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Is Approved. 1. If despite T-Mobile's good faith efforts, it is unable to enter into a lease with the owner of the Mall allowing T-Mobile to install and operate Wireless Telecommunications 4 DWT 18330406vt 0048172-0003802o17.DOC Facilities at the Mall on terms acceptable to T-Mobile,then this Agreement shall be null and void as to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at the Mall. 2. Should the City Council approve the CUP and Lease for the Pump Station,but deny the CUP for the Mall,then T-Mobile agrees to file all necessary pleadings to withdraw and release its claims concerning Bolsa View from.the Actions. Further,the Parties agree that T- Mobile may either resume Iitigating the Actions regarding Harbour View,or that it will dismiss with prejudice the Actions and instead file a new action in either State or Federal Court to challenge the City's decision to deny the CUP for the Mall. Alternatively, if T-Mobile chooses to resume litigating the Actions regarding Harbour View,it agrees to waive and not pursue any claims it may possess regarding the Mall site. 3. Should the Mall owner enter into a lease with T-Mobile,and the City Council approve the CUP for the Mall,but the City denies the CUP or Lease for the Pump Station,then T-Mobile agrees to file all pleadings necessary to withdraw its claims concerning Harbour View' from the Actions. Further,T-Mobile agrees that it will not file any actions in either State or Federal Court to challenge the City's decision to deny the CUP and/or Lease for the Pump Station. Rather,T-Mobile may proceed to litigate the Actions only regarding the Bolsa View site. 4. If T-Mobile is only able to obtain full approval of the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and then pursues the Actions as to the denied Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the claim for costs of the Party that prevails in the Actions as to the rejected Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall be reduced by one-half for the time between initial filing of the Actions through the date the Actions were recommenced after this Agreement was executed. 5. If(1) T-Mobile is unable to obtain a Lease with the Mall Owner or the City Council denies approval of the Mall CUP;and(2)the City Council denies approval of the Pump Station Lease and/or the Pump Station CUP,then this Agreement terminates and shall be of no force and effect. VI. Release If Both Mall And Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Approved. In the event that both the.CUPs and Leases are agreed to for the Mall and Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Parties agree to a full release of their claims,as set forth below: I. In consideration of the recitals,covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration,receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,each Party to this Agreement hereby irrevocably and unconditionally mutually release and forever discharge each other and each of their respective trusts,trustees, successors, assigns,executors and administrators,agents,employees, representatives,.attorneys,principals,affiliates, and all persons acting by, 5 DWT 18330406v10048172-000388/72017.DOC through,under or in concert with any of them, or any of them,of and from any and all claims,demands,actions,causes of action,suits,liens,debts, obligations,promises, agreements,costs,damages, liabilities,and judgments of any kind,nature,or amount whether in law or equity, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated,liquidated or unliquidated, including any and all claimed or unclaimed compensatory damages,consequential damages, interest,costs,expenses and fees (including reasonable or actual attorneys' fees),arising from or related to the events as described in the Actions. 2. To effect a full and complete release as described above,the Parties expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits afforded to them by Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California,and do so understanding and acknowledging the significance and consequence of such specific waiver of Section 1542. Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California provides as follows: "A general release does_not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." Thus,notwithstanding the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542,and for the purpose of implementing a full and complete release and discharge of the Parties,the Parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is intended to include in its effect,without limitation,all claims which they do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of execution hereof, and this Agreement contemplates the extinguishment of any such claims. The Parties warrant that they have each read this Agreement,including this waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542,and that they understand the Agreement and the Section 1542 waiver,and so freely and knowingly enter into this Agreement. The Parties each acknowledge that it may hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those it knows or now believes-to be true with respect to the matters released or described in this Agreement,and they agree that the releases and agreements notwithstanding any later discovery of any such different or additional facts. The Parties each hereby assumes any and all risk of any mistake in connection with the true facts involved in the matters,disputes,or controversies described herein or with regard to any facts which are now unknown to them relating thereto. 3. The Actions shall be dismissed,with prejudice,each party to bear its own fees and costs. 4. Each Party shall each bear its own costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, including those incurred in connection with the Action or the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. In the event of any proceedings to enforce this Agreement,the prevailing Party shall be entitled, in addition to any other appropriate relief,to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. 6 DWT 18330406A 0048172-0003881720 MOC . s VII. General Terms and Conditions. 1. If T-Mobile obtains a Lease and CUP for the Mall Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Site License Agreement for Harbour View is terminated,and the City shall refund all rent or other payments made by T-Mobile pursuant to the Site License Agreement. If T-Mobile obtains a Lease and CUP for the Pump Station Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,then the Site License Agreement for Harbour View is terminated, and the City shall refund all rent or other payments made by T-Mobile pursuant to the Site License Agreement. 2. All parties acknowledge and warrant that their respective execution of this Agreement is free and voluntary. 3. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement and the consideration set forth herein effect the settlement of claims which are denied and contested, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party of any liability of any kind to any Party to this Agreement or any other person, and such liability is expressly denied. 4. This Agreement constitutes and contains the entire Agreement and understanding concerning this subject matter between the Parties and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations,proposed agreements or agreements,written or oral. Each of the Parties acknowledges that no other Party or any agent or attorney of any other Party made any promise, representation or warranty whatsoever,express or implied,or oral, not contained in this Agreement, concerning its subject matter to induce any Party to execute this Agreement,and each of the Parties acknowledges that it/he/she has not executed this Agreement in reliance on any promise,representation or warranty that is not contained in this Agreement. 5. The Parties each acknowledge that they have had a full and unhindered opportunity to consult with legal, accounting,financial,tax and planning consultants of their own choosing before entering into this Agreement. 6. The Parties represent that they have not heretofore assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer,to any person or entity,any claim or other matter herein related. 7. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California, and shall in all respects be interpreted,enforced and governed under the laws of the State of California. 8. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings of any kind whatsoever,whether . written, oral,express,implied or otherwise,between City and T-Mobile,with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and must be signed and dated by all of the Parties,and must explicitly state that it is intended to be an amendment to or modification of this Agreement. 9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors,administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 10. The Agreement may be executed in counterparts and all such counterparts taken collectively shall constitute one agreement. 7 DWT 18330406vt 0048172-000388(72017.DOC o s 11. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission or estoppel on the part of any Party as to any matter,including the legal necessity of the permitting process specified in this Agreement. This Agreement may not be introduced into evidence in any action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding to enforce the Agreement. IN'WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement. CITY QF T GTON BEACH November 21,2011 Dated: O�xfta / ,2011 By: — It 4p. CITY COUNC OF THE CITY OF HUNTING ACH November 21;2011 Dated: (MA61// 2011 By: — Its: T BIL ST CO ORATION Dated: October—,2011 r / By The undersigned attorneys at law for each of the respective Parties represent that they have fully explained this Agreement to their respective clients,who have acknowledged an understanding of these terms and conditions and the legal effect thereof. JENNIFER MCGRA.TH,City Attorney Dated: - BY: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach DAVIS$ GHT TREM LP . —' LLP Dated: October_,2011 BY: Martin L.Finern4 Attorneys for T-Mobile West Corporation S DWT 18330405v1 0048172-000388/72017.DDC THREAT OF HARMFUL EFFECTS ON MIGRATORY BIRDS AND ENDANGERED SPECIES FROM PROPOSED BEEBE HILL CELL TOWER Statement Submitted to Connecticut Siting Council At Public Hearing October 12, 2006 By Janet Newton President of The EMR Policy Institute A non-profit educational organization 506 Thistle Hill Road, Marshfield, VT 05658 2 Introduction 1. I am President of The EMR Policy Institute, Inc., an independent non-profit educational organization whose headquarters are located at 506 Thistle Hill Road, Marshfield VT. This statement is submitted in accordance with the stated mission of The EMR Policy Institute: The EMR Policy Institute Mission Statement We believe that the unfettered use of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) — radiofrequency/microwave radiation (RF/MW) present in all wireless and communications technologies, as well as the extremely low frequencies (ELF) present in power-line supplies— is ill advised given research that has accumulated over the last two decades. The Mission of The EMR Policy Institute is to foster a better understanding of the environmental and human biological effects from such exposures. Our goal is to work at the federal, state and international levels to foster appropriate, unbiased research and to create better cooperation between federal regulatory agencies with a responsibility for public health in order to mitigate unnecessary exposures that may be deemed to be hazardous. To implement its Mission, The EMR Policy Institute maintains a public website [www.emrpolicy.org] where it posts studies and reports from around the worked on the biological effects of low-intensity RF radiation. The EMR Policy Institute also provides technical assistance to individuals and local groups. It has provided such assistance to this property owner and offers to provide the same to the Connecticut Siting Council and to other persons interested in the cell tower issues in this proceeding. Our goal is to encourage the fullest possible public disclosure and understanding of the biological effects of RF radiation from wireless and communications technologies and to encourage federal research into those effects. 2. The purpose of this statement is to call the Siting Council's attention to various scientific studies published in scholarly periodicals relating to biological and other physical effects caused by low-power density signals transmitted by cell towers, and in particular as proposed to be transmitted from the Beebe Hill Cell Tower, which is the subject of this hearing. To avoid duplication, the statement refers to studies already marked as exhibits by the Petitioner (many of which were supplied by The EMR Policy Institsute as part of its technical assistance). 3. This statement focuses on biological effects relating to migratory birds and endangered species. Radiofrequency Radiation Power Density Calculations for Beebe Hill Tower Site 4. Attention is directed to the radiofrequency radiation power density calculations compiled by Alfred R. Hislop, MSEEI in Attachment"A", which show power densities at various distances from the Mr. Hislop is an electronics engineer with more than 30 years of experience in microwave and millimeter wave technologies. He has designed and patented components that are currently is use sending signals back from deepest space in order to map the universe. See attached curriculum vitae. 3�,T) 3 Beebe Hill Cell Tower, based on the specifications in Petition 701 approved by the Connecticut Siting Council in January, 2005. Biological Effects on Wildlife from Exposure to Low Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation 5. The proposed Beebe Hill cell tower threatens to destroy wildlife habitats; kill large numbers of nesting and migratory birds; disrupt natural food chains; and jeopardize frogs, other amphibians, and rare plants in Connecticut's most unique inland wetland. 6. Scientific studies from nations around the world establish beyond any reasonable doubt that low-power cell tower high frequency radiation, comparable to the specifications for the proposed cell tower on Beebe Hill, has produced many of these biological results in carefully monitored field studies. 7. People everywhere have witnessed in despair the wholesale disappearance and deformity of frogs and many other wildlife species. While all of the causes are not yet known, there is powerful evidence that the proliferation of wireless telecommunications is a least one of the causes of this tragic phenomenon with transmitters operating from towers just like this one with no precautions of any kind to minimize impacts on the environment. 8. The record before the Siting Council in this proceeding contains the proof that supports this conclusion. The starting point is Attachment A, containing expert projections of the power density levels at various distances from the Beebe Hill cell tower. These power density levels can easily be compared to the power densities observed in the existing studies of adverse effects from prolonged exposure of birds and wildlife at exactly these same power densities. 9. Comparing these calculations to the scientific study of irreversible infertility in mice in Thessalonika, Greece caused by radiofrequency radiation shows that the same power densities that caused this result will extend 488 meters out from the Beebe hill cell tower-- the equivalent of five football fields long- destroying a major food supply for several species of endangered and migratory birds. (See Exhibit 13A.) 10.Similarly, comparing these projected power densities to the scientific study of infertility among nesting white storks in Valladolid, Spain, shows that this same infertility for nesting birds can be expected within 300 meters of the Beebe Hill tower. (Exhibit 13; Attachment "B") 11.By making similar comparisons of power densities to the power levels in other studies, the conclusion is inescapable that the Beebe Hill cell tower will potentially have the following harmful effects on the wildlife and endangered species in that area: Harm to Migratory Birds 12.More than two hundred species of migratory birds use the Beebe Hill area as a flyway to feeding grounds in the Hollenbeck River watershed and Robbins Swamp in their annual trips from Central and South America and the Southern United States. The Beebe Hill cell tower is located near the center of this flyway and will produce significant tower kills x7 C � 4 of these birds by disorienting birds in their flight patterns, especially at night, through disruption of neurons in the brain and by creating a false magnetic field. (Exhibits 10, 11, 1 IA and 17B.) Harm to Nesting Birds 13.As noted, scientific studies in Spain have demonstrated the destructive effects of cell tower radiation on the reproduction of offspring by nesting birds. (Exhibits 12 and 13). Harm to Food Supplies 14. We have also pointed out the destructive effects on mice of cell tower radiation at very low power densities. There are also studies of impacts on insects, another major food source for birds and various other species of wildlife. (Exhibit 13A). Harm to Frogs and Other Amphibians 15.No one has established for certain why so many deformed frogs have appeared in recent years, or why there has been a sharp worldwide decline in frogs, but there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the cause may be resonance arising from constant cell tower radiation. Creatures, objects, and physical cavities measuring one-half of any radiofrequency wavelength will resonate when bombarded by signals at that frequency. In the case of the Beebe Hill cell tower, the frequency will be 851 megahertz, with a wavelength of 13.879 inches. (Attachment "A") A half wavelength will therefore measure 6.94 inches. Any bird, frog, salamander, plant, leaf, insect, or ground creature that is approximately 7 inches long will resonate when bombarded by this tower radiation at 851 megahertz. The Wood Turtle, for example, is directly in this size range (Exhibit 23A), and Mud Puppies can reach a full wavelength (Exhibit 22A).The resonance effect builds up a "hot spot" of substantially increased power (and heat) in the center of the resonating object. For birds, frogs, and salamanders this hot spot often coincides with the location of their reproductive organs, potentially causing destruction of eggs or deformities in offspring. The Coupling Factor 16.One other negative impact from cell towers is caused by the proposed location of this telecommunications mast on top of an existing stanchion carrying power lines. These lines can serve as carriers or "wave guides" to convey the cell tower radiation a considerable distance, until they reach a bend or other obstruction. (Attachment "C") It is to be noted that there are two nearby bends in the power lines north of Beebe Hill, both over the Hollenbeck River watershed, habitat for many endangered species (Exhibit 15d). Harm to Endangered Species 17. Harmful biological effects from the Beebe Hill cell tower are particularly significant because of the presence of large numbers of endangered species recorded by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (Exhibit 17 A). These are protected by state law which is being disregarded by the proposed erection of this tower. 5 18.In addition the DEP's written records of listed species, bird naturalist John McNeely has noted the presence of the following rare species within a two-mile radius form the Beebe Hill cell tower: Sharp-shinned Hawk Whip-poor-will Hedge Wren Raven Kestrel Snipe Bobolink Alder Flycatcher Meadowlark Henslow's Sparrow Golden-winged Warbler 19.All of these protected species will be threatened by the constant exposure to radiation from the proposed Beebe Hill cell tower, seven days a week, 24 hours a day each day. 20.There are numerous studies documenting harmful biological effects from low power densities that will be evidenced at two miles or more from the proposed Beebe Hill cell tower: (Exhibit 36). Nothing has been proposed in this proceeding to minimize this damage to rare and endangered species. Sworn to before me This day October, 2006 Notary Public Janet Newton Alfred R.Hislop,MSEE Pacific Millimeter Products Golden,CO 303-526-7866 www.pacificmillimeter.com .. Beebe Hill Cell Tower Calculations of Power Density and Resonance Factors Based on Nextel Communications Petition 701 Before the Connecticut Siting Council Power Density Levels Calculated from Beebe Hill Cell Tower Site Exhibit "D"to Nextel Petition 101 specifies an Effective Radiated Power(ERP)of 1200 watts at a frequency of 851MHz. Based on these specifications, at the following distances from the Beebe Hill cell tower, power densities in the main beam of the antenna would be: Distances in meters Power Density in microwatts/cm squared from the tower 100 meters 4.0 200 meters 1.0 300 meters .445 400 meters .251 488 meters .168 500 meters .160' 600 meters .111 700 meters .082 800 meters .063 900 meters .049 1000 meters .040 1609 meters 1.0 miles .015 2414 meters 1.5 miles .007 3219 meters 2.0 miles .004 Resonance Factors Generated from the Beebe Hill Cell Tower The wavelength for 851 MHz radiofrequency radiation is 13.879 inches, One-half wavelength at this frequency is 6.94 inches. Resonating objects measuring one full wavelength would develop two"hot spots", each at about one fourth of the distance from each end(about 3.5 inches). Resonating objects measuring one-half wavelength would develop one"hot spot"in the center(about 3.5 inches). Prepared by: X Alfred R. Hi op Date: September 20, 2006 Attachments: 1. Exhibit D to Nextel Petition 2. Alfred R. Hislop Curriculum vitae A-t T ACO I-IE jU_ , A PACIFIC MILLIMETER PRODUCTS The formula used to calculate RF power densities is taken from FCC OET Bulletin 65, and is S=33.4 x ERP RZ Where S is power density in microwatts/centimeter squared ERP is effective radiated power in watts R is distance from antenna in meters September 20 2006 Alfred R. Hislop PACIFIC MILLIMETER PRODUCTS 64 LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, GOLDEN, CO. 80401 TEL (303) 526-7866 FAX (303) 526-7865 Canaan,CT(145 Beebe Hill Rd.)CT3667-CT Siting Council Power Density Calculations q Nextel Directional Antennas ESMR-$51 MHz at centerline 120'AGL Only,120'centerline will be used for worst case purposes Note: Power densities are in mW1 cm2; CenterUne of Power dens!!y i Transmitters: jFrequency i iCT Standard Number of i EPP(M Tx antennas I i calculated at I In MHz j I mW1 cm' %OFCTstandard; Channels j 1 per channel tower Nextel Digital ESMR 851 0.5673 -12 100 114 i I 0.033185596 5-8494% j I NeKtel antenna centerline is 120'adjusted to 1 1,V per OET 65 BtAliten for 6'avers ge head height. Total%of CT Standard 5.8494% Federal Court Orders Cell Tower Safeguards for Migrating Birds Page 1 of 2 f 1 4 -CONSERVANCY HOME j SUPPORT ABC{ ABOUT US i ABC PROGRAMS BROWSE BY TOPIC NEVUS&REPORTS INTERACTIVE CONTACT US Federal Court Orders Cell Tower Safeguards for Migrating Birds For Immediate Release:February 19,2008 Contacts: Kathleen Sutcliffe,Earthjustice,(202)667-4500,ext 235 { Steve Holmer,,American Bird Conservancy,2021234-7181 I I j Decision could save millions of birds killed each year in tower collisions I Washington,DC—A federal court of appeals today issued a ruling ordering the Federal Communications Commission to carefully evaluate the potential adverse effects of communications towers on migratory bird populations of the Gulf Coast region.A panel of federal judges ruled that national environ mental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require the FCC to more carefully consider these possible adverse effects in its tower permitting process. "We are very pleased by today's ruling which will require the FCC to assess the environmental impacts of towers," said Darin Schroeder,American Bird Conservancy's Executive Director of Conservation Advocacy."Given the large number of bird deaths caused by towers,an environmental review is long overdue.This is a huge victory for migratory birds and the millions of Americans who love to see them each year." The US.Fish and Wildlife Service estimates between five million and fifty million birds are killed each year in collisions and other accidents caused by communications towers.In its decision,the court criticized the FCC for refusing to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when approving such towers. The court also said the FCC failed to sufficiently involve the public in its tower approval process. "The Catch-22...is that the Commission provides public notice of individual tower applications only after approving them,"the court wrote in its decision. Tens of thousands of communication towers dot landscapes across the country.In Texas alone,there are over 10,000 of these towers.Each month,the FCC receives more than 20 new applications for tower construction. The situation is critical along the Gulf Coast where thousands of communications towers dot the 1,000-mile stretch of coastline between Pt.Isabel,Texas and Tampa Bay,Florida.Towers along this major migratory hird route threaten many different bird species.Exhausted from theirjourney across the Gulf of Mexico,these migrating songbirds collide with towers or the accompanying guy wires.In some cases,the birds confuse the blinking lights atop the cell towers with the night stars they use to navigate their journey.The birds become disoriented and begin circling the tower until they collapse from exhaustion and plummet to the ground. The public interest law firm Earthjusbce brought the case to federal court on behalf of the American Bird Conservancy.Earthjustice attorneys argued that FCC violated federal law by approving dozens of new towers each year with little or no environmental review. "The court has clearly directed the FCC to respect national environmental laws when handing out permits for these tower."said Earthjustice attorney Steve Roady."FCC now must go back and carefully evaluate the environmental impacts of these towers." A copy of the decision can be found at http://pace r.cadc.u scourts.gov/docs/common/o pinions/2 008 0 2/06-1 1 65a.pdf American Bird Conservancy works to conserve native wild birds and their habitats throughout the Americas.ABC acts to safeguard the rarest bird species,restore habitats,and reduce threats,while building capacity in the conservation movement.ABC is a 501(c)(3)membership organization that is consistently awarded a top,four-star rating by the independent group,Charity Navigator. Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places,natural resources, and wildlife of this earth,and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment.Earthjustice brings about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities. I i � I i http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/080219.htmi 12/29/2011 /-3 12-0 12, y United States Department ofthe Interior \ _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE \, gRCH 3", Washington, D.C. 20240 'In Reply Refer To: FWSIFHC/DHCIBFA Memorandum To: Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 From: Director/St Jamie Rappaport Clark H f 4 Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers Construction of communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) in the United States has been growing at an exponential rate, increasing at an estimated 6 percent to 8 percent annually. According to the Federal Communication Commission's 2000Antenna Structure Registry, the number oflighted towers greater than 199'feet above ground level currently number over 45,000 and the total number of towers over 74,000. By 2003, all television stations must be digital, adding potentially 1,000 new towers exceeding 1,000 feet AGL. The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 50 designed to implement the MBTA. Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Service personnel may become involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or in the evaluation of tower impacts on migratory birds through National Environmental Policy Act review; specifically, sections 1501.6, opportunity to be a cooperating agency, and 1503.4, duty to comment on federally-licensed activities for agencies with jurisdiction by law, in this case the MBTA, or because of special expertise. Also, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be determined as compatible with the Refuge system mission and the Refuge purpose(s). I n addition, the Service is required by the ESA to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any action they authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened species. This is your future. Don't leave it blank. -Support the 2000 Census. 2 A Communication Tower Working Group composed of government agencies, industry, academic researchers and NGO's has been formed to develop and implement a research protocol to determine the best ways to construct and operate towers to prevent bird strikes. Until the research study is completed, or until research efforts uncover significant new mitigation measures, all Service personnel involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or the evaluation of the impacts of towers on migratory birds should use the attached interim guidelines when making recommendations to all companies, license applicants, or licensees proposing new tower sitings. These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in several eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional review. They are based on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent and effective measures for avoiding bird strikes at towers. We believe that they will provide significant protection for migratory birds pending completion ofthe Working Group's recommendations. As new information becomes available, the guidelines will be updated accordingly. Implementation ofthese guidelines by the communications industry is voluntary, and our recommendations must be balanced with Federal Aviation Administration requirements and local community concerns where necessary. Field offices have discretion in the use ofthese guidelines on a case by case basis, and may also have additional recommendations to add which are specific to their geographic area. Also attached is a Tower Site Evaluation Form which may prove useful in evaluating proposed towers and in streamlining the evaluation process. Copies may be provided to consultants or tower companies who regularly submit requests for consultation, as well as to those who submit individual requests that do not contain sufficient information to allow adequate evaluation. This form is for discretionary use, and may be modified as necessary. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation ofmigratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department ofthe Interior. While the Act has no provision for allowing an unauthorized take, it must be recognized that some birds may be killed at structures such as communications towers even if all reasonable measures to avoid it are implemented. The Service's Division of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement,but also through fostering relationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. While it is not possible under the Act to absolve individuals or companies from liability if they follow these recommended guidelines, the Division ofLaw Enforcement and Department ofJustice have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the past regarding individuals or companies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take ofmigratory birds. Please ensure that all field personnel involved in review ofFCC licensed communications tower proposals receive copies of this memorandum. Questions regarding this issue should be directed to Dr. BenjaminN. Tuggle, Chief, Division ofHabitat Conservation, at (703)358-2161, or 3 Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, at(703)358-1714. These guidelines will be incorporated in a Director's Order and placed in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at a future date. Attachment cc: 3012-MIB-FWS/Directorate Reading File 3012-MIB-FWS/CCU Files 3245-MIB-FWS/AFHC Reading Files 840-ARLSQ-FWS/AF Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Files 400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Staff 520-ARLSQ-FWS/LE Files 634-ARLSQ-FWS/MBMO Files (Jon Andrew) FWS/DHCIBFAJRWillis:bg:08/09/00:(703)358-2183 S:\DHC\BFA\WILLIS\COMTOW-2.POL Attachment Service Interim Guidelines For Recommendations On Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning 1. Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other structure (e.g.,billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 2. If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level, using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, etc.). Such towers should be unlighted ifFederal Aviation Administration regulations permit. 3.If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each individual tower. 4. If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing"antenna farms" (clusters of towers). Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat o fthreatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with ahigh incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings. 5. If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum amount ofpilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used. Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided: Current research indicates that solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet been studied. 6. Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State ofthe Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.c., 78pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power Lines. Edison Electric InstituteiRaptor Research Foundation, Washington, D. C; 128pp. Copies can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro/. or by calling 1-800/334-5453). 7. Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or minimize habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower"footprint." However, a larger tower footprint is preferable to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be minimized to reduce or prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground obstacles to birds in flight. 8.If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the proposed tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. if this is not an option, seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance during periods ofhigh bird activity. 9. In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to design new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise unlighted and/or unguyed tower. 10. Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within the boundaries ofthe site. 11. If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts of various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems. 12. Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months of cessation of use. In order to obtain information on the extent to which these guidelines are being implemented, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, letters provided in response to requests for evaluation ofproposed towers should contain the following request: "In order to obtain information on the usefulness of these guidelines in preventing bird strikes, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, please advise us of the final location and specifications ofthe proposed tower, and which of the measures recommended for the protection ofmigratory birds were implemented. If any of the recommended measures can not be implemented, please explain why they were not feasible." 12— D r. 6 FA -40 "Aw Al 50 x 74 V, gi v o W R,1141�-i ;-41*41,TI h, AM k ow 0 oc zw, _5 ovmll-i- ri Aft -fo 247 A? _q KN Maw 7 W- 6f, Atka, im rr W —4 lw %pA rqw 6, APOW ME L Ar- 14 :wAff AN . ......... �a Map t® B®lsa Chica Wetlands BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS � � �'� � �/'• RESTORATION PROJECT Ifto w ark VisualOverbok Ex:ss:t ft ter rEtiva Cv;nook \ S = 4rt'e �y C rt r - 4r�r21ln� S' c� .-e�pcS2iL Harriet CO" PudicFark< f�9 a� f Eti/�vu�2r Ydeider l i Reg na a Edward er 7tr�u�b PEiFK �.�. C r � f � t rrr xFlsldst�B re w 1 3r�cr jt r s� �r / l Golf Cots pod Ar 6/ r a i� � � �.� � �� � _ Limited :. 4{ Ei ! J a ✓ �yv rr y tlur�r� e• Metered :. l� S Fes Har€ i �rjoa Cat€ y , / rr J / / 4 gg . I Parking ys�' � t .,. ju ,_ �f3 sih ,%a31, OttCaYfy 4.. y: Ia ,,, s L PACT I OCEAN rrnw.rarldOuterWl Bay(?ioac.i *,4Ncstl!�)At?asi2Ca California State Lands Commission April 2002 Enter Parking Here($10).Gates open at 6:00 Location of tidal a.m.according to recorded information: flow opening General Parking Inquiries :714-846-3460 cT A 1 V 4 Hand Delivered to: 2012 JitV,," 4. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2 nd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conclitional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Enclosed please find original petitions uses to collect signatures of citizens opposed to the placement of a cell phone tower at the Springdale Pump Station. 210 signatures were collected. S it d by: G;ay 4n�ntj on nTanuary 4, 012 i Hand delivered to: 2B12 ' f � Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011- 052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Enclosed please find original petitions used to collect signature of citizens opposed to the placement of a cell phone tower at the Springdale Pump Station. These are an additional 9 signatures to the previously submitted 210 signatures. Submitted by: Mark Infanti on January 4, 2012 Mr.and,Mrs.Mark L.hifauti 18232 Foss ln _11,C -ach,CA 926,V lltult�lgton Bc,�, A92648 Y, 0� S-74. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10008 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Sam Lewson Description: Dear Mr. Gonzales, My name is Sam Lewson. I have lived in Huntington Beach, at 5991 Littlefield, near the Springdale pumping station, for about 22 years. I am an electronics engineer, and I am sure you have heard from many residents about the proposed Cell phone tower at the pumping station, and I wanted to give you my opinion. I have several points I would like to make. As you can imagine, I am strongly against the installation of the tower at the pumping station. I would like to share with you my reasons, as well as my suggestions. I realize that the evidence of cell phone tower dangers or safety is controversial and inconclusive. However, common sense dictates that being fifty feet from the tower, as some houses are, is not something to be taken lightly for a lifetime of exposure. Everyone agrees that cell phone towers do not belong in parks or schools, and it is not much of a stretch to realize that being exposed 24 hours a day in a nearby house for twenty years is an even worse situation. Although the evidence of health risk is inconclusive, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the tower will adversely affect nearby property values (say within 200 feet)because anyone looking for a house will prefer not to have a house right next to the tower. Regardless if the reason is aesthetics or fear of health risks, I can't imagine anyone deciding to buy such a house when there are other similar houses in the neighborhood a reasonable distance from the tower. The only way to sell a house near the tower will be to substantially lower the price. This is grossly unfair to the poor homeowners who through no actions of their own ended up living near the tower. In addition, houses farther away from the tower will be impacted due to the decline in neighborhood real estate comps. Realizing that this tower is now on its second or third proposed location, I would like to point that it is grossly unfair it is to have other neighborhoods reject the tower and our neighborhood be powerless to do the same. Does that mean that if we were the first proposed location, we could have rejected it and now it would be someone else's problem? That hardly seems fair. If no one wants the tower, then another location must be found for it that satisfies everyone. I do a lot of bikeriding to the beach and around the neighborhood, and I have noticed that there are several other sites close enough to the pumping station that they would fulfill the T-Mobile requirements for their coverage. For example, the fire station on Edwards Hill already has a cell phone tower, considerably further from the nearby homes than that at the pump station, and the expansion of this tower or the addition of another tower seems like a reasonable solution to the problem. If this tower is too far from the drop off and would not be able to reach all houses in the target neighborhood, perhaps extending it upward or adding another tower would solve the problem. i Alternately, there are three very large power poles behind the fire station near the water tank that are closer to the neighborhood below and would provide excellent coverage if they had cell phone antennas. If the power poles cannot be used, then perhaps a standalone cell phone tower could be built at or near the power station. All of these locations are about 1200 feet from the pumping station. Since the cell phone towers typically have a range of several miles, this movement of less than a quarter mile should not affect coverage. If the fire station is not a viable location for the tower, I would suggest the oil fields just a few hundred feet north toward Edwards Hill. The "Thomas" one on the fire station side of Edwards has all the same advantages as the fire station with respect to altitude and coverage, and already has street access from Edwards, as well as roads and electricity on the site. The "Brindle Thomas" one on the other side of Edwards is a little further from the slope, but could still be a viable location. Both of these sites are considerably removed from the nearest houses. My final suggestion is to simply move the pumping station location further out into the wetlands. The area is scheduled to be further developed as a nature area with trails and viewing structures, and I imagine a little bit of creative landscaping could be used to hide the tower several hundred feet into the wetlands where there would be much less neighborhood concern. Thank you very much for your time in reading this letter. I am very concerned about the tower and will be attending all the future meetings on the subject. Sam Lewson 5991 Littlefield Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. 92803 714-841-4464 home 714-469-8136 cell Expected Close Date: 12/14/2011 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 4:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10023 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Lisa Veal Description: Hello Mayor and City Council. I was planning on coming to the planning commission meeting tonight however, my son now has the stomach flu. I want to thank you for trying to come up with a plan for responsible placements of cell towers in our city. With the cost of housing here, I think it only fair to contact anyone living/working/going to school within a few thousand feet of a possible tower site. Will the public be voting on the changes to the zoning ordinance? Also...I recently had the opportunity to visit the proposed cell tower location at HH Mall. (This happens to be a center I shop in often)I am fully in favor of the tower being relocated from the Harbour View School/Park to this alternative location. The mall is a much better location. thank you for listening to my opinions and the voice of the residents here in beautiful HB. Expected Close Date: 12/14/2011 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i ` 98\Y ~\D� ^"'^ '^' - �\TY �[ HUHTDE 13-38'11 ]oani Flynn, city clerk City of Huntington beach 3OOD main st, 3'~floor Huntington beach, calif. 93G48 We are the occupant that received your legal notice-public hearing, 17081 edgewater In. h.b.92649. In response,no no no, my grandchildren live nearby that proposed location and neither this occupant nor any of our family of 3 generations residing in the immediate area wish to have any towers for any purpose. Please explain to the public why on earth you at city hall continue this annoyance. Why can not these wireless folks put their towers in the area cemetaries, no bother to those bodies! Please please stop trying to put communication towers in our residential areas! Thank you, ~� r l \_--��-~ `^--- v , / « 4� -\� 06 )Wet ' `�_~^� �� �' RECEIVED FROM AS PU AC RECORD FOR C C L.ME�NG OF CITY CLERK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK. C_ astal i evelopment Permit No. 11-015, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028, & Wireless Permit No. 11®052 SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY Applicant: Arnioe , eks — Coastal -usenes s Group Project Owner. T Mobile West Corporation Pro a ' wrner °.`.Cif off Huntin ton Beach P rtY Y 9 Location.,i 1840'f Springdale Street January 9, 2012 41 f Council Consideration Coastal Development Permit No. 11-015: • To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility (WCF) consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment at a City pumping station. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028: • To permit a WCF with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. Wireless Permit No. 11-052: j • To determine if the proposed WCF is compatible with the surrounding environment and consistent with the base zoning district. Project Location Springdale Pump Station: Approximately 0.5 acre city ' pumping station facility. • Sited located within an existing a single-family neighborhood sb,e�ts,te containing residences located to the north, east, and west, including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands to the south. Project History History of Events: • On August 30, 2010, the City Council revoked the Wireless Permit for a 51 ft. 7 in. high broadleaf monopole within Bolsa View Park (Brighton Drive). T-Mobile filed lawsuit against the City for Breach of Contract on September 29, 2010. • On November 7, 2011, the City entered into a settlement `- agreement with T-Mobile to only process a new Wireless Permit and any applicable permits (i.e., Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit) at the Springdale Pump Station. 2 Project Analysis Primary land use issues for the City Council to consider with evaluating the WCF: • Compatible with the surrounding structures and natural environment; • Designed to account for the unique characteristics of the project area; and • Consistent with General Plan, Local Coastal Program, RL zoning and CZ Overlay districts. .F 4 Project Analyses Cont'd The proposed WCF does not meet the following findings: • Incompatible with the surrounding environment Exceeds height of structures (i.e., residences and utility poles) and trees within the surrounding area. - Visually degrades the environment and character of the area which is free from exposed above-grade utilities 3 71 Project Analysis Cont'd =- a Inconsistent with requirements of CZ Overlay District and RL zoning district - Exceeds the 45 ft. maximum height limit permitted by the zoning code. Does not conform with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program - The WCF is inconsistent with Coastal Element requiring that development be designed to -- account for the unique characteristics of the project site. . :I Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial with the following findings: • Incompatible with the surrounding area because it is inconsistent with surrounding structures and =- environment • Visually degrades the environment and character of the surrounding area • Inconsistent with the height of the base zoning and -- - - CZ overlay districts 4 ar it ............ ', Late Communication Based upon written communication to the City received on January 6, 2012, T-Mobile is requesting to reduce the overall height of the WCF to a maximum 45 ft. • Request consistent with Alternative Action No. 1. End of Presentation JANUARY 9, 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PUBLIC HEARING; ITEM #1 — COASTAL PERMIT No. 11-015, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028, AND WIRELESS PERMIT NO. NO. 11-052 FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION �d CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interdepartmental Mere® TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager FROM: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager/Director of Economic Development DATE: January 9, 2012 SUBJECT: Supplemental Information — Public Hearing Item #1 and #2 T-Mobile Request to Reduce Proposed Cell Tower Height and T-Mobile Lease Agreement Signature Page On January 9, 2012, T-Mobile submitted two late communication items relating to the January 9, 2012 Special Meeting. These items are supplemental information for Public Hearing Items #1 and #2 and are attached for City Council's review. 1. A letter from T-Mobile requesting to reduce the height of the proposed Springdale Pump Station cell tower from 55 feet down to 45 feet. 2. T-Mobile signature page for the Springdale Pump Station Lease Agreement. Attachment SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Agenda hem No. m/ A�8 Supplemental Communication Cell tower -1- 1/9/2012 11:49:00 AM ATTACHMENT 1 I� ®� DavisWright 1tt $°° 5 Montgomery street :� 50 Tremaine LLP San Franoisco,CA 941 1 1-6533 Martin L.Fineman 415/276-6575 tel 415/276-6599 fax mattitifinemanf@dwt.com January 9,2012 Honorable Mayor Dan Hansen and Members of the City Counsel c/o Scott Field,Esq. Assistant City Attorney Box 190,2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: PM=Station Lease and Permits—January 9,2012 Agenda Dear Honorable Mayor Hansen and Members of the City Council: This letter is to confirm that in response to the City's request,T-Mobile West Corporation agrees to reduce the height of the Pump Station Wireless Facility to 45 feet. Respectfully yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Martin L. Fineman DWT 18814449Y10048172-000465 Anchorage NwYork Seattle 8dllevue Portland Shangtal Los Angeles San Francisco Washington,D.C. wnvAwt.eom ATTACHMENT 2 III' DO NOT RECORD 1 I Section 10.16 Sole and Only Lease This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between City and T-Mobile respecting the leasing of the Property to T-Mobile. Any agreements or representations respecting the Property not expressly set forth in this instrument are null and void. This Lease or any part of it may not be changed,-altered, modified, limited or extended orally or by any agreement between the Parties, unless such agreement is expressed in writing, signed and acknowledged by City and T-Mobile, or their successors in interest. Section 10.17 Additional Wireless Carriers T-Mobile acknowledges that it is the intent of the City to locate the facilities-of several wireless carriers at this location. T-Mobile shall make all reasonable efforts to locate and relocate its equipment and facilities in such a manner so as to accommodate any and all additional carriers licensed by the City to use the Property. T-Mobile will work in a timely and cooperative fashion to assist the City and any and all additional wireless carriers that are licensed by the City, to locate and operate a wireless facility on the City`s Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have caused this Lease to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first written above. T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a subsidiary of T-MOBILE USA, INC., a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware corporation". California Mayor print name ITS: (circle one) flfPres4deT*Vtr -R m1dent City Clerk AND By: INITIATED AND APPROVED: print name ITS: (circle one)Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst.Secretary-Treasurer REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney Exhibits: A: Legal Description B: Site Sketch Page 19 of 20 70684.docx-1/6/2012 6 rk K NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �,I la BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ���� `�_;°' `� A23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9, 2012, at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-01 5/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028/WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 2011-052 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY) Applicant:-Amiee Weeks — Coastal Business Group Project Owner: T-Mobile Vl Corporation Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach ReguE To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facil consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associat( equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping stab CUP. To permit a wireless communication facility with an overa 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstra- _-_ _.... proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obstrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street— Springdale Pump Station) Proiect Planner: Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-015, filed on 11/14/11 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5, 2011 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and \\nas1\user dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFT AGENDAS\PH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 http://huntinZonbeachea.gov/HBPublieComments/ http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/ \\nas1\user dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFT AGENDAS\PH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc Hand Delivered to: 211 :3 3; Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Enclosed please find original petitions uses to collect signatures of citizens op osed.to the placement of a cell phone tower at the Springdale Pump Station. �signa u e were collected. Submitted by: Gay Infanti on January !2012 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Request# 10158 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Shauna Quezada Description: January 2, 2012 To: The Huntington Beach City Council Members C/O Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-01 5/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Dear Don Hansen, Devin Dwyer, Connie Boardman, Keith Bohr, Joe Carchio, Matthew Harper and Joe Shaw, This letter is concerning the proposed cell phone tower at the Springdale pump station. I will make this short and hope to appeal to your heart as a Huntington Beach resident. I live at the end of Springdale right across from the pump station. We live in an awesome neighborhood with amazing neighbors as is the case with all of Huntington Beach. We have block parties, BBQ's, kids playing and parents out in the street socializing. We are also next to the preserved Bolsa Chica Wetlands where there are bunnies, squirrels, ducks, herons, hawks, falcons, coyotes, skunks, raccoons and numerous other animals roaming around. This will ALL be affected. Please show us how much you care about our neighborhood and all of the neighborhoods in our wonderful city by rejecting the placement of the Springdale pump station cell tower in a residential area. Ask yourself... would you allow this in your backyard? Would you expose your OWN kids to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields? I bet your answer is NO. This is not a vote for a new restaurant, shopping center or apartment building. This is a vote to save our neighborhood, health and our home values. If you let this happen what will be next? Stop it now! This is our HOME!! On Monday January 9, 2012,please vote NO on the proposed Springdale pump station cell phone tower. Thanks for your time and your heart. Shauna Quezada 1 18222 Foss Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Quezada.shaunag jzmail.com Expected Close Date: 01/06/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esgarza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10177 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Wink Williams Description: Dear Council Members and Planning Commission, I am writing to express my support of installing a cell tower at the end of Springdale Street. I reside in the tract adjacent to the proposed installation site. I am appalled by the misinformation being disseminated by the misinformed. This cell tower will be a positive for the area. It will not reduce home values by $100K and endanger nearby residents. Please approve the installation of the cell tower. Thank you. Glenn "Wink" Williams 18361 Oxboro Lane Expected Close Date: 01/09/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10180 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Complaint Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Shelly Gartner Description: The proposed site of a cell tower at the end of Springdale is too close to residences. That can't be the best place to put a cell tower. The area from Seapoint to Warner is huge. The tower can be installed in an inconspicuous location far away from our homes. One big reason why people live near the end of springdale is that there are no power lines above ground. The area looks cleaner and we feel healthier not having emissions from electric lines and cell towers. Please find a better solution and sustain our quality of life here in the Bolsa Landmark area. We have paid a lot of money to live here and would like to enjoy life as we found it. Thank you Expected Close Date: 01/10/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:11 PM To: 'CityClerkAgenda@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Fw: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional use Permit no. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility-Comment re Local Coastal Program Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From: Gay Infanti [mailto:ginfanti@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 04:52 PM To: Flynn, Joan; Hansen, Don; Dwyer, Devin; Carchio, Joe; Boardman, Connie; Shaw, Joe; Harper, Matthew; Bohr, Keith Cc: 'Mark Infanti' <minfanti@verizon.net>; 'Shelley Chacon' <shelleyhb@socal.rr.com>; 'Kelly O'Reilly' <koreilly@dfg.ca.gov>; larsondj@verizon.net <larsondj@verizon.net> Subject: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional use Permit no. 11-028/ Wireless Permit No. 2011-052(Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility - Comment re Local Coastal Program Ms. Joan Flynn, Mayor Hansen and Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Attached please find our letter voicing additional opposition to the proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower at the Springdale Pump Station due to its non-compliance with the Local Coastal Program. Please note that although we have referenced the LCP in our letter, we have not attached it due to its substantial size, but have instead included a link so that it can be accessed and viewed on line as needed. The LCP is found at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/gp/coastalelement.cfm Thank you in advance for your consideration of this last minute submittal in support of tomorrow's Public Hearing. Mark and Gay Infanti 1 January 8, 2012 Members of the City Council C/o Joan L. Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: T-Mobile has applied for the referenced permits to install a wireless communication facility at the Springdale Pump Station,which lies within the Coastal Zone (Huntington Beach Coastal Zone 2). This proposed project violates the Local Coastal Program (LCP) (See Exhibit A, City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Coastal Element found at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/gp/coastalelement.cfm). Although there are many elements of the LCP that bear on this project,we will address only a few in this letter that appeared to us to be of primary importance. One goal of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)found in section C7 is as follows: Preserve, enhance and restore,where feasible, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) in the City's Coastal Zone, including the Bolsa Chica which is within the City's Sphere of influence. In support of this goal,the LCP requires in Section C7.1.4 that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland with the exception that a lesser or greater buffer zone may be required. In either case,the following factors, among others, shall be considered when determining whether a greater or lesser buffer zone is warranted. a. Biological significance of adjacent lands:The buffer should be sufficiently wide to protect the functional relationship between wetland and adjacent upland. b. Sensitivity of species to disturbance: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to ensure that the most sensitive species will not be disturbed significantly by permitted development, based on habitat requirements of both resident and migratory species and the short and long term adaptability of various species to human disturbance. in addition, reduced buffer zone areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation, which was not done for this project. T-Mobile's proposed site at the Springdale Pump Station is adjacent to an environmentally sensitive site as defined in the LCP. According to T-Mobile's site plan,the proposed WCF will be placed 41 feet from the boundary of the BC Ecological Reserve and —SS feet from the wetland used by sensitive and endangered species and migratory birds. This project also violates other goals and requirements of the LCP, including the following: a. C.1.1—The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views and minimize visual resource impact. b. C.4.2.4,WCFs shall be sited to minimize visual resource impacts... minimizing visual prominence... Future plans for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve show that the area adjacent to the Springdale Pump Station will be a "full tidal" area. The LCP indicates that a hiking trail connecting the Harriet M.Weider Park with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will pass along the current boundary between the BC Ecological Reserve and the Springdale Pump Station. The proposed 55' cell tower would be at the edge of the future hiking trail and, according to the proposed design,will be prominently visible from this trail and will also destroy the public view to the ocean and the wetlands from elsewhere within the Coastal Zone. Part 2 of the LCP comprises HBZSO Coastal Overlay Zone ordinances, which implement the Coastal Program. Relevant zoning ordinances were cited and referenced in our previous letter of January 3, 2012. We apologize for the late submittal of these comments but have only recently completed our research into the LCP. This is yet another reason to deny T-Mobile's permits for a WCF at the Springdale Pump Station. Thank you, Mark and Gay Infanti HB Residents (Foss Lane) Exhibit A-City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Coastal Element found at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/gp/coastalelement cfm Esgarza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:27 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Oppose T-mobile cell tower From: Jeanne Whitesell [mailto:jswhitese113211@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:20 AM To: Boardman, Connie Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject: Oppose T-mobile cell tower Hi Connie, want to voice my opposition to the T-Mobile cell phone tower in my HB neighborhood. I kow you have heard all the arguments against it but I am pasting them below as a reminder of how detrimental it would be for a tower to be located here. Please vote against this proposal. Thank you for listeneing. Jeanne Whitesell Residents (voters) absolutely do not want cell phone towers where children live and play all the time (the proposed Springdale location is right next to bedrooms and yards in a residentially-zoned area). Houses located next to cell phone towers experience significant decreases in their market value. This will decrease your home value by$100,000 or more. The proposed tower will generate a constant electrical humming noise according to T-Mobile's representative, Mr. D. Bazerman. T-Mobile's permit application indicates noise levels of 60 db CNEL for the proposed tower. A transformer 100 feet away generates a noise of 50 db. A noise of 60 db is twice the volume of 50 db. This is not a noise that residents of this area should be required to endure 24 hours a day. Our privacy will be violated as T-Mobile will have the right to drive big trucks drive into our neighborhood to"install, upgrade, operate and maintain" the proposed tower on a 24/7 basis (usually done in the middle of the night). Workers on the tower will be able to see into the bedroom windows and patios of the surrounding homes at all hours of the day and night. T-Mobile is essentially asking for permission to run a commercial facility in a residential zone within 50 yards of our homes. The tower is aesthetically inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and adjacent wetlands despite the intent to disguise the tower as a palm tree. The proposed tower will stick up 20 feet above the tree line. This will destroy the Red Tail Hawk nesting site. The palm trees in the Springdale Pumping Station are used for ,jesting by Raptors. Additionally, the proposed tower location on the site is approximately 41 feet from the edge of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and approximately 55 feet from the open water used by the local and migrating bird populations. 1 t+ January 9, 20122 012 J Members of the City Council C/o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Coastal Permit No. 11-015/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-028/Wireless Permit No. 2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council: This is an addendum to my prior letter of 1/5/12, which discusses some of the problems of the categorical CEQA exemption regarding the permit applications above. Now that the official report of the planning commission was released we studied this issue a little more thoroughly. Please consider the issues below. The city is already embroiled in lawsuits over WCF permits given in the past. Again,I'm not a CEQA expert but it seems to me that there are serious CEQA questions to be raised against a categorical CEQA exemption. It seems to me the city would not want to issue the current permits in question above if it was reasonable that the city would again be inviting lawsuits in the future where they have to defend this action. I'm assuming the city is citing to 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15300 et seq. (http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/artl9.html) 15303 says specifically: 15303.New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to: (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas,up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Chacon letter 1/9/12 (addendum to 1/5/12 letter) 1 2 (b)A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure,totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas,this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. (c)A store,motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas,the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. (d)Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction. (e)Accessory(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports,patios, swimming pools, and fences. (f)An accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at a facility occupied by a medical waste generator,provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act(Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. Discussion: This section describes the class of small projects involving new construction or conversion of existing small structures. The 1998 revisions to the section clarify the types of projects to which it applies. In order to simplify and standardize application of this section to commercial structures,the reference to occupant load of 30 persons or less contained in the prior guideline was replaced by a limit on square footage. Subsection(c) further limits the use of this exemption to those commercial projects which have available all necessary public services and facilities, and which are not located in an environmentally sensitive area. Apparently the City contends this tower qualifies as a"small"new structure because its footprint is less than 2,500 square feet. Given that T-Mobile needs a CUP because the 55' tower exceeds the otherwise permissible height limits in this area, however, raises doubt as to whether footprint is the sole measure of what is "small." To the extent they are saying the tower is a commercial structure like a store or motel, the exemption for small commercial structures only applies if"the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive." It is right next to a protected wetlands. The surrounding area is clearly environmentally sensitive. Even if someone at the State did opine that the tower was unlikely to have an adverse impact on the wetlands,that doesn't negate the fact that the area IS environmentally sensitive. Chacon letter 1/9/12 (addendum to 1/5/12 letter) 2 3 For the above reasons and for those issues brought up in my 1/5/12 letter I think it would behoove the city to seriously consider whether declaring these permits as"categorically exempt" is wise considering possible future legal action. Please side with us the residents against the corporate interest of T-Mobile and vote"no"on T-Mobile's applications. Respectfully submitted, Richard and Shelley Chacon 5952 Littlefield Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Chacon letter 1/9/12 (addendum to 1/5/12 letter) 3 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply erser., ovo�'each.com] Sent: Monday, January D9, 201 52 E NM--.-- To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10187 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Dan Obert Description: It is my understanding that the a permit for the proposed cell tower at the pump station at the end of Springdale is opposed by local residents and is recommended by staff to be denied. Reasons identified for denial include proximety to wetlands, proximety to homes, and extreme height compared to adjacent homes and trees. These same arguements are equally valid at Bolsa View Park. In fact my and my neighbor's houses are actually closer to the proposed Bolsa View Park location than those at the pump station and that's looking from the front of my house, not the backyard. I know I'm coming off as aNIMBY, but of the two locations, the pump station is the more logical choice, both for aesthetics (already tall palms there), and reasonableness (placement in an industrial area rather than in the middle of a neighborhood park). Please do the right thing and don't let a 55 foot cell tower be built at Bolsa View Park. Expected Close Date: 01/10/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 Esparza, Pa$ty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user;_go�,youtreach.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 201', PMW To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaa'tents@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 10188 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Gary Finkel Description: My wife and I are unable to attend tonight's hearing regarding the proposed T-mobile. tower placed at the end of Springdale street. I am writing to state our opposition to this tower and others like it placed in or adjacent to residential areas. Concerns of health, safety, environment and neighborhood appeal need to be kept forefront in the minds and decisions of our elected leaders; you the city council. New revenue streams from corporate outsiders may be a tremendous temptation yet please remember who you represent,the residents not the corporations. It's doubtful that some small percentage of cell phone users are going to experience a significant improvement in their quality of life due to this tower. On the other hand, those of us that live in the shadow of it, must suffer consequences and risks that are associated with it. Expected Close Date: 01/10/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i ti 1/10/2012 17Z�19 �J Presentation to the HB City Council in Opposition to T-Mobile Cell Tower at Springdale Pump Station Re:Coastal Permit No.11-015/Conditional Use Permit No.11-028/ Wireless Permit No.2011-052 (Springdale Pump Station T-Mobile Wireless Facility) aw^;,. ..`5+�3.M:riv-• -�...: :;�."t....x'�, r,it k zr. „„'k*�.''� �,^�� ," T 1/9/2012 1 Summary of Major Issues T-Mobile wants to construct and operate their wireless cell tower in RL zone within 50 yards of homes and 50 feet of an environmentally sensitive area. Our opposition to this project fall into three major categories: Project not justified: • Significant Gaps in Service Not Demonstrated by T-Mobile • Least Obtrusive Site Not Demonstrated by T-Mobile Harm to Residents: • Decreased Property Values of up to 20% • Significant Increase in Ambient Noise Levels due to constant noise emitted at 60 CNEL and construction/maintenance vehicles and equipment Environmental Issues: • Project is non-compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) • Project impacts an habitat and wildlife of an Environmentally Sensitive Area • Project fails to provide the 100 foot Buffer Zone from Bolsa Chica Wetlands as required by Chapter 221 of the HBZSO,Section 221.22 Buffer Requirements � x 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower ? 2 1 1/10/2012 T®M®bile has not Justified the Project Significant Gaps in Service Not Demonstrated • The City's Notice for this Public Hearing states that the standard for approving a wireless permit(WP)is"to demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service." There has been no evidence provided by T-Mobile that a significant gap in service exists to justify the proposed WCF • Standard cell coverage in the proposed coverage area is good according to T-Mobile's own on-line coverage map,which was used by the city to verify that existing coverage in this area is good to moderate. 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 3 T®Mobile has not Justified the Project Least Obtrusive Site Not Demonstrated T-Mobile's wireless permit application asserts that the Springdale Pump Station is the"one and only one location within or without the City of HB"that can meet the objective of this project yet the application also indicates that no other candidate sites were pursued by T-Mobile. • A site cannot be demonstrated to be the least obtrusive when no other sites were considered. • A residential setting cannot be the least obtrusive site when there are non- residential sites available(which T-Mobile declined to consider) • Despite the intent to disguise the tower as a palm tree,the tower is aesthetically inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and adjacent wetlands due to its height and design • The base district height limit in this RL zoned neighborhood is 35 feet.That and the objectives of the Local Coastal Program demand the denial of T-Mobile's request for the height variance they require for this project. 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower ':;, ..`��; a L 2 1/10/2012 Harm t® Residents® Decreased Property Values It is well-documented by the Appraisal Institute and other organizations that homes located next to cell phone towers experience significant decreases in their market value. • For homes next to the site of the proposed tower,local realtors have said,in writing,that home values will decline by 20%,if buyers can be _. found. "x • Advice from counsel is that it's already too late to sell in order to prevent this loss because we would be legally bound to disclose the pending project to prospective buyers. " Local residents/children a ijoying exercise/play in front of the Pump Station,)also a favorite spot fpr neighborhood dog-walke s and photographers 1/e/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower S Harm t® Residents: Significant Increase in Ambient Noise Levels and Privacy Issues • T-Mobile's Mr.D.Bazerman,described the noise that will emitted from the proposed tower as a constant humming noise(11/16/11 community meeting) • T-Mobile's permit application indicates noise levels of 60 CNEL(Community Noise Equivalent Level)for the proposed tower • 50 CNEL is the typical noise level for quiet suburban cul-de-sacs,like ours;60 CNEL is twice as loud • Additional noise,traffic and other nuisance will occur .' *° due to construction and maintenance as T-Mobile is allowed to"install,upgrade,operate and maintain"the proposed tower on 24/7 basis • Residents'privacy will be invaded by workers on the tower who will be able to see into the windows and yards of the surrounding homes at all hours of the day and night. .t �m 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 6 3 1/10/2012 Environmental Impacts: Project Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Area and Potential Threats to Wildlife U.S.Department of the Interior,Guideline#4 for locating communication towers says, "Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands,other known bird concentration areas (e.g.,State of Federal refuges,staging areas,rookeries),in known migratory or daily movement flyways,or in habitat of threatened or endangered species." • The proposed tower at the Springdale Pump kA Station location is immediately adjacent to a �� � wetland in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve • This wetland is a habitat for threatened and } : endangered species and is a known daily and migratory flyway +gym Migrating Geese flying above pump station at dawn on Dec 18th,2011 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 7 Environmental Impacts: Non-Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) It appears that the City has done no"related environmental review pursuant to CEQA." • The notice of Public Hearing says that T-Mobile's permit applications are all "categorically exempt from the provisions of CEON',a decision based on phone conversations with individuals from San Diego Co.Offices of the CA Dept.of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service,who declined to put their opinions in writing • We disagree with this decision;the environmental �5 r review required by CEQA should comprise more than two phone callst • Local Dept.F&G and US F&W personnel in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Office,who have expresseda concern about this project,should have been contacted and asked to perform a specific site assessment as required by HBZSO Chapter 221.22,Buffer The nesting pair of Red Tail hawks Requirements flying above the pump station on Jan 61 2012 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 8 4 1/10/2012 Environmental Impacts: Non-Compliance with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) • The proposed T-Mobile project, located within the Coastal Appeal Zone, does not meet goals and requirements of the LCP,including: — C.1.1—The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views and minimize visual resource impact. — C.4.2.4,WCFs shall be sited to minimize visual resource impacts...minimizing visual prominence... • The LCP includes future plans for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve: — The area adjacent to the Springdale Pump Station will be restored to a"full tidal"area — That a hiking trail connecting the Harriet M.Weider Park with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands will pass along the current boundary between the BC Ecological Reserve and the Springdale Pump Station. • The proposed 55'cell tower would be prominently visible from this trail and would also destroy public views to the ocean and the wetlands from within the Coastal Zone 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower ,.k � # �'-�zr'� 9 Environmental Impacts: Failure to Provide 100 foot Buffer Zone • Section C7.1.4 of the LCP and Chapter 221 of the HBZSO both require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones of a minimum of 100 feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland — The LCP further provides that any reduced buffer zone area shall be reviewed by the Dept.of Fish and Game prior to implementation — Section 221.22—Buffer Requirements says"As a condition of development adjacent to environmentally-sensitive habitats"and"for development in the coastal zone,a minimum 100-foot buffer from the edge of the habitat as determined by a site specific biological assessment shall be provided...:' • The proposed tower location is approximately *'g � 41 feet from the edge of the wetlands and 55 � y feet from the open water used by the local and migrating bird populations,as well several nesting areas - R • No review or biological assessment was "§ performed Migratory birds on adjacen pond 1/8/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 10 5 1/10/2012 Birds Photographed at the Pond Next t® the Puy Station F'p 4 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower `^ *�> 11 Summary • There are many compelling reasons to prevent this project, primarily The destruction of neighborhood aesthetics, peace and quiet Economic and harm it will cause to the residents, none of whom will benefit from this project • Potential harm to sensitive and endangered wildlife • Please deny T-Mobile the permits and lease required to build this cell tower at the Springdale Pump Station • Prevent the harm this project would bring to residents,our neighborhood,and the surrounding environment 1/9/2012 Vote Against the Springdale Pump Station Cell Tower 12 6 1/10/2012 Title 44 - FEMA Regulations §60.22 Planning considerations for flood-prone areas. (a)The flood plain management regulations adopted by a community for flood-prone areas should: (1)Permit only that development of flood-prone areas which(i)is appropriate in light of the probability of flood damage and the need to reduce flood losses,(ii)is an acceptable social and economic use of the'land in relation to the hazards involved,and(iii) does not increase the danger to human life; (2)Prohibit nonessential or improper installation ot public utilities and public facilities in flood-prone areas. Ricardo Pineda, Director of Flood Management State of California Department of Water Resources On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:07:26-0800 "Pineda, Ricardo"<rpineda@water.ca.gov>wrote: >Catherine >Just to close the email loop we discussed via phone that I had >contacted the official form the City of Huntington beach regarding >the cell tower placement. >The community(City of HB) still needs to complete the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act prior t issuing a permit for the cell tower construction. > Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions 1/10/2012 T-Mobile states that is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 • Section 15303-Refers to "new, small facilities or structures"- the 55' tower exceeds the otherwise permissible height limits in this area • Small commercial structures only applies if"the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive"-the surrounding area is clearly sensitive according to the Public Resources Code (CEQ1A Statutes)section 30107.5 • Landmark Case Salmon Protecton &Watershed Network VS. County of Marin Cal App. 15Y District 2004- "a single family home was found not exempt, notwithstanding 15303(a), because is was adjacent to a protected habitat"-the court said the county could not consider mitigation measures United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington, D.C. 20240 • Memorandum To: Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 • From: Director Isl Jamie Rappaport Clark • Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers 2 1/10/2012 Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 50 designed to implement the MBTA. Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers • Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 3 1/10/2012 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION • FACT SHEET • Information provided by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau • NEW NATIONAL WIRELESS TOWER SITING POLICIES What requirements do personal wireless communications licensees have to determine whether a site is in a flood plain? • The FCC's environmental rules place the responsibility on each applicant to investigate all the potential environmental effects,and disclose any significant effects on the environment in an • Environmental Assessment(EA),as outlined in section 1.1311,prior to constructing a • tower. • The applicant is required to consult section 1.1307 to determine if its proposed • antenna structure will fall under any of the listed categories that may significantly affect • the environment. • If it does,the applicant must provide an EA prior to proceedingwith the • tower construction and.under section 1.1312,must await FCC approval before • commencing any such construction even if FCC approval is not otherwise required for such • construction. • The FCC places all proposals that may significantly impact the environment • on public notice for a period of 30 days,seeking any public comments on the proposed • Structures. 4 1/10/2012 The categories set forth in section 1.1307 include: • Wilderness Area • Wildlife Preserve • Endangered Species • Historical Site • Indian Religious Site • Flood Plain • Wetlands 5 RECEIVE , k', �'Cfl,- '° `�� E sib Presentation to City of Huntington Beach City Council January Shelley Chacon, M.D. JOAN L.FLYINN,CY CLERK I oppose the applications of T-Mobile for a coastal development permit, conditional use permit and wireless facility permit("WP") in connection with T-Mobile's desire to construct a 55-foot cell phone tower in a residential neighborhood at the Springdale Pump Station. I have many concerns including: "LEAST INTRUSIVE SITE" The 9th circuit of Appeals stated in it's MetroPCS vs. the City and County of San Francisco said that the "least intrusive" standards "allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites." I am inherently distrustful that T-Mobile has really looked at this and has a solid basis to determine that this is "in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service" (which is what is said in the public notice). I don't trust T-Mobile because: T-Mobile or the city have never been able to present to me despite numerous requests any written analysis of alternative sites. How could they possibly reach the conclusion of least obtrusive location feasible when"no alternative site" was looked at. My neighbors and I submitted what appear to be very satisfactory sites. (Edward's hill oil site. Part of submitted letter attached with maps) Since no analysis was given it makes one think that it doesn't exist. I propose you have no basis to reach the finding that this is the least obtrusive site. This leads to the conclusion that if these permits are approved the city has no interest with complying with the standard and law and the city's motivation is to simply get out of the lawsuit. (i.e. if approve this site then no longer are facing the lawsuit with T-Mobile.) That is inappropriate. That is not looking out for the citizen's in the neighborhood. That's trying to get out of a bad decision made earlier when it approved locations at Harbor & Bolsa View which shouldn't have been approved. Surely the City Council must realize that if voters do not want cell phone towers where children play occasionally, voters absolutely do not want cell phone towers were children play all the time (which is what the proposed Springdale location is—right next to bedrooms and yards in a residentially-zoned area). You also know this location is intrusive because 300+people are saying that it is! Furthermore, this residential setting is not the least obtrusive site where there are non- residential sites available. How could something in a residential neighborhood not be more obtrusive than in a commercial area, oil field, fire station, etc. HEALTH Especially living in such close proximity bordering on the site and exposing my children to such close radiation. I am a local pediatrician serving the community and knowing what I do now I'll move if this is approved. Health effects cannot be used as an argument against cell towers according to federal law (1996), even though recent studies in 2010 and 2011 in reputable journals (like the Lancet) show they might cause cancer. The IARC (Int'l Agency for Research on Cancer) in May 2011 reclassified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (emitted by cell phone towers) as a Class 2B carcinogens (possibly causes cancer). This DOES affect public opinion and therefore is pertinent as it causes: DECREASED PROPERTY VALUE about 20% loss in value for those right next to the tower. (Letter from Debbie Neubauer local real estate agent) and Alicia Ives who is also an evaluator who gives written opinions on properties the banks must sell. Companies are using these towers for financial profit at the expense of the surrounding taxpayers. How can the homes in the area going to be compensated? NOISE AND ACTIVITY The increased activity associated with cell tower maintenance that close to my house 24/7 with bright lights People move here, and pay dearly, for the privilege of having an open view, fresh breezes, and a QUIET community. We have a right to quiet enjoyment of our property (Page 7 of the Site lease agreement Article 3 Section 3.01(g) states that the "city shall provide T-Mobile and its employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors access to the Premises and the Facilities twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week or as designated in permit approvals.") AESTHETICS A Fake Palm tree 20 foot higher than the surrounding palm trees and 3 times their diameter (19 feet wide) will result in decreased quality of life Page 2 of the Site lease agreement Sectlonl.0I (h) states that"it is the intent of the City to collocate the facilities of several wireless carriers at this location". That means that if this is approved we will probably have several WCF's in our backyard thereby increasing the health risks and visual blight. This residential neighborhood has underground utilities and no above ground telephone poles or electrical lines. This will be out of place. Our whole neighborhood is up in arms about this. We urge you to vote No. Shelley Chacon 5952 Littlefield Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 GknwiY.2,, ON TARGET Alicia Ives 5515 E. Stearns St. Long Beach, CA 90815 (562)431-2525 fax (714)642-9900 cell c21 aliciaivesa-netscape.net www.myagentaliciaives.com January 3, 2012 RE: 5952 Littlefield Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Dr. Chacon, It is my understanding that the city is considering placing a cell phone tower directly behind the backyard of your home. This would be most unfortunate for you, your family, and your property value. As a local Realtor for over 10 years and long time resident of Huntington Beach, I can assure you that your property value will be adversely affected. I am also hired by banks as an evaluator to give written opinions on properties the banks must sell. I can assure you that a communication tower will cause your property and the property values of the neighborhood to become non-conforming in relation to the rest of the area. With the public perception of health risks and the unsightly intrusion where formally there was only open space, you can expect a decrease in property values of at least 20%-30%. It is my professional opinion that a utility tower of any type visible from your home would have a negative impact on your property value. The unobstructed view from your backyard attracted you to this property and caused you to purchase it over the many other homes available at that time. It would be unfortunate to loose the value in your home that you have work so hard to build and maintain. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Century 21 On Target 714-642-9900 Debbie Neugebauer Associate Broker Office: (714) 842-3203 Facsimile: (714) 847-4902 Tuesday,November 15, 2011 Shelly Chacon 5952 Littlefield Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Shelley, This letter is to confirm our conversation from yesterday. I completely understand your great concern over the possibility of a cell phone tower being placed directly behind your home . As we discussed, this would definitely have a negative impact on the value and ability to sell your property. The area that is directly behind your property which currently contains the pump station is already a negative factor which decreases the desirability of your property. Adding a cell phone tower to that area would be a further detriment to the property. It would be a huge eye sore and would add insult to injury to your property. I would estimate the decrease in value to your property would be a minimum of 20%. The properties in the Bolsa Landmark tract are averaging in the $875,000.00 range. That would be a devaluation of a minimum of $175,000.00. That would be assuming we would be able to find a buyer that would find the property acceptable with that type of problem located directly behind the property. Your home may very well become un saleable unless at a deeply discounted price. I am not aware of any cell phone towers that have been placed directly behind a residential neighborhood. I have always seen them in commercial areas of the cities. I think this is a very poor choice for placement of a cell phone tower, certainly there are other options for placement that would not have such a negative impact on a community. Sincerely, Debbie Neugebauer Associate Broker ®EVwNq CMM RBLM R E A L E S T A T E 19440 Golden West Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 December 7, 2011 Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attached please find 5 maps that show my suggestions for relocating the cell tower proposed for the Springdale pump station. I trust you and T-Mobile are also SERIOUSLY exploring the other suggestions already submitted by my neighbors including the Infanti's. Stephanie Lewson also submitted the first suggestion. 1. I think the best site for T-Mobile is #1 on Map B (Cell Tower Suggestions - Edwards St. Map from City). This site is located on the west side of Edwards Hill in a fenced off area with a sign saying "Thomas, Brooks Oil Lease, 18393 Edwards St., (714) 556-1834". See map A(Area Map for orientation—Google) for a broader view showing more area for orientation purposes. This is an ideal location for the following reasons: A. On edge of hill close to, with line-of-site coverage overlooking area of proposed Springdale pump station site. Map C (Edwards Hill Google Satellite) shows the topography better). B. Is already elevated so do not need as high/expensive/obtrusive a tower. C. Is outside the coastal zone (see attached map D. HB Zoning Map) and therefore could NOT be appealed to the coastal commission. (Note the Springdale pump stations is IN the coastal zone AND coastal APPEAL zone and IF passes City Council WILL be appealed to the coastal commission.) D. There are NO residences within 750 feet. Therefore nobody should object. Also when the city legally notifies "resident's within 500 feet" there will be no one to notify. Note also that the east side of Edwards St. across the street is zoned"Open Space—Parks and Recreation Subdistrict" (Map D)therefore no residences could be built close by in the future. E. Tall power and telephone lines already surround Edwards Hill. (Note that the Springdale pump station is IN a residential neighborhood with existing utilities underground without power or telephone lines and poles making the proposed tower MORE obtrusive in that community.) F. Already fenced off. G. Easy access to trucks and large equipment for installation and servicing. Should not in any way impede the existing activities already taking place at the site. Map B does show that unfortunately this site is in county not city property but this doesn't preclude a tower being placed here—just a legal bump over which to be negotiated. Letter to Andrew Gonzales from Chacons 12/7/11 Page 1 Google t�Jgle Get Google Maps on your phone �9 Tiwthe word"GMAPS"to 466453 o' '3 'r '�Durg Or °_ d a o It ? View Park Or ori o s Ndina Or Point Lama Oro r g a Cory Marine Sister Ave u Stater Ave r Or n Vim Park Price Or Fenley Or n � CMta Parma I n M. N C^ serene of Z Hope $ a� Rog"or C `B �' ' a View Park r+a, eke Louraec Or e y r e oa�o Co r9 -`. ,Z m ' Armada Dr ode praF y g RaphaelDr a r D Jaromes or (}' 40 Pmw Or Villa Nueva Ln r c D G Boise Terrier Or ' ? Fanmgwater Dr 3 n � r View Park 4,'fQ c Padua Or Kiser or Vatche•Or m c Y G Lancete'.d Or H9msrure or Balmoral or p yL� G'ieb yq,._«o Dr Foksh� dDr ' Lucre++to Or '0.al f0 Saltwrt Ave Varsity or Central Park Di Dr°Od Ln Ni e o c J T Glernror Or �8 ./ff n c '9ie Net or yew s o r 3� Liakfia,° 'Yad oO F�.O M 4� Ellis Ave I overlooM of re Polo Ca score C Von, .` J L Q C) 6 �iW1Ytd AVe ,62011 Google ,ti�`O\ - Map date 0-101160o4w Proposed Cell Tower Site Unlisted 0 views Created on Dec 7 By Shelley Updated< 1 minute ago 4 My Proposed Cell Tower Site 4 Springdale Pump Station �' 'r4 11 ama• 31 . tF.W,r.•.nrIt ,<. t .1 ice,.. ail.;' �•' ' 1 � �i 1 � { %e r ! ,�. ��IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII ' ' � ` :: • � � � ��` Milli, �r - I IN{� INIIIIiIII Illllilllll - � ' 6 r' Ssdd) t■� l To see all the details that are visible on the Go\ isle screen, use the "Print' link next to the map. _ 7 ; y41 F, l 0001, r . r ' _ tit � r� .'�• � fly n �� ' � • ' .r i CAI r ai• r NOTICE OF PUiU(HEARINGG�.-e BEFORE_THE CITY COUNCIL- <' OF THE i' CITY OF HUNTINGTON' O F OF i BEACH" NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-` ICATI EN that on,Monday,Jan uary 9, 2012; at 6:00:-; p.m. in the City Council,„ Chambers,. 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council'; will hold a public hear- ing on the following,p STATE OF CALIFORNIA) planning and zoning - items: COASTAL DEVELOP- SS. MENT PERMIT'NO. 11-•, 015/,CONDITIONAL y COUNT( OF ORANGE USE PERMIT NO. '1I- , 026/WIRELESS PERMIT,- ' NO.. 2011 -05.2., (SPRINGDALE PUMP ; STATION 'T-MOBILE.,, WIRELESS FACILITY)" am a citizen of the United States and a Applicant:Amiee Weeks,„ - Coastal Business-{ resident of the County of Los Angeles; I Group Project Owner::; T-Mobile.West Corpora- , am over the age of eighteen years, and tion Property Owner. i City'. of Huntington; not a party to or interested in the notice Beach Request:CDP:To permit the installation published. I am a principal clerk of the of a new wireless eom HUNTINGTON BEACH municati facility con- i sisting off 55 ft. high ; monopole designed as a , INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged.a . palm tree with eight (8) 'panel antennas on two; newspaper of general circulation on arrays, one'GPS anten-;.' na,.and associated sup-? September 29, 1961, case A6214, and port equipment on a site { containing a fully 'se- June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the cured City pumping•sta-! tion: CUP: To permit a City. of Huntington Beach, County of wireless communication.; facility.with an overall' Orange, and the State of California. height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and permitted.WP:To'dem,- onstrate that the pro- complete copy as was printed and posed wireless commu- nication facility "is" published on the following date(s): located in the least obs-" trusive location feasible, I. so as to eliminate any .; Thursda December 29 2011 gaps in service. y Lion: 18401 Springdalegdhie I'Street, 92648 (south 3'terminus of Springdale Street - Springdale ' Pump Station) Project Planner': Andrew. I certify (or declare) under penalty Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV EN that Item#1 is cate of perjury that the foregoing is true gorically exempt from the provisions of the` and correct. California Environmental" Quality Act. NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIV- EN that Item #1 is lo- cated within the ,ap- Ipealable jurisdiction of,,' :the Coastal Zone and'= Executed on January 5, 2012 iincludes'Coastal Devel- opment Permit 'No.11- at Los Angeles, California 015,filed on 1 wit4 1 iconjunction' with the','- above request. The:;'; Coastal Development: )Permit hearing consists" of.a public hearing, City' Council discussion and' action. Item #1 may be'-1 CP to the Coastal,- i Commission, South Coast.Area Office, 200`' / Oceangate, loth Floor„'' Signature Long,Beach�after' CA 908 0- of city appeals.or if Title 14,Section 13573 of.the'-. California Administrative", Code is applicable: . ON FILE: A.copy of the proposed request'is'on'*, file in the Planning-and Building Department, 2000 Main Street,',Hun-'; tington .Beach, Califor nia 92648, for inspec- tion by the, public. A ;copy;of the staff report' wile be available to in-1 i terested parties at the.! City Clerk's Office on January 5,2011. . ' ALL INTERESTED-PER- SONS are invited to at- tend said,hearing and express opinions or sub- mit' evidence, for or- against the application ' as outlined above. If you challenge the City Coun-- cil's action in-court, you may be limited to raising' only those issues you or;; someone else raised at., the public hearing de- -scribed in this notice,or` in written 'corre- spondence delivered to' the City at, or prior to, the 'public -hearing. If there are any further' questions please call the" Planning and Building.: Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items.•Direct"' your written communi='t cations to the City,Clerk. Joan L.,Fly6n,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main'Street,20 Floor Huntington Beach,' California 92648 (714)536-5227 //hun&VW&eoc11—. 9ov/NI3Puli1lcCon-enft/.4 http://www. hunting tonbeachca.gov/ Published Huntington' Beach Independent De-' cember 29,2011 -- -- — 71 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL PROOF OF OFTHE CITY OF HUNTINGTON' PUBLICATION BEACH � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that on Monday,Jan- uary 91 2012, at 6:00', p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main' Street, Huntington "i Beach, the City Council..; STATE OF CALIFORNIA) will hold a public hear-.., ing on .the following S�� planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOP COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 0.15 CONDITIONAL ONAL 0.15/CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT NO. 11-•. 028/WIRELESS PERMIT NO.. 201,1 -0 5 2 I am a citizen of the United States and a (sP TI PUMP . ' TATI ON ON T-MOBILE resident of the Count of Los Angeles; I WIRELESS FACILITY}. Y g •� Applicant:Amiee Weeks , am over the age of eighteen years, and - coastal Business'' I Group Project Owner: ,; not a art to or interested in the notice T-Mobile est Corpor party tion' Property'Owner. ' City of Hun r: tington- published. I am a principal clerk of the Beach Request:CDPc Toy permit the installation HUNTINGTON BEACH of a new wireless com--' munication facility con- INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a sisting of 55 ft. high of general circulation on monopole designed as'a newspaper g ; palm tree with eight(8) September 29, 1961, case A6214, and panel arrays,aone GPSennas �anten- June 11 1963 case A24831 po for the and associated sup- ; , port equipment on a site City of Huntington Beach County of containing a fully se- . cured City pumping sta- tion. CUP: To permit,a Orange, and the State of California. wireless communication ; facility with an overall Attached to this Affidavit is a true and height of 55 ft. in lieu,; complete co as was printed and 0f a maximum ,45 m- ' p copy p permitted.WP:To dem- onstrate ; onstrate that the pro- published on the following date(s): posed wireless commu- nication facility 'is', .located in the least,obs- tru " Thursday December 299 so as 2011 so*as location feasible to eliminate any,{ 'gaps in service. Loca=" tion: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south . terminus of 'Springdale certify (or declare) under penalty street - Springdale' Pump,Station) Project,i Planner: Andrew of perjury that the foregoing is true NOTICE TICE I N IS HEREBY GIV- EN ' Cate- and correct. go that Item#1 t from gorically 'exempt from i the -provisions of the . California Environmental Quality Act. . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that Item-#1 is)07 Executed on January 5, 2012 Gated within the ap- pealable jurisdiction of at Los Angeles, California the Coastal Devnd'i includes Coastaltal .bevel-,t opment Permit No.11- 015,filed on 11/14/11 in, conjunction with the 1 above ,requ'est. The ' Coastal: Development'; Permit hearing consists of a public hearing,City Council discussion and- action.'Item #1 may,be appealed to the Coastal," / Commission,"South, Signature Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, loth Floor,'' Long Beach, CA 90802-'°, 4302, after, exhaustion; of city appeals or if Title 14, Section 13573 of the- California Administrative - Code is applicable.. ON FILE.,A copy of the:', proposed request is,on;. file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street,'Hun tington. Beach, Califor- nia ,92648, for inspec- tion, by'the public. A copy ot_the staff-report' will be available,to in-' terested parties.at the City Clerk's Dffice„on . January,5,2011. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are invited to at- tend said hearing, and . express opinions or sub- mit evidence' for or against the application' as outlined above. If you Challenge the City Coun-.. cil's action in court, you may be.limited to raising' only those issues you,or someone else raised at. the' public hearing de- scribed in this notice,or.: An w-ritten corre spondence delivered :to ; the City at, or prior to, the public .hearing. If ' there are any further" questions,please call the,,' Planning and Building Department at '(714),- 536-5271 and refer. to" the above items. Direct,' your written communi- cations to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach" 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,,` California,92648 . (714)536-5227 9ov/N http://www. huntingtonbeachca.gov/ Published Huntington'; Beach Independent 'De-y.' cember.29,.2011-. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-015/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028/WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 2011-052 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY) Applicant: Amiee Weeks — Coastal Business Group Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corporation Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach Request: CDP: To permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully secured City pumping station. CUP. To permit a wireless communication facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless communication facility is located in the least obstrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street, 92648 (south terminus of Springdale Street — Springdale Pump Station) Proiect Planner: Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-015, filed on 11/14/11 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5, 2011 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and \\nas1\user dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFT AGENDAS\PH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc I Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/ \\nasl\user dirs\hbit\EsparzaP\DRAFT AGENDAS\PH Notice(Springdale Pump Station Tmobile facility).doc r�, _ s Printed try;0602 Patricia Gamin* Dec 20,2011,t-54� � m { $81BS�Br80l1: Phone: Ad#34754876 � 4w. 1 x,149.340 City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) `6 1, 12 29.11 15.00 7CId Intg+ ..x - PO BOX 784 1 ;» Hunttngton Beac,CA 92648-0784 F pie &Legal Huntington Beach Liner F Tak O602 Patrictai Gamrno CU00070479 13000-Legal Notices- W rrce $120.00 TCN HBt $120.00 Of Huntington Besch-CleWELO Patty EEsparza t .mm -114j 374-1557- Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CRY OF HUNIINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9,2012,at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTAL DEVELOP- MENT PERMIT NO. 1I- 015/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 11-028/ WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 2 0 1 1 - 0 5 2 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MORILE WIRELESS FACILITY) Applicant:Amiee Weeks - Coastal Business Group Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corpora- tion Property Owner: City of,Huntington Beach Request: COP: To per- mit the installation of a new wireless communi- cation facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully se- cured City pumping station- CUP: To permit a wireless communica- tion facility with an overall height of 55 ftt in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless com- munication facility is located in the least obstrusive -loeation feasible so as to elimi- nate any gaps in service. Location: 18401 Springdale Street,92648 (south terminus of --- ad proof pg.1 --- :- . t?ASS°I trot@ r + A, -Printed by:0602 Patricia Gatnino Dec 20,2011-A5d pm Salesperson: Phone: r+ !. Adf134754878 Springdale Street Springdale Pump Sta- tion) Project Planner: Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item 01 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is Located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal tone and includes Coastal Devel- opment Permit No.11- 015, filed onll/I4/11 in conjunction with the above request- The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing,City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, loth Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14,Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. ON FILE:A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Hun- tington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5,2011. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at(714)536- 5271 and refer to the above items- Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,Cali- fornia 926M (714)536-5227 111111WIM1111111iWonboodica. gwI ttaPat>Nccotrmrenrsl httpt!/www:--- huntingtonbeachca.gov/ Published Huntington Beach Independent De- cember 29,2011 --- ad proof pg.2 --- Printed by.0602 Patricia Oarrino F?ec 20..2011,10 56 am Gos S&Je g rat: Phone: Ad#3475WS_ n It; '4)536.5227 ` 12-2941 x 146.340 Of Huntington Beach(Parent) 12-29-11 � 14.50 TCN ice,Box784 n n Beac,CA 92648-0784 gta8 &Legai Huntington Beachy 06i02 Patricia Gamfno179 13000- otion TCN H8i $116.Ot1 Cityt Of.Huntington Beach=CleWs Esparza - (71 )374-557 Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR#NG BOOK THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTHIGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, January 9,2012,at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: COASTALDEVELOP- MENT PERMIT NO. II- OIS/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-028/ WIRELESS PERMIT NO. 2 0 1 1 - 0 5 2 (SPRINGDALE PUMP STATION T-MOBILE WIRELESS FACILITY) Applicant:Amiee Weeks - Coastal Business Group Project Owner: T-Mobile West Corpora- tion Property Owner: City of Huntington Beach Request: COP: To per- mit the installation of a new wireless communi- cation facility consisting of 55 ft. high monopole designed as a palm tree with eight (8) panel antennas on two arrays, one GPS antenna, and associated support equipment on a site containing a fully se- cured City pumping station. CUP. To permit a wireless communica- tion facility with an overall height of 55 ft. in lieu of a maximum 45 ft. permitted. WP: To demonstrate that the proposed wireless com- munication facility is located in the least _o bstr.usi v.e-...tacatio n feasible so as to elimi- nate any gaps in service. Location. 18401 Springdale Street,92648 (south terminus of --- ad proof pg.1 --- :VL`�,SS} I�f �`E',T1 I AjD iE IS�f#tWP, �. Printed by:0602 Patric la Gamino Dec 20,2011,R10:55 am QIDBr.L �$' P.B Salesperson: Phone: Ad q 347M76 Springdale Street - Springdale Pump Sta- tion) Project Planner Andrew Gonzales NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item 01 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Devel- opment Permit No.11- 015, filed on11/14/11 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item #1 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, after exhaustion of city appeals or if Title 14,Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable- ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Hun- tington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on January 5,2011. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.if you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence deliv- ered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536.5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,Cali- fornia 92648 (714)536-5227 Iflynn(g3a surfcity-hb,org http://www. huntingtonbeachca.gov/ ---- ad proof pg.2 --- At3AV-09-008-L uoi}inj1sui,p �uauaa6jey�ap suas ®09L5®Atf3AV IIjege6 al zasium a 03-fJaAMMM alpha;el za41nsuo3 ® aalad q Sap% nbRI 1 2 3 HB Chamber of Commerce Orange County Assoc. of Realtors Amigos De Bolsa Chica President Dave Stefanides President 2134 Main St. Ste. 100 25552 La Paz Road P.O. Box 1563 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 5 9 10 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Environmental Board Chair Huntington Harbor POA President Robert Smith P.O. Box 791 PO Box 865 21352 Yarmouth Lane Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 25 25 40 California Coastal Commission California Coastal Commission Hearthside Homes Theresa Henry South Coast Area Office 6 Executive Circle, Suite 250 South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 41 41 48 Bolsa Chica Land Trust Bolsa Chica Land Trust Westminster Village HOA 5200 Warner Avenue, Ste. 108 Evan Henry, President 5200 Blackpool Road Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1812 Port Tiffin Place Westminster,CA 92683 Newport Beach, CA 92660 49 Coastkeepers Gary Brown 3151 Airway Ave.Suite F-110 Costa Mesa, CA 92663 II T Yajnzeaj Iaad Ase3 J01 ® jaded pa8AT @09L5 31V'IdW31 @AjaAd ash �;aa4S uolpnilsul aaS ® V slagel Iaad Ase3 0918/0919®fa9ny oane aIglledwoo ww L9 x ww gZ jPwjoi a 9149nbg3 0918/09190�J9Ay qj!m algijedwoo,,8/9 Z x,j azls lagel 159-174-05 159-174-06 159-175-27 Burgess Lynn A Ikeda Richard T Hooker David E Jr 5852 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5872 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5892 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1005 92648-1005 92648-1041 159-175-26 159-175-25 159-17 5-24 Padilla Sandra M Allen Barbara Ursula Sigert Martin Michael L 5912 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5922 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5932 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1007 92648-1007 92648-1007 159-175-23 159-175-18 159-175-19 Manz Jeff& Lori Rubly Robert P & Pamela A Rodoracio David R&Suzanne 1 5942 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5971 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5975 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1007 92648-1006 92648-1006 159-175-22 159-175-20 159-175-21 Asher Abraham Gottschalk Family Trust Hopkins Don Jr&Tamara A 5976 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5981 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 5982 Bellfield LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1007 92648-1006 92648-1007 159-173-09 159-173-10 159-173-11 Decandido Louis P Dennaoui Christine Nielsen Carolyn Ann 5802 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5812 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Po Box 436Morro Bay, CA 93443-0436 92648-1009 92648-1009 Occupant 159-174-02 159-183-01 5822 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Meares Walter A lii & Namba Marsha L Dukeshire Donald &Aleelut 92648-1009 5831 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Po Box 3075Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1008 92605-3075 Occupant 159-174-01 159-183-02 5832 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Johnson Jerris F Burrus John R & Frances C 92648-1009 5841 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5842 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1008 92648-1009 159-182-12 159-183-03 159-182-11 Newton Darren &Sandra Petteys Joel E &Jennifer A Tracy Theodore& Dori 5851 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5852 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5861 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1008 92648-1009 92648-1008 159-183-04 159-182-10 159-183-05 Swaaley Robert L& Patricia Garibaldi David 1 Contreras Guillermo 5862 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5871 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5872 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1009 92648-1008 92648-1009 159-182-09 159-183-06 159-182-08 Ledgerwood John B Ingram Michael & Becky Miller Bonnie E 5881 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5882 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Po Box 1594Sunset Beach, CA 90742- 92648-1008 92648-1009 1594 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 / 4 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery°5160/8160 09�8/09G90 AJ9Ad oane algl}edwoo ww Lq x ww gZ tewjof ap a11anbl}3 09 L8/0919®AaaAd qm algl}edwoo„g/g z x„G azls lagel Occupant 159-183-07 159-182-07 5891 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA Good James I Poss Charles W li 92648-1008 5892 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach,CA 5901 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach,CA 92648-1009 92648-1010 159-183-08 159-182-06 159-183-09 Barber William L&Cheryl A Brescini Michael A Mc Cormick Michael A& E Susan 5902 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5911 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 5912 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1011 92648-1010 92648-1011 159-182-05 159-185-01 159-185-02 Wilson John David Ross Arnold G Garcia Christopher M & Mona L 5921 Carbeck DrHuntington Beach, CA 18132 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 18142 Foss LnHuntington Beach,CA 92648-1010 92648-1013 92648-1013 159-185-03 159-185-04 159-185-05 Hadley Roy E Bunyak Marilyn Johnson Burley Ray&Dorothy E 18152 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 18162 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 18172 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1013 92648-1013 92648-1013 9-1 159 185 06 15 5-07 159-185-08 8 Chikami Kenneth E Bayett Jeffrey&Loreen Wong Douglas D . 18182 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 18192 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 1334 Dillon RdFort Washington, PA 92648-1013 92648-1013 19034-1716 Occupant 159-185-09 159-185-10 18202 Foss LnHuntington Beach,CA Paturzo Lawrence J Quezada Jesse &Shanna 92648-1056 18212 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 18222 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1056 92648-1056 159-185-11 159-222-09 Occupant Infanti Mark L Wang Kai-hsuan &Yueh-ying 6011 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 18232 Foss LnHuntington Beach, CA 15619 S Ainsworth StGardena, CA 92648-1014 92648-1056 90247-4229 159-223-08 159-223-07 159-222-10 Luther Michael &Debbie Decuir Tom &Lyne M Norris Roger Lee 6012 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6022 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6031 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1014 92648-1014 92648-1014 159-223-06 159-222-11 159-222-12 Mena Trust Krager Martin& Diane C Patel Kanti G & Ramila K 6032 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6041 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6557 Ashbury CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1014 92648-1014 92648-6634 Occupant 159-223-05 159-222-13 6051 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA Thien Larry Garland & Katherin Ann Cruz E Family Trust 92648-1014 6052 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6061 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1014 92648-1014 C 0 //b /� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 G8/09 Gg@ 1U@Ad oaAe algl1edwoo ww Lg x ww gZ lewioi ap a;anbi13 09 G9/091g®faaAd ql!m alglkedwoo„g/g Z x«G ezls lagel s 159-223-04 159-223-03 159-223-02 Lai Michael S Salisbury Ritchie Aaron& Danielle Bennett Geoffrey R& Dana K 6062 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6072 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 6082 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1014 92648-1014 92648-1014 159-223-01 159-233-24 Occupant Bahlinger Henry W Koh Sandy S 18161 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 6092 Irongate CirHuntington Beach, CA 3107 Capa DrHacienda Heights, CA CA 92648-1045 92648-1014 91745-6501 159-233-25 159-233-26 159-233-27 Tamaroff Marc A Tiu Christine Poshioh Walsh Mark A 18171 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 18181 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 18191 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1045 CA 92648-1045 CA 92648-1045 159-233-28 159-241-01 159-241-02 Vancao Thomas& Nguyen Lauren L Blake Leo R&L Gail Bradford Craig M 18201 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 18211 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 18221 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1043 CA 92648-1043 CA 92648-1043 159-241-03 159-222-08 Occupant Wood Kent & Linda E Ho Benjamin N K 6012 Jasonwood DrHuntington Beach, 18231 Ivorycrest LnHuntington Beach, 1310 E Ocean Blvd#6031-ong Beach, CA 92648-1015 CA 92648-1043 CA 90802-6915 159-223-09 159-224-08 159-223-10 Perez Robert J & Lewis Katherine E Nunley Christopher& Michael Stephanian Erick 6001 Judwick CirHuntington Beach CA 6002 Judwick CirHuntington Beach CA 477 E Trailwood DrTerre Haute, IN 92648-1018 92648-1018 47802-9606 Occupant 159-224-07 159-224-06 6011 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA Wisdom Gail E&Wesley L Tajima Yasushi 92648-1018 6012 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, 6022 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1018 92648-1018 159-223-11 159-224-05 159-223-12 Locklear Carole Ann Gardiner Gloria Adeline Shuman Bruce Howard &Carrie 6031 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6032 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6041 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1018 92648-1018 92648-1018 159-223-13 159-224-04 159-223-14 Osman David &Judy Leo Kathryn M Russell Richard L&Maryann 6051 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6052 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6061 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1018 92648-1018 92648-1018 159-224-03 159-223-15 159-224-02 Ford Richard L Kuiper David L&Sue Ann M Webb Jennifer Catherine 6062 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6071 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6072 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1018 92648-1018 92648-1018 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 G8/09 G9®Aa9Ay 09Ae algltedwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z jewaof 9p oNonbl13 09 G8/0919®Aa9Ay ul1M olQ1ledwoo,,9/9 Z x j 9zls logel 159-223-16 159-224-01 159-174-07 Woo Tze-hsin& Katy H Normandin George R Wilson Roger S 6081 Judwick CirHuntington Beach,CA 6082 Judwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 5862 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 92648-1018 92648-1018 CA 92648-1037 159-174-08 159-174-09 159-174-10 Spurlock Campbell &Teresa Kikawa Roger T&Sandra K Luk Daniel Shu Pun 5872 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5882 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5892 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1037 CA 92648-1037 CA 92648-1037 Occupant 159-175-28 159-182-01 Ching Alvin K 5901 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, Hoff Michele&Christopher Po Box 2505Huntington Beach, CA CA 92648-1019 5902 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 92647-0505 CA 92648-1020 159-175-29 159-182-02 159-181-01 Eschenburg Matthew Jay& Michelle Yoo Hae J Deffner Dale I 5911 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5912 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5921 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1019 CA 92648-1020 CA 92648-1019 159-182-03 159-181-02 159-182-04 Williamson Paul S Mio Arthur Z& Marjorie Y Dominguez Robert 5922 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5931 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5932 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1020 CA 92648-1019 CA 92648-1020 159-181-03 159-181-04 159-181-05 Rosa Robert Holloway Barbara L Galbraith Robert& Leticia 5941 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5951 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, 5971 Kenbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1019 CA 92648-1019 CA 92648-1019 159-186-01 159-224-09 159-186-02 Dittmer Edward J &Christine M Butts Gary C Abegg Walter A 5972 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 5991 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 5992 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1036 92648-1036 92648-1036 159-224-10 159-186-03 159-224-11 Long Kevin Jk&Quinlan-Long Roberta Kim In Young& Bok S Prewitt Leslie A 6001 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6002 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6011 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1036 92648-1036 92648-1036 159-186-04 159-224-12 159-224-13 Kacin Joseph J Cyr Timothy Harants Kenneth G 6012 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6021 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6031 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1036 92648-1036 92648-1036 159-186-05 159-224-14 159-186-06 Mori Timothy T Ryan Michael J &Celeste S Lu Danny Y 6032 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6041 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6042 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1036 92648-1036 92648-1036 1 r- label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 155160/8.160 /- 9-/i-- Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery/55160/8160 0919/0915o fiaany cane algljedwoo ww L9 x ww 9i jewaof op 949nbiI3 09G9/09G5o AJDAd u1lM olgpedwoc„9/9 i x j ezls logel 159-186-07 159-224-15 159-186-08 Chiya Vincent A Snyder Joyce Wong Wilson 6052 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6061 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 6062 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1036 92648-1036 92648-1036 159-224-16 159-188-04 159-186-16 Ho Truyen Buu& Pham Lan Thi Ngoc Chacon Shelley Tucker&Richard Ray Frousiakis Angela 6071 Kenwick CirHuntington Beach, CA 5952 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 5961 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 92648-1036 CA 92648-1034 CA 92648-1033 159-188-03 159-186-15 159-188-02 Benz Jan Anette Krmpotich George A Thompson Charles G 5962 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 5971 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 5972 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1034 CA 92648-1033 CA 92648-1034 159-186-14 159-186-13 159-186-12 Lewson Sam Yang Edward Shih-ching Hiserodt John C&Rita D 5991 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6001 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6011 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1033 CA 92648-1031 CA 92648-1031 159-187-01 159-186-11 159-187-02 Oconnell William C P &0 C Lind Robert A Speyer Michael James &Santina Marie 6012 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6021 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6022 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1032 CA 92648-1031 ! CA 92648-1032 159-186-10 Occupant 159-187-03 Yang James Chin-tong 6041 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, Yee John L& Iseri Betty A 7426 Latigo DrHuntington Beach, CA CA 92648-1031 6042 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 92648-6845 CA 92648-1032 159-186-09 159-187-04 159-187-05 Garretson Richard E & Pamela J Figueroa Rudy P Kwan Danny P 6051 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6052 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6062 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1031 CA 92648-1032 CA 92648-1032 159-242-01 159-242-02 159-241-08 Morris Robert H & Marilou Han Kwang Young& Boa H Duncan James T&Evalie T 6072 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6082 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6091 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1032 CA 92648-1032 CA 92648-1058 159-242-03 159-241-07 159-241-06 Beck Anita C&James M Ackman Philip W&Mary C Holstine Donald R 6092 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6101 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, 6111 Littlefield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1032 CA 92648-1086 CA 92648-1086 159-243-01 Occupant 159-243-02 lorio Steven M Living Trust 5982 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, Jensen Gro 3281 N Barney StPahrump, NV 89060- CA 92648-1061 5992 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 2220 CA 92648-1061 0/,__ label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 /— 7 2-- Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09L9/09 L5®IU9Ay Dane 9lgl1edwoo ww Lg x ww 5Z jewaoj 9p 9119nbil] 09 L2/09 L9@ Aa9Ay ql!m 9lgl1edwoo<<9/5 Z x,1,9zis lapel =9 159-243-03 159-242-10 159-243-04 Yoshizumi Kinue Baker Donald A&Charlene D Hino Shinji Hino Living Trust 6002 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6011 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6012 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1063 CA 92648-1064 CA 92648-1063 159-242-09 Occupant 159-243-05 Huang Ingrid Ina 6021 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, Hayre Julie S K 7021 Bright Springs CtLas Vegas, NV CA 92648-1064 6122 Dundee DrHuntington Beach, CA 89113-1341 " i 92647-2409 159-242-08 159-243-06 159-242-07 Dept Of Vets Affairs Of Stateof Cal Fujioka Keiko Booker Thomas C 6031 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6032 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6041 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1064 CA 92648-1063 CA 92648-1064 159-243-07 159-242-06 159-243-08 Boyce Tammie Rae Graham Living Trust Solmer Richard 6042 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6051 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6052 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1063 CA 92648-1064 CA 92648-1063 159-242-05 159-243-09 159-242-04 Gonzalez Simplicio T Perrone William A Vander Lans John T& Kelly M 6061 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6062 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6071 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1064 CA 92648-1063 CA 92648-1064 159-243-10 Occupant 159-246-01 Wu Raymond 6072 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, Hu Francis Chen Kan 21254 Stockton Pass RdWalnut, CA CA 92648-1063 6081 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 91789-5109 CA 92648-1066 159-243-11 159-246-31 159-243-12 Thelander Joseph G & Heidi J Yee Joe T Lo Chun-chih 6082 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6091 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6092 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1063 CA 92648-1066 CA 92648-1063 159-246-30 159-243-13 159-246-29 Heath John R Morgan Joseph K Zolna Samuel &June 6101 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6102 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6111 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1066 CA 92648-1065 CA 92648-1066 159-243-14 159-246-28 159-243-15 Villano Francisco Juan &Hilda Nely Bowman John Thomas & Donna Lynn Esquivel Steven 6112 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6121 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, 6122 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1065 CA 92648-1066 CA 92648-1065 159-246-27 159-172-01 159-173-02 Keller Kirt W& Gina C Goldenson Craig Emile & Mori Mitzi Pohlman Matthew J 6131 Manorfield DrHuntington Beach, Ann Midori 5781 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA CA 92648-1066 5772 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1021 92648-1025 CZ)r label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery e5160/8160 / -9 -/2� ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 85160/8160 0918/0919®Many oone oigitedwoo ww Lg x ww qZ tewaol op 9119=13 0918/0919®Many ql!m aigljedwoo«8/q Z x j azis loge) 159-172-02 159-173-01 159-184-01 Heesacker Gregory& Loren Finkel Gary& Karen Shahian Susan 5782 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5791 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5792 Midway DrHuntington Beach,CA 92648-1025 92648-1021 92648-1025 159-183-20 159-184-02 159-183-19 Willis Eric Mitchell Varma Tarun Hedge Gary&Moore-Hedge Denise 5801 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5802 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5811 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1023 92648-1024 92648-1023 ii 159-184-03 159-183-18 159-184-04 Legg John &Jennifer Chavez Aaron Kristopher Harrison Ruth Adelaide 5812 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5821 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5822 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1024 92648-1023 92648-1024 159-183-17 Occupant 159-184-05 Markos A R&A E Living Trust 5831 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA Chen Dominic C 17187 Roundhill DrHuntington Beach, 92648-1023 5832 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA CA 92649-4216 92648-1024 159-183-16 159-184-06 159-183-15 Deaner Richard &Terri 2005 Trust Myers Mitchell James Tackmann Mark&Lisa 5841 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5842 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5851 Midway DrHuntington Beach,CA 92648-1023 92648-1024 92648-1023 159-184-07 159-183-14 159-184-08 Madosky Harry W Gates Gorden & Kelli Pasienski James T 5852 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5861 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5862 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1024 92648-1023 92648-1024 159-183-13 159-184-09 159-183-12 Mindlin Andrew C Boyd K L Keefer David S 5871 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5872 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5881 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1023 92648-1024 92648-1023 159-184-10 159-183-11 159-184-11 Nguyen Thuy&Teresa Rulon Jeff& Darla Stoy Thomas M 5882 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5891 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 5892 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1024 92648-1023 92648-1024 159-183-10 159-234-07 159-234-06 Brockman Richard L Mc Geary William L& Deborah A Fujiwara Bob D 5901 Midway DrHuntington Beach, CA 6142 Moonfield DrHuntington Beach, 6152 Moonfield DrHuntington Beach, 92648-1001 CA 92648-1067 CA 92648-1067 159-234-05 159-233-08 159-233-09 Sihota Sohan S Burrell Hilbert H Ibers Wayne R 6162 Moonfield DrHuntington Beach, 18132 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18152 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1067 CA 92648-1027 CA 92648-1027 C6 /0 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery°5160/8160 -�L- Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09lL9/09 G9®faany oane algliedwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z ieuaaof ap alianb43 09 G9/091.9®AJa11d u11M alglledwoo<<8/9 Z x,,L azls lagel m 159-233-10 159-233-11 159-233-12 Espeleta John & Karla Arcellana Jaime G & Enriqueta Q Brunson William P 18162 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18172 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18192 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1027 CA 92648-1027 CA 92648-1027 159-233-13 159-233-14 159-233-15 Aviles Jaime Jr Cinco Ronaldo&Acosta Marina Herrera Eric&Karla 18202 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18212 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18222 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1028 CA 92648-1028 CA 92648-1028 159-233-16 159-233-17 159-233-18 Mac New Kenneth J Swenson Fred L& Kathleen G Terpstra William C 18232 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18242 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, 18252 Newmoon LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1028 CA 92648-1028 CA 92648-1028 159-241-04 159-241-05 159-247-19 Capriccio Phillip A Bowlin Mary Lynn Mireles Patricia A 6112 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, 6122 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, 6131 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1069 CA 92648-1069 CA 92648-1070 159-247-18 159-247-17 159-247-16 Magorden Roger N Ireton Rebecca Baskin Max 6141 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, 6151 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, 6161 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1070 CA 92648-1070 CA 92648-1070 159-247-15 159-188-01 159-188-08 Loshak Ruben Vigneron Frank& Catherine Ann Shah Manmohan G & Kashimira M 6171 Norbrook DrHuntington Beach, 18261 Oldgate LnHuntington Beach, 44266 Charlotte DrHemet,CA 92544- CA 92648-1070 CA 92648-1047 6673 Occupant 159-188-07 159-188-06 18271 Oldgate LnHuntington Beach, Kumaratne Mohan Priyakantha Payetta Family Trust CA 92648-1047 18281 Oldgate LnHuntington Beach, 18291 Oldgate LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1047 CA 92648-1047 159-246-08 159-246-09 159-246-10 Dunaway Susan E Cosper James L Oyama Shoji &Mari 18291 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 18301 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 18311 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1076 92648-1076 92648-1076 159-246-11 Occupant 159-246-16 Chi Keh-fei Chris&Gigi P 18321 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA Destatte Dennis Neil 5292 Richmond AveGarden Grove, CA 92648-1076 18322 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 92845-1943 92648-1076 159-246-12 159-246-15 159-246-13 Copenhaver Douglas D& Patricia L Karian David P&Carol A Ly Scott& Pham Mai 18331 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 18332 Rain CirHuntington Beach,CA 54 Grey Adler AveRichmond Hill, 92648-1076 92648-1076 Ontario, CANADA 64B 3115 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/55160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery/55160/8160 09 G8/09190 Aaany cane aigl}edwoo ww Lq x ww 5Z jewaof ep 94anbl}3 092/09190 faany q}IM algltedwoo,,9/9 Z x,,G azls lag-el 159-246-14 159-246-07 Occupant Bartusick Family Living Trust June Coast Properties 18272 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, 18342 Rain CirHuntington Beach, CA 18652 Florida St#300Huntington CA 92648-1083 92648-1076 Beach,CA 92648-6069 159-246-06 159-246-05 159-246-04 Weisman Terence H &Yiwen Z Lunghino Derek Wilbor Evans Thomas A& Helen N 18282 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, 18292 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, 18302 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1083 CA 92648-1083 CA 92648-1084 159-246-03 159-246-02 Mueller Tony& Kristine Shea John Francis li 18312 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, 18322 Twinford LnHuntington Beach, CA 92648-1084 CA 92648-1084 I i i label size 1 x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 Fefl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L9Interdepartmental Memo TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager FROM: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager/Director of Economic Development DATE: January 9, 2012 SUBJECT: Supplemental Information — Public Hearing Item #1 and #2 T-Mobile Request to Reduce Proposed Cell Tower Height and T-Mobile Lease Agreement Signature Page On January 9, 2012, T-Mobile submitted two late communication items relating to the January 9, 2012 Special Meeting. These items are supplemental information for Public Hearing Items #1 and #2 and are attached for City Council's review. A letter from T-Mobile requesting to reduce the height of the proposed Springdale 1. e Pump Station cell tower from 55 feet down to 45 feet. 2. T-Mobile signature page for the Springdale Pump Station Lease Agreement. Attachment SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 44eting Date:_/ Aged Item No. A- )Z) Supplemental Communication Cell tower -1- 1/9/2012 11:49:00 AM ATTACHMENT 1 Suite 800 ®gJ� QavisWright 505 Montgomery Street :! Tremaine LLP San Francisco,CA 94111-6533 Martin L.Fineman 4151176-6575 tel 415/276-6599 fax martinfineman cr dwt.com January 9,2012 Honorable Mayor Dan Hansen and Members of the City Counsel c/o Scott Field,Esq. Assistant City Attorney Box 190,2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Pump Station Lease and Permits---January 9,2012 A e nda Dear Honorable Mayor Hansen and Members of the City Council: This letter is to confirm that in response to the City's request,T-Mobile West Corporation agrees to reduce the height of the Pump Station Wireless Facility to 45 feet. Respectfully yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Martin L.Fineman DWT 18814449vl 0048172-000465 Anchoraga Now York Seattle 801avue PortlanN Shanghat Los Angeles San Francisco Washington,D.C. wYnv.dwt.coot i ATTACHMENT 2 DO NOT RECORD I Section 10.16 Sole and Only Lease This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between City and T-Mobile respecting the leasing of the Property to T-Mobile. Any agreements or representations respecting the Property not expressly set forth in this instrument are null and void. This Lease or any part of it may not be changed, altered, modified, limited or extended orally or by any agreement between the Parties, unless such agreement is expressed in writing, signed and acknowledged by City and T-Mobile, or their successors in interest. Section 10.17 Additional Wireless Carriers T-Mobile acknowledges that it is the intent of the City to locate the facilities-of several wireless carriers at this location. T Mobile shall make all reasonable efforts to locate and relocate its equipment and facilities in such a manner so as to accommodate any and all additional carriers licensed by the City to use the Property. T-Mobile will work in a timely and cooperative fashion to assist the City and any and all additional wireless carriers that are licensed by the City, to locate and operate a wireless facility on the City`s Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Lease to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first written above. T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a subsidiary of T-MOBILE USA, INC., a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware corporation". California By: Mayor print name ITS: (circle one)Gkakff*WPres+denbViue-President 1��."2.e 1�r-�FYI}rgt�1Y»1 City Clerk AND / By: INITIATED AND APPROVED: print name ITS: (circle one)Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary-Treasurer REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney Exhibits: A: Legal Description B: Site Sketch Page 19 of 20 70684.docx-1/6/2012 Title 44 - FEMA Regulations §60.22 Planning considerations for flood-prone areas. (a)The flood plain management regulations adopted by a community for flood-prone areas should: (1)Permit only that development of flood-prone areas which(i)is appropriate in light of the probability of flood damage and the need to reduce flood losses,(ii)is an acceptable social and economic use of the land in relation to the hazards involved,and(iii) does not increase the danger to human life; (2)Prohibit nonessential or improper installation ot public utilities and public facilities in flood-prone areas. Ricardo Pineda, Director of Flood Management State of California Department of Water Resources On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:07:26-0800 "Pineda, Ricardo"<rpineda@water.ca.gov>wrote: >Catherine >lust to close the email loop we discussed via phone that I had >contacted the official form the City of Huntington beach regarding >the cell tower placement. > >The community(City of HB) still needs to complete the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act prior issuing a permit for the cell tower construction. >Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions 1 T-Mobile states that is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 • Section 15303-Refers to "new, small facilities or structures"- the 55' tower exceeds the otherwise permissible height limits in this area • Small commercial structures only applies if"the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive"-the surrounding area is clearly sensitive according to the Public Resources Code (CEQA Statutes)section 30107.5 • Landmark Case Salmon Protecton &Watershed Network VS. County of Marin Cal App. 15t District 2004- "a single family home was found not exempt, notwithstanding 15303(a), because is was adjacent to a protected habitat"-the court said the county could not consider mitigation measures United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.Washington, D.C. 20240 • Memorandum To: Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 • From: Director Isl Jamie Rappaport Clark • Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers 2 Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers • The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part'50 designed to implement the MBTA. Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction Communications Towers • Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ® FACT SKEET ® Information provided by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ® NEW NATIONAL WIRELESS TOWER SITING POLICIES What requirements do personal wireless communications licensees have to determine whether a site is in a flood plain? • The FCC's environmental rules place the responsibility on each applicant to investigate all the potential environmental effects,and disclose any significant effects on the environment in an • Environmental Assessment(EA),as outlined in section 1.1311,prior to constructing a • tower. • The applicant is required to consult section 1.1307 to determine if its proposed • antenna structure will fall under any of the fisted categories that may significantly affect • the environment. • If it does,the applicant must provide an EA prior to proceedingwith the • tower construction and.under section 1.1312,must await FCC approval before • commencing any such construction even if FCC approval is not otherwise required for such • construction. • The FCC places all proposals that may significantly impact the environment • on public notice for a period of 30 days,seeking any public comments on the proposed • Structures. 4 The categories set forth in section 1.1307 include: • Wilderness Area • Wildlife Preserve • Endangered Species • Historical Site • Indian Religious Site • Flood Plain • Wetlands 5