The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutT-Mobile Wireless Communication Facility - Appeal of the Pla City of Huntington Beach r 2000 Main Street o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �a OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION March 1.9, 2010 Monica Moretta Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY) APPLICANT: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) DATE OF ACTION: March 15, 2010 On Monday; March 15, 2010 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your application and upheld the Planning Commission's Recommended Action to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with amended Findings for Denial. Attached to this letter are the Findings for Denial for CUP 09-015, and pages 5 and 6 of the City Council Action Agenda relating to this item. If you have any questions, please contact Jill Arabe, Assistant Planner at (714) 374-5357. Sincerely, J rClerk nn, CMC C Attachment: Findings for Denial: CUP No. 09-015 c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning Jill Arabe, Assistant Planner Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan o Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714-536-5227) FINDING FOR DENIAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015: 1. Based on the wireless permit application, supplemental maps and information, and testimony.presented at the Planning Commission (1/26/10) and City Council (3/15/10) meetings, there are incomplete and inconsistent facts regarding whether the project is necessary to fill a significant gap in wireless coverage. In part, maps submitted by the applicant demonstrate that existing wireless.communications facilities owned by the wireless carrier are within close proximity of the proposed bell tower and provide wireless coverage for the vicinity. This coverage may not be the best coverage possible but there is satisfactory coverage according to the applicant's own coverage maps. Finally, there was no evidence presented that alternative sites were analyzed and considered as available to remediate any significant gap in coverage issues in the area. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-015 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility disguised as a bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including completely stealth associated equipment will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The distance of the proposed wireless communications facility to the closest resident is approximately 125 feet and therefore will intrude into the views of adjacent residents. The proposed design of the new bell tower will create visual blight because it will eliminate the open design of the existing bell tower. Furthermore, the conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding land uses. Masked in the existing tower, as proposed, the wireless communications facility and supporting structure will not blend into the surrounding residential environment including the existing church based on the submitted exhibits and documentation in the staff report. 4. (City Council) Public Hearing to consider General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 09-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2010-27; Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 09-002 and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3875; Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) No. 09-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2010- 28; and, appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 09-024 and Negative Declaration No. 09-006 for the Ward Garfield Specific Plan No. 16 - Recreational Vehicle Storage. Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action a) Approve Negative Declaration No. 09-006 with findings of approval; and, b) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 09-002, and adopt Resolution No. 2010-27, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 09-002;" and, c) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 09-002 with findings of approval, and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3875, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 5 (Sectional District Map 5-6-10) to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located at the Southeast Corner of Ward Street and Garfield Avenue from RL (Residential Low Density) to Specific Plan No. 16 (Zoning Map Amendment No. 09-002);" and, d) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-007 with findings for approval, and adopt Resolution No. 2010-28, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Adoption of Specific Plan No. 16 (Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-007;" and, e) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 09-024 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced five Late Communications Council voted to continue item to April 19, 2010 City Council meeting prior to opening Public Hearing Approved 7-0 5. (City Council) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 09-015 for construction of a T-Mobile wireless communications facility designed as a church bell tower which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the Residential Low Density (RL) Zoning District(55 feet in lieu of 35 feet). approval -5- Planning Commission Recommended Action: Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with a finding for denial. City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced four Late Communications 21 Speakers Approved Planning Commission Recommended Action to deny CUP No. 09-015 with amended finding for denial, as testimony provided at the 1126110 Planning Commission meeting and tonight's 3115110 City Council meeting. Approved 6-0-1 (Coerper abstain) Councilmember Coerper recused himself due to the proximity of his home to the project. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Approve and adopt minutes. Recommended Action: Approve and adopt the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meeting of February 16, 2010 and the City Council/Redevelopment Agency regular meeting of March 1, 2010, as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Approved 7-0 7. (City Council) Approve Implementation Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and Signal Landmark regarding fire plan review and inspection services for the Brightwater residential development. Recommended Action: Approve the "Implementation Agreement by and Among the City of Huntington Beach, the Orange County Fire Authority, and Signal Landmark Regarding Fire Plan Review and Inspection Services to Brightwater." Approved 7-0 8. (City Council) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement by and between Mesa Consolidated Water District, Orange County Water District and the City of Huntington Beach for Interruptible Potable Water Service to Talbert Barrier Facilities extending the term of the agreement through November 30, 2026. Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment Number 2 to Agreement By and Between Mesa Consolidated Water District, the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County Water District for Interruptible Potable Water Service to Talbert Barrier Facilities." Approved 7-0 -6- Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3 S— ,p O Deferred/Continued to: Ap roved ❑ Conditionally AppLoyed ❑ Denied 't" City C rk's Sig ature .e. cn etas C —DUE Council Meeting Date: 3/15/2010 Department ID Number: PL10-07 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU I MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIST PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, AICP, DIRECTOR OF ANNING AND BUILDI SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY—APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL) [statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Monica Moretta on behalf of T-Mobile of the Planning Commission's (PC) denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 09-015 to permit a wireless communications facility designed as a church bell tower and which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the Residential Low Density (RL) Zoning District (55 feet in lieu of 35 feet). The Planning Commission denied the re-design (Recommended Action — B) and is recommending denial based on the finding that no significant gap in wireless coverage was demonstrated, alternative sites were not analyzed and considered, detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood were associated with the project, and the CUP was an incompatible land use. Staff recommended approval to the PC and is recommending the City Council approve the request (Recommended Action — A) because the project is in the least obtrusive location feasible to eliminate a gap in coverage based on submitted coverage maps and drive test data, leasing space at alternative sites is unavailable, no detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are associated with the project, and the CUP is a compatible land use. Funding Source: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 Recommended Action: A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with a finding for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Planning Commission Action on January 26, 2010: MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 WITH A FINDING FOR DENIAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: MANTINI, SCANDURA ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 and direct staff accordingly." GARCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -2- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 Property Owner: Duane Hurtado, Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach, 18700 Beach Blvd., Suite 260, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 is a request to permit the construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility which exceeds the maximum permitted height of 35 feet under the RL Zoning District. The facility will be a completely stealth designed church bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment (ATTACHMENT NO. 3 — plans dated October 28, 2009). Pursuant to Section 230.96 (E) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), the proposed facility is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City's Zoning Administrator (ZA) and review by the Design Review Board (DRB) because the proposed height (55 feet) exceeded the maximum permitted (35 feet) in the district and was within 300 feet of residential uses. B. BACKGROUND On May 12, 2009, the Planning Department conditionally approved the wireless permit application for a 55 foot high wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and design review. Staff determined that a submittal consisting of coverage maps, photo simulations, plans, and narratives were sufficient in demonstrating that the proposed facility was necessary to eliminate a gap in coverage in the vicinity but was subject to a CUP and DRB because the proposed facility exceeded the maximum allowed height in the district and within 300 feet of residential uses. On September 10, 2009, the DRB recommended approval of the wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" and associated above-ground equipment within a 7 foot-6 inch high enclosure with modifications to the Zoning Administrator. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -3- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 The DRB recommended the following modifications: ® The equipment enclosure materials shall be composed of split-face block at the base, two maximum courses of precision block, and a decorative cap. ® The existing wall located on the westerly side of the monopalm shall be connected to the equipment enclosure. • The wireless communication pole shall be designed as a date palm with the maximum amount of fronds as deemed necessary by the Planning Department. • A 30 ft. high date palm shall be planted within the landscaped planter adjacent to the monopalm. A public hearing before the Zoning Administrator was held on September 30, 2009, for the construction of a stealth wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree 11monopalm" with associated above-ground equipment surrounded by a 7 foot-6 inch high blockwall (original plan dated July 24, 2009). The request included the relocation of a 5 foot high block wall trash enclosure. Several residents spoke in opposition of the project citing various reasons as addressed in their letters (ATTACHMENT NO. 10). The ZA continued the item to provide the applicant an opportunity to prepare revised plans for a completely stealth facility that would screen all aspects of the wireless communications facility. On November 4, 2009, the ZA approved a re-design (plans dated October 28, 2009) of the wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell tower with a condition to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. The proposed facility would be constructed of the same design and location, and similar size of the existing church bell tower on-site. On November 16, 2009, a group of Huntington Beach residents filed an appeal (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) of the ZA's approval of the redesigned project. The appeal letter, cited concerns that the project would be detrimental to the general welfare and property, values of the surrounding community, did not demonstrate a significant gap in coverage, and did not comply with the zoning ordinance. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2010, and made findings for denial of the project. Testimony in support of the request was received from the applicant, property owner representatives, and T-Mobile representatives. Testimony in opposition to the request was received from 10 residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The residents were concerned with potential health effects associated with cell towers, negative impacts to property values, aesthetics, and lack of evidence demonstrating a significant gap in coverage. Staff recommended approval of the request on the basis that the project complies with all applicable code requirements, provides complete screening of the facility including undergrounding ancillary equipment, provides sufficient evidence demonstrating a gap in coverage, and is compatible with the surrounding uses (ATTACHMENT NO. 5 — Planning Commission Staff Report). G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WU Appeal).doc -4- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 The Planning Commission denied the request based on the following factors: ■ Incomplete and inconsistent facts were presented to demonstrate that a significant gap in wireless coverage exists. Existing wireless communications facilities owned by the wireless carrier are within close proximity of the proposed bell tower and provide wireless coverage for the vicinity. No evidence was presented that alternative sites were analyzed and considered as available to remediate any significant gap in coverage issues in the area. ■ The project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons in the vicinity and to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed facility will intrude into views of adjacent residents and create visual blight. ® The project will not be compatible with surrounding land uses because it will not blend into the surrounding residential environment. D. APPEAL: On February 5, 2010, the applicant on behalf of T-Mobile filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of CUP No. 09-015 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). The appeal letter cites concerns that the denial was primarily based on health effects, which is preempted by federal law, and that a substantial lack of coverage exists and was demonstrated by scientific methods. In addition, the appeal letter states that the other concerns are substitute issues to the real concern of the perceived health effects. Pursuant to the administrative record, the CUP was denied based on the significant gap in coverage issue, the analysis regarding alternative sites, the aesthetics of the bell tower, and land use compatibility. While public comments received at the Planning Commission meeting included concerns regarding potential health effects, the Planning Commission finding for denial did not address health effects. It should be noted that during the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed health effects, however, the Planning Commission was advised that federal law prohibits associated health effects as a factor for denial. The appeal letter identifies the coverage analysis conducted by T-Mobile radio engineers. 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, there is a gap in indoor coverage. Indoor coverage provides the best service available by allowing customers to utilize phones inside a building. The applicant provided propagation maps and drive test data to demonstrate that a gap in coverage exists. These two methods are standard industry practices and generally recognized as reliable methods for testing wireless network performance. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The following analysis summarizes the primary issues and reasons for a staff recommendation of approval. GARCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -5- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 ISSUES Wireless Coverage The application includes coverage maps demonstrating that indoor coverage is weak or unavailable in the project vicinity (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). An RF Technical report was also submitted to explain the generated coverage maps and drive test data (ATTACHMENT NO. 9). The application and supplemental information was evaluated by staff and determined that the proposed site was necessary to eliminate a gap in coverage. Although existing wireless facilities owned by the wireless carrier are located in close proximity to the subject site, the distance between existing cell sites creates a coverage gap and limits the signal strength to a point where indoor coverage is reduced or nonexistent. According to the data submitted by the applicant, the proposed facility will improve network performance by increasing the signal strength. Staff determined that the information submitted demonstrated a sufficient gap in coverage. Alternative Sites The application includes a map identifying alternative sites within the coverage gap area (ATTACHMENT NO. 7). The alternative sites were not considered available because the property owners would not authorize leasing space for wireless communications facilities. The sites consist of College View Park, Irby Park, College View Elementary School and Ocean View Elementary School. Staff evaluated the alternatives and determined that the proposed location and design as the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gap in coverage. General Welfare of the Community The existing 52 foot high church bell tower will be replaced by a new 55 foot high bell tower. The six panel antennas will be concealed within the new tower. The design is completely stealth due to the fact that the proposed design is integrated into the church facility by replicating an on-site structure in a manner that it cannot be identified as a wireless communications facility. In addition, the project is conditioned to completely underground all ancillary equipment. Based on the design and the requirement to underground the equipment, the project will not have aesthetic impacts detrimental to the general welfare of the community and surrounding properties because the facility is designed as a bell tower (completely stealth) and therefore will be consistent with the existing church use. The proposed wireless communications facility is accessory to the church and located more than 125 feet from the nearest adjacent residential homes. The distance provides a sufficient buffer from residential uses to protect them from any potential noise generated by the facility. The tower is located in a small opening surrounded on all four sides by existing church buildings. Potential noise associated with the facility is anticipated to be minimal due to the requirement to underground all associated equipment and subject to the noise ordinance of the City's Municipal Code. GARCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -6- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 Land Use Compatibility Existing single family residential uses are adjacent to the west, south, and east of the subject site. The subject site is used for religious assembly and a preschool. The proposed wireless communications facility will not generate traffic, noise, lighting, odor, or any other impacts detrimental to the area and based on its completely stealth design, location, and therefore is considered a compatible use. The proposed wireless communications facility complies with all applicable requirements of the HBZSO, including land use. The HBZSO does not prohibit wireless communications facilities from locating on properties zoned for residential but does require a CUP. Facilities that are proposed in residential zones are required to meet certain provisions including incorporating stealth techniques. Over the years, the City has approved several requests to allow wireless communications facilities adjacent to residential uses and at existing residential and commercial sites because they were found to comply with applicable zoning requirements as well as designed in a manner to be compatible. Stealth facilities are typically designed as palm trees and completely stealth facilities are architecturally integrated into existing buildings. Stealth and completely stealth facilities are intended to minimize the visibility of the antennas and equipment by blending into the environment. The proposed design of the wireless communications facility as a bell tower is completely stealth and screens the antennas from public view. The requirement to underground equipment will further eliminate visual impacts. The completely stealth facility is compatible because the bell tower is associated with the church use, replicates the former bell tower, and therefore will have no visual impacts to the surrounding residential uses. Height Pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06, the maximum building height under the RL Zoning District is 35 feet. Wireless communications facilities are allowed to exceed the maximum building height in any district by 10 feet, without requiring a conditional use permit. Since the completely stealth facility is proposed at a height of 55 feet, a CUP is required. The completely stealth facility designed as a church bell tower is proposed to be three feet taller than the existing bell tower (52 feet). The proposed height is necessary to achieve the coverage objective and reduce potential interference caused by existing structures. Furthermore, the structure is setback more than 125 feet from adjacent residential uses, which minimizes any new visual impact on surrounding uses. The difference in height between the existing and proposed structure at its location and setback will not be noticeable. F. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 55 foot high wireless communications facility designed as a completely stealth church bell tower based on compliance with the Huntington Beach G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -7- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-07 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, consistency with the General Plan goals and policies, compatibility with and no detrimental impacts to surrounding residential uses. The project is compatible because the proposed use will not create any detrimental impacts associated with noise, traffic, aesthetics, or property values. Finally, the installation of a wireless communications facility within a residential area is beneficial by improving signal transmission for customers making, receiving, and retaining calls. Strategic Plan Goal: Develop strategies for resolving crucial infrastructure problems to preserve the physical foundation of the community and enable the community's value to grow: The proposed wireless communications facility will increase telecommunications in an area with a substantial 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. The wireless communications facility is proposed to be located on private property and designed to replace an existing church bell tower with a completely stealth bell tower. All aspects of the wireless facility are screened from public view; therefore the project will not negatively and aesthetically impact surrounding uses. Environmental Status: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, involving no expansion of the existing church use. Attachment(s): e 1 Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 Staff Recommended Action A 2. Suggested Finding for Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 (Planning Commission Recommended Action B) 3 Site Plans and Elevations dated October 28, 2009, and Photo Simulations dated October 27, 2009 4 Appeal Letter to City Council dated February 5, 2010 5 Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 26, 2010 6 Appeal letter from Dianne Larson, on behalf of 350 Huntington Beach residents dated November 16, 2009 7 Alternative Sites Map dated September 28, 2009 g Coverage Maps dated April 20, 2009 G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-07(T-Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -8- 3/2/2010 6:42 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/15/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL1O-07 g RF Technical Report dated February 22, 2010 10 Public Comments 11. T-Mobile Customer Complaint Log dated January 25, 2010 12 T-Mobile Health Effects Report dated September 11, 2009 13. T-Mobile Health Effects presentation dated September 30, 2009 14_ Property Values Report dated November 30, 2009 15. T-Mobile RF Data Report dated February 25, 2010 16. PowerPoint Presentation CADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\EVZ11ETS\PL.10-07(T- Mobile WCF Appeal).doc -9- 3/41 010 3:13 Pik ATTACHMENT # 1Li STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ACTION — A) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, involving no expansion of the existing church use. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009- 015: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-015 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility disguised as a bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including completely stealth associated equipment will not 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 facility will replace an existing 52 ft. high bell tower with a new bell tower structure. The structure will be setback more than 125 ft. from the adjacent residences located to the south, east, and west of the site. The design of the tower will disguise the associated antennas from public view. The project will not generate noise, traffic, or demand for additional parking above that which already exists on the subject site. As a condition of approval, the wireless communication equipment will be underground. Potential noise associated with the facility will be minimal because of the distance from residential uses and the undergrounding of equipment. The proposed height of the bell tower will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. The proposed project will satisfy the necessity for wireless coverage and applicable regulations. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the wireless communications facility and support structure will be designed as a bell tower to blend into the surrounding environment including the existing church located on site. The project involves the replacement of a bell tower with a tower of similar height and at an identical location onsite. The bell within the tower will be operational. The antennas will not be visible from public view as they will be concealed within the tower structure. All associated equipment, as conditioned, will be underground to further eliminate visual impacts of the wireless communications facility along Heil Avenue and on the property. The facility incorporates stealth techniques and is considered completely stealth because of its integration within the bell tower. The facility will not generate noise, traffic, lighting, odor or adverse impacts to surrounding uses. Based on information supplementing the necessity to close a gap in coverage, the project will improve the wireless network and benefit customers within the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use permit will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Wireless communication facilities are permitted to exceed the maximum height of 35 ft. for the base zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. Based on the wireless permit application and supplemental maps and information, the project is necessary to fill a gap in coverage. Alternative locations were not feasible to provide the coverage objective in the vicinity. No lease was attempted or secured with the parks or schools because the property owners would not allow it. The Community United Methodist Church was the only site authorizing the leasing space for a wireless communications facility and located within the coverage gap. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal- LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). B. Utility Element Policy U 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication and electrical systems are provided. Policy U 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed completely stealth facility is designed as a bell tower and will replace the existing bell tower onsite. The location of associated equipment will be underground so as to eliminate any visual impacts to surrounding uses. As conditioned, the project will have minimal visual impacts because the wireless communications equipment will be underground and the new bell tower will match the previous. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015: 1. The photo simulations dated October 27, 2009 and site plans and elevations dated October 28, 2009, shall be the conceptually approved design. 2. All associated equipment to the wireless communications facility shall be underground. 3. The existing trash enclosure shall not be relocated and the existing block wall enclosure shall not be removed. 4. 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.us_ bq c org/DisplayPage.aspx?Catego[ylD=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. ATTACHMENT #2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (ACTION — B) SUGGESTED FINDING FOR DENIAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015: 1. Based on the wireless permit application, supplemental maps and information, and testimony presented at this Planning Commission meeting, there are incomplete and inconsistent facts regarding whether the project is necessary to fill a significant gap in wireless coverage. In part, maps submitted by the applicant demonstrate that existing wireless communications facilities owned by the wireless carrier are within close proximity of the proposed bell tower and provide wireless coverage for the vicinity. This coverage may not be the best coverage possible but there is satisfactory coverage according to the applicant's own coverage maps. Finally, there was no evidence presented that alternative sites were analyzed and considered as available to remediate any significant gap in coverage issues in the area. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-015 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility disguised as a bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including completely stealth associated equipment will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The distance of the proposed wireless communications facility to the closest resident is approximately 125 feet and therefore will intrude into the views of adjacent residents. The proposed design of the new bell tower will create visual blight because it will eliminate the open design of the existing bell tower. Furthermore, the conditional use permit will not be compatible with surrounding land uses. Masked in the existing tower, as proposed, the wireless communications facility and supporting structure will not blend into the surrounding residential environment including the existing church based on the submitted exhibits and documentation in the staff report. ATTACHMENT #3Ll t'KUt'U6W tQL, mnn l ti y '•`•"•"""" W Bi5 ARE4-I. - 31.122611 _11H.012390 i5>22fi 11. --119.01231d ) ° APN: APN: APN: APN; APN, _ Z W Z�W S3.r22611. -118012J51 �Z .� ez POW WW WWMobile° R 1a6-386-10 1d6-30 1 146-380-21 1a6-30a-22 1d6-38a-23 Ec„ rz2B11,-I"aS2", Y L �e ��a..t 44 S1'22611, --118011J2a - - o..- \\ >__._� o'`I rNO,cua Sn,,e[ANp S "E1L.,f. W2 dWN4C� together" w �__ %b ANTENNA SEC ION-A t1/2 Jd8 T, -118.(1122H!1 ° ,C W _ _ m� m tick PC 1112LCE0 no l 51..7 ANTENNA SEC fOR-8- 11;2J<A2, -119012789 _ _ 4 NE/L AVE PC ISIaB f / �' -JU1 v1AT G S4 WSANT,ara - �R"9 A"C",It"ON-C 1 712482 - N,O12792 - r+O a s S 89-26'++"E 8.O.B — ---- — 3 W W R 1AL.r I<`pf0 LSC9 1IJvn s J� r<G.�nCGfp PSESJ�� i a + t'L ENi 11 >.. ZIv1 P1 R R 1 PL16,1B 1< 100- � � �_ ! S 89'26'ad"E 4 1 00.J6' \��J10T,89 -W- 19 P9 /1 ;alLpaN P 0, NovAcom �,�� POPOSED LE__5( RE ice- IF 1 r'I A w °�•u. 'LINC / APN 146-483 26 i o G7ro_ 42 3'00'OO�E '. 1 _ ([l PLnO ��J c.RrEo"�t WW W W iM L7 _L4 904000 - f— 1T6..> 11=1 Imo. f yo J LEGAL DESCRIP b9e o P.a _C U"�_w to ♦ __ __ ,. l% —�t1'01I'W. 6'4SL_ ti Alf -- \ (.6015H65 0 APN 146 1v uvu.m ] 900] o� u" W rSURVE'�PRCPARE0e BY �,.r,. �4 pgov SLOW e,A1 A -- \ EL 11 -483-25 CNICASE n C rI OPOSLD 5;_(L Ui1LIi1E5 ECIAII nNp C1NEN510v56 LINC T— BE R'NC pISiANCE - BLOC r P 560+L rL�p APN: I46-483-29 / j / c90FOSF�SITE APN, Id6-d03-26 %NE BEaRING -- IStANCC APN: \ " 1y % so IQ BEc"� o �Li 0 264 W _ 0 166-321-01 Z t.(se5)e a�e [Sln \ 4>)9 I C C 5 00'UQ QO W 3 (!)SLOG wE51 L11 6 www.ca vaa0 a_com h L OJ OJ 00 ly 1_09 C eC2566 ��.r 0000'0o w .]75 fA� APN: Id6-493-23 r'U(r" story F1"c�o.n R[vL ONs PPN. wECanos�cvio a0 411 ni REV DATE OESCR1111— Br_ l2pN 90'CQGC—_ _1).5 166-321-OZ R oNt �— �lJ' N U'OO,OC„w _ _ N 89►26r+4—C d00.J0' F tVA Nr[n 0 01/OI/0`J PREIIMINAPv o — _ �— — " "co["1fJJlcioRE[t`[c L2J 0 — 1 05 anp, _ \ ie Qmy x Qn 6n 1J pri" i 111R1vvtr'1 t "c cwCs 1 OJ/1fJ/09 Cr4aL Mdi' ,M q,-q 00 LZ g H I. I 02/05 09 RCLrS EO EA"EMENI J L25 0 00.OU m " sr 'M 1A EL APN: APN; 146 483 6 a l r u 140-321-03 I cecso .11 i1 Xs�I',11Evs J 10/26 rLCw L£ASF.n. JM r_ — : y"io�°aNaiis,5co �uiniyo .o r�.I.N.Rc".,•°.,.R.ao a,rL:. �z.sc"ow€'LA`I*1,, ."" t4. ANF ( ,P1tR e1n0"a�"LF[u. ,od "o a 1.L, SEAL na..06E0 tCA6E RCA 1.t«"n1m 1 >oQ r P]JJo 11 f .1 ° . p ` ss O o ! . ) riilai"s moE prrE rr ARIA ___ - _ _-.._ n __- _-- �:= SCHEDULE ITEMS p.1E.<FEss BLOL P R J9 °yyyl' BOr 6BB , l22 J E'^l g 32, Poa ,!iE 1.'rtnfAllCf, 1 QI'�.Oav IJ .A5 @ t. T T7�7 �T�/C//I �c -z GRAPHIC SCALE C'OMMV 1NIT 1GRAPHIC SCALEU.M.0 srEBol ' LA33421 A LEGEND 2b PROPOSED ANTENNA LOCATION 10 ° op6 niHr 0r BEOwuwc P.0 E. wr9t,C vnurr EASfN[Nr HUNTINGTON f3r_ACH, In 92641 0;1 ii0N DE GEODE TiO COORDINAtES = or µra.rwus NP NnnBruP PAaxwc aw alcrrl Or LA tl iIlOE 33'43 20.95 NORTH C Al A6pNALT PP PO WCa p11 PROTECT NUMBEk: Of(BIFL �r.aE< LONGrruOE -11s'oG'<6.D4"wESs Bloc rpv 32JJ, o/w 4"E l--AI E3 wAr(R eoxma vu ve PROTECT INFORMATION A eor Is.n, TOP rCP or a 11 raE nmaANt owlura NOVOS-079 tCIE IOC OC SLOPE Ur wiPE LONMUN1tt UN1ICp NRN0015i CNRCN LULL-�/?//;/, /T _ iP fwPL,t • pxtP 'LE tRrCOunD As NOrfp o'nH[a Ay H65i1Nr tar vC IO P( SNrE` TrTLE: / OF PARnr `n' PO 'LE v vN 1 BEac".U BIe+) 1 LIOP N w q POLE ELCC4L iPAN5F0aNCR dPd'1 I+e-<BJ-T9 g(j 1R CON01 1CCC UN1r spy, Sft T1.i.6 s..a TaEE rOP 69,30' / PEs1PON 11 OEOOfIrC iELEPNCNC"u,r at 11 w TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY - \� 0 L OaOrNn t[5 ® IEtfPHONE v4 BLpL,.tlNGg6 �_�� .Yv CNIA.PIPA BENc"NAae ®a as vAL,t uv su awe amn CONTROL POrNT Gn5 NCRR elnipL e s RF tvFAC[ cl _o® a00r rANI " (. r t SHEET NUMBER. I OF 1 SPOI ELEVAINN ® ROOf!AN BAs,i 0( G T 1 PaAllI LNE rcresie��oor ,E E: JIJ 1 I—IOP 60 Ja I�,11' , / PARABIX C nN tCNNA CNAIN LINK FACE/ '[P R rancr BOr 1381 �L, -` "—'— _/—0 rCNCC suav[r Onr MF rLONN INrCn irONs , A wry L h ONCNOLE �® B 1/JO/20vef F F b W wn snr—,w—€WIPHENT LOGTIWE.WE A�Ra.FA,< ° .oNIobile urn'`�iw411i,s'wo RP POwFR!1EtEPNONE fAPIJ11Fi FPE SUA:FT . °'°"'°" v—`V'%• *vftk together' _ _ _ _ _ I-I E I L AVENUE z.N°NE Cr THE EwsnN®r.wtwo!nu aE _ Ur m IN AHr wnY BY,iH®PROECT. TONING ANALYSIS OF ADJO�PROPERTIES � — Y'W.cNrtHVR PLACE,mrtE noD (( CPwm r-Moat£tt'-o• PROPOSED T-MODIL L A. A EAS s'^rv"ANA U Ealo1 S. R! RaioEmu l D SECTOR'A' TE ACCESS FASDIENT R1)1 TCHURCH 0•H . 9.i. AN YPNi Rl RFSIDFTIRk LpN OFNEITr EWIPYEM LilSE ARU(330 9.n O U Pcn TOWED SE sr, m eJ n sHaue,Pwrtm w.0 n%o tr ct'�+ DEMOUBHED ANo 2.0 uu wAu. R 1 y IPOPO F Po ,-0`l 1)R BO B2 F.(Sf)l09-BW (q oRnss—� TTrT%---¢ ;� v-o• gggp PROPosin Locw TEG Y + ., F F c wsF Rou,com (n r NroN §Ip' .I a d roR TioattD PROPoSED r-MOfitE OF C a cant coNWrt Rovnrvo uNE OF ExlmHo Roor OrtRNANc,rn (szRo RUN) � (E)�q m w F �, —�M♦^=faE PROPOSED T-YOB IE POWER!1ELC0 L— ON .`'1 I ROOF ro—.1CC / '� ' � r IT-wB a LEASE MU(T303) (E) 31,5'PALM TRE4r;q� ��PROPOSED T-YOBRL PROPOSED T-.-. '-0• "� NO D TE, OESCRIPT ON',qO'-0'U.O.CDUt TRENCH SRE ACCf�U` � ' j ,� - � nOO-E�zC�USM,i�PowAY 0 12/]1/OB 90S ZD B NJC jPROPOSED!'-0'HMN CNU EYEROEXCtOWEMTOP PARHINC PflA9�H a1 01/28/09 INLERNAL REVI510 KH wD—/ Punrm To LATCH In BunDIN� '; I PROPOsm T W-D•SHE ACCPROPOSED T-wCBItE"- COED (n SSJ,P'PALM rREF. J .,,.•...® /- PAntINC� — — `- ] 10/02/G9 C RA H URCHRE IGTOW�R— _oBURCH u- 1 TOw'LS TO BE PCMOdO `_,----- ---------- w,n•r I �! (n CONCRETE—Ay.Trn. 11M TRq I I i I _ q F.E.+OENCC s SECTOR'B' �—(n N (E)PNtprvG—�� 1 01/28/09 QC/OA CHECK NJC 11'w�S1LR0v� �J , I SiE1 FOR MA TON' COMMUNITY UMC T APN: LA33421A (E7 IUIN sxrcHDEH+u�o —, 146-483-29 sse ca NPOE PROPOSED I' ZONE: RL �} ! 6nEILACH UE T-NOBIIE POWER!TELCO POC : . HUNTINGTOM1 BEACH.CA 9aE<] —J USE: CHURCH I - '� Ali 1110—E sEAu I I - I UNE W 00...ROOF—RHM'0.TYP -- ' I SECTOR'C' coprRlcHT Nonce, 240a ROPRE R FOk TON �a LElf, Tr•%o.P,r° r N SHEET TI%E', cYU WAI. L—————-- SITE PLAN --—————————----— ,PX APN:tnO..MS-a0 APN: IAO��tB5�4I I1P-.P1 nPN:'IBA83 f] APN:14B�nB3�I8 ApN:tn0�a°Sr9 %UXE.%� Ytlni::kl. SHEET NUMBER, /< 1. << rESICENCE !19E NESICENCE l,.! f'SIUENCE USE:NESIDf N^E .:SE REOIUENCE RCSB.C1. $GA E / 6 1 SITE PLAN PROPOSED T-MOBILE LEASE AREAS I14IES: 1.I1E E,IPYENt IOCllIOW ARE APPRORIWiC " .Mobile PRowsm i-uoBILF a'-o•.lo'.o• - .uo s.r. .»o.RE suslEcr ro.�Paw.L n 1-umnc tl ru rw p tl.w EWIPYOR 1pA1E MG pOwE0.Y16IDMglE fK 6 AIE�6U�EC1 a4 by E p° PROPoSm 7-WBIa MUPM tOwFl1 • ]B S.r. 10 APPRWK Br 11RNT COYPPNIES. " RG "Mcktogether' 1.THE EOIN—EH0.DSURE WRIIW. NR 1OTK PpOP09m 1-WRAF LOSE ARU•]]B B.f. SHOULD DE COMPOSED Of SPLR FACE AT 1NE RASE,f WY.CWI6[S O PROOf99M BEOCN " .0 A DECO "CM, .y.Iw RF ]YACwT«VR NAGE.SurtE 11 W " LAW PREPArEC RY, NOVOB.019 SECTOR'A' ' `' C M Olt PROPOSED i-OMORa ANTEHW9 1 IRE.-1-u001a C.I. LEAS[MU Ys H+ I>s PWOHAU,R urvrt]Bo iOP Of AVIENNR;11) rvws P SECtEORP5O Rt,0 fA]L) PBuOR,ttRONH IMcF,wOfu Y u O - L.18 0,f')- _ C(E) PfWOM TLES9EMUB- -0• "A+E"' PXonE:�Yb I)BOe-B�SB f fO.MnX.lRln (SeB,An)bBt OB-BADS RFWIn Uw+.iERED �MP afygg I w.navoc • (C)TREE PoylLt+SUYwPR]N�«p E W -L ww GROUP..am NO �«9�� —\ (E)sNRu85 XpN CNu w.uL SCE NM 2 PROP"osE"f%oBILE " PROPOSED i-HOBIa D CHURCH PROPOSE,t-MOBILE SO.-O.— PROP Sm T OBLF] B iMT MOUHim-LE 6Yb tl L t iO�^ / O-USE b .',F-'1'.^'..A PRDPosco T-NoaLE HURCH BELL TO Rf CM �Qyyf 11 Cbs cONWR STUB-UPS (E)C FOR ME 1a0PO4m TON2R 4 N _ NO. DATE`TDEECRIPT,CN: BY: • H•. '.. .. CNxCOON1--E WiNpOUDNG0. PaowosfD T-uoRILE f-----^_, r- ------� �-------, r-- , PROVOsm T-Y09LE 0 12/31/OB 90f.ZD NJC oPs qME«NA -— —— O O. is atRcolc GENERAM, 1 ot/26/09 INTERNAL REVISIONS Nn RRECPTAC 1 PRO—1-NOaa k---- - k --- -- k------- k------- PowR PRCtEG,N 2 02/o5/o9 ooa m KH DB1a rowER SECTOR'B' 1 ____-- l ------ 11 ------Jl l ______JI CARNET(PK) PROE Aulu 1-N R,, ON TO RA SECTOR C' sM,,(E)WA PER SECTOR. 120°N _-- _ — J kf—ThE ^ O�O M dR NQ HURA RCH TOWERI gN1EHHA.sECTOR cRoss-gRNI L Pacu T-Noau ] tG/o2/o9 TICikE iI kE Tk[�tkE vk kE ) iro Of 1 240° rosin T-NDaa W - - TkfkE y� iELCO fW1.pATRE PROPOSED ry� I'-N' N'-' T-Nona 1---I "•., '. B ANTENNA LAYOUT � 1/z`:'.`'D. 2 �NOroM ?ww� I I �(E1 PORRM Of CONCRETE WIIJ(WAT TO (q 9XRVB TO REuIA M. TWPo�IUSE DAIa DEVOUSHED MD REYOJm,REPLACE MG(nsB� r t o1/2e/os oc/oA ChECK NJD AFTOL IHSTN P11 (E)TREE TO R—. -- -, - UNE Of PROPDSED T-NDaa 1O.]E' -' -- - ---- - /j \ SITE INFORMATION: EOVIPMO?LEASE NRA(]BO S.f.) / pgppOSED '.I ' (W4HPSTA MG)�I�� S,-E- H �. PdERM OF E) (E)1-1 To RE ftvC`D CMCREIE WALK /CORR.YEtA .1m u oaWDm tEx —AWA--- COMMUNITY UMC INFO(E)CONtlVER 10 WiM(E).DNG qP k w-5- -PORT Or cn.'ro NM LA33421 A ENNN unPLTTAEO CNV PLANRA WNL iD eE F OENCLtlMm AHD RfM0.FD �� MIRDEERE,'NEiN. -� v T7 A TO EtlRyy tlB6B nEIE AVENUE I ^ 1E%IURm TD NA1CM MVNTIHOT"BEACH.CA-11 .II j r_ro. / /3/�.12lZl tt PORnoi+orp (�BUILDING—� 11'-l0• \ar,_ - SEAL: r✓� \ \BE SAw CUT k_CV,D �- AHO I �(fiEU45CYV /� p B[0I.M ,, /P h —(E7 WN.N� �-((r'No PMNWo-APE-1 .I n � t I 1--(E)NO PRR%INO'9OiIPINo-✓/ COPYRIGHT NOTICE (OVYPmR FAG) F UNE Or E)ttl11W Roof O.RTHwo "I"", 4CPR ET OH Y ON . iF AND1 'S[DI ]TIDry ( ENLARGED SITE D. SHEET TITLE �wE:ucwAv i0 RERAN �()NO ARNRIN AENUN'w�aERDANP>io 7E PLAN &ANTENNA LAYOUT uoyNEERExIm«a RoOr NII'IN��\\/I I\/\/mIT�II \/\/, W 9HEET HUMBERI W DEMOLITION PLAN SG�` 3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 2 \ _ PPOPOHfO T-wo■L[cPB ANTCNw. /�' ",�,;. HU6RCf ro APPPwK Br T-�� D ■ @ P■w■ ■" � � � I.KL[MPYMf tDGigNH 0 M[ wMobile r PPOPDHED t_.OB APIMNM A,SA'-0'A0.L TO wCWy W 'w 1 rck together" 10 OP APIENW.P B D 118 WNCfALMIM.(x) I\\_ - • ANfpVNM PEP HECTOR(])sECT016 ro1K A I M W WR W w ]YNIRTNUR PVR.6ufR 11 W SM1A ANN G WO, PPOP D i-YO■tE PPP �\ ++ an w W �NC[AWEYt PLANTED 10 � Ip ANq�0.EPAf�D BY', idl(n B.J)0,311 A � NCVOs,019 (E11e LAN-npn P w p ®y�cam pROPoH[D T-YOBRE A-1200ED i�L TTOEtN.LOWED U.10 BC A,— _ ( _ ,{ � PmPoEi,fAO— t0 Xi _ YY Douala BHl x6O %$ d Poo�iucTn lOwin rnanc pi ww PO oOm�eeG rA(Rp)eoe-em i I _ w#W mTonl'na.nel �$y 'IIII////\ \` ( CdBaWLH4NW GRouPco b \\ E�UII.- OE�'R�PU9F➢ G w fY „$ s (E�PKAI TPFF ADJACCM TO _ b w RB x�un[�ur.6 zoo ,� PPOPoSm EOUVM� � b k (q auPw a nuNo � T - a Wv w.-YM lF f0'a.r-s'9uCn NO DATE��FSCRIPTION. BY: l -G PROPosm - ■� _- CYD N TO wm (q BW.brPiom 0 72/31/08 901f ZO NJC O YETK ACCEHH SECUPm uD 1 07/2B/09 IMERNAL RNS106 KH _ - Gw iP/.ml 2 02/05/09 100%2D KH [N(1DHWE TIXfuPE➢NN)PANrtE0 TO 11=1)BYIIallo,W/PoPR REDESIGN TO — — ! 10/02/00 CHURCH TOWER SOUTH ELEVATION ® 1 !/1 a•-r-D• i PROP09ED i-YOBPL GPH ANFNW 4 aG ----------- / \"-------------- A.., ( 1 01/28/09 OC/OA CHECK NJC \\ \ II III \ 1 III i 91TE INFORMATION: PROPoYD t-YDHIIL NRFM 9 Af ,,. exoxHo cT� l ((x�wwH ,� COMMUNITY U M C A.�"'°"(])HEETD,■,oK LA33421A ((E)BJ'-H'PION s MEIL AVENUE (EI]R'-6'NAAI AALV TRm'MUCEM E66 PAW tREt PROPo9E01-Y00112 PAP sWM LNCfHwFM PLANED 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 WTW(n B.DO.9TUDC0 SEAL: cn fill 1 (( 11qq i0 ((!!�� EE[E PPOP09FD ? EE�IYYEEM MGwT PROPOHEO 11 I IIII PPVPoS�m�EWPPYEM�G TOAt0.�lLM�TO T-wOBtt Y _ _ CREDI _ qy$Q qp$Q IN PNaMO LOT,BEYOM 3 N h COPYRIGHTPR NOTICE Ills E P We— _ (q CHIMCII au'.. 21 }g K FOR t0 UHHEETtITLE!— ' i l 1 ill it ELEVATIONS — PPDPwm T-woeaE ID'+]B'Pr-a•HaN aW EWIPMEM y tl��lll.:� �g b M b q MmHUPE t1%NPEO AND PNNrm ro Wml(n 9 E }y{ � Hµ BUILDC L 1'WILE CORPLdTFD YETK AELEH9 OOOP _ 'G IIII 1 -S SHEET NUMBER. 77 q qµpp D�qD�q M n4W1� .WO CNVN LINt HfWRRI tlO N¢ p PROPDHfD H'-0'NIGH CYU TRAM■IDtDHUIHi EF%TUPEO MD f RR LTTLLLIIII PHMED TO WRif 6uNplq,w LOIA. atE4 -3 WEST ELEVATION 2 w 2r wf 4y Nb d➢ NOTES 1,ILL -�4ENTT IDCAT10«R ME M�DRIW PRD.D,ED r_-a DP]�RENW «Y,&«W�, --:Mobile D APE SUWECT TO WM N i_40B1 SANCNe.WD Rf E«DwEfl6.LDCAAON9 Of "---"—_—.—"—_—"'—_�.�----.—.-- V8j 6T RELPnONE°AC E. ARE 9Vel[CT °o PRw w,un,Y ILT ME m p « W Ws`��ck together' AIOP09m T_EgBpt NCIG'NA9 PT M-0•ACL TO W]4«GAINYR%ACE]urtE I I TD,OF,PmENNAs ee>awC_ nu uEM(xl w M s«vr.Nu,a RxTOT —(E)e]'-e•NwN PNy N!i[)1NK PEA$I",(J7 sCCtOps roTK W w iy PaEPA�06r. E W NOVDe.CtO PROPDSED T-YOBIEE MP W W W W cONwi„cM -11 "1 «,0—S O - NOVSCOM (E7 sp,AV•w W 1wi rw .Dom,s•,,... TALE—� � BY RD unn x]o e0B Bee TCwG � r-NO1 -t TO BE W W "ONE: C]1)..nova[ online,n)el -�] NNTED GREEN t■ wwGROUP.Om pEbo os..ao`V rD—\ = cn 3p_]•nwN (E)C.—eul�nwD b N 0 12/31/08 oEs 90%zo�B NJc 1 01/28/0977 INTERNAL REVIEION NH 2 02/05/09 1009.Zo KM °RauoHD cu4e He nNNaa REDESIGN TO 10 02 09 1 / CHURCH TOWER Lo , '. ,.. ,.� : '.rilr'i riT, •...,,. .'—�iT.>_'�:i-r =r-`l:r`7 T NORTH ELEVATION ----- ----� / - "—•----� ' 'll/////�I r' \\,. 1 0,/28/09 QC/On CHECK NJc ^`\\\\\II , IIIII SItE INFORMATION, 1\�\\\\II 11iIIII IIIII COMMUNITY UMC °AT 04' 'w°L 1.TOR Of Csm r-Yoa E wP LA33421 A IMEHNA9 MIND NIP CDNCC,VMENT PNIlfEO TO CCNCE-M,(2)*inc— WTCN(E)ErnO,srucc0 PER]ECTDR,(D)SECTDRe B HEII AVENUE mN yyy yy MUNiINGTON BEACH.CA 9xfi9i 3 PRdPDSm 1-YORILE (fSJ'-1•NM;N _ SEAL', 66 FF Ta¢ �( rowrn�ro IN PNNTm III/// \ l r �EEN _ \ � �\\`� 4) OTNEE PO4DAE UIMCMC A9G ]TNIEE NIDN _ `$ + P TREE (Er tHURC«EUNDI«D — � -— COPYRIGHT NOTICE aROPR Ei H OR TO (C)AlY WEZ IIII _I SHUT TITLE:ry _ ,il — -- LIM LE D VATIONSB�� — E PRMOSm i-DRLLE 10 vb,:)'-e•NID«OYu EDWP4EM ENCLOSURE Prim 1_ONE x j� TE=_ PLANTED To WTCN(EID t➢ND.w!a N110N¢C4BIND -E NNEs yy 1$� 'CORAUMTED a.MSC99 DD011 N! N U 9Etunm W qq L m - b k III J � Lei"--' y, � TT 541 SNEEi NUM9ER; "� C tS y PROPDSm]'-D NIDN CYU 1MSN EN4051ME T[%NPF➢ T ', �i LAID PNMRD ro WTCN(E)wUImIND w/COR0.4ET«L WTm 04. SGLLE. EAST ELEVATION 1/le=)'-o 2 t.t7CATION � Maac,oft birtualEarth PROPOSED t'a'W,t'+X�`ttr`"ar.r r Eta ,y x' MvAggk„. " ' "` � ; ftz �.' m W rxd ,�. ..~ at� x^�'x�;`r f ,x,� '`" .. ,r `R -.� �^,f ��f'n �,sa � "��>lt xt ^' � " $c � a tl�yi� � � mr ��s,�, � .a. µtt z .a'*„t't ap' -.✓ s'-r�, „�°'�x ,�aw ,.:yM ��t,�t'k.ns�°,.t, -t E,.w awr�mg„�„ � .Spot ��,:;,w!' '�, � k�. �`"� -;y, a,g �,-�r t•, ,_ �tll a.2sJIN "�� '{�Yti4 �� 'I {' •. ,"Ss�' �,��"}� _ t >:,;;.wt � �,��a, ix 1 X"".�,,'r ��r 't'�^�'h. s,"'. '�,�"t,t oo';�. A„y.,.y„ fMJ '..h�'h J�x:r ..�:�,. yy' ➢5+a :� \ 4fi' d 9 A r:+rowsr� .y .�r -e_! f�' e'ti�'=',,+�� ir t ti,�,., .:�. '"`� ixy. •`:: "'i �"��E- trrl��' n, .:.-r a... e5 ,�?�"* '`'OQ$'PCE: LOCrr L N ;.t ^'ttra��.L.a ._�€n_�;"��" �%�.cYa�.�,t�sT?.,..:.-a._x�� 't ,.<�t��' �m ,,ar, x��,, �9 •=,�-s.=.�.. View from the Northwest to the Southeast , t p •F ' .t `�. "" r-,�:tI "t:` 4.;�' -t S"�`ti�, x�}��t u 4 "p ! wJ �•' a t,., � t'r r, t t r ��' v '.r - 'r r� �°'` `r Ym k..:+a,t�Y1+t# „sq�4 ,. �..^s4t"'. t�. '.;t5'� �..� ` t`�g.al r 'S' S' x L's'"f�'...., "„„ , .`F#"t,.�� . ,.) t,e.,...3` „ ,,.,v,, '•,::a�.. :;. _. ,9' , y. rr, >x*«a �asP�t6 n�� g,- „'a�. <.,'��rx . d....:4.,.t,; ,.s..�4 3�. ...,,•a,k +.._W ; p'x.<:SO�a',. ". r] .,1:. .'c�`A. .,.:?��aw. ,h° (..�" ar .p °.� ,.. �t•r s Fmk, 'ia+S� `� � .t. �,'�� t�J` it e ,..,x,ty l ,:� .r {j „a. 74 :. :..„ :,�, r+usm�«a� „� .}. ,✓sp su :'�;- a r ,�., d, t�,. . i v. �..: `d •4 ,-i-- �: p,;�.'�_; .., t ka, � 'c�` x�',xa;r..r. �" k n a. �.,§+. :� tt 4� - it. tw ;e;: N a °x r .n' ., x' g mr.; P,",.x.: .7.;if£�.g 'u'r:•x,t, t �'• a ..,,t1h w�. .' ." tt. ym`a,u,! ,. qa ; 3 ar; r,G'"' I. i;9 „� r tr._ �' y N. City Comm ents"Proposed Cowes Nil be pLin d green eo n tca ex5iuy FRP material c prorosco w—i s designed do Ma'icn i 4� 1 iVk a8- ctl irr}ra ViaJP sal, l'v ronn��t.)`[]urtity U M C 3 11AE9cArd u f cc Suite I,,Or) BR onlc't(lljcaretry Aria,.-aa92707 -1\ientur tact 200 t ""-",**`� csd t Y �;� Phoro simulauon accuraoj s'.,zsed on Inforr<9on provid�u to Blue W J s',:n oy I;II Ippi cart. d .LOCATION Microsoft'Viitual rr[h" gi s§r ' .ti:, ,t„ r�'l�;et' �y x�a '�°; �,•,�,. � '-:�,3 s,�,., t. ,�i'�f '�.+, .�,�°" ,, 'xr} 4*V ,.w� :}:,".v, •tx Trx ?t,., � ��-` .,t�rr°a, €? +�` wt �� ' „•�', n dot„7 ra'��.{ � �' >r , 1 p 96 a1r �,w �J� ada ;GdY, ht ( „ yk - +' " �` n �: t iR b Y.t",. ;,:;8�W.aF i", .'f` ^Y"ry e""+^• ,`� i.�a�! �� , xo"�an j dt 4 14�„ �' ';•"�ro �".i,:.r.k{ ti"k:{��x ww'91 `��7 '�`�`•` .7.ta A x (�r�` � ', "x'.. �,yt! �e.,�t:~.�f, 1v '1 .��„:,c ,iaY `�+.'rr, A .rk v+ *;u• s r � et}„��' �LOCAT�ONI Wier from the Southeast to tl ae Norlhwa bt TOWER EXISTING ,yam, x Hkr z Jt M't�`P5 Y w'!ty r.ik+r,,*�, z '� r`" ,.:,.^, #' ._ ..^ � s",rt '��"'✓+':. :�"+� -s :�'t�' r ,,,.�',, .-�;.`ssy,�• � �?��,'�$ ., yr a t._�z �r-,..- .� ::{;Rk»'*1+ �8a s4k 1"'C�v' ' k , �: '� tr :? S „�;,' ;�, '., v u§ zsx f p �^�,�"�".� vx,a >,�%, �s�.c.' ,�"� "y"fa �"'r;*1�,rY`�. t; x .,c,,,`�,,:*�. c`;•.t ', RAF, i r k r z Y ��'9%" . ,�`, c l �-w..�.. �:`t'u'�a�»Far a�,�..,.»;•�,n, � t, r=.. <: e r ' ,,-,�: „>,: _ ..:'; � pr r � v,, -, -:t" ,.. ,*`��>.ra.:: �n�''�',�"w"•�"z" F "*. a=.,"� s �,„'#t9v „S� R�,t?�', ;5rt 2,.:. � auf�' � �,»,}"� - y ,..xs ,t•+: •;u; 'w t .-s.�,:v `'."�i°� s` v �5f,�' xs �n,, �t�C"t `a mot`s.��rsw�"� * -..�:,�;+�'1' �? °S � d +22 � ''xl.`G�' a„� ,;:•r xa ,� S � ,�:,,,�. s '" e_.P�,��E' dGC) s. ,� ft, >`r•`Fz;rr "i 4:.zs ,� ,",,,:^z' i tt& C. x E,^a y xS'§ .r. ,5,;. 'fa 6.D ,.,t;.,,.§ xR �Q�!C'9@E°e`Ud�6�6'' ,:.fs� �, -re'. ,� �.: �„.:.� .a. ,.r„s xr>.,x .ti^.,.,""� r '!.•aw .fi �"r...,a, .w.'� � ;st;,. �-n fir, w ;��'�'""'tc�-� � ,., .. L�B�Ia`G9CCSV s;�"'. *f7,. .. # & :,.,+ .v 7s. ➢::n S+ z' ... !::, t >rr`j A. "n " .k x f.,,,.. t-4`' .,,,.rl,.,,. ..t.,...„• dt" t .� a:. _.i *°.�,' .: .:,,.: :;a� C ., a - .., .•�.,*a. .. ... .,.�. :. .f ,. ., ,. r•w ., es �:"r..,,..,.. .".,, tiY`. ., �',r, 'Y :n.'�,^. ,. ,� ,.,v.`4,& a ..n y� tyke 'y z,. ::.:r^. ,., .?,. .W f o. .#r^.,., ..., t .>: ., ,.. :'t'•, 2, .�';: ,-;-s, 3, rs�" ...,. „, .i>."sr.J ,,,. .,..,,,,.h qr�•.,..';r fin. ,,.. r,s �, rs 'a.,,. 5 ,r :,. t _'..;!' :,; r: ,,;a '^�. ,....'f �"'. :.» rg¢; ...,{ x„.,.., +c..:,+. ... .k"9`.}i ..o.<: ,t.,. �.,,sl at � >,..s '.,:... #. i,.::,.;.> �,..,.... �N";..; YW '7 :..,+ ,. ,S ,.K'• m u. ... u* .... ....... ... t .., far ;•.... .1.R�� t"vw,s ..,.,�, m. n',r., �`?t, .. '+ ,F £ :,.>., ..�. i":,•,1 rf.:;.R. ., e :,r, ,,, ::a..„ ,A ar�v ,., ,,,,,4 w...: ..n,., .'sF'.,,,., 4 ., .�*s ^w.i .; s.: _ �'' i;>,'�'} '� ,:<. �::-,. t t. a. .s:41, a n , •..c.,+ _;M1 s •��,;: ,,„:� ,..:; i ,•. �5„_ `'� ,,r� �'. z.5r.,: .� ,��5v; t5' ,.d +' � .,.,,. a ,. „n ...'t+ k.- .' t'P,:.. �r ....... ......:.� c S:,.c? d.tr,. ,.,.;,..-. ... t„s, �-. z,,v, .v..£ v ::w n.. A„ x.P,,xa ,:, •�,�, :� ..;,s;,�"aa,,5:,.:.>� � + �.,, >�: t ..� .. .-... xv ir,.,: �#�..,,.:.r' .:;o-. ,� >f, \s�v ._ 1:_ ''�* b.P:;�" �.�z>. ��:. �s._v°'._;^�.�""` _��:-"..ws..__ ,./ "xrsR.:.,�xsi..s.::�>�."+�*•x+,czrsz-.t<.rk' ',a - *.^'S '..,9 za "+ N3 .`.x ±fk � _ _s.. Gty Gommems:'Proposed tostwill L=, gr t—atc of sCing ds— e,,:rei kPP inat=nrinn proposed isdessgnzdio irvic ._c..o,-eu su xg chs,rdi S; fl Lh✓ .: hi� L7 >>:x" c z hL in t MRsi''= kr l lr a .rvrr¢ s y UL MC :�?w9,arJ^,t htr E1.k..c.S sift d'r�G ttu�t 18u•oe� +'.A 92707 Silifo 300 w L r a 7sr 3 ' ';r• S Nt. Pho,o sn OdGll aca'W)/JS based on in'orr kzCon provir:.4 to IlLo b _ i - _ _,,.x Sa � Swr kt k � �. P A AWN jj Pn3crosott Uutu !i t �• e �� ""' �'�S�as� �xzr +V rc�w Y G pis +nsx, � � � - � r, 2� i �,�°`wtw � � " 'y$.�aa�� +�.y sa;,�J'' is' �e��a •� v�'%� "n1,�ik t,•. . -.,,� - r ht. i' '�%�`� `�4 � ''M..yys�x� «' �„ .I ', d », ka, .a.:fir�s,�u�..A.;. tix,_ s,., '�yy.;;':,.... a.. „�,a .,,F.+ ,;� .,�u, ;g� x•: c.<„ ;'� "'ta+. �.Q'�6'"4.7Sr<�'n ,:wg.;.T �•✓} r- "`•j�.' a Pr9 " 4 w:t '?.,.�'p�P.°16�.d� y ��. I T fl.�8�,:.,al'@Q.�Fl; N7in�cnad 4deau�rE P )_ '�,,u' �„��.. �,.�. �".a ,�;;: ✓r . ;:,x .,: 't'",rs,, t �:.�. k �"td v!� a ss,.> "�•P...,.,, ,�,.„ ,�. ��+ �. �a -. �<a'.°`::. d ..*"'� „�*.� - ,�-.,.,..�..,. �,a.,�'F'"� �,,,,.a.;��.x �e 3's�{ Jiew From the Southeast to the Northwe,Mhyi EMS"@9PJG "_ "' '' f Pj>x,,,. "�, ' �:',,Ss ! V4y ,x,& 3 ."a t b v i yr�;. �,.�� d ��.�y77 ,ri ��,rey PTO '` ,. �`i, , 3". J"'. ,rt ��'`ry rtiv (' �.��.;�^* J+� Yr, � ,i 'a''� c� i i '� '�',,� 9 r'�i•,.r,<:�a. ;j 3y j, «t, „_,;'J;. � •., Ma,s:+ y .' 'i,�;� sl!,"�,t`.r .^ P�" P.�" ':��d+�'° 5t. �, . ,:'e,x s. �.:-E .;::,; ,�?a't'�.„" .«s�,'4�ar..�`�F 'S as��:,9 '�"f'^'' tP#i ...1.a�•,. ', 'as. �F , � Iz�..�t �� ,� "(r+.^s,� � 3ytxa: t r,:�' �: �"Ey�'"� �''"�- ��.,. �•ss tiz is r ».wt"�a P �..:, ,rCd>� a � n, r�* x _ v ,� �` -w �:�'� �reyr�� t ,� ,.,c•f'x p t�k i;�t �;. �y ..P rP1 3s +„ . scV �*P a _.___.' r.wa w�d y �� _. .?:. P� a,,,��` �. xt�.pa� ...:.-_ ..._..... .. S* � ✓ .. JS �t City Corrrne nPs."Proposed"ovvei fn'nied green:or atd ...,,_ ngd-�.L;ovrei fPl rnmte ial or,proposed tovve is dcslynedm patch s.t cco o`n;P e,.�gJ srcn:' a, rE,tu ..,.U..w1 . �?�] It ` r �� VlQ,nal4r.j' p„ .aucllr.,tiiis : ( � I VdC'wG y m ,,p�er'� p� �1..flt.�ra mun� � U��`� 3 MacArthur MwArthur M El SII 94C1I, �llonico Nil . Smta WX CA MW)7 ;v i+a c Somme 6666 TIN! ., .t _n r, Wx IN EMS w.t x , ;;Ni PMM sm 00,accuracy is based on inroi matron pro -d ro Blue V, er r q bt 7 ,piA.I n. __. a 4 J, PRONCISED "i"- 4 MWER .M; .......... LOCAT11C Mr, ............ "wN ✓"y o. rr C� g MIA J.Y g", R, 7,g�'U, View from the South to the North w r-xgs'hNG 'X' T R "g"�N ET "J"'. x� .. 2� M", A Z t an Z r il " (Y�: "P `4 Y Z'K;' JV jj 0"V"T Oily Comments:"P,op.sed ior Mll be painted green to macdh c;jsling d-l"'ch jQ"e'.FRP material On IDtoposed tmEi is designed M match scucco c�,'cxisting c;I Lit ch." 'IA T servicas amnaunity UNIC 3 MacArthur piat"(s,Suil,e i I W MnlreAta kd'ss�'C-, ,;,.,lnta Aija,OA 9270-, 1 Ven irra,SUAC-)200 �rdn C-A 02? �'O fl e o 13 jo 1 2 try A V=�. ZI 'I Photo sinILIaIL011 2CCUFICY is b�CCI W n,o,CIpM,,�ded VV Dngn hc aq-�!'L I LOC'ATICON � �.,��Nt!ctc oiaz Virtual E'nh- -u .. , , Sa 8Sz a r,•, t4 4u :,, ap 'S' x < ya •kza"?' 7 1 z' "r :,; .. '"�,. r.x, •xG.r. ,.. s�1S;�.,, �`�"�`,.. v;? ,.� a., ,.:,,: -:� � :,:�. '�-, ,�I ,,,A rr, :;S �t�a � I w^,� .-::li;.'t .,ysk ..�.,: r "{ �'.:+-j *�.sia ��;ti!g��,u �r as.{ ..C'."t.�rs ri�` ��•1�-.< �'� `ud.C`8; .w"u+haw '�;ew;"z. '`r;', 5: '�' 1�wtv451,�,e�'„a"kY�,�� .:tt�s" till`^4x ,§ � .,,' ,,',' •:'t{ y .,i• 5� ;4p�f ��4�" 3,t,�t1 :. N, ;r''v�. �`' `Y,:1',�,tk °�Y ,::r 7l.S�l4f�, �. `�'',. �f r..i. Q��t:, 2 r'.5, � x%W&�`y atk?,z��e �,,'r�', �v„ri..:•m x r'k✓i't�8'{' . ,� a 1 a aA..§w;3 � s,+ `"3 a {.e t ^;:�.�'fi F'-a,r• r ,}rc 4 1. „'r,:' ' rv....a,�pm`a:ir�^'`� v 8„�. c z r' rat `�.�§k,�n'�'�..;{ ��%� "�`�'4�Sf:�� ,3gp• i ,l. J � ,.I x n-.w. � .•C� ,s5r.,�`at .rp � 8 ;c`• a^s4 �,�, �r'ia'rs^p:,xa�, t ry .kr r9 r`,` �:7� f Asr.• t..`� 3.� �� ..,u -;.. °' �' :.:<:, �' ,.c;'^ yr w`�,r`9,'.A� ��"� k :. 8rs.. a+.,�� , ,IV3°a art`` X" ,,,{x pr •1 , rc'�t r+° a'� s V �w w?at. .; sera'°w° ', Fgl- LQ7d'e""u OR�Ce9 View from the West to the Eas --- EMSTING r " y a„t r kie3'w ftih k, t ry t �1'�� O`+'. r. ,<, :;; " x<,: �s �, 5' •'`; pxt„5�,r, ';a} t ` ``� a.s -y`i � iu'„b{ a•'�.;,w',. .' °+"� a,C{ j �7 z� „r w c , stoN C r r H& Aj 5 ,. sJ•t' PR .M r G, 'a t ..j vav" d `" - :.� f I 1 - ;- e +Jt a ^�'t, t. ,*,p h,.:r 1:, '� .rr «,'� aK �;"^•: a.;w.tn':,'w`..., '" ,l't "x.` r..,rx ,, a ,a i. w-,. s,a t o-w'� r,;, 3- ,s+ :.,, ,.. 4 35a>»,,.,.... 5 w:.:.+. I:.GT -. ..... .. .. ...,,'f". �� :.ii.,. .: -0.'k'- N :C._Vi'w�, &"", S" M �:M''�'i 4 v.'?k"'Ny '.ad`roi „'.N �' .. Y: _d•4 .k",fi,..3r.,N � ..R4''.:, � i'�:.{a i� .�vP(,a. .t.N, .- .. ._ .r,: ,.+... t•..,.w ,t. e ^"�,d`. wax � .•H 4�,h w fix.;„, ,,� ,,r,;,,A '� K:>rer.•, -r•^• ...{.,: �, ,� ,<,rh, �� .,,i::•.� ,.;,.'�'. .. 'kf' :-.r ...�,?,.. C. .:, t :5.'^wa R..zh ,�' ..,c .rr 1��",..,u t,'. .r.�' r .,,...Y,. C,...,:, �•+S .V. Pa 3x` <.'r :.,-..., ..:� k; ,.�,.: , >",:.aw:.,.. - L..m',� n •�. !� .., a ,.e,.: ..,. r.,.fa...i.c`l,.w. ^{ ,,. + w..,,.4.s�Y+fYyC .�!': r .... .,-„ - s ,..n :, ..,,� ,:..,� -: ',-:� .. a:., a� .. '� 5{ .ry •s., „w..._:s.„r k. I .,. �,BS. ,. .w:.:. ~t, .x a` c, ..� :�,,, ,,. � ,:,. ,.�.n'e ;...:,,• .3- ,. .:w' : k :. Ye,..,. „... -'s � I r.. ,.. d.,, ,. ,,.".r:,�s pw.,:aw'r i"!ce ,.. r...,,,`r✓ :J:,a�. .,;!?8 � �:Ya"i* ,.,.g w�TM.�l c� ywr, >t 7.. ,b �,r • „ „-, ,..... ,., {- tom:, �,: :-� :: r..:.. sd .`, _. :, :,..:,r�• :q k:, ._'•r kxa, ::., � � S:.a„xn o-- ..:.k. r..: ,yrt� ,w ,r,�..p , : , ,. w,,-„7.a x,. ,a, ., .,..::. , ....: a,�,,. d ;..� a' ,x � ::: ,...a.,;:�,�,>'� +S? ,.rt,... �, ,. ., 7 .�. .. •x., ,,. su€�'.:.; u° '� � '; �,.a.. 4 � ., i„ .a,, ti', ..7r r .,, ..;:.: „r�. , .,',-�. a ,��,�. ... s..-..P,-. ,. ,...:- �„ , a:•E:., ,. .« w k' s_,.. ,vs�,5� ,4:; l , ,t:.. ... ....... . . .ti'_ ,,,.: .a ,. :�,:.: ..., .sr , .k>x :,.,.. ,a>.,.,,, ,�^,,,.a.x tw. � :.,. ,E.Kr za ,,,,.. ,t ;*•- n'x r ,...: ti. .... ,.,.�='�,..,,sz'�,,. u�.r ,•... -,.. s. '4,.. ::�:�:., -c. ,,.,.,.. ....,..'•r Fr�..`+t,.,. 4 r ,1.. �: ,� ;. _ ,."'. ,3r,...i �. ,,a,, w...�,G.�. ,. .� .. ... .:, :. .,::, ...-:n,;�I -. r?a. .:,w.-.,:. ,e ,. ::,..� , v.a.�. ¢ 'wk,,..� M.r �� -x" �^ �->r'. �r +w•� .,;s:. ,v... „..:....,a ,�' ,+.,, -�;5'. ..4 =F ..,.. „t <„-. ..>:,> .,„...J �. P ::.. r, ., ! �. d.., .�r..� ..}x. •..z .a. �..,.- ~# x. >:i .a±>+"a�.;�xo- "s .a^ - .... sai ..>., s!:�u:,.a�*'"•.�;..r *r3':."$tom-.r..�i '...,.,.�....<.�.r 9,.:s3..u ,..�§.7.i r, .-.a r r Y- :u:... `S.'r..a.. -L�k.^; :nr::at �w r,..- :a Pt ::..0 City p Comrnei is P o osec tomcr w.11 oc aimed e cei a� � �� "- � P J .o�""�tch e,ci5ung h irc�t:owe rRP rnater al on hro posed tower is desioneo to r-a1'ch ,a_co o�e;st�r cF �dti ci, 9�-i � 1 2w „ - .. I. � t �� t} e p.a'�� tit; C `,?s x� a ^� �,. ,w c- ar i r7 r o R talc' r>s!„tI=Dia G er is .T ens service"', IvlaS.Alh l!,>I a ziac i 00 fNkGr rs t any:!Ant,,';A 02707 9'Vt,iNire .Re JCt .'r$.�. �.;`a; ., `.`,, ➢ et s ; 3 6 Zia ucnollE u - 55 m, a�)?% Photo slmuatlon scaer�o�lz based on infoonation provided to Due Wi er Design b/'ne applicant �:I tr Pr�g{9r :�;i:5' ATTACHMENT #4 >'f � l 4y� V {t"b 2010 FEB -S PM 2. 01 February 5, 2010 C,r,1-Y,:.iJ F H UNTfPiGT0 1 5E A Ci4 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for CUP Case No. 09-015 6662 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92647 T-Mobile Site: LA33421A, Community UMC Dear Ms. Flynn: Applicant T-Mobile West Corporation ("T-Mobile") is appealing the January 26, 2009, Planning Commission decision granting of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015. T-Mobile requests that the City Council review the project and grant the Conditional Use Permit for a fifty-five foot (55') tall wireless telecommunications facility located at the Community United Methodist Church ("Community UMC") at 6662 Heil Avenue. Procedural History: T-Mobile proposed a 55 foot tall mono-palm, located at Community UMC located at 6662 Heil Avenue. The facility was redesigned at the request of the Zoning Administrator to be a completely stealth design with antennas inside of a replaced bell tower with all ancillary equipment underground. The proposed wireless facility is a public utility use and complies with all noise, height and setback requirements mandated by the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. T-Mobile has worked extensively with staff, to identify a design and location on the property to both minimize any visual impacts to the neighboring community as well as eliminate any potential interference with current and proposed use of the property by the Community UMC. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile representatives by both written and oral testimony. Further, T-Mobile has conducted two community outreach meetings to address the questions and concerns of the neighbors. T-Mobile has submitted site justification data that includes the number of customer complaints, dropped call data, and drive test data to further support the need for the facility. T-Mobile also invited Dr. Bushberg, who is a Diplomate of the American Board of Medical Physics, Diplomate of the American Board of Science of Nuclear Medicine and holds a Master's and PhD from the Department of Bionucleonics at Purdue University (full credentials are found in the report submitted to staff) to the Zoning Administrator and meeting to address any health related questions. At the meeting it was clear from public comment that the issue generating the opposition to the proposed facility is first and foremost a concern over the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. A power point presented Dr. Bushberg ' February 5, 2010 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 3 was submitted to staff, per their request. Additionally, a written report from Dr. Bushberg was send to staff in September of 2009. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile by both written and oral testimony. Rine History: T-Mobile identified a need for a site in the area to provide coverage to the residential neighborhoods surrounding the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, specifically indoor coverage around the intersection of Edward Avenue and Heil Avenue. The increase in the number of customers and the changing nature in the way that customers use their phones (1 out of 6 customers use their cell phone for all their calls, both at work, in car, and at home) creates a need for cell sites in residential areas where the phones are being used. The need for this coverage was determined based on extensive analysis by T-Mobile radio engineers using drive test data, call blocking and dropped call data, coverage modeling, and customer complaint togs. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile by both written and oral testimony. The drive test data, which is real time data collected from taking measurements in the field, determined that a facility is needed to improve weak indoor coverage in the area surrounding the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. Due to the residential nature of the area, there are limited options available to provide coverage as the majority of the neighborhood is zoned and used for residential purposes. The properties that are not zoned residential and/or used for residential uses are schools and city parks. None of these properties are available for the proposed facility as the property owners of these locations would not lease space to wireless carriers. The proposed location was selected and modified through the review process as it was the only site that had adequate vacant space for the equipment and the facility, provided an opportunity to disguise the site as an existing tall belt tower, maximized the distance away from adjacent residential uses (approximately 125 feet), and provided the highest antenna placement without proposing a new facility and provide the best possible coverage in the area. Further the site will not be recognized as a wireless facility considering that the antennas will be fully concealed behind fiberglass panels. Finally, while the coverage could be addressed through the use of multiple sites located on streettight structures in the neighborhood, this option was rejected due to the City of Huntington Beach's prohibition on wireless facilities in the public right-of- way. Additionally, if sites in the public right-of-way were feasible, the increased number of sites required for equivalent coverage and call capacity would be between 3 to 6 sites total, and would significantly reduce the separation from residential uses as the poles are immediately adjacent to homes (typically less than 50 feet away). The proposed location and design is the best solution to solve T-Mobile's coverage problem when all factors are considered. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobite by both written and oral testimony. February 5, 2010 .loan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Basis for Denial: Opposition testimony and the issues raised were based first and foremost on concerns regarding the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions in the form of adverse health effects. Other concerns raised included: speculation that the existence of a wireless telecommunications facility would negatively impact property values; an attempt to demonstrate through nonscientific methods that a facility is not needed at this location; the generalized statements that wireless facilities are not compatible with residential land uses; statements that minor insignificant visual changes to existing structures constitutes blight; and concerns over noise. These were all raised as substitute, or proxy issues, to the real concern: the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. Additionally, there is a "substantial" lack of coverage in the area which T-Mobile has proven by the RF justification. T-Mobile and staff testified as to federal preemption of health effects as a basis for denial; the Planning Commission commented that it was not the perceived environmental and health effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility that was the basis for their denial but rather it was the effect that a "stigma" associated with the perceived environmental and health effects of the radio emissions from the proposed facility that was basis for denial of the project. This finding was so apparent a violation of law that Commissioners and the City's legal counsel both commented on how the City's decision was potentially running afoul of Federal law. As the testimony presented at the hearing does not support the decision of the Planning Commission and as the Planning Commission findings for denial are barred by Federal preemption of health effect, T-Mobile requests that the City Council rehear the application on appeal. The appeal is based on testimony and the record of the Planning Commission, this Letter, and any additional testimony (both written and oral) provided to the City Council. It is clear that T-Mobile has selected the best location and method available to fill the gap in coverage that surrounds the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, and that the project should be approved by the City Council. Sincerely 4Mca Moretta Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. For Applicant T-Mobile West Corporation Attachment: Technical Report submitted prior to Planning Commission cc: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Jill Arabe, Case Planner ATTACHMENT #5 m CIl ®f' Iuntingtoneaeh anoang and,Puii epart min t ;r r ;Y S� A EPO T9 k r . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building BY: Jill Arabe, Assistant Planner DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL, OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 1FACILITY) APPLICANT: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 APPELLANT: Dianne Larson on behalf of 350 Huntington Beach residents PROPERTY OWNER: Duane Hurtado, Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach, 18700 Beach Blvd., Suite 260, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: e This item represents an appeal filed by Dianne Larson on behalf of a group of Huntington Beach residents of the Zoning Administrator's (ZA) approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP)No. 09-015 for the construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility disguised as a church bell tower. e Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 represents a request for: - (Original Request) The construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility designed as a stealth design palm tree "monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 foot 6 inch high block wall. The request includes the relocation of a 5 foot high block wall trash enclosure. - (As modified by ZA) The construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. ® Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 based upon the following: - The proposed wireless communications facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons in the vicinity and to improvements in the neighborhood because the antennas and associated equipment will be completely stealth. The proposed structure will be setback more than 125 feet from the adjacent residences. The project will not generate adverse impacts related to noise, traffic, or lighting. - The proposed wireless communications facility is compatible with surrounding uses, complies with the applicable codes, and is a feasible location to fill a gap in coverage. - The proposed wireless communications facility will not adversely affect the General Plan because it will improve signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. The project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies related to land use and utilities. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTI®N(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 09- 015 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 with findings for denial." (Appellant's Request) PC Staff Report—01/26/10 2 (10sr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) 8 go 1 5 MCI' — BOIliO�I ♦ � 880. WARNER ` ♦ Si.ATNt A 7AIBERT GAIMIM r ' !YOm'7.OWN ! ADO" MMANAPOLIS ATLANTA a _ •BANNING r`zYf` � t VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIFELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY-6666 HEIL AVE.) PC Staff Report—01/26/10 3 (1Osr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 represents a request, pursuant to Section 230.96(E) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), for: - (Original Request) The construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility designed as a stealth design palm tree "monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 foot 6 inch high block wall. The request includes the relocation of a 5 foot high block wall trash enclosure. - (As modified by ZA) The construction of a 55 foot high wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. The subject site is an approximately 2.4 acre church property, located on the south side of Heil Avenue, between Goldenwest Street and Edwards Street, in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone. The site is developed with a church and preschool. Background A wireless permit application is required prior to installation of a wireless communications facility pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.96(D). On April 20, 2009, a wireless permit application was submitted for the construction of a 55 foot high stealth wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with associated above-ground equipment surrounded by a seven (7) foot-six (6) inch high blockwall. In addition, staff considered the gap in coverage and feasible locations for the wireless facility. On May 12, 2009, the wireless permit application was conditionally approved with the determination that the proposed facility is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City's Zoning Administrator (ZA) and review by the Design Review Board (DRB) because the proposed height (55 feet) exceeded the maximum allowed (35 feet) in the district and was within 300 feet of residential uses. Zoning Administrator Action: A public hearing before the Zoning Administrator was held on September 30, 2009. The applicant's request was for the construction of a stealth wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with associated above-ground equipment surrounded by a 7 foot-6 inch high blockwall. A total of 28 members of the public were present at the hearing, including the applicant and T-Mobile representatives. Prior to public comments, the ZA announced that the public may speak about potential health risks, but federal law prohibited him from considering health concerns. Five people, including the applicant and property owner, spoke in favor of the request, noting that there were no impacts of noise and health effects associated to the wireless communications facility. A majority of the residents spoke in opposition citing various reasons as addressed in their letters such as health effects, aesthetics, and negative effects on property values (see Attachment No. 9). The ZA continued the item with the public hearing open to the October 28 meeting to provide the applicant an opportunity to prepare revised plans for a completely stealth facility that would screen all aspects of the wireless communications facility. On October 28, 2009, the project was continued to the November 4 meeting at the applicant's request for additional time to prepare plans and have the plans reviewed by staff. PC Staff Report—01/26/10 4 (10sr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) On November 4, 2009, staff presented new plans submitted by the applicant as requested by the ZA. The revised plans proposed a replacement of the existing 52 foot high church bell tower with a new 55 foot high bell tower structure disguising the wireless antennas within the proposed bell tower. The number of panel antennas was reduced from 12 to six. Staff received 11 public comments citing concerns with the radio frequency exposure, aesthetics and detriment to property values, false coverage maps, noise, and FCC regulations. A T-Mobile representative, the property owner, and two residents spoke in favor of the project and provided additional letters from church members supporting the project. A total of 19 residents spoke in opposition as addressed in their letters (see Attachment No. 9). The ZA approved the proposed wireless communications facility designed as a 55 foot high completely stealth church bell tower with the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. Appeal. The Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 was appealed by Dianne Larson on behalf of a group of Huntington Beach residents for reasons cited in an appeal letter dated November 16, 2009 (Attachment No. 3). The reasons for appeal are listed below: 1. The wireless communications facility 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. 2. No gap in coverage exists in the area. 3. The wireless communications facility does not meet code requirements. 4. The wireless communications facility does not meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. 5. Plans were not available to the public prior to the Zoning Administrator's action. 6. The Zoning Administrator did not review new written evidence submitted at the public hearing. ISSUES: Subiect Property and Surroundinz Land Use, Zoninz and General Plan Designations: N � #„GENPRAL PLAN Subject Property P(RL)—(Public RL_(Residential Low church underlying residential) Density) South, West, East, and North RL-7—(Residential Low RL residential of the Subject Property (across Density—7 du/ac) Heil Avenue) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Public. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal—L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. PC Staff Report—01/26/10 5 (1Osr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) PolicyLU2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). B. Utility Element Policy U 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication and electrical systems are provided. Policy U 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed completely stealth facility is designed as a bell tower and will replace the existing onsite bell tower. The location of associated equipment will be underground so as to eliminate any visual impacts to surrounding uses. As conditioned, the project will have no visual impacts because the wireless communications equipment will be underground and the new bell tower will match the previous. Zoning Compliance: The project is located in the Residential Low Density District and complies with all the requirements of that zone, including land use and setbacks. The wireless communications facility at the proposed height of 55 feet is subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Urban Desi,-n Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that projects consisting of the minor alteration of an existing structure are exempt from further environmental review. Staff made the determination based on the original design of a 55 foot high monopalm. The exemption still applies because the redesign consists of a minor alteration to replace a bell tower at an existing church site. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Desi-n Review Board: On September 10, 2009, the DRB recommended approval of the wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" and associated above-ground equipment within a 7 foot- 6 inch high enclosure with modifications to the Zoning Administrator. The DRB discussed concerns with the location and design of the wireless communications facility. The DRB recommended the following modifications: PC Staff Report—01/26/10 6 (1Osr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) ® The equipment enclosure materials shall be composed of split-face block at the base, two maximum courses of precision block, and a decorative cap. ® The existing wall located on the westerly side of the monopalm shall be connected to the equipment enclosure. ■ The wireless communication pole shall be designed as a date palm with the maximum amount of fronds as deemed necessary by the Planning Department. • A 30 ft. high date palm shall be planted within the landscaped planter adjacent to the monopalm. Commissioner Speaker clarified that the DRB's recommendation was solely on the design and materials of the project, and that land use would be at the discretion of the ZA. The DRB did not review the revised plans that were approved by the ZA and based on that approval the DRB recommendations no longer apply. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Building and Safety and Public Works have reviewed the proposed project and identified applicable code requirements (see Attachment No. 8). Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on January 14, 2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of January 19, 2009, one letter from the appellant was received (Attachment No. 11). Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): August 24, 2009 November 22, 2009 (includes 30-day extension) The ZA approved CUP No. 09-015 on November 4, 2009, which complies with the State of California Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws relative to mandatory processing times. ANALYSIS: The primary issues for the Planning Commission to consider in evaluating the proposed project are the potential impacts to the general welfare of the community, compatibility with surrounding uses, wireless coverage, and the appeal letter. General Welfare of the Community The existing 52 foot high church bell tower will be replaced by a new 55 foot high bell tower. The six panel antennas will be concealed within the new tower. The ZA approved design is completely stealth due to the fact that the proposed design is integrated into the church facility by replicating an on-site structure in a manner that it cannot be identified as a wireless communications facility. In addition, the project was conditioned to completely underground all ancillary equipment. Based on the design and the PC Staff Report—01/26/10 7 (10sr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WC') requirement to underground the equipment, the project will not have aesthetic impacts detrimental to the general welfare of the community and surrounding properties because the facility is designed as a bell tower and therefore will be consistent with the existing church use. The proposed wireless communications facility is accessory to the church and located more than 125 feet from adjacent residential homes. The distance provides a sufficient buffer from residential uses to protect them from any potential noise generated by the facility. Potential noise associated with the facility is anticipated to be minimal due to the requirement to underground all associated equipment and subject to the noise ordinance of the City's municipal code. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Existing single family residential uses are adjacent to the west, south, and east of the subject site. The subject site is used for religious assembly and a preschool. The proposed wireless communications facility will not generate traffic, noise, lighting, odor, or any other impacts detrimental to the area and based on its completely stealth design is considered a compatible use. The proposed wireless communications facility complies with applicable requirements of the HBZSO, including land use. The HBZSO does not prohibit wireless communications facilities from locating on properties zoned for residential. Facilities that are proposed in residential zones are required to meet certain provisions including incorporating stealth techniques (refer to Attachment No. 4). Over the years, the City has approved several requests to allow wireless communications facilities adjacent to residential uses and at existing residential and commercial sites because they were found to comply with applicable zoning requirements as well as designed in a manner to be compatible. Stealth facilities are typically designed as palm trees and completely stealth facilities are architecturally integrated into existing buildings. Stealth and completely stealth facilities are intended to minimize the visibility of the antennas and equipment by blending into the environment. Stealth techniques include incorporating colors and materials similar to surrounding uses or buildings. The approved design of the wireless communications facility as a bell tower is completely stealth and screens the antennas from public view. The requirement to underground equipment will eliminate visual impacts. The approved completely stealth facility is compatible because the bell tower is associated with the church use and no visual impacts will occur. Wireless Coverage The dominant 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, there is a gap in (indoor) coverage. Staff considered the information and determined the proposed wireless communications facility will provide the necessary coverage objective. The methods performed to determine the most feasible location include site visits, propagation analysis, and drive test data(refer to Attachment No. 7). Alternative locations that were considered include College View Elementary School, Ocean View Elementary School, College View Park, and Irby Park(Attachment No. 6). No lease was secured with the parks or schools because the property owners would not allow it. The Community United Methodist Church was the only site authorizing the leasing space for a wireless communications facility and located within the coverage gap. PC Staff Report—01/26/10 8 (10sr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) Appeal The appeal letter identifies six primary issues that the appellant believes should result in the denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015. Below is an analysis of the issues raised in the appeal letter. Issue 1: The wireless communications facility 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. Several wireless communications facilities have been approved in the City, abutting residential uses. Some facilities are completely stealth that all aspects of the wireless communications facility are screened from public view, while other facilities incorporate stealth techniques such as a palm tree. No detrimental impact to property values or the general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood has been associated with approved wireless facilities. The wireless facilities do not generate noise, traffic, lighting, or adverse impacts that detrimentally affect surrounding uses. The completely stealth facility as approved by the Zoning Administrator will not have aesthetic impacts because the antennas and equipment will not be visible. Noise associated with the facility is minimal due to the requirement to underground the equipment and subject to the City's noise ordinance. The potential impacts to the preschool children are associated with health concerns, which the City is prohibited from considering as a basis for denial. Issue 2: No gap in coverage exists in the area. Pursuant to Section 230.96.13 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), submittal of a wireless permit application is required prior to installation of a wireless communications facility. The City reviewed the wireless permit application and submittal requirements, including architectural plans, coverage maps, and project information. Staff considered the coverage maps and determined that they were shown to demonstrate that there is a coverage gap (refer to Attachment No. 5). The proposed site was found to be the most feasible location. Based on the necessity to fill the coverage gap at the proposed location, the wireless permit was conditionally approved on May 12, 2009, subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the ZA and design review. Issue 3: The wireless communications facility does not meet code requirements. Wireless communications facilities are permitted in the residential district pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.04 and subject to requirements in HBZSO Section 230.96 (refer to Attachment No. 4). The project meets all minimum development standards including setbacks. Upon review of the submitted wireless permit application, the City determined that all requirements were satisfied and based on coverage maps and supplemental information, a coverage gap exists. The wireless permit was conditionally approved subject to approval of a conditional use permit and design review because the permitted height of 55 feet exceeded the maximum allowed (35 feet) in the district and was within 300 feet of residential uses. The application was processed in accordance with the applicable HBZSO requirements. Issue 4: The wireless communications facility does not meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. The City reviewed the wireless permit application and considered supplemental information. The City determined that the coverage maps demonstrate a gap in coverage and the proposed wireless communications facility will provide the necessary coverage to fill the gap. Furthermore. supplemental PC Staff Report—01/26/10 9 (1Osr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) information to the wireless permit application described the process performed to assess the necessity of a wireless communications facility and propose the least obtrusive location for a cell site. The application was processed in accordance with the applicable HBZSO requirements. Issue 5: Plans were not available to the public prior to the Zoning Administrator's action. The revised plans proposing the replacement of the existing 52 foot high bell tower with a new 55 foot high bell tower structure were submitted to staff on October 28, 2009, and were available for the public to view prior to the November 4 meeting. Other aspects of the project, such as the above-ground equipment surrounded by a 7 foot-6 inch high blockwall and the trash enclosure relocation have not changed. These plans were presented and reviewed by the ZA on November 4, 2009. The ZA has the discretion to apply conditions or request new plans in lieu of conditions; however, the ZA determined that applying conditions on the project was acceptable, such as requiring the ancillary equipment to be placed underground. The ZA approved the revised design based on new information, plans, and public comments with findings and conditions as recommended by staff. Issue 6: The Zoning Administrator did not review new written evidence submitted at the public hearing. The ZA considered and reviewed the written information supplied before and during the public hearing. The ZA has the discretion whether new evidence necessitates additional review. It is typical of the discretionary body to receive late communications without continuing the hearing to another date for review of new information. Based on all the information and revised plans, the ZA determined that action could be taken and approved the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: - 15 4. Applicable zoning provisions—HBZSO Section 230.96 and Section 210.04 5. Wireless Permit Application and applicable submittal requirements dated April 20, 2009 LQC 7. RF Technical Report dated January 12, 2010 8. Departments of Building & Safety and Public Works Code Requirements (see 1/12/10 PC Study Session Item 4A-3,Attachment No. 4, available at City hall,3rd Floor Planning & Building Department) amm�g 10. Information on Cell Towers (Commissioner Scandura) received and dated January 5, 2010 (see 1/12/10 PC Study Session Item #A-3,Attachment No. 6, available at City Hall,3rd Floor Planning & Building Department) PC Staff Report—01/26/10 10 (1Osr05 CUP 09-015 Appeal of T-Mobile WCF) 7. Pedestrian traffic volumes; and (3249-6/95) 8. Handicapped accessibility. (3249-6/95) C. Operating Requirements, Provisions and Conditions. 1. During hours of operation, the cart or kiosk must remain in the location specified on the approved site plan. (3249-6/95) 2. A cart or kiosk operator shall not sell to or solicit from motorists or persons in vehicles. 3. The cart or kiosk operator shall pay all fees and deposits required by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code prior to the establishment of the use. (3249-6/95) 4. All provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code which are not in conflict with this section shall apply. (3249-6/95) 5. The prices of items sold from a cart or kiosk must appear in a prominent, visible location in legible characters. The price list size and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. (3249-6/95;3525-2/02) 6. The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. (3249-6/95) 7. The number of employees at a cart or kiosk shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons at any one time. (3249-6/95) 8. Fire extinguishers may be required at the discretion of the Fire Department. (3249-6/95) 9. All cart and kiosk uses shall be self contained for water, waste, and power to operate. (3249-6/95) 10. A cart or kiosk operator shall provide a method approved by the Planning Director for disposal of business related wastes. (3249-6/95,3525-2/02) D. Parking. Additional parking may be required for cart or kiosk uses by the Planning Director. (3249-6/95,3525-2/02) E. Review; Revocation. The Planning Department shall conduct a review of the cart or kiosk operation at the end of the first six(6) month period of operation. At that time, if there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of this section or the approval, the approval shall be considered for revocation. (3249-6/95;3525-2/02) F. Neighborhood Notification. Pursuant to Chapter 241. (3525-2/02,3710-6/05) 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to encourage and facilitate wireless communications throughout the City, while preventing visual clutter by locating wireless communication facilities outside of residential zones and where they are invisible to pedestrians, and co- located with other facilities. All wireless communication facilities shall comply with these regulations with regard to their location, placement, construction, modification and design to protect the public safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach. (3779-10/07) B. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions for the following terms shall apply: (3568-9/02) ATTACINMENT �-..> Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 48 of 55 1. Accessory Structure. Any structure or equipment that is to be located ancillary to an antenna or antennas in the establishment and operation of a wireless communication facility. (3568-9/02) 2. Co-Location or Co-Located. The location of multiple antennas which are either owned or operated by more than one service provider at a single location and mounted to a common supporting structure, wall or building. (3568-9/02) 3. Completely Stealth Facility. Any stealth facility that has been designed to completely screen all aspects of the facility including appurtenances and equipment from public view. Examples of completely stealth facilities may include, but are not limited to architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, fagade mounted antennas treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing building, flagpoles, church steeples, fire towers, and light standards. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 4. Ground Mounted Facility. Any wireless antenna that is affixed to a pole, tower or other freestanding structure that is specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 5. Microwave Communication. The transmission or reception of radio communication at frequencies of a microwave signal (generally, in the 3 GHz to 300 GHz frequency spectrum). (3568-9/02) 6. Pre-existing Wireless Facility. Any wireless communication facility for which a building permit or conditional use permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance, including permitted facilities that have not yet been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired. (3568-9/02) 7. Roof Mounted. Any wireless antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower. (3568-9/02) 8. Stealth Facility or Techniques. Any wireless communication facility,which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment, typically, one that is architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure. See also definition of completely stealth facility. (3568-9/02) 9. Utility Mounted. Any wireless antenna mounted to an existing above-ground structure specifically designed and originally installed to support utilities such as but not limited to electrical power lines, cable television lines,telephone lines, non-commercial wireless service antennas, radio antennas, street lighting but not traffic signals, recreational facility lighting, or any other utility which meets the purpose and intent of this definition. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 10. Wall Mounted. Any wireless antenna mounted on any vertical or nearly vertical surface of a building or other existing structure that is not specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna(including the exterior walls of a building, an existing parapet, the side of a water tank, the face of a church steeple, or the side of a freestanding sign) such that the highest point of the antenna structure is at an elevation equal to or lower than the highest point of the surface on which it is mounted. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 11. Wireless Communication Facility or Facility. An antenna structure and any appurtenant facilities or equipment that transmits electronic waves or is used for the transmission or receipt of signals that are used in connection with the provision of wireless communication service, including, but not limited to digital, cellular and radio service. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) r� 3_wa. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 49 of 55 C. Applicability. 1. All wireless communication facilities which are erected, located,placed, constructed or modified within the City of Huntington Beach shall comply with these regulations provided that: (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) a. All facilities, for which permits were issued prior to the effective date of this section, shall be exempt from these regulations and guidelines. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) b. All facilities for which Building and Safety issued building permits prior to the effective date of section 230.96 shall be exempt from these regulations and guidelines, unless and until such time as subparagraph(2) of this section applies. (3568-9/02) c. Any facility, which is subject to a previously approved and valid conditional use permit, may be modified within the scope of the applicable permit without complying with these regulations and guidelines. Modifications outside the scope of the valid conditional use permit will require submittal of a Wireless Permit application. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 2. The following uses shall be exempt from the provisions of section 230.96 until pertinent federal regulations are amended or eliminated. See Section 230.80 (Antennae) for additional requirements. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) a. Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches) or less in diameter and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service for television purposes, as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any interpretive decisions thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (3568-9/02) b. Any antenna structure that is two meters (78.74 inches) or less in diameter located in commercial or industrial zones and is designed to transmit or receive radio communication by satellite antenna. (3568-9/02) c. Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches)or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive Multipoint Distribution Service, provided that no part of the antenna structure extends more than five (5) feet above the principle building on the same lot. (3568-9/02) d. Any antenna structure that is designed to receive radio broadcast transmission. (3568-9/02) e. Any antenna structure used by authorized amateur radio stations licensed by the FCC. (3568-9/02) D. Wireless Permit Required. No wireless communication facility shall be installed anywhere in the City without submission of a Wireless Permit Application that demonstrates that the antenna is located in the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gap in service and also includes the following information: (3779-10/07) 1. Demonstrate existing gaps in coverage, and the radius of area from which an antenna may be located to eliminate the gap in coverage. (3779-10107) 2. Compatibility with the surrounding environment or that the facilities are architecturally integrated into a structure. (3779-10/07) ATTACHMENT No.. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 50 of 55 3. Screening or camouflaging by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures as measured from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet). (3779-10/07) 4. Massing and location of the proposed facility are consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. (3779-10/07) 5. No portion of a wireless communication facility shall project over property lines. (3779-10/07) 6. Interference: To eliminate interference, the following provisions shall be required for all wireless communication facilities regardless of size: (3779-10/07) a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the Police Department for review: (3779-10/07) i. All transmit and receive frequencies; (3779-10/07) ii. Effective Radiated Power(ERP); (3779-10/07) iii. Antenna height above ground, and (3779-10/07) iv. Antenna pattern, both horizontal and vertical (E Plane and H Plane). (3779-10/07) b. At all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period, the applicant shall comply with all FCC standards and regulations regarding interference and the assignment of the use of the radio frequency spectrum. The applicant shall not prevent the City of Huntington Beach or the countywide system from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz voice and data radio frequency systems. The applicant shall cease operation of any facility causing interference with the City's facilities immediately upon the expiration of the 24-hour cure period until the cause of the interference is eliminated. (3779-10/07) c. Before activating its facility, the applicant shall submit to the Police and Fire Departments a post-installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Huntington Beach Public Safety radio equipment. The Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department or Division-approved contractor at the expense of the applicant shall conduct this test. This post-installation testing process shall be repeated for every proposed frequency addition and/or change to confirm the intent of the"frequency planning"process has been met. (3779-10/07) d. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a single point of contact (including name and telephone number) in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to whom all interference problems may be reported to insure continuity on all interference issues. The contact person shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours of being notified. (3779-10/07) e. The applicant shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to comply. (3779-10/07) E. Additional Permit Required. 1. Administrative approval by the Director may be granted for proposed wireless communication facilities (including but not limited to ground mounted, co-located, wall, roof, or utility mounted)that are: (3779-10/07) T T A `HMENT NO, .� Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 51 of 55 a. Co-located with approved facilities at existing heights or that comply with the base district height limit for modified facilities, and compatible with surrounding buildings and land uses by incorporating stealth techniques; or (3779-10/07) b. Completely stealth facilities that comply with the base district height limit; or (3779-10/07) c. Facilities in non-residential districts that are in compliance with the maximum building height permitted within the zoning district; and (3779-10/07) i. Screened from view and not visible from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet); or (3779-10107) ii. Substantially integrated with the architecture of the existing building or structure to which it is to be mounted; or (3779-10/07) iii. Designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings and land uses by incorporating stealth techniques. (3779-10/07) 2. Following submission of a Wireless Permit Application, a Conditional Use Permit approval by the Zoning Administrator shall be required for all proposed wireless communication facilities (including but not limited to ground mounted, co-located,wall, roof or utility mounted)that are: (3779-10/07) a. Exceeding the maximum building height permitted within the zoning district; or b. Visible from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet); or c. Not substantially integrated with the architecture of the existing building or structure to which it is to be mounted; or d. Not designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings and land uses. e. As a condition of the Conditional Use Permit, the Zoning Administrator shall minimize significant adverse impacts to public visual resources by incorporating one or more of the following into project design and construction: (3779-10/07) i. Stealth installations; (3779-10/07) ii. Co-location and locating facilities within existing building envelopes; (3779-10/07) iii. Minimizing visual prominence through colorization or landscaping; (3779-10/07) iv. Removal or replacement of facilities that become obsolete. (3779-10/07) 3. Design review shall be required for any wireless communication facilities located in redevelopment areas, on public right-of-ways, in OS-PR and PS zones, in areas subject to specific plans, on or within 300 feet of a residential district, and in areas designated by the City Council. Design review is not required for wireless communication facilities that comply with subsection 1. F. Facility Standards: The following standards apply to all wireless communication facilities: (3779-10/07) 1. Aesthetics: '0 M . tA.5'Tr Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 52 of 55 a. Facility: All screening used in conjunction with a wall or roof mounted facility shall be compatible with the architecture of the building or other structure to which it is mounted, including color, texture and materials. All ground mounted facilities shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment, or architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure. (3568-9/02) b. Equipment/Accessory Structures: All equipment associated with the operation of the facility, including but not limited to transmission cables, shall be screened in a manner that complies with the development standards of the zoning district in which such equipment is located. Screening materials and support structures housing equipment shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures by duplicating materials and design in a manner as practical as possible. If chain link is used, then it must be vinyl coated and not include barbed wire. (3568-9/02) c. General Provisions: All Wireless Communication Facilities shall comply with the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines. (3568-9/02) 2. Building Codes: To ensure the structural integrity of wireless communication facilities, the owners of a facility shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the applicable standards for facilities that are published by the Electronic Industries Association, as amended from time to time. (3568-9102) 3. Conditions of Approval: Acceptance of conditions by the applicant and property owner shall be ensured by recordation of the conditions on the property title. (3568-9/02) 4. Federal Requirements: All Wireless Communication Facilities must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. (3568-9/02) 5. Lighting_ All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 6. Maintenance: All facilities and appurtenant equipment including landscaping shall be maintained to remain consistent with the original appearance of the facility. Ground mounted facilities shall be covered with anti-graffiti coating. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 7. Monitoring: For all wireless communication facilities, the applicant shall provide a copy of the lease agreement between the property owner and the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 8. Signs: The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than owner identification, certification, warning, or other required seals of signage. (3568-9102,3779-10107) 9. Facilities on Public Property: Any wireless communication facility to be placed over, within, on, or beneath City property shall obtain a lease or franchise from the City prior to applying for a Wireless Permit and an administrative or conditional use permit. (3779-10/07) 10. Landscaping: Landscape planting, irrigation and hardscape improvements may be imposed depending on the location, the projected vehicular traffic,the impact on existing facilities and landscape areas, and the visibility of the proposed facility. Submittal of complete landscape and architectural plans for review and approval by the Directors of Public Works and Planning may be required. (3779-10/07) NYTACHMENT O._ " Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 53 of 55 11. Utility Agreement: If the proposed facility will require electrical power or any other utility services to the site, the applicant will be required to furnish the City's Real Estate Services Manager either a drafted utility franchise agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the applicant to place those lines in the public right-of-way, or a written statement from the utility company that will be supplying the power or other services, that they accept all responsibility for those lines in the public right-of-way. 3779-10107) 12. Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. Any wireless communication facility to be placed over, within, on or beneath the public right-of-way shall comply with the following standards: (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) a. Any wireless communication facilities to be constructed on or beneath the public right-of-way must obtain an encroachment permit from the City and the applicant must provide documentation demonstrating that the applicant is a state-franchised telephone corporation exempt from local franchise requirements. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) b. All equipment associated with the operation of a facility, including but not limited to cabinets, transmission cables but excepting antennas, shall be placed underground in those portions of the street, sidewalks and public rights-of-way where cable television, telephone or electric lines are underground. At no time shall equipment be placed underground without appropriate conduit. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) c. The City Engineer shall approve the location and method of construction of all facilities located within public rights-of-way and the installation of facilities within the public rights-of-way must comply with Title 12 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, as the same may be amended from time to time. (3568-9/02, 3779-10/07) d. All wireless communication facilities shall be subject to applicable City permit and inspection fees, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to encroachment permits, administrative or conditional use permits, and all applicable fees. (3568-9102,3779-10/07) e. Any wireless communication facility installed, used or maintained within the public rights-of-way shall be removed or relocated when made necessary by any"project." For purposes of this section, project shall mean any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public right-of-way, including but not limited to, the construction of any subway or viaduct that the City may initiate either through itself, or any redevelopment agency, community facility district, assessment district, area of benefit, reimbursement agreement or generally applicable impact fee program. (3568- 9/02,3779-10/07) f. If the facility is attached to a utility pole, the facility shall be removed, at no cost to the City, if the utility pole is removed pursuant to an undergrounding project. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) g. The service provider shall enter into a franchise agreement with the City. As of March 17, 2007, the California Supreme Court, in the case entitled Spring Telephony PCS v. County of San Diego, will determine whether California Public Utilities Code § 7901 grants a state-wide franchise to use the public rights-of-way for the purpose of installation of wireless communications facilities. Pending resolution of this legal question, any applicant seeking to use the public right-of-way must enter into a City franchise to install wireless communications facilities. The franchise shall provide that the franchise fee payments shall be refunded to the applicant and the franchise become null and void if and when the California Supreme Court establishes that the provider has a state-wide franchise to install a wireless communications facility in the public right-of--way. (3568-9ro2,3779-10/07) ATTACHMENT NO._ Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 54 of 55 13. Facility Removal. a. Wireless communication facilities affecting the public view and/or located in areas designated Water Recreation, Conservation, Parks and Shoreline, and Public Right of Ways shall be removed in its entirety within six (6) months of termination of use and the site restored to its natural state. (3779-10/07) b. Cessation of Operation: Within thirty(30) calendar days of cessation of operations of any wireless communication facility approved under this section, the operator shall notify the Planning Department in writing. The facility shall be deemed abandoned pursuant to the following sections unless: (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 1. The City has determined that the operator has resumed operation of the wireless communication facility within six (6)months of the notice; or (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 2. The City has received written notification of a transfer of wireless communication operators. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) c. Abandonment: A facility that is inoperative or unused for a period of six (6) continuous months shall be deemed abandoned. Written notice of the City's determination of abandonment shall be provided to the operator of the facility and the owner(s) of the premises upon which the facility is located. Such notice may be delivered in person, or mailed to the address(es) stated on the facility permit application, and shall be deemed abandoned at the time delivered or placed in the mall. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) d. Removal of Abandoned Facility: The operator of the facility and the owner(s) of the property on which it is located, shall within thirty(30)calendar days after notice of abandonment is given either(1)remove the facility in its entirety and restore the premises, or(2)provide the Planning Department with written objection to the City's determination of abandonment. (3779-10/07) Any such objection shall include evidence that the facility was in use during the relevant six- (6)month period and that it is presently operational. The Director shall review all evidence, determine whether or not the facility was properly deemed abandoned, and provide the operator notice of its determination. (3568-9/02,3 77 9-1 010 7) e. Removal by City_ At any time after thirty-one (31) calendar days following the notice of abandonment, or immediately following a notice of determination by the Director, if applicable,the City may remove the abandoned facility and/or repair any and all damage to the premises as necessary to be in compliance with applicable codes. The City may, but shall not be required to, store the removed facility(or any part thereof). The owner of the premises upon which the abandoned facility was located, and all prior operators of the facility, shall be jointly liable for the entire cost of such removal, repair, restoration and/or storage, and shall remit payment to the City promptly after demand thereof is made. The City may, in lieu of storing the removed facility, convert it to the City's use, sell it, or dispose of it in any manner deemed appropriate by the City. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) ENT ' 4-(b ATTACH Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 55 of 55 210.04 RL, RM, RM11, RIB, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334- 6/97,3410-3199) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. (Rest of page not used) ATTACHMENT NO.q- 9 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 2 of 22 RL, RM, RMH, R1FI, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited (see Additional Provisions) (3334-6197) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use - = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6197,3410-3199) Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410-3/99,3455-5/00) 2 - 4 units ZA P P - (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334-5/97,3410-3/99) Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential,Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R)(S) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99, 3455-5/00,3832-7/09) Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Clubs &Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Day Care, Large-family L-6 L-6 L-6 L-6 (3334-6/97,3761-2/07) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Park&Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Residential Care, General - L-I PC PC (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Communication Facilities L-5 L-5 L-5 L-5 (3568-9/02) Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - 7 7 (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Uses V ses P/V P/V P/lJ P//lJ (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Temporary Uses (J)(M) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales P P P P (N) (3334-6/97,3410-3/99,3706-6/05) Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) TT T I3 .ro Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 3 of 22 RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre (gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted, but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6/97, 3410-3199) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic Impacts. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99,3724-02/06) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99,3706-6/05) L-5 Only wireless communication facilities permitted subject to section 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities. (3568-9/02) L-6 Neighborhood notification is required pursuant to Section 241.24. No architectural plans shall be required. (3761-2/07) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99,3761-2/07) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing(See Sections 210.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (C) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (1) abuts an arterial highway; (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition,Neighborhood Notification pursuant to Chapter 241 is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99,3706-6/05) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (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. ATTACHMENT NO, ' 11 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 4 of 22 ZL 4r--2.C)Cyq REZk-=I PT 41` 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 City Planner assigned to your project or to the Director of Planning 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 communications facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> r C 'lPB' 2 0 2009 ntington PeachANNfNC- (� PT l 06 595/9174 3/30/07 � Page 1 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mM a 1 ATTACHMENT a 5A 1.00: Applicant Information Community United Methodist Church located at 1.01: Project Address: 6666 Heil Ave. 1.02: Project Assessors Parcel 146-483-29 Number: Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ a subsidiary 1.03: Name of Applicant: of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ( T-Mobile) . 1.04: Name of Property Owner: (Ms.) Pastor Jan Wiley, Senior pastor 1,05: Applicant is: _Owner xx Owner's representative _ Other A 1.06: Applicant's Address Line 1: gent Representative for T-Mobile One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Address Line 2: 3 Imperial Promenade, Santa Ana CA 92707 1.08: Applicant's Address Line 3: 1.09: Applicants Address Line 4: Please contact: 1.10: Applicant's Phone number: 714.850.2414 Monica Moretta Phone No:949.241.0175 949.350.5376 Fax No:949.753.7203 1.11: Applicant's Mobile number: monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com 1.12: Applicant's Fax number: 714.850.6630 Applicant Representative 1.13 Applicant's Email address: Joe.thompson@T-Mobile_com If Applicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 3.01. <Continue to next page> 06-595 1 91 74 3130/07 Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm ATTACHMENT NO. 5. oL 2.00: Project Owner Information 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"): Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ a subsidiary 2.02: Project Owner Name (i.e., carrier or licensee): of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ( T-Mobile) . 2.03: Address (line 1): 3 Imperial Promenade, Santa Ana CA 92707 2.04: Address (line 2): One venture, Suite 200 2.05: City: Irvine State: CA Zip: 92618 2.06: Contact Person Name: Monica Moretta 2.07: Contact Person's telephone number/extension: 949.241.0175 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 MM if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.09". Initial here MM if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. <Continue to next page> i 06-595/9174 3/30/07 i Page 3 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm i i i TTAIIHA NT N 0. s•3 Letter of Authorization APR APPLICATION FOR ZONING/LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS ® 2oo #n n poach Property Address: 6662 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach CA PLgNNIN F-PT Assessor's Parcel Number: 146-483-29 UWe, the owner(s)of the above-described property, authorize Ommpoint Communications,Inc., a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., with offices located at 3 MacArthur Place, #1100, Santa Ana, CA 92707, its employees, representatives, agents, and/or consultants, to act as an agent on my/our behalf for the purpose of creating, filing and/or managing any land use and building permit applications,or any other entitlements necessary to construct and operate a wireless communications facility on the above- described property. I/We understand that any application may be denied, modified, or approved with conditions, and that such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. UWe further understand that signing of this authorization in no way creates an obligation of any kind. ®wn s): Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach a California corporation BY. By: Signature Q f ( . . _ Signatur Print Name D f/�4f-t -s/ �`t i j/ ,�0 Print Name: Title: t2f._SiO,f_^f 17&t sTdA_-, Title: Date:: 17 13c 2Uo V Date:: State of Calif o is ) County ofI On 3Q 2��0 before me, ��S Notary Public,personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. KELLEY 0.CROSS Signature: o COMM. #1661066 z Notary Public•California My z Orange County- Comm►.Eupires Apr.11,M10 P T a O Page 1 H �t� Yv9�ti 2. 06 May 1,2006 p 1a0 APR 2 �Pacn To Whom It May Concern, Sequoia Deployment Services, its employees and agents are authorized representatives of T- Mobile, USA,Inc. (T-Mobile), and have been contracted to perform real estate leasing, land-use entitlements and architectural and engineering services for T-Mobile's telecommunications facilities. As an authorized representative of T-Mobile, Sequoia Deployment Services may sign, submit, review land-use applications and permits,represent at meetings and hearings,accept conditions of approval, and negotiate leases on T-Mobile's behalf. All final land use documents are subject to T-Mobile's review and approval. Furthermore,all leases are contingent upon T-Mobile's signature. If there are any questions or comments, please contact me immediately. S' cere , f k Thompson Zoning Manager Southern California Market T-Mobile USA 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA,92707 Desk 714/850-2414 Mobile 949/350-5376 Fax 714/850-6630 AT ACHM E N T NO, '� 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_ 3.02: Indicate whether the dominant 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 "" Increase the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a significant area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity (such as a roaming agreement with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03 If the answer in 4.02 is not"Other" proceed to 5.00. 3.04 Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the"Other" dominant purpose of this project. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 4.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 1 i 06-595/9174 3/30107 Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm I AT TA' C N"IFE N T N4(p PROJECT DESCRIPTION OR � D 9 _ LA33421-A COMMUNITY UN S EQUOIA 6666 HEIL AVE APR 2 0 Z009 °t1't0yA11 ''SEI.vl E<. I", HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 APH: 146-483-29 Preach pLANNINC DENT. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) proposes to construct, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas in three (3) sectors, two (2) GPS antennas, five (5) BTS telecommunication, one (1) BBU equipment cabinets, coaxial cable runs from the antennas to the BTS, and power and Telco utility connections. In order to completely conceal the wireless facility the panel antennas wilt be attached to a new fifty five (55) foot wireless facility designed as a palm tree. The facility is located in an area surrounded by mature landscaping as depicted in the atta,ched photo simulations. The equipment cabinets will be located in a lease area inside of a ne 6'-7 block wall design to be painted and textured to match the materials of the existing buil&Mr All utilities runs for the project will be routed underground. This location also provides for easy maintenance access from Heil Avenue Street. The coverage objective of the site is primarily the residential neighborhoods located to the north ,south, east and west of the intersection of Main Street and Palm Avenue. This area suffers a lack of coverage, resulting in poor service for T-Mobite's customers and limited wireless telecommunications service options for the residents and visitors to the area. T- Mobile underwent a search for potential site locations that included properties along Hail Avenue and Edwards Street. T-Mobile research the possibility of a facility in alternative locations such as; Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church, and even city parks. However, both locations were further away from the coverage objective and closer to on-air sites. Community United Methodist Church is the best location considering that coverage objective for this area. The search was limited to these areas because they provide the only potentially zone-able site locations in the search area. The existing landscaping also provided an opportunity to locate the monopalm around existing mature palm trees, and more than 60 ft away from the front property line. The city code preference for disguising the facility and aesthetically integrated into their surroundings determined the site location and design. The properties within other parts of the search area were ruled out do their proximity to residential areas and lease restrictions. T-Mobile was also limited in where the facility could be sited in relationship to other nearby facilities in the area (surrounding facilities are shown on the RF propagation maps included with this application) which limited the ability of the site to be located at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edwards Street. The proposed site is currently developed as a church with a existing mature landscaping and this is the tatter structure in the area. The surrounding area of subject site location is characterized by mature trees and thus a monopalm is not an uncommonly seen part of the landscape. The property is completely developed and encompasses the necessary infrastructure to serve both the existing and proposed facilities. The proposed wireless facility is located to approximately 185 feet from the southern property line and at this location it wilt not block access into the site and site circulation. Proposed access is adequate in serving the parking needs during maintenance visits. The proposed facility will not impact potential development in the surrounding area. The proposed project will be unoccupied and only require a single maintenance visit per month. The project will make negligible noise that is most often less than the ambient noise level of the area surrounding the equipment. Wireless facilities are passive in nature and have been located in all zoning districts without impacting property values. 1 AT T `kit I N Via_5'°1 i 4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps i 4.01: Where a 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 7.00. For the coverage maps required here, the following mandatory requirements apply: i . 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, if any(if none, so state). This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project. Designate this map"Attachment 6.02". Initial here MM to indicate that Attachment 6.02 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 6.03". Initial here em to indicate that Attachment 6.03 is attached to this application. 4.04: Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and by other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map "Attachment 6.04". Initial here MM to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 3/30107 Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: rug _ Attac merit 4 02 - J Coverage Without LA33421A zo }si �V E Argosy Atl'1G a 9osy , ']� Dr *° n. �..., •O tOn •.c �y,,. :>05 O .,.._'.. bblestone Ln.-......-- --... '. A py Brow r>t .C:I }� tZ: LA0254A S r� Rathk� aI ml. iCD rr ,. T rf LA33418)C c o i ockmont AV 9 i �.Msy,;Bs , •:•?>'�� --.C; 3 ,.0 -�i.d',.. O. .-f -�_ C E o rSra<,'",. �;i - O�_ S Alley v- ar; ¢ il` v .unn�Dr `x r u ;. C , �LA02066A. Bel Air{ +a ;;? S: ,. ,s•'— '<ar ,' �... ,,hr '� f `der LA03016A ,a ._ C Down Dr m Moonbear -o n r N - CU Center A � o' t, r ..• ,cx i,-� ty�` 1� 1 {t \q, �n,�rm lilt` (n I,narBna B ' i ,�e 0 mt c,• a t: M1 UI.._ �'.aUan. Ir: 4 t 1 h. �ti; ��'� m Cordwj s LA02093A _ Y Ave CD E G Aadr A Epp" �,a.V tj Dr t��ti =Lot e Cir ��FI xk, Cfir m Is Dr 9 aw e �f Hilo_Ci - 7�^ � `D` •^' u r,t ..o. luesai c itx ;fca a„• J.r_,�I ` , ,,� _._..-,. Ipa ,:5.._-.-- t ,,Clal`�:r .. s i•.,`{`r—,, Amazon Dr A02378 P°dz Dr - _ C u: �. r_ L�02415� _ m �� a � -�� Bouquet Dr ojr nit °° c�. t / a JI Au r_n r q"� F'd �. �:. ue m _ . K (D Edgemont Dr br cr rs " m Glencoe Aver 4 r r � rasA� 'Crr aBrrdgewat r Dr , v' r: ", w o o a c u Alhambra J �' Y P! _" ( ;;f o,s3 n t a5 s a i r.t- LA33421A Dr i Caban art a Dr- (�� ul a xetn1�1,Cir IraYrld R fttib;t o -,Y c> � �+� � kxP Lrrnis r' Danube Dr �.. Arena Cir ar 7 g�`�"_..:..::: AL-Of.:: �*�Y,^� v n� t,•x,3 B U�y y _ •,G,.'n`Yy r err �:� C C '(L) DO aid:Cir I ,vx Crarlda�EDr D t. r 9t y ` J —! �� C: �4 ' I � � � _. Brush ul — Shd � BYI tl ' {' a Cm r E t a fi k N N O� 5 �I Y id 1 gh I ' p _ Im toy co Q� o i�. LAoao17C DO le Dr.. r t ' U ° m c m c rraGu h -,a , rF '1# 1 ,! 2 a LfA02495A qi`.`�`" },, pr r Carl _ ii I''"6. ,vettdS:'Yrd'�ddy:u t.,l... �k'A I �S Dr �.I ArntY Y �cdrn Dtc� ; wt> .,;. m • f` Damask br __ sk �. a e _ . �� O '��- � h + ,dh,, • �� .L U £�*O� � � a_,.. �rttt -_�,,t" C.d .� r ... : L�)02463A 4V n rs S t1r( a5„ obr�e EstteS U r m t :' m l „ - o' c W �,' ,y ''" z'. i j"NSFS:,y:w,i,•T " r"c `S ,. , ,�^ C �y.-, a r •) r ,.I_ro' "�,� '^, l..-i.-ilk' �+�''K,�S,$xG a:,.: O Y.,.R MA0285,--- 1„ JamCtr �9° } t` n s' r n• rtSt au C' J x , FCafn Ave:v� -� © D .I>; h ' �z Asa ;'� �„ r m a Belsito Dr �, Blaylock Dr m L Cedar Ave s PolderCi V �. �y =r ..:, Curtis Clr� w ' Kenlluvorth (� D J. a�, o r (n �;:; LY - a i s r 7, Er ' O c tos Ave U CD o Kristin.Clrr Friesland Dr L Baya/au c/ m o ,. hena r q d rx aS �� C)� c ¢ �. , �t Bart_b Wolland Dr ' Glen.>one Dr I o —t r✓ c c 1�+ Cory p� J o co w M Wagon Dr j r v , m as 4 r a0.= u> g SLA02585As 6 s".; ��^+s. `�ix- k.�D 'i UO ,•."SM €• RS v„F P,` V) .N' _ •� �•'' :O O c `� q) `® _ gUrtO .,-" � �,�# . ^� �`'� ,�,a ,a•�'` `�S :ts3 ;� �Cc7 O I1 C p, x n�a 1 r �i W #� l;xq �1 �.� �,. O I: ML— a a� ,y. rat„ `emsn ;" 3 �i' r,� � 0.2i cVS,a >� fL2 .S:N L Qe ., ly, —- - n' p) , ,)�� C�_--N-9_--.. _— Jr7m• c� .. V-,fi, .�, ' �.' ..4�. �r ... rh, nr . ., �... . . . »t�_` •x ti_3.., ....,,:. ehra.Dr: .'B a Coverage Legend b� �� !his InTormatlo n `propert�f Ts obile USA��Inc isco n,fl a ialtah-crisillntenoe soley for<the use�of�rthe�mdiwdual o•entity to whom it is adc�ressed,.'Anyrother'use,or distribution:of this r - .�z�� :'a'ft". - ..c�.'1 n .':fix?*%�f:-l�. .,..ai^,r..a""`thb f"lor o�u1:,:a,.0' a.'r .:9> ,jC:f.. .;rr,e -V) O S i informa3iorvis�stnctly prohibttecJ shlsrnap p ediets;and approximates o�urawireless�coverage area.outdoors,which-may�change withoutnotice.14�mayamclude locations withlimited or ®�t�dt� t IIV11 no cov ra er,°d rina `ifo noF+" rantee"sorvlce"�ava b '.Even with a�co e a e)dte there are several.f r �`' ��'w � �� • actors such a5:network chap'es.trafflclvolume rvl e - �, g. ,P r�,.,,s " :m• of+o, .yiz_�`w 9.x� ; , balnWidl uo.o., n.: I:n n'90 QG se c outagesz� t77 ;� kl )-fkii techrf1cal limitations s1 n'al°stren th our e m ment�terram;structures,weathe,andother-conditions that ma i terfere•with actual service;Aualitg and�availabillt',`-�ncludin the O :O i� �I ofVE4i ^ 9�Y U P to y.p 9 Y _S YI 9 - -- F ability to make a eive,and malntn calls: ��4 Oytt �e O �c r`k dj ""� E'Ny�i1 !ClpOjr _ rrl N�i� a � i"larr'tmari Ave ? — - -- ---- _ Attach ement 6.03 cQ LAOf-- - - -- - o. Coverage for LA33421A a a 9r -, t_ - -- .. canteTuur vn FAr Ave gOSyCir �'�, Cornell DrIy; C� V� ca > Carlton Ave 0 n D Business Dr e c N Brown Cir LA025A Uq k Dr Cn%b �N°y� Cbbles�eeilwood C,ir Ln �. Bhr c r �'. C) _ n _ z tiz Ra J J 3 n .. ro Rockmont Ave < .qs rol M 3 N �. . - e m' M ad e '„ UI LA33�418?C. co w Er Cir a Dunn Dr O n LA02066A Alley a r- n �> . o Er m �. e� m Be[AA' cc -Alblon Dry Fli h — °'' r _ ( vin CIr CSowrrDr I Moonbea yeDDr >•' Center A Via, g +Ave o v LA03016p �. w r c, n, ,a: Cross Dr Marin�i VI Ing.!Nay HookerlDri, v� i,r ror Ingram Ci , n B ��e, Cr , ySLFAO2U 3A t }all Ira � �za l 1z � 04, ro Ave S z -?> �n Corday: E� ,`N ;L,'A113105ANi r °` 49 C C Y Audrey qr 1 y , astle [fir &1 AI c J N 5 Y Uesa Aldrich Ave e�i rl" l..qr e Gir ram\ ¢ o -� HIId CI IChery�Dr � .a y & 't, c U "�r Amazon Dr ho I �A02378Paz Dr �A024S5A - Its Dr g III/// ro o J r ro W a/ +r Bouquet Dr i y c c,r m .. U 'J y zt, ' Auburtl s , can �av m d a c C7 E � L'm251� I que D v >✓ m _. r EI i m Glencoe Ave?. J �ndgewat c 0i C7. Brassl �4% `i � LA3421A `' ram^ Alhambra Dr y >,, , arry PI c c �. 1 Cabana Dr I arty , c o + he �rrzr ro `r r panube Dr m Fernhill;Clr Fgp Y , t� x n Dr- l 4 r; 't �C 'his r <rf fi' xc ca Brush Dr Do ald Cir kr ena Cir N �15� tp Iri C 11C{. zrt Bright CIrffi,�� „•,� ,t � o� s / � m Sandy Dr tta Dr v$ n Brrr; � Carla r m` P�� m o LAo3o1�o Charlos �,t,l� I U LAo24 5A c m U — @arn! c,r are earn V Shields Dr ro o c Barractad Acorn Dr nr _. �', o, v J Damask�Jr ro Arn ti r c r o j St Mobile ° n LA02463A v�.. ' r w aRo S _ _ rye V_..: + G 85-- �. 3 h.„ , Ck � r s q I J James CIr; n b .,£�� of>Paul Clr r..,. a ,�y � k Caen Ave'Belsito Dr `� 71 r. LA02 J-. c BlaYlock Dr _ �, ,GE,,r$hwlniDr at _ 4M5� ""aP i't' J O ' i;J 5�� 7� ' 77 Cn Curtis Cir c' O, a ,i �trt4an ro - �Y GedBr/qve;' Polder Ci' `° \ Ath o; c' Kenllvvorth Dr m, E N y° r c S Ave — ¢;'... -- t�;' Q. `° U N �a p4e�.c`�� :. �� tr� � em Dr Lj < -°o, fi� BartonKristin CIr i Friesland Dr L9 BaYa A S� �'- d _ Dr Holland Dr Glenstone Dr .� o r c 9. c m cY� Wag ce Ao` 25 c m U L, 2 > n Cory Dr ro �' a 3s;' \`o. J m on Dr \\� CD ,�o�`eoto o. `. c� ¢ >, -c' w ro ¢E3urton Dr ai ,0 �s�L9 -�-m —Mccarthy.:Dr _:/arm- ro - ---- ada Dr yY rivih .ai+ r �, Y [� Behra.Dr'. B Coverage Legend property' cr _ whom it is addressed.Any other use,of dstnbution of this r- s -This information, of T-Miiblle USA-,,,Ind is conf,dential and intende soley for the use of.the individual o�entit tow � _ information is strictly prohibited.This eap piedicts andZapp oxImate s our wireless!coverage',area outdoors,which•may change without notice It may include locations with IimitecJ or Outdoor`91 d bn r.i ,I no coverage.Our maps_do,not guarantee seMce avai�ab,l Y.Ever wl A,Va,co�e�age area,there are several factors,such as:network chances,traffic volume,service outages M � -- technical limitations,si nal strength, our ei ui ment,terrain;structures,weather„and other condbons thattama nnCtertere with actual service;p alltgQ�d availability,including the o o d� e��0� �' I �n t o j e,and maintainycalls.I p Li1 c_� m 6��i� Y an Y 9 S n mrH Building �bNVY',; �\ability to make,receiv Y • Bellfield m Y �. #� �,c o Harriman Ave Attachemnt 4.04 f -- Coverage With LA33421Aa �qov Q 0 g Y ' r90 r_ os A * a rr P SyCir� , �D_rrlion v y - bbles one Ln Bl o to. '•t:yt , .,. .;.�� .tl Hs.,;, - Ci I 1'�'r Yl�i: i �fi ter. f, �•.�,. `� � � a�„n.��. � �r �� BrOWn y (fit LA0254t;A r;a: Rathl] �� i1. <RlOrlt p�� 4 - �X .rn#� .�.�.- �I o it Ct, -i - AVE -�' o -�� ROCS All r CDQ �w. r� �" U:unn Dr ng" �� a4 ,�, fs , LA02066Ar Be!Aul ri r,II� Ave. 1 h„ -r,'� U) W LA03U,1b�\ QOWni Dr Moonbea Dr -I_, / l70-...... CAnter A ( 2 p mp � ;': ;�.r t� a �r��,,, ----w-��r-',-.. i sk, ,w, `^��. : ;` »;. �'t�r,; - .�+ ' i E � �,��;re+!• 1 Breelat� �brn � , C3 1 �, ^r\i ra.rom,. (.ilr (r/j. oMarfnak c � Cavan t �- !vr� ro � r r' � r � cda�� "'e gte 93A � u. fr �,r C Co - LA020, �MVW�ErN, j. j x� � g13105A Ave ,r I Dr F„^ :;:'? _ _.. 5 � �,n r J r r 3 E+ : 'ACICI r Y� i %''t' ., :.._- 7. Q k a AldrlCh fix` ,. , n ^i _. t 5...,:v„;k�"'•ri .„� :7 :,,� r,i,+its v,r: ^a:e7•r° r ;'L.o'rge Clr .Ae."�`" , '`;`, 0A a ua a �,' _ w y IUesails D„ LA02378A., �. c, Chet , - m fi a, s �:, �s -y„Hllo Ci -— �� 7 ��; p� :�,4YSi s .. � n -s. - t— � wr ¢ t*9t- AmaZonDr ., Dr:". LA02415A �.. ; �Ci (tu ++�i, Bouquet0P�z ��w - �� D o I Auburn r � r q an .r Cr3 i C o' .�! n -y j E� L7eh1rU �tilra Q� Ue Dr Ta �� t' XaSul r�rlt GIenC08 AV(� ' w " s ° . ro m'�._. r <' �° Sw IBrid ewat r Dr '.,n� ,v ;Alhambra D w arryP� n a3 r t �rti m �s io g o r ir. Cabana Dr c7 rd : ��.:.� � g r o �y 21 r" Danube Dr a� �Q �w4 �er(1ht�l�Clr L ag�I�} t.h'J� n Cyr-- r" f CS y ,? .p-,� f e� ,+ ".7 �, �. DO ald�Ir j (re a Clr ,- r i �`.a� p fi � >; c Brush Dr 2u: � Syr �. rrlal�rt �, ' x - � A &t{e,rlr � ' Y .:4 r! .•:i �br ''i „ �pada . p � �,i� c,.' czRT ' 6)'..--�. ,F ''+:�..�r _ I L`'F�� "*� :�+�r`= z�.i� Do le'Dr �! i � •(::) �ta��[ $i4 w�"`�� ,t.m. -C � � �+c'�n"I t�a"t� a1 AYl th_r.a _ DrC1 1eIdS s'' 0 ern�andSk ir 1A co OSt-MOpl;le,.Estates U (DQ O tr k kP ,!r'o 4 Tf '�O Y.� r •W N �� L�A02853D �� +� eUl'�'If, r 5 y d x �✓$lrl Ave;fn -,1 I(Q t/F tyr �ctn Belsito Dr �, Blaylock Dr x y �'G'rs�hvViB r CA T (/ �, k — o g Ceder Ave Polder.Ci LTrtis Clr ' 9 1 g� � — xi O/ KenilWOrih IW ' g�9 > 0.f q t q @ — BUj Av �8°'/ tw -- - � � � ena o- o a Kristin Crr Friesland Dr L Ba p U�� - :¢ U Barton Dr + Ya/.�' c t t � t'; z t J C s;'� �lu CU C �,c 2�q'� h ' (�j " (t) G'. L Holland Dr Ft 1:vYF,e3 3 �� (,t + �, y Fes• S= •� U —. C li Glen tone Dr k r Mart m Wagon Dr .:I yamAsLA02585 st., ,•' _C'4k'�� ,' ." x�,w n �,r3-a a r S .y„ Q t "1. t '� •vats!', J:'+ � 't t �g� Q Dr . .I _ N ,.0. - L Q F S CL LLJzt+3F ��' C r3 lx' '..,. ny�a• { ,... •r & of""U;°`,e,,,, � tya s�:; �F sN X,FKi.A ,:>: ... .,� rcF ,rmtrr~r`K r d-,: ------ - � �'-- . _ -.. ,A � Coverage Legend $hstriva � , �. � � r, � � � I i � forrthe use�of the�,mdw{due!o�'entity to�,`whom it+s adal !, ny�other use or distnbuUon of this �ressed.A , �;,,qis ififormation,pr rty of T Mobi e USA.Inc is con ide teal a, -is�nt nde, soley r , � ,",,_, � l;.,� „� � �r � � I ®�nd o Outdoor 91dbm formation:,is stric prhibitedtT is,rnap predicts anda p oximates omrwireles covera e,a ea.outdoors,which��ay,'change without noticg It ma�nclude ocabons with limit or .' .x=;1,,, .• rsF=r"''� .� x. ; S' kt ,. r N'-. *. .a` ----- o coverd e'©�r ma"s do ndt'd�uar me service avafialow 'Even>wrthiFi a co e�a e,area,there are several factors,such a§:network chahges;fr ffic;volume service outagesi r,�, �.,... � a . .. .."`3SY�'a y: .� E'.. 9, t��p Q®''... .:>,.... ..S . echnic'al;imitations si nal'stren thr',your$e¢ui ment;�erram;structures ,weat er,anoher-conditions that may i terfere with actual se vice;gUallt and,avallabllityincluding the �� p�d ®� �� bc(luwiai vi,o, n t:A o lg0g l P vCJ 's of 0� ;; N C �ry �t / +S t,Y,7tt ,r,�r,�` rN ., �r spy - ,�}, _•— -:; In 0di `76 dbrnI li ability to malZe�receive,and maintain ells. i /� ,,, 1 -- a CPl fit ,,;; fan Ave �.. U, 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 8.5" by 11" (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 photos and photo simulations. Photos 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 photos and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do not place a smaller'before' photo in a box on the same page as a large'after' photo simulation_ The number of site photos, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photos and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination. The Applicant must submit photos and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photos and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 3/30107 Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM ATTACHMENT N 0 ® ® ® -Mobile ® LOCATION Microsoft*Virtual Earth"" f�ROP03ED - r a NOUAL a` View from the West to the East IMP CT r� EXISTING 37, I "T� + a ar xxac to Completed April 5,2009 LAPPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN "` pp ��'MC`` T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services 1741 Tustin Ave. 19A CommuC U nity 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-design.net 6666 Heil Avenue Irvine,CA 92618 michelle@biuewater-designmet Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p949.241-0175 Blue Water p714.473.2942 DESIGN f 949.631.2316 VIEWw� Photo simulation accuracy Is based on information provded to Blue Water Design by the applicant �YUii1©,► "The proposed installation is an artistic representation of a tree,and not intended to be an exact reproduction of an actual living tree.The final installation will have cables,cable ports,and various attachments,such as artennas nuts,and bolts.Every effort will be made to disguise these components and they will not be readily apparent to the casual observer or passerby.However,upon close scrutiny,the true nature of the Installation will be apparent:' z �tt v 1 (s-r` V ® ® . ® ® -Mobile - LOCATION Microsoft®Virtual Earth' 7 PROPOESED t. i2 5 tit PROPOSED MONOPALM LOCATION Minimal Visual Impact View from the South to the North EXISTING 'T Completed April 5,2009 APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN 1 T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services 1741 Tustin Ave. 19A Community UMW Costa Mesa,CA 92627 ` 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-design.net 6666 Heil Avenue Irvine,CA92618 michelle@bluewater-design.net Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p 949.241-0175 Blue Water p 714.473.2942 DE51GN f 949.631.2316 "VIEW wr Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant ,I(�/,I�VL. "The proposed installation is an artistic representation of a tree,and not Intended to be an exact reproduction of an actual living tree.The final installation will have cables,cable ports,and various attachments,such as antennas, nuts,and bolts.Every effort will be made to disguise these components and they will not be readily apparent to the casual observer or passerby,However,upon close scrutiny,the true nature of the insta Ilabon will be apparentP tL� V� -Mobile - LOCATION Microsoft*Virtual Earth' Pf20POSED v � x yy u��' ,ys i F�•, s ss I �;, PROPOSED MONOPALM o LOCATION a -- —= View from the Southeast to the Northwest EXISTING r . 4 - 1r�i H Completed April 5,2009 L1 APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN Community fl p��® T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services Cos Tustin Ave. 92 �J 3 MacArthur place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-design.net GGGG Heil Avenue Irvine,CA9261s michelle@bluewater-design.net Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p949.241-0175 Blue Water p714.473.2942 DESIGN IF 949.631.2316 �' Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant k L "The proposed installation is an artistic representation of a tree,and not intended to be an enact reproduction of an actual living tree.The final Installation will have cables,cable ports,and various attachments,such as antennas, nuts,and bolts.Every effort will be made to disguise these components and they will not be readily apparent to the casual observer or passerby.However,upon close scrutiny,the true nature of the installation will be apparent." v l !0 M -Mobile m LOCATION Microsoft*Virtual Earth' PROPOSED i e A ',kk., d » ;ire ex j EXISTING View from the Southeast to the No rthwestr�h I 11J" 1 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION Completed April 5,2009 LPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN Community UWp C APT-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services 1741 Tustin Ave. 926 i�+ !ltltlYY''44 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-design.net GGGG Heil Avenue Irvine,CA92618 Blue Water michelle@bluewater-design.net Huntington Beech, CA 92G47 p949.241-0175 p714.473.2942 DESIGN f 949.631.2316 V' Photo simulation accuracy is based on informadon provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant "The proposed installation is an artistic representation of a tree,and not Intended to bean exact reproduction of an actual living tree.The final Installation will have cables,cable ports,and various attachments,such as antennas, nuts,and bolts.Every effort will be made to disguise these components and they will not be readily apparent to the casual observer or passerby.However,upon close scrutiny,the true nature of the Installation will be apparent:' r'1 _LOCATION Microsoft'Virtual Earth" � � IT M M ®bile ® RR�OPOSED� - tr<r b iu � t �l 4f A.Iy 9 5 e yr`S4+ I PROPOSED a' MONOPALM View from the Northwest to the Southeast LOCATION a EXISTING � wit. 4.. 00S! ' o- PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION Completed April 5,2009 APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN �en @p �ppp�1(�°a` T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services 1741 Tustin Ave. 19A 5 Community CJIItl�C 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-design.net :ram 6666 Heil Avenue Irvine,CA92618 michelle@bluewater-design.net Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p949.241-0175 Blue Water p714.473.2942 DESIGN IF 949.631.2316 p O Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant s `"`?°°9 `vM® "The proposed Installation is an artistic representation of a tree,and not intended to be an exact reproduction of an actual living tree.The final Installation will have cables,cable ports,and various attachments,such as antennas, a nuts,and bolts.Every effort will be made to disguise these components and they will not be readily apparent to the casual observer or passerby.However,upon close scrutiny,the true nature of the Installation will be apparent:' 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 8 is required. All others proceed to 9.00. 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 at 1.01 and 1.02? Yes XX No 6.03: If the answer to 8.02 is NO, proceed to 8.05. 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 8.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 8.04 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 objectives of the project? xx Yes No 6.06: If the answer to 8.05 is NO, proceed to 9.00. 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 8.07'. Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 8.07 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 3/30107 Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm SITE JUSTIFICATION STu,)Y FOR LA33421-A CoMMuNITY UMC SEQUOIA 6666 HEIL AYE S ��R �p rL009 tDtPL0Y stkViCt,(.NC. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 9 APN: 146-483-29 t;antin t��`'7koapT Omnipoint Communications, Inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) selected the proposed location for a needed wireless facility as it was the best location available for the facility when considering the needs of the network, land use patterns in the area, willingness of the landlord to enter into a lease for the facility, and the zoning code requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. The facility is needed to correct a hole in network coverage created by the local demand on the existing network. As the number of users of the network increases the coverage area of existing sites decreases creating areas where it is difficult to make a call or keep a call connected. The area surrounding the proposed site, approximately at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edward Street, suffers from this situation. This intersection and surroundings became the target search area for the facility. The facility will increase signal strength and the network capacity in and surrounding the neighborhood adjacent to the site to better serve the communications needs of the residents, workers and visitors in the City of Huntington Beach. Radio-frequency propagation maps shows the existing coverage and the modeled coverage after installation of the facility at the proposed height are attached. Approval of the facility at the proposed height provides the needed coverage for the surrounding neighborhood, providing a high quality signal for both indoor and outdoor users of the network. The proposed site is zoned Residential Low Density (RL) developed as a church. All adjacent land uses are zoned residential but the facility is located more than 100 ft away from residential developments. In fact, the location was selected since is not developed or used for residential purposes. The alternative candidates were ruled out due to the lack of interest to lease space, and height restrictions that will not satisfy T-Mobile's coverage objective. The current location is best suited for the facility as it offers space for the equipment and antennas, when considering zoning restrictions and design compatibility and offers the best opportunity to screen the installation from public view through the use of screening. All equipment is proposed to be inside a CMU wall and behind a planter that separated the block wall from the front property line (approximately 20 ft.). This equipment location was selected as the space available created did not altered the functionality/ circulation patterns or character of the existing development. The proposed facility is an unmanned telecommunications facility and has no habitable or occupied space. The facility will operate (transmit and receive calls) 24 hours per day for residents and visitors of Huntington Beach. The facility has no "employees" or "customers" per se. Customer use does not require any access to the facility and only periodic maintenance is performed on the facility (approximately one hour per month.) Existing streets, access drives, and circulation patterns are adequate to serve the project and will not be impacted by the project. UA33421 A Co nmunity UMC Site Justification �TT,' � M N A 90a 5`,c m- R t t i E 6 f l€d = a t t! a E aest 6} E g k E S S S S S € € f k f ! E E t t ! S a t ! t S t s € a r f d F F F t ?S C 4 E€ f £ O Y tl • • M • • K e. K w w bilelm Guidelines used W • W K tl The following guidelines were used to determine the best candidate fotlr K a site LA33421 A: • rm ., 1 . Site Visit — Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on location, structure height, topography, lease area, etc. 2. Propagation Analysis — T-Mobile USA uses a prediction tool, known as Asset, to project the expected coverage of the new cell site. 3. Drive Test Data — T-Mobile USA uses real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. w fill! -i7 Iv Iql 1w, Ztt- wj 1irl HIT !MW (13 WS tV Ill�sl poj l,Vp,ii�;"4 0 n 04 7%.t AIM. j 7A 101 .4 IP 2 71 ® Y• a w a. �.M Overview W e•• W wW The FCC license required T-Mobile to build a wireless network that will provide the best network performance to customers as possible. Also, the FCC litl�rse.•W W W required T- Mobile to put up a wireless network in accordance with tho : edL�,ral Communication Commission requirements and under the compliance of Federal, State and local mandates laws. The goals of the network performance are to provide best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop-free connections. Also, thesite will operate below the radio frequency emission limits set forth by the Federal Communication Commission. T-Mobile is proposing a site installation located at 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 with an effort to adhere all the requirements set by FCC, Federal, State and local mandates. 0 k b W b b r Y W rx e� rm b Y W Y Y Y Y Y W Y W b Y O Y • ru cr Y W Y W rs rx Site Details e a b Y W Y Y Y a r ro Site I® : LA33421 A Site Name : Community UMC Site Address: 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Ism O LA33421 A Predicted Coverage Without the Proposed Site 0 i0" k'"M all, 0*0 U11 IR, Weak coverage on this M06nb • area (low onja .yehic:lp and Marw In Building Cdvbratle) Existing sites LA13105A, LA02495A, and LA02853D C* Mn cant provide enough et'Dr coverage hence LA33421 A C Ed, t Or is being proposed to be rDr, installed in Community UMC to provide the needed coverage as well as a balance coverage with existing sites. Proposed site location is symmetrical with existing UJ sites hence required > coverage objective is meet IT I% Coverage Logend ouidoor -1 Invoice LU In Building fi (4 ;. r Coverage Map with the proposedsite :v LA33421Aw r p • e p pq� a ..•.. Dr p LA _ Prediction lot shows 05 ..w that the c�trpnf a proposed Sifes•vvlll . meet the desired _ coverage objective. NU - cc ��p This also shows a Wn balance coverage with A G,e existing sites. impat Or Dr LA33509A Community UMC is the best f _ option for this site. Wto LLJ c : .. K �a S + ouvoor in V01016 ! in eunamo Uj rnM ... ._. _.a' uws Y 0 Q .. - i4 M b • ♦ M' M W M W 'b Y W b W w i en CONCLUSION -8 T's 0M ♦ W bbW W a ♦as Proposed site location for LA33421 A was chosen based on.the.b� Ww Wr coverage requirements aimed to better serve the customei'a"66- � provide the best quality service. 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: 7.10 (1) The site selection for the proposed project, including alternatives; 7.11 Name: Monica Moretta 7.12 Title: Agent Representative 7.13 Company Affiliation: sequoia Deployment Services, Inc_ 7.14 Work Address: one venture, suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 7.15 Telephone/Ext.: 949.241.0175 7.16 Email Address: moni .a.mo ttaos Quoia-ds. .o . 7.20 (2) The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.21 Name: Jose Pena 7.22 Title: RF Engineer 7.23 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.24 Work Address: 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana, CA 92707 7.25 Telephone I Ext.: 310.279.9925 7.26 Email Address: Pena, Jose (Jose.Pena@T-Mobile.com] 7.30 (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any; 7.31 Name: Jose Pena 7.32 Title: RF Engineer 7.33 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.34 Work Address: 3 I=erial Promenade Santa Ana. CA 92707 7.35 Telephone/Ext.: 310.279.9925 7.36 Email Address: Pana .-rose r.msP PPn;:i T-Mnhi]a rrnm) 7.40 (4) Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project. 7.41 Name: Joe Thompson & Duan Dao 7.42 Title: Zoning Manager & District Manager 7.43 Company Affiliation: 7.44 Work Address: -4 Tmn rial Promenade Santa Ana. cA 927o7 7.45 Telephone/Ext.: '114'850.2414 7.46 Email Address: joe.thompson@T-Mobile.com J/ 7.5 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 7.5". Initial here Nm to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no Attachment 7.5, or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.5 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 3/30/07 Page 8 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM ATTACHNIENT NO. <5 ' � 8.00: Form Certification 8.01: The undersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided here e tr nd complete to the best of the undersigned's knowledge. Agent Representative Signature Title Monica Moretta monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com Print Name Email Address Sequoia Deployment services, Inc. on behave of T-Mobile 949.241.0175 Print Company Name Telephone Number/extension Date Si6ndd <Stop Here. End of Form> 06-595/9174 3/30/07 Page 9 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM AT TA H M E N4T N 0. 5,a� stic*together' P ° 0%&b1 w m LANS El:P0.EPAHEO �HOVOB 019 STE m nMd NOVAC�I SITE NUMBER: LA33421A CITY: HUNTINGTON BEACH SITE NAME: COMMUNITY UMC COUNTY: ORANGE CONSULT��DUP � SEgUO_lA 8 SITE TYPE: RAWLAND / MONOPALM JURISDICTION: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ---- --- N0. DATE-�OESCAIPnON: BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: SHEETINDEX: II II VICINITY MAP: o izpl/oa EDz zo n.Ic u Ls-I toaoeRAPN:c wR•rtY trt,F - M^ct ui? R1 j L_d+ jf:�� I , of/2Et/oD.MEN L aevso _ RITE ApOPE95 SHEET N IIAPER:nfSCRIPiION �).III) LL��LJ I]II U UJ M66iri NGploYucH.G Rsen *-I iRLE sNEEr _L 4` fi'I�1 �F'" t j40 I Zc.'� � L.�I�I L I - PROPS DwNER {( I r I \� I — coMvuktt vv rfD ufnAODIs,Cku9cN or NuvnNcrDN BFncN A-1 SRE PUN }It �` --- H66NpL AVFAVE A-3 fONPNENi AREA UYOUI d:AMEN,W UYOV,S -ply j .—TIN BEACH, S-1 A-3 ELEUATroNE p4 P 1I p ,,JJ 1 < \ I I Pam+ — 7 A-4 ELEVAnON1 CA �I I J -y PI III +Mn n APPLICANT I vy 'e, � ,,� 2 i-oq Me E USA A H R uCEEDIEI,� II I$ NEP CEENAU 2]or IxiEENEX INRUSI - ifuoel.E j� nrt llil lq�, d - �t I(vFfi kl iN IIE\��„ •j J _Ii --.. ___ d LOV NAUGLY w JOE 1 0 PSOu - t-NOD E b DEVELOPUENT MAAD0 i UOOLE fff 3f ti J � � Sll i RWECf NAYACfH- M 'G RRERA —Clek PROJECT oescR PnpN, PTiS INS ISCO Cr CMA s I �i I FII �•�� o-- c r'tti 1(LL V. I: -,I� �wuT. 7 i !Utl 40,� I of/2n/ue ac/on c:lEcrc nlc TT, NSTALTAIOY OF(B)DIE MD(1)99U i UCTLI 1001 VT CABNE11 NIINRI 6. I 5 '� l CMU WALL ENCLOSURE NO NSTAUADOV OF(2)NN'D.AMTNNAS At SD-0" I.S�� }�I(1� R'1 LS)I I ( I 1 : I 9 II EfiE IYFONMATION: AC.L TO TO OE PANEL AN,EI, ANO(I)CPS AVIENNA MW`CEO 0Y A pv�l'WM F 4'AAR 111 PROPosfD sd'-D,CD LOCAT-C uoNOPATI PC AnD TCLCD I—Exsnkc - A., R f - 1 1 +k— I(N POryER AN TELCD SOURCES {�.�; Q I ( y J. kl pyLS yMARr, ,i I r: T1 COMMUNITY UMC o III I [ 5 a am z F [�� o crPAcr c1A.ssRGnar cco Pvcw-a/YDNOT—-u iI �; `�� I�'I �'I v / I r 'I I Y �' I'; Cl COVSIRUCi V E V B 4 .� ��';�w st 19IU 1.. j I I ,t` Rill ` LA33421 A IC YD RL- Ir REs9Erma Low Deum >� ,I I_i t.( e,S� 'III i I[� 1, ' RRea LAvfNDE ` OPOSe.1 LLNEC AAUN 6+l EO R J 111 u Pn LE .r' Ir I I ' ASSESSORS PPRCtt k VBEn: 1 6-A53 M �>- NUNIINGTONBEACH CAR26O1 QIlQIAEJER Az:uums sNowN ARE FOR nroaunnovAl PURPOSES our AND ARE EVaLECT ro IIA 1(SIJI 'f; I I J I J L i I sEAI: CONSULTING TEAM: APPROVALS: ANTENNA SCHEDULE' �^ SAC/ZONING/PERMITTING NC AR H 1 RA h FNC EEP NO• THE FWl0'MH0 PAADfS NfAEDY APPPOrE AND ACCCPi T1ESE DOCUU[Ni5 AND _ III uw 1E0UOI1 DMOPME.EEAVICP.E N'OIACDN AUTHOWZE INS CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED—T1E CONSIRUCTION DESCR:810 d Omx;VpRURE,SUITE TOO 13E1 MONA PD.,UNIT TSO TAtLD -CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE SUDIECT TO REVIEW Bt'DIE LOC.LL SECTOR AZIMUTH CENTERLINE A OF fi OF COI DIAMETER COAX LLNGtH .-A CORONA U 92882 BUILO'�NO DEP.Di AD ANf CHANCES AND.0"CATIONS THEY MAY:VPOSE. ANTENNAS ANTENNA MODEL A co,UNEE SAC CONTACT!IfILLY CROE5 PHONE("')4J9-BOBS BO'-O' Nex-eete- )/e' 20NIN'0 CONTACT.MDA'G UORITTA FAx:(951)ROS-R— PRINT NAME SIGNATt)RE DATE _ ]U PHONE:(9A9)]AI-DI]B NBx-6f16 RtMA ]/e' s COP-o—OIICE: R FAN:(919)JE3-JzO> AN S LDLORD 30' e—_— PROPftIETAN^INFDNNA7i0NV,� O TAP 0' N 4--J ,- �tt.9 iArl tir➢51Fo0RfIMreY lUivu nrr c Hex SBIe-xz ] 9 CEeRVFY. A&E MGR on Oago4aLmMon mx9wMasw nlert[v FDNsm a� 8 FAON D(g 9B DO 55852. CONSTO.PNSP --_ C(SDA-C 1.ID,Y CI. PLIEtM0O�t0 CNUq HEAT E 6fiN CiL RU-1.TO_]WNCELES h CPA—1-11(1—)-- - SHEEt tRIE:- t �_ TITLE SHEET Rf ENGINEER APPLICABLE CODES UTILITY CONTACTS z G ZONING)AGR roRwIA ADVI.v15IRAtrvE LODE 3 ZOO]CAUrORNu 6UILDIkC CODE u SAC REP. 00]CAU,CN,l McCZ—COCE OVp4Nr:SCE CUU Oiw'.KAi3O.v SHEETNUMCER: AN51/pA-2J2-F UFf SAFE,CODE NFPA-101 PCONIACT: CONNACT:iEo E POWER2008 NB.C. NONE:rb0 vnCNE.tbU tl ]_/caNrr iN Es �� iELCO V i V1C_INITY MAT!_ 18N, / 2W TII r u ,A�{s'1�-�1 1 A : APN: APN: PN: 1[♦cibile -50 141-384-20 118-384-t 146-38d-22 I 146-18d-21 G=� �GRoa,Xrs�xD ojC*tbgdther" 99`Ifie.'ewe=INe a.AutaA—, 51(✓ C+ Q C J VA'E ARMuk PUCE,STl. 10 e HE_lL AVE _ \ wn : A ANA,cA 92701 s Eno.ecu sr�xL A,'n -�—/ s e9•z6'.4 E e.o.a - o.rAuo �o� �• ° r000ba'Fwe=,=<e wQ,w<e eze9 het re e. I HUSH.c1001s PE 150fB / t�U a a�r6PO1�1 iB s r C'LIEN' rn�Mrorin°iv w<n a do �woc"aeo�rtrrrrr.t �-7d_-, 1oz-H9-sx c 8 89'26'44'f/00.56' r woow•.n. r vi dioo w� 0 ;mn � FNIOE --ris o1. tA. •A'eH<e''-•a nre 5 '^, _j P1tOPdq);t 11 AWE ' APN; toe-453-28 _'aro��r a u�Ewv�amm•Ben.an..<.er,e.9J x:<r. I I I rE,BtDG I I U, I evJw,Br4• .. 1 I u tL a5O I , n..w°000•«•'i: ° I -1--- 2et.v' LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS nn Oe%ttlfZ leI...I te'.00 r..t ro I - - - SURvkY�PREPAREO BYIv. APN: 146-483-25';?t. un Atteu Ee,rm=nl 6nnf dr,ned a,lelb.,; I ¢ 6.e$ *[o.J+nuer t a5vt eaaf Vi�Be Ebn=t<t=teriu�p 5<.upexga IT 4 x c<...��f o P.na t'+a<�svwai e�<!em.c° tat<er a.rdno 'H er xu'ryl:nllm Bncn. g ry W o, L I a w.arNe w I vv+arrR r SWMusr S<b4ntu vot�;ena.v[1i _ vFn�rJ'1 �0 iemn svuin wf p[! ;ecnwd<e m,d 1[Oeq�ppe r<J1•Je of ='., \ APN: 1 d6-483-29 �� / J CfAfr N M Un'�tnrv,v1Rv 9[�05o r4u mwza ro a. INc �iv oio>efA•m1rrlm rm n en=m vor. IZ �I APN: 146-483-2n + DtSGem"OiJ.aA'rat°U,n'nz °<ows s.D o................, fAu[Po'M9 9 Pin'HN ti'[.e er ua...•�v.s<..tx°°m'c°'fe;i APN: 1vD'WnruSn .[x'o .iMt rant s°vm�inu �J. it esa fah-32f-Of (E)BInG ¢eifinE[[ ForMEwvar xa is�L tnE snLsn[ ooaioo°ir<n a mlan<,er B.Ra r.,c \ 7"' J R •.tnsl m oo�.E.n a 6,1..<.er ao5ro na \ .4 Ioe9zJ9, 0 _ 000.�i✓,.�xme ° OobO•u��a mane.ar s��r.iEt \ f ID�/-�/ APN: 146-183-23 uv lie r oTM �u�tmwcro [i<xrais vDREViSION) m.'c enee«e u APN: -� rr / �a>.xtE cw.lvrr t cs'v. REV DATh. DESCF1P110N: Nr; 146-321-02 / °w,irK x[v[[etxnssiEex'rn°ttat ,NOuS�r.ps __ me;xe nnnq acaR'DD'6w a nlonce or 1o.oD In N H9'26'44"E m=eu mnn Domm•Ene a re��.er e)Enf'wt mos'L0' 01/07/C5 PRELN/1f1ARY JIA mMn ii`,.n aveooroo•Fen a<sne..<.er 1.D e<re,ed se.tn Js;o'nowm'.1'�i',`ra`uor.",ia;<t — - .1p<�4aurv.1 z.CO rr<I aw9,ee - \ i'_ I ue":s�oVr�x(t+io!cr'IRvi'�e,"r elr a°e'°.•:'o wi z/os/o9 Revscu Inst :IA erENr . g n'e UM,yB( nr�Nnp 1-H.a o,re lee,a; APN: APN:146-483-16 I I ue tH[r sam�ui!°xot onwiueeary sY°91t"vv[i ov[ 2 3/10/09 iINA!I,uO Jhl :P<<n <. Me uel a er t.e 6-az1-o3 m m 11No o un no!pN Ku ao aeon Uq a.s.<e,l r;.f se<;Ien: rtYcr x snonN a e wU,Rope.w t x, e[Ce srole o�<p= '\ •��,�10).H9'\--- .++en - _ �t n'a'm Ms�i°tdu - t uewMl:rglmleea�ri«W;nF �'s�prc°ipiir qu AwrlsnP*auti.Ym2 rM'�00 <awrov'Iav uPo�a RnwW�e%,oe eewH,a ex.luEn=el.nex w x.ew o5 d - f - ' .w�enrw 3a.f+l re µRPP05(D LVCASL'RG L ul < < a , d vsiM°=M�wrns oo.,v wam [s°jy yqE 0�c'Yi�pwn�V e uM of P.i.i'P•pn •van 1 ^omttwrc su<[R nre 5 SUL: c�a15e^n tlO'N' I AL1 All a +t�`u Ali FwK.mqA mt+sna W�bo rm:rrttiU SWt�e2c<aFEuswt�j J D < fncE xmrx ovlvt B•Utt Ltt°Att �V t .n. �S /✓ Y Iea.+9 ESR.vusv�.i°natn niF�r+ro g i�itE oa YE a ev[ia�r"efai BwRru t°mx uD n'oxm uxc: ,o � SCHEDULEBITEMS or ae. 2f ovr A 1 �13e E ID a h I II, y �`- z:n 'Iv,<,•°s'�.,'S.o.S�sr,,«,«.e,,d.,< .I I u":"eniN"aw 1°:u� n«t+ser.:' eYe<uxtw^ a SITE;NFORIIAiION: VI, ,h 2 "�� GRAPHIC SCALE .°rFaShY u[ta.vv�uptxra5xtc ufrrtxr COMMUNITY ITY Y T T �I M, GRAPH V IC SCALE ,�T-- Eye��r nun ARFA 'M•C E TCa'BaBB9 t teeu.[ee'rx ' LA33421A 3 I! LEGEND 6666 MEIL AVE, ! ab rPao rNar: .. of LE- Bramm�v e X.u.[. pUBuc umriv GSNENr HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926h1 Npwnru,nus xq w ha caF ae,rl u M -PMREPAOSED SEASPIIAFi NOV NulABCR: emc roa Jzv' G -Jxe son o�n Acass DarsrwAr 66 raa.v PROJECT INF012�1A'f10N bvd SIB'%I6' SLOPE 1S CI.Rf NMReNi NOV08'079 ror ror a xonE dd,, cuv w.ac " x nvc Ovrrra vrrnaorBa�runcx _ PROPO ED ANTENN OCATION 1 I°JJ.0 von wnlA • /a x0 AS nror(p SnEET nit E: t 'teal POSITION Of GEODETIC COORDINATES E:6015a 53.e3 tP a MK WMAaLi q [apO Ef .�aGCn,u f. O rifLMfCAn 1RNlYMHrn vnxru.vn xC LATITUDE 33'43'20.88'NORTH (G,r ror nvUBw ® A, tcwa Dvu'c uru ee46 u5-.nJ-zR a TOP 85.50' LG" L 0 ccP001NA ONGITOOE-118'00'44.58'WEST Po new a E£OOr Or r¢fPNavF Pro[B rat s[c Iz,rTS.S.,x.l Lw TDPOGRA Pf1IC SURVESURVEY°ALA S BO I A3' 25 r¢FYNM'E vtr Ebb SL NG r \ lfYaORARr BCNLxvARX 0w OA6 vC1(a vA tl(tlf111'dSS vr,0 S Avr AEI LL;BA0.voanfGvss�iddc tN0 st. P q,� ® [Pvtgx PbNr ° t SE,HE NUMBER.' 1 Of 6m I YA® a cr vE„r ,¢,e0 clo o° �^C ' T x.OB ..{'tea'v0t ri[vAnaV � gOOE EAN BAi1s Or SFAelne mrC 80r BQBI � ' ?� v PARABOUL 1IrE1.1a F AIF lti EFNC'E/ an°11e � rwa xa.sss),ua ar' " x00D rMCE 1 ° - �� k fLW9xn.EARPYS a��wA �„sozoo L S— 1 I °wv°avA,°ED'r;ou.°Ns M1aF wN.w.1F� r y«« roewvfloiLnw:ol"`ifi�uLla�su • i�.l�+er e a « rsticktogegher' « `" __— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ WEIL AVENUE _ a D�TM`�'�° �r«;.; • ZONING ANALYSIS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES — — A«E AW _m—1r — • J we rgM,.P n.cLAvo IIEa r« n•: Rt p[sDENvx LON DwsrtT pfs wsrzc[ SECTOR'A' PRO-Disc�1 1 PROPOSED T-MOBILE LEASE AREAS «r t RB•OFMuI L w Da Rf4 IXSt'Ct 4O° - >t O' 330 JF. PUNS PREPARED BY! E� R :DFxMI-l0'N DOVSrfT qE5 OSIRYY PROPOSCD i-YDB.'IF J!'-O'.ID'-0' HOYOC.019 P.—LOP OdSRY 9IXS 1 fWIPYCM—1 AREA(3!0 5A. .7 L9UPVEM n,'D fl � E Qu.�k,A`' _ J2.9T. NO AcQm. 2 r RDPD9ED._ « AqL,NE R).JP. �:�"��'��•••n'`°'W'�' pd i p I � — y:0"L(�J)RDR VWY fl�One n'el e ((f) CONSULil1'O OROUP:° DNV rtALLR I ° a{ Di Ew$[Ot0 g00F Q.TNUNC.TMiGL 11 c ' _�E SLRue9 /( II A4 SE u UOIA .— —i6F—ik[—TBE—T64—E4EAN:1 f- /7 riTrtr 1'< I I USJ7C' REN[E (q fllS'Pl1N TREE, II I \\ E ru0-n:'a�iw NO-7 O. DATE. DESCRIPTION: BY: PROPO�SfD T-OBLE!'_O n -- gOP05[0 T-vOBl1 q, I f/sd[M '/y/1)� ` �� / T dEy y.�II.PT— U 12/JI/OB 9Gf 20 YJG Mr - Itt / 0.u5Ux[w/COP9. P 1 01/28/09 NT RNAL REVI 10 LL MA'cR 4 1RGo uu•RroW o3rtXR)RED A b ' 1 II\D`Orl ROOF TO PROPOS[O /—(q BU.LDrE—� P. tM(fl BU.:a.,'c (� �' /� T-uOR:lc LEAK AREA(p29J') (f)3R.32'PAW TREE. —� / 2 Oi/OS/09 /.20 3zTm - I E EX611N0 CONwIEtt wNJMAT,rSP,fl1--- - ` USE: o y (E)OM55_J PAM (q wAro �SECTO 1 130R a COMMUNITY UMC P / I e _� APN: „I I LA33421A Uun SwttMDFAq ANo------ 146-483-29 / lc9e Hell Avenue uoaliPOimvnov°uaw vac I r 1 ZONE: RL / Y.. - " HUHTUIBIDN BE—.envze.) USE: CHURCH I. S ,� I USE.gfs:Dn:cE EAL: q / / — I SECTOR'C' $ — 240O -_=; coPrRlcerNoncE: PROPRVAR,V,101NAI;JN AVS[°a[s DCxCEJ w � / I N BHEEf iTIE�^ � e'n _ H ---��-- CUU WALL [\\—\ ---------------------- SITE PLAN u — APN:_1.R-.03-I6 \ H:EAR-IRS-1) APSi l'e-10[NC�e All l 6-pL-19 Ul .e-lLJ-29 APS.1.R:0[- -IZDu['JRL SHEET NUMBER: 20PF5 RL L20RNE5 L �N�30p l+ E10RE!R` a USE R[510[NC[ AVSC: IO[r!C[ I E0R[SID[xCF [910E110E q[CIO El A-1 a SITE PLAN 4 I aDus PROPOSEO T-MOBILE LEASE AREAS "��Bi�� OPoS[0 W5'd4iu'rRaVDY IAA.LZgRPMtM IOGT.W6 A¢E 1PPaox,uArt tl tl vnrm fa¢aAmY. ROPOBCO T-VOB[f 33'-O'RIO'-Y 650 S.f. \pA+R6 Rof t C� 2 VRNRK B[Wl.BE PkvttO [WPVprt IGKE MG POS£R!fCItPMOM EfKNgCS ARt6UB1ECrP Y �la,/ 1$V 'N +v 10 4Artx u0.40PNrR'rpOnOi. POP [0 T-VORlE 1D'-07I)D'-0' . 31(S.f. BO MPgO/K Br URM fAVPAWEg. b tl . 4oPH.0 EEASE MG — Ana.s sRu,_eE PNw<ED 10 l'acH " ° °' $t ck tOgQMiQrD Y Y PflOPoBEO YWOe,ti uOnOPNH IEVSE A¢G VOBEi BGa A G. , tl Y pP Y tl tl )vtl tlrlW uE 1-7 �.. 40 o M .�.. I yIANS PREP ARE00 e'° 440 Id qf SEC l � WxOPN.V'ma�•,() /(E)cuss A AVff,.Ws pw C,OR(S) I Y �t YP°vo.�oix�°i>o��mul � SECrOgi i0t/L JS'•0' / d Po¢gav Of([) PROPoSE01-vOBtE 1f'-a'�10'-0• PRWOSEO Y-v06tE EWPM[M IL3E A¢G II�Y tlme O�Ap 0 863 fib, 1 PG4Tw MIELVLO f01P.PVFM lfK[A¢G(350 9.n NCPv'C:`3517 Dtl fAV(B51)c!-D,0.s,P / I fib. ` I RE VYN,lCREO (E)iPEf Cuf0,1[we OBst,.\uxE tl N OGaopD�o�°,.� POPoSFD i _ CONEUlTL40C OUP: S � I OVCR,WIO � I rPu�OuanIED OCwI( Ir: I SE UOIA SEPowin"O�DM1'OE%Div'fit iD PpcawostoouvPm;e-uvs .J °"w oil ,A.aie.n E� N o 12/31/0e Des 9o>nzu SECTOR'B' ! ------- — — — — — O O ER"Ev°n¢c" ev: J�1 �b ° r , 1 ODoO Tine nrR Z 01/D5/U9 f 11_ A raxo�m�AcuiD c.o. Lc __-_ ��_ I O1 28 G9 MERNAL REVISION NH I 'SECTOR C E 240° 130 k— ----- k-------A k i>i -- e ✓ �.r \______J 1 \_____._JI l JI \------J � f\------ QOFOSED V�l[ T-w00 cE a T-V.9tEECi n F - w MT u0VIE0.°SP �W4IED gemfops.ii)rvn Pwis r. 1 PPOPOBEO t P-1 i ,dE—idE bE — 1E>°ZPO°[EnctOsuPtl� 777 1 I r�aPa D d ANTENNA LAYOUT D 5CA1Et I — _ —aE)roRDON of coNwETE wPuf«nY 10 (E)s,wUR To PEIu.'x,m. iPuoOP05sii a �(E)wup—/ 'w°o !srEnDi�°fUlrH13.(�OYD PEV0,20.PfPVtE M.(xaD57 E �I I 1 01/28/09 OC/OA CHEEK NJC D. HE M PpOP05(0 T-u W IE,0'v36' / 1 a SRfi INfORMAP.0,4: CON,FufM IFKE MG(50 SfJ / °rPoRrION W(E) E YGH Qn �(U Sr, i H. owu C EEµ w COMMUNITY UMCSV O H.10 uM RavA'niw wWAy'"vi+EnEo ru�.'ut io BE ( li 1 LA33421 A ONOlI5NE0 AVD RO/OJEO PPOPOSED�'-' --TT-- COPOPAIEflK AO P1. �roUiiflCv°nITUN 6666 VEIL AVENUE. POSfD 6'-0'vnDf ,� 1lYM¢➢tO vubf - '< I�� UC.COZY EA+N.FM MVN11N6TON BEACH.CA 93Wi LZ2/2?J71 I T1 72/�lJT_?lZY r! znlR cur(�Raiwin —(E)e M1C:Na—•� 1 _ _- 1 `�_o —At: ..A IW^OEv0U5N[D S ' .ru°9 d°KD \1'/I /— �`51 Hn��iuvAfc(ss4o� I TDB `t),'nudAmD,n's,R.P,.d=/ __ / � COPYRIGHT NOtiCE: �-( PROPRµET�ARINfORA�AIICN (ouue5rw uxE Of MS—ROOF 0xmu.40 nru r.°ubRW,[Aai cewA\r.Aw lss`�yr"V"Z"n"vnsPmA`° D fn ra atvaN/ � VSE o�o�osl[�Fnlm�Or arlGly�Es nv.w •ss!a+ '_ `. �'. •. - sHEEi TrrtE� � Icra BBr R�awrla ENLARGED SITE PLAN .smury FKaN U4lI.iMCD', A3 N / 7N—\ &ANTENNA LAYOUT a, o _ ®2 SC E: ^� DEMOLITION PLAN ® a/16.a1,_D. 3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN a' i Y E DD-EOU 1 AR[ ROpvArE PROPo D T-40t1t Al m"�i 40BrE. DIR F tREt[IKMn -�\ rA0ro5[n 1 v -- ■ ■ � smUCNRK AM At[WaEFA4.IOwTDv4 OL xnH BARB DeM1[OK AVEDI.v1 4 Y ,.KL Y■ Y m"u a'.`t�er'olmlm muP u AL,KRmro4.N stiek together': _ I •I =EW4�U9 HKAbVO �IOD Y m PlwNSPREPAREDBY: Novoe aro �.' PROPoffD Ta-a�ANEn:W4 Al lO:G.ID �V r�A vmau4.uouxrtT ML_J Zvi/ cam // .. �allouu�rwP nos.la°un+�al� A �°uq() rep.!✓>' w M Y°[o4owMur eer Ew 1 uavovau'ct _— PRorouo r-4aBlE so'-o•Ha, 'r�Eavcyvs )soeoesys .b(esl)eoe a [owoanulc"aoPuu,m oo-Ens .n vas a.nrl ' 6 II/� � � consuEnno aRouP: uortDJ ro PROPD4T " _ SEQUOIA fJ �E o'Eovr4tMron t0 = --- 3, fi m i.ur»o „ tt)ausm euw:nc - o h b b q8----s _ PRDPOi Qo■V[to�W �nDn NO. pgTE. OEECRW110N: BY: f K g vROrO5E01-u0BtE— —TED — 01 — — / xpE CDAA.4•,Etpt Y[IEL KCtSS 0 U 12/JI/pR Yp%ZD NJ^ tl I I 'DF WPRUDDOR T DJOA H U.5[cUM.W _- _1_ TK Kass DOOR ( x g 1 01/28/09 NTERNAL REVi^�ICN KII _ lcZ__o2/os/os l00% a Kn SOUTH ELEVATION J/IE=I-o I 1 ` �pI SREINEOHMAMN� ------'-------'--- --- — ------.— COMMUNITY UMC LA33421A 3 - �\ % rtOroYD i-WB•EL 5566 NEM1 AVENUE AViM.vM LSD'-D' AL eJ'-0'kd i- NUNLINOrON SEAcn,cA SEw1 X �O.K'OPeKu.romvE TiEr[Bo[¢0` 3 EO V�w4 �. a)ruu rR[L K.4nNr xaRm W„PK�`•EAo'r:osa„,7 sE": I 3 I wou °va"..Ec[a'�Em ro Pnorosm •` �' I II I n PDA,4 rAcc Aovcwr rD w•uoxi`� Hovon.. sto E—D-ASu orwus Y R m - •�A COPVRIBHf NOIRE. IS g h MHOo —� PROPR ETARY NfOFU'AAivOa x4w[A�v g g �i � uJ MUMN Buw-.Na � eYNm�At�IC�ItiNE0nm5W 99 g M h — _ _- 8 vxwxn"mE[a uo'h �ru�ssw ME I'm _ 9XEET TRIE^ ELEVATIONS UDPasm 4osu y"-V pcX"w sw.rupn .I �'Riei 'C Tilt ppp (OO eWplw, /M! 0 vtT II a k BXEET NUMBER: A En w¢ S6 RWw'W Aotuu, " C CC i533i5i5 PRor05 e•-o cw Bi[ tE%NSm IDt'E p AmtD iD unra(t am _ �--JJ scue = WEST ELEVATION ® 3/16'-1'-0' 2 V 1' C� R9ro4Ea r_N�.,�M._q•N��x , Y: . . : T =mobile rorcoPUN.t]mRt raE�n eot� na u — PROv04(o T-N00 L C B A- ----------- kEB"Rr oeiE °stic°4'�oge4e°r` T j PtlaITASPR4MII�IN�UNfti �W SLvtffs SVBJ[CI tl tl ]Ntltl'xlhPARA udY,p�1100 b b �I I / _I I I Rtxr3�L I(PA!RN TO OA1CN 'PLANS PREPPARE09Y: R1 PROPOSED�•YOHRf AVhNNN AT BC-0'AGL t0 lOP R � N MMALN NOVOI.OtB gMRD TO PAntl4[O NOWPNY M9 =\ - 4". roar Nll!I.orR q00.. IA sin f vONOPAtu,BE OMFRR k � � tl Eh]Si rovgvAlRO. N er I k _ Y3Y3Y3 ' C�9UL 1� • � Q +��p I�PVEM IAUdt io vROtOSCO�� '- PROwrt 1REE/OYtdl IO ltl<xuxa tlUtuq'c � � � ofl[E�R��usau ✓� _ x; N0. O RY: a 12/31/ox 907. io Nic P f r= lo) , 0I/29/09 NTL$01A REVISION KN 4 = _ z 01/05/09 OOR zu Lu NORTH ELEVATION —® �/B_,•_ 1 -- i W IR 3 {il,�/✓'^III�' '��/ V\\\�� vl SITE INEOM MN: COMMUNITY UMC E PRO T�L�u LA33421 A '\ %/� P�rouo r-voe,c ease NElL avenuE ' �1�tOP OEM NUNi W OtON bEACN,CA 926di xOstO T_ugelE!Y-o' i0viw aRrt[O,o i% 3 � lA((NCUOOin�xm�wu �9 coE.OfNFD EwNO. Z I E � MO PµHy[0 10 WtU; EAL. MOKOS', ) � � i+,•t$:u('Rn Ip000�s.�o].¢ENI to LLOGwNfLf NgROVNY. `� 7 SI _ E^""`Gr stalElN � l[)CM2GCx axlDAo 3-`•°"--�- 5e � COPYRIONL NOIICE: ak � . B g Y `= a a PNOPKIEtASY�u[�OR4ni.ON AC[lcWKKl.Aw ISVRgRt�iinrvsY=h�,��tv..�nv �m�E�'. ,>a eF - $ �L10 = _-`'(rIL=_ `E SNEei TILE: Tx ELEVATIONS PAS 1 OBE ?S (0 c%eN wW P F N lO4VY -N LL'ers k $ w O �ij1 I k' a nK AiCts DOOR / WLOv[CWS,�cOv!'tgs py ,+ EET NU HOER �• a n GGG y 000lto s-o•xu cw msn omosvu rtmmto EIHiRaaon PAW[tD 10 VAtcx(n 9O ONO,W/COR0.vETAI GAt6 R 5C.E A-4 EAST ELEVATION ;�S AN ] / 2010 . Huntington Beach / \ �: \ \ . . PLANNING DEPT «. y . . ��. �2 « MEIER . Clad ._ LL TMY o Clq � 22\ - w > \� /\\ \ \ RT ztl ATTACHMENT . O. —7 - 1 Rom_ wr we The ;FCC license required T-Mobile to build a wireless network that will provide the best network performance to customers as possible. Also, the FCC license required'T Mobile to put up a wireless network in accordance with the Federal Co°mmunication Commission requirements and under the compliance of Federal, State and local mandates laws. The goals of the network performance are to provide best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop-free connections. Also, thesite will operate below the radio frequency emission limits set forth by the Federal Communication Commission. T-Mobile is proposing a site installation located at 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 with an effort to adhere all the requirements set by FCC, Federal, State and local mandates. z -4 . e x w v„ ms Ob Site ID : LA33421 A Site Name : Community UMC Site Address: 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 . d r u s v'r, ettne,10.1 'd b Gui The following guidelines were used to determine the best candidate for site LA33421 A: 1 . Site Visit — Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on location, structure height, topography, lease area, etc. 2. Propagation Analysis — T-Mobile USA uses a prediction tool, known as Asset, to project the expected coverage of the new cell site. 3. Drive Test Data — T-Mobile USA uses real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. r s . r s s i ,�'�� cr{ xy y ^'t r ye ..._.C •T. .�_... tir'.:, V k ✓ +,�.+ r�>..",�*"� 'xMd E t"�i�r ..N y .� �:a t" � .:,a"a�'e}',� (6 a., E y F v. �p'��Al zm�t k Y.,'�R e r r � F t o � {E .x •t'a�rrn p, �A6y 3' u arF, � z ...:�• .>f' xvt ::., r. �- `� - -="�.�ia � ,v „ . . .:,� * a � � �i� �N t ,.:r� �'!.��'� .`��tit. 7 ^V •�` M y n ar'cl,y,' '.r x 'i' .r N n 5 f � w.R rayF iR' S5 b fi Ik. � iA 'Y ey de } ..:x eft• . �r s r .i s y 1 Fq. d' ..�a. ` ...+,a rA.S�Se da: 3n...P�;.ti�.�f � <,�s'°.3• r .� _a?t r.��' r 1t. +s • - - _ spy ... ,m-�e. � _ r , k " Ta t t-. • t x ........... ®rive Test Data is the real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. Legend In c Urd - to'� n Alarina 4+ nnkPr r I Meelo CA !❑ Outdoor -91dbm n r r.i A trr. In Vehicle -85 dbrm c c IiiN"Hil f)r Lgrtac{=it Proposed Site LA33421 A '� s` ' uc`° - m _fl Indoor/in building <� -71 dbrm Jl 1 oM r,ta f� r t f Fj 43 51 Q _ Mo- C� m L.A!! e 1r i uuJt ve ti mP w c 99 y� R4i IZ Site location for LA33421�was based on this drive test data which shows weak Indoor Coverage but has good Outdoor Coverage El on the area above. T-Mobile needs to provide Indoor Coverage ja in this area by installing site LA33421 A at Community UMC church. 6' <� erL. 5 �M!�� n :_�4k � �' � M1."d�v:,e�'44�� - � r - Weak coverage on this area (low on In vehicle and : + k Marina 1 � In Building Coverage av �� Existing sites LA13105A, LA02495A, and LA02853D iu�sa�i car cant provide enough aT + ara coverage hence LA33421 A � mt f is being proposed to be ab t C1 �Q ,O installed in Community UIVIC to provide the needed s coverage as well as a Q a + � balance coverage with existing sites. t1[4S I ' Proposed site location is e�� : °i " a i symmetrical with existing f tsit� Y g , God=- 1 sites hence required Y A` I coverage objective is tqn Cyr 0 meet ' I «+, " a cY Yol legend C. 0 oWlaor J Involilol InBuilding — �`� ..; , ,Or. AR ve OPA PY LA 3 2.� s lan Di Prediction plot shoves Mo6nbaa r that the current t xl r a .17 proposed saes will w ,t E meet the desired .� Dr coverage objective. ='U i `� This also shows a �. JeOmmIn C) � - - Ff�'f'�If �- balance coverage with p g i existing sites. n Dr �� LA33509A Community '� e UMC is the best ca ys, option for this site. Isito Kri f � tmtnYl� t e�,. i91. T7� � Outtlaor In'�+altloia In BuIIAInq 0 q ^'t1 k CO r Proposed site location for LA33421 A was chosen based on the coverage requirements aimed to better serve the customer and provide the best quality service. :em } { J1 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: 11/16/2009 PROJECT NAME: T-MOBILE WIRELESS TELECOM. FACILITY ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015 DATE OF PLANS: 10/28/2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 6666 HEIL AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT PLANNER: JILL ARABE, ASSISTANT PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: EDWARD S. LEE, PLAN CHECKER II TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1538/ELEE@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 FT. HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DESIGNED AS A BELL TOWER INCLUDING 6-ANTENNAS AND 1-GPS ANTENNA AT EXISTING CHURCH SITE. THE FACILITY INCLUDES ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SURROUNDED BY A T-6" HIGH WALL ENCLOSURE AND RELOCATING A 5' HIGH TRASH ENCLOSURE. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated 10/28/2009. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. Electrical, plumbing, and mechanical items are not included in this review. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the plan reviewer. Compliance is required prior to building permit issuance and all applicable items must meet the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) and the California Code of Regulations (CCR or Title 24). GENERAL: 1. The codes in effect are the: 2007 California Building Code ('07CBC), 2007 California Plumbing Code ('07CPC), 2007 California Mechanical Code ('07CMC), 2007 California Electrical Code ('07CEC) and 2007 California Energy Efficiency Standards as adopted by the City. 2_ A building permit shall be required for the proposed work based on 2007 CBC_ (Structural plans & calculation prepared by a California registered engineer shall be required for the 55 ft. high bell tower, antennas & 7'-6" high masonry enclosure.)- Mechanical, electrical & plumbing work shall be under separate permits if applicable. 3. If existing disabled parking spaces including the curb ramps are going to be affected by the proposed work, they shall be updated to comply with Chapter 1113, CBC'07. ATTACHMENT Nth. 6 � CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2009 PROJECT NAME: WIRELESS FACILITY PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2009-0188 ENTITLEMENTS: CUP 09-15, DR 09-21 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 27, 2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 6666 HEIL AVENUE PROJECT PLANNER: JILL ARABE,ASSISTANT PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714)374-5357/JARABE(a?SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: JOSH MCDONALD, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5509/JOSHUA.MCDONALD(a-)-SURFCtTY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 FT. HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DESIGNED AS A BELL TOWER, { i INCLUDING SIX (6) ANTENNAS AND ONE (1) GPS ANTENNA AT AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE. THE FACILITY INCLUDES ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SURROUNDED BY A SEVEN FT. SIX INCH HIGH WALL ENCLOSURE, AND RELOCATING A FIVE FT. HIGH TRASH ENCLOSURE. C i _ f The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as s stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, , please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. f THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ONSITE CONSTRUCTION: I{ 1_ Contractor shall call Dig-Alert prior to any trenching. i t ATTI�r: MFNT NO.ff�_; I i Page 2 of 2 2. If the facility use is discontinued, the equipment and antenna shall be removed within 30 days. 3. The proposed wireless facility shall obtain its electrical feed from SCE independently and not from the Community Untied Methodist Church. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved landscape plans. (MC 17.05) 2. An encroachment permit is necessary for any work performed in the public right-of-way. 3. Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities shall apply(Chapter 230.96 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance). 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at http://www.surfeity hb.org/fiiles/users/public workstfee schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 1. The proposed wireless system shall not operate on the 800 MHz frequency in order to eliminate any interference with the City's voice and data radio frequency. I i t E t i l ATTACHMENT NO.Y, 3' f t Cell Communication Towers I The New Rules Project - Page 2 of 3 _ - � f Cell Communication Towers I According to the Center for Municipal Solutions, there have been more than 150,000 commu ica ton ower facilities erected in the last 5 years and industry estimates are that more than 1 million more will be needed in the next few years. CMS suggests that as many as 50%of the towers erected in the last 5 years don't need to exist, an even greater percentage don't need to be as tall as they are and many wireless facilities, including towers, don't need to be recognizable as such. The FCC licenses Wireless Service Providers in every community in the nation.All these providers need towers and/or buildings for their services-As a result, communities need to take control of the siting of cell towers in their jurisdictions. Here are some of the key resources that we've found that will help your community stay ahead of the game and able to protect your citizenry from the unnecessary blight of cell tower proliferation. Without an ordinance, any resident could willingly lease land for a tower without any review or discussion with the community at large. The issue of health impacts from wireless communications systems is an issue of concern for many people and organizations.The EMR Policy Institute is tracking developments in this area. They note that the "Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents states and local governments from"regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions." More Information: • Towers and Wireless Facilities: What a Community Can Control -this page by the Center For Municipal Solutions shows the wide range of things that local communities can control related to communication towers. From costs and height to lighting and security, this listing of 24 items shows that communities can have a great deal of control over the potential impacts of communication towers. • Dan Bricklin's Cell Tower's Resources and Extra Resources - very nice pages with stories and pictures of towers. He also has a nice little section with links to companies that camouflage towers to reduce their visual impacts. • Scenic America's section on Telecommunications Towers, a resource guide Taming Wireless Telecommunications Towers, and a Model Telecommunications Tower Ordinance • Federal Communication Commission's Tower and Antenna Siting Issues Site • Federal Communication Commission's Radio Frequency Safety Site • Canyon Area Residents for the Environment - Colorado citizens fighting a 730 ft tall communication tower • EMR Policy Institute • EMR Network- Citizens and Professionals for the Responsible Use of Electromagnetic Radiation • Cellular Tower Zoning, Siting, Leasing and Franchising: Federal Developments and Municipal Interests - John W. Pestle, Varnum, Riddering's Energy and Telecommunications Practice Group, September 2001 • Cell-Phone Towers and Communities:The Struggle for Local Control - by B. Blake Levitt, 1998 • A Clear Call - America Unplugged: A Guide to the Wireless Issue - by B. Blake Levitt, 1997 • Wave-Guide: EMF/RFR Bioeffects and Public Policy Comments The New Rules Project exists to encourage policies that will increase the political and economic power of citizens and communities. Newrules.org will only approve comments that are relevant and, in our judgment, add a valuable contribution to the topic. We may edit comments to bring out key points. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. Post new comment Your name: ;= http:/./x-ivx-ne\�,rules.orp-ien-%ironiiient/rules/cell-communication-towers 1/5/2010 Order Code RS20783 Updated September 4, 2008 Re tbr The Siting of Wireless Communications Facilities: An Overview of Federal, State, and Loca I Law Kathleen Ruane Legislative Attorney ;? American Law Division E SummaryThe siting siting of wireless communications facilities has been a topic ofcontroversy in communities all over the United States. Telecommunications carriers need to place towers in areas where coverage is insufficient or lacking to provide better service to consumers,while local governing boards and community groups often oppose the siting of towers in residential neighborhoods and scenic areas. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs federal, state, and local regulation of the siting of communications towers by placing certain limitations on local zoning authority without totally preempting state and local law. This report provides an overview of the federal,state, and local laws governing the siting of wireless communications facilities.' Federal Law Governing the Placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs federal,state,and local regulation of the siting of"personal wireless service facilities"or cellular communication lowers! Under the 1996 Act, state and local governments are prohibited from unreasonably discriminating among "providers of functionally equivalent services_i3 This prohibition has been interpreted to provide state and local governments with the "flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even ' This report was originally written by Angie Welborn, formerly a Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Codified at 47 U_S-C_ 332(c)(7). U.S-C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1). Congressional Research Service -- The Library of Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congre AT I l 0 het_ilENT N0 ®� a CRS-2 if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services." However, state and local governments cannot adopt policies that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.' This provision not only applies to outright bans on tower siting,but also to situations where a state or local government's"criteria or their administration effectively preclude towers no matter what the carrier does."6 In these cases, the carrier must show "not just that this application has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste oftime even to try."' The act also prescribes certain procedures that a state or local government must follow when reviewing a request to place,construct,or modify personal wireless service facilities. The state or local government must "act on any request for authorization to place,construct or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed."' If the state or local government denies the request, the denial must be in writing and supported by "substantial evidence contained in a written record"9 Substantial evidence has been defined as"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."10 Courts have found that aesthetics may constitute a valid basis for the denial of a wireless permit so long as there is substantial evidence of the adverse visual impact of the proposed tower_" In fact, according to one court, "nothing in the Telecommunications Act forbids local authorities from applying general and nondiscriminatory standards derived from their zoning codes,and...aesthetic harmony is a prominent goal underlying almost every such code"12 Federal courts therefore have routinely upheld the denials of applications to construct wireless towers where the decisions of local entities were in writing and based on evidence that the tower would diminish property values,reduce the ability of property owners in the vicinity of the proposed tower to enjoy their property,or damage the scenic qualities of the proposed location.13 However, generalized aesthetic 'Sprint Spectrum,L.P.v.Willoth, 176 F.3d 630,639(2nd Cir. 1999)_ '47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11). 6 Town of Amherst,New Hampshire v.Ommpoint Communications Enterprises,Inc.,173 F.3d 9, 14(V Cir. 1999). 'Id. '47 U.S-C. 332(c)(7)(11)(11). 9 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). "Nextel Partners of Upstate New York,Inc.v. Town of Canaan,62 F.Supp.2d 691,695(N.D. N.Y_ 1999),citing Universal Camera v_NLRB, 340 U.S_ 474,477(1951). "See e.g..Preferred Sites,LLC v.Troup County,296 F.3d 1210(11 th Cir.2002),Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys_ v.Todd,244 F.3d 51 (1 st Cir. 2001),Omnipoint Corp_v. Zoning Board, 181 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1999), AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. Winston-Salem Bd. of Adjustment, 172 Fad 307 (4th Cir. 1999)_ Aegerter v. City of Delafield, 174 F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1999)_ See USCOC of Greater Iowa,Inc_V_Zoning Bd_of Adjustment;465 F.3d 817(8th Cir.2006) (upholding the denial of a permit to constnuct a tower based in part upon the fact that the tower would obstruct the view from the v,indo),e of nearbv residential property)_Omni-point Coninic'n (continued_..) ATT HMENT NO./V,3 CRS-3 concerns will not be considered"substantial evidence"to support the denial of permit.14 For example,the Seventh Circuit upheld the reversal of a denial of a petition based on aesthetic concerns where the only evidence that the proposed tower would be unsightly was the testimony of a few residents that they did not like poles in general,and those residents admitted that they had no objection to flagpoles,the proposed disguise for the wireless tower.15 Blanket opposition to poles could not constitute"substantial evidence," in the opinion of the court.16 Many community groups also oppose the siting of towers based on health and environmental concerns." However,the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the effects of radio frequency emissions if the facility in question complies with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." "As written, the purpose of the requirement is to prevent telecommunications siting decisions from beingbased upon unscientific orirrational fears that emissions from the telecommunications sites may cause undesirable health effects.""' Courts have enforced this provision of the act and have noted that"concerns of health risks due to the emissions may not constitute substantial evidence in support of denial."20 The act also provides for the appeal of a. state or local government's denial of a request to place,construct,or modify a facility.21 Section 704(c)of the Telecommunications Act provided that within 180 days of the enactment of the act,"the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis,property,rights-of-way, and easements under their control for t3 (.._continued) v. City of White Plains,430 F.3d 529 (2nd Cir_ 2005)(concluding that the zoning board was entitled to rely on aesthetic objections raised by members of the community that are familiar with the area); Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, 342 F_3d 818 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that the county's denial of a wireless tower permit was supported by substantial evidence that the proposed tower would mar an especially scenic stretch of land). 74 New Par v.City of Saginaw,301 F.3d 390,398 (6th Cir.2002). 15 Prime Co Personal Commc'n v. City of Mequon_ 352 F.3d 1147, 1151 (7th Cir. 2003)_ is Id "Malcolm J_Tuesley,Not in My Back Yard_The Siting of Wireless Communications Facilities. 51 Fed. Comm.L.J. 887, 902. Es 47 U_S_C. 332(c)(7)(13)(0_ Cellular Phone Task Force challenged the FCC's RF radiation guidelines. Cellular Phone Task Force v_FCC,205 F.3d 82(2nd Cir_2000)_ The Court upheld the FCC's radiation guidelines, finding that they were not arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. Id. at 96. "51 Fed. Comm- L. J. at 902. °Telespectruni,Inc. v.Public Service Commission of Kentuckv, 227 F.3d 414'(6"Cir. 2000). See also Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. y. County of Peoria_ 963 F_$upp. TQ. -145 (CD_ 111. 1997)_ 47 U.S_C. 3 32(c)(7)t B)(\)_ KIFENT N0. �� CRSA The placement of new telecommunications services."22 President Clinton issued a memorandum on August 10, 1995,directing the Administrator of General Services,"in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture,Interior,Defense,and the heads of such other agencies as the Administrator may determine,to develop procedures necessary to facilitate appropriate access to Federal property for the siting of mobile services antennas."23 The General Services Administration published procedures for the placement of commercial antennas on federal property in the Federal Register on March 29, 1996.21 On March 14,2007,the General Services Administration published updated procedures for the placement of commercial antennas on federal property in the Federal Register!' These replacement procedures shall remain in effect indefinitely 26 State Statutory Provisions Apart from the specific limitations set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal law does not appear to affect state or local zoning authority with regard to the placement of wireless communications towers?7 Most states delegate zoning authonty to local bodies. However, some states offer guidance on what factors should be considered by the local entities when considering applications for permits to construct wireless communications facilities. For example, the State of New Hampshire has enacted a law concerning the visual effects of tall wireless antennas.28 The law does not alter any municipal zoning ordinance or preempt the Telecommunications Act of 1996.sv It does,however,recognize that the visual effects of tall antennas"may go well beyond the physical borders between municipalities," and in doing so it encourages local governing bodies to address the issue "so as to require that all affected parties have the opportunity to be heard.s30 The statute also provides that carvers, wishing to build personal wireless service facilities,should consider commercially available alternatives to the tall towers, such as lower antenna mounts,disguised or camouflaged towers, and custom designed facilities to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding area_31 An Illinois law sets forth guidelines for telecommunications carvers to consider when choosing a location for and designing a facility 32 The law specifically states that it does "not abridge any rights created by or authority confirmed in the federal 22 P.L_ 104-104, §704(c). 23 Facilitating Access to Federal Property_for the Siting of Mobile Services Antennas,31 Weekly Comp.Pres. Doc. 1424 (August 10, 1995)_ 61 Fed.Reg_ 14,100(1996), 72 Fed. Reg. 11,881 (2007). 16 72 Fed. Reg. 11.881 (2007). 47 U.S.C_ 332(c)(7)(A)_ R.S.A. 12-K:1, effective August 7. 2000. `9 R.SA_ 12-K:1(1) and (Vl). R.S.A. 12-KA(11). " R.S A 12-K:1011). 55 1LCS 12o01.1. CRS-5 Telecommunications Act of 1996.i33 Rather, the law offers a list of locations - from most desirable"to`least desirable"-for the siting of telecommunications facilities,with non-residentially zoned lots as the most desirable and residentially zoned lots that are less than 2 acres in size and used for residential purposes as the least desirable.34 The guidelines set forth for designing a facility include preserving trees in the area or replacing trees removed during construction, landscaping around the facility, and designing facilities that are compatible with the residential character of the area." In addition to the alternatives listed above,states can encourage the use of existing infrastructure as opposed to the construction of new facilities in order to reduce the total number of towers in an area. For example, in Kentucky, state law allows the Iocal planning commission to require the company applying for the construction permit "to make a reasonable attempt to co-locate"their equipment on existing towers if space is available and the co-location does not interfere with the structural integrity of the tower or require substantial alterations to the tower.36 The statute gives the planning commission the authority to deny an application for construction based on the company's unwillingness to attempt to co-locate 37 Connecticut has also enacted a law which allows local entities to require the sharing of towers whenever it is "technically, legally, environmentally and economically feasible, and whenever such sharing meets public safety concerns.i38 Local (Municipal or County) Law Many local governments,through the use of their zoning authority,attempt to limit the impact cellular towers have on the surrounding environment_ One county in Georgia, enacted a "Telecommunications Tower and Antenna Ordinance," which set up a new permit system for the construction of cellular towers in an effort to encourage construction in nonresidential areas 39 In commercial or Iight industrial areas, a wireless service provider can build a tower without review by the County Board of Commissioners as long as a certain set of specifications are met.' However, if a service provider wanted to construct a tower in a residential area,a hearing is held on the matter, and construction 33 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(b). 34 55 11-CS 5/5-12001.1(d). j5 55 ILCS 5/5-12001.1(e). i6 K_R.S. § 100.987(6)_ Under federal taw,utilities are required to provide Ielecorrununications carvers -with nondiscriminatory access to any pole; duct. conduit. or right-0f--way owned or controlled by [the utility]." 47 U_S.C. 224(f)(1). ` K.R.S_ § 100987(7)_ Corm_ Gen_ Stat. § 16-50aa_ 3` Robert Long_ Allocating the Aesthelie C)S/S Of 6c117,110r 7mier FxpOnsion: A Workable Rcgularory Re.-imp- 19 Stan. Envtl. L_1. 373. 378. The full text of the ordinance is available at (http: ��.�winncttcounty.convdepartmentsrplannin��pditi�5�crpol�. sAENT NO. /©a' CRS-6 permits are subject to denial if a set of nine criteria are not met.41 In an effort to reduce the number of facilities in the area, the City of Bloomington, Minnesota, enacted an ordinance that requires wireless facilities to be designed to accommodate multiple users.az In direct response to the limitations set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, several communities enacted moratoria on permits for cellular towers in'an effort to prevent or delay the construction of cellular communications towers. 3 Under the act, local governments cannot act to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services in their communities"' Local governments justify the imposition of moratoria by claiming that they need time to study the problems with tower siting and how they should change their zoning ordinances to accommodate construction.as Courts have upheld moratoria that have a fixed length,such as six months 46 However,they are less likely to uphold those that are for long periods of time or indefinite 47 Recent Developments The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is seeking comment on a petition for a declaratory ruling filed by CTIA -The Wireless Association in July of 2008 as In its petition,CTIA expressed concerns about the delays many wireless providers face when applying to local and state zoning authorities to site wireless facilities. As a result,CTIA has asked the FCC(1)to clarify the time period in which a state or local zoning authority must act on a wireless facility siting request;(2)to declare that a failure by a state or local zoning authority to act on a siting request within that time shall result in the application being"deemed granted,"or,alternatively,that the applicant is entitled to a court-ordered injunction granting the application,unless the zoning authority can justify the delay; (3) to clarify that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)prohibits zoning decisions that have the effect of prohibiting additional entrants from offering service in a given area (in other words, to declare that Section 332(c)(7)(13)(1)is not satisfied by the presence of a single wireless provider in an area);and(4)to preempt all ordinances and regulations that automatically require all wireless siting applications to obtain a variance.49 Comments are due on September 15,2008. 41 Id The ordinance states that towers built in residential areas must comply with certain requirements, such as topography, height, setback, access driveways or easements, parking, fencing, landscaping,and adjacent uses. Id_ at n_35. 42 51 Fed. Comm.L.J.at 909,citing Bloomington,Mn-,Code 19.63.05(a)(1)-(4)(1996). 43 David W_Hughes, When NIMBY's Attack- The Heights to Which Communities Will Climb to Prevent the Siting of Wireless Towers,23 Iowa J- Corp. L_ 469,488, 44 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(13)(0. '`23 Iowa J. Corp_L.at 488. 46 See Sprint Spectrum L.P.v. City of Medina,924 F. Stipp- 1036(W.D_Wash. 1996). 4 See e.g_ Spring Spectrum L.P.v.Jefferson Count`_968 V Supp_ 1457(N.D. Ala- 1997)_ 4` Public Notice_ Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Declaratory Ruling by CTIA, (released August 14- 2008)_ 4q lrr 117"_' '111 r of Petition fin-I)cclo)orori f;idmi,it,Ow th 1'r-or i>io -ul Sc-c tinrr 33 2(()C)(B.)- l1'T Docket No. 08-165_Jul` 11 2008 ATTf ,�Pl MENT NO. 10,-^7 DEGTANTVPESE7_DOC 05/18/9911:01 AM THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996: § 704 OF.THE ACT AND PROTECTIONS AFFORDED THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS , PROVIDER IN THE FACILITIES SITING CONTEXT Peter M Degnan,Scott A. McLaren and T. Michael Tennant' _ 11 Cite As.Peter M.Degnan et al., The Telecommunications Act of 1996:§704 of the Act and Protections Afforded the Telecommunica- tions Provider in the Facilities Siting Context, 3 MICH.TELECOMM.TECH.L.REV. 1 (1997) available at<htip://www.mttir.org/voithree/mclaren.pdf> L FOREWORD As the wireless telecommunications revolution has expanded,so has the demand for wireless communications facilities.' The number of cellular subscribers in the U.S. has exploded in the past fifteen years from zero to a current level of over 25 million.]In order to keep up with The demand for service, cellular providers have installed some 22,000 radio transmission sites nationwide during the past IS years!Increasing Peter M.Degnan Scott A.McLaren and T.Michael Tennant,all with Alston&Bird in Atlanta,Georgia,were the first to successfully litigate a claim on behalf of a telecommu- nications provider under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecommunications Act"or"Act").Upon filing suit under Section 704 of the Act,Deg- nan, McLaren and Tennant persuaded the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,Judge G.Ernest Tidwell,to force a local county government to grant the cellular provider a permit to construct a cellular communications tower that had previously been denied by the county_See BellSouth Mobility v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, 944 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Ga. 1996).Degnan,McLaren and Tennant have also advised GTE Mobil- net,Inc.and other wireless providers on Telecommunications siting issues outside the State of Georgia,specifically in Alabama,Florida,North Carolina,and Wisconsin. . Peter M.Degnan is a partner at the Atlanta law firm of Alston&Bird.His practice fo- cuses primarily on land use law with emphasis on litigation. Scott A. McLaren is an associate in his sixth year of practice at Alston&Bird.He practices primarily in the areas of land use litigation, and products liability litigation_ T. Michael Tennant, also a partner at Alston&Bird,focuses his practice on land use law and the regulation of real estate_ I_ Telecommunications Act of 1996,Pub-L,No- 104-104, 110 Stat.56(to be codified at 47 U.S.C- §609 et. seq.)(stating that the Act seeks to in part "encourage the rapid de- ployment of new telecommunications technologies"). 2. Microwave Journal.July 1. 1996-Vol-397 No.7. 3- John J_ Keller. With Cellular Tmt rs Sprouting All (her, Tones Begin to Rebel; Wall St.-1.Jul 2. 1996.at:a 1 1 ATTACHMENT NO.A),� DEGNANTYPESET.Doc 05/18/99 11:01 AM 2 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol_3:1 demand for telecommunications services will require another 100,000 antennae installations in the coming years' The reason that increased consumer demand requires a correspond- ing increase in the number of cellular transmission sites is simple. A cellular network is much Iike a honeycomb. As a cellular user travels from one area to another, the transmission of a telephone call is shifted from one transmission site to the next. As demand increases, the area over which the site can effectively transmit shrinks, causing gaps be- tween the sites, or gaps in the"honeycomb."In order to fill these gaps, cellular service providers must build additional sites to accommodate the increased demand without eroding the quality of service. Across the U.S., this wireless telecommunications revolution has encountered significant resistance at the grassroots levels Although consumers enjoy the flexible advantages of mobile communications, they also express a "not in my backyard" attitude towards the infras- tuctural requirements associated with cellular telephone service. For example, in many localities, tower construction is bogged down in a quagmire of community complaints and politically motivated govem- mental reviews. Thus, cellular providers are saddled with increasing demands of customers and federal licenses that require the cellular company to provide adequate service"in the face of increasing opposi- tion to telecommunications siting. The Telecommunications Act of 1996,signed into law by President Clinton in February, addresses, among many other important subjects, some of the technical problems that have arisen from the increasing popularity of mobile communications.This article will provide an over- view of the Act and will focus specifically on the protections afforded a telecommunications provider in§704 of the Act. ll.OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND OF THE ACT On February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into taw the Tele- communications Act of 1996_ The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecommunications Act" or "Act") is "expansive legislation de- signed primarily to increase competition in the telecommunications 4. Id 5. id Ste u1so Spring Spectnim, L.P. v City of Medina, 924 E Stipp_ 1036 (W.D. Wash_ 1996) (resulting from City of Medina's enactment of a six-month moratorium on issuing permits for wireless communications facilities such as cellular towers). 6. FCC licenses for cellular providers typically grant a prodder the privilege of pro vidine wireless connnunications services_while at the same time require that quality services be provided by the licensee. AT,TACH ENS N0. Cw�q -- Drc at rvPESEz.Doc 05l18/99 11.01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 3 industry."'The legislative history of the Act evidences this competitive objective: "[tjhe managers on the part of the House and Senate [intend] ... to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory, national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and serv- ices to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition . . _ :'$ In fact, the House Report articulates that the "enormous benefits to American businesses and consumers from lifting the shackles of monopoly regulation will almost certainly earn the [Telecommunications Act] the distinction of being the most deregula- tory bill in history_"' III.SECTION 704 OF THE ACT:PROTECTIONS AFFORDED THE PROVIDER IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITING CONTEXT When attempting to locate a wireless telephone communications fa- cility,such as a cellular transmission tower, a service provider typically has to apply for and receive either a permit to construct the tower or a rezoning of the land at issue to allow for such construction. Section 704 of the Act, to be codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c), provides certain statu- tory protections to an applicant who applies for such a permit or rezoning, provided the application involves the siting of a personal wireless service facility such as a cellular tower.10 These protections, of course, are in addition to the standard protections afforded by equal 7. BellSouth Mobility,944 F.Supp.at 927. 8. H.R.Conf Rep.No. 104-458,at 113(1996),reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C_A-N. 124. 9. N.R.Rep. No. 104-204, at 47-A8(1996), reprinted in 1996 U_S.C.C.A.N. 10, 11. Section 253 of the Act accomplishes this purpose by removing barriers to entry. Section 253(a)states that"[n10 State or local statute or regulation,or other State or local legal re- quirement,may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service" §253(a), 110 Stat_70(to be codi- fied at 47 U.S.C.§253(a)).As stated in the legislative history of section 253.this section is "intended to remove all barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunication services. 1This new section]preempts any State and local statutes and regulations,or other State and local legal requirements,that may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing interstate or intrastate telecommunications services-" H-R- Conf. Rep. No. 104- 458.at 126(1996)7 reprinted in 1996 U_S.CC_A-N_ 138, 10 The term"personal wireless service facility—is defined in the Act as a facility for the provision of"commercial mobile services. unlicensed wireless services_ and common- carrier wireless exchange access sera ices ,high_ of course. encompasses cellular transmiS- sion toners-§704(c)(7)(C)(i—ii), 110 Stat. 152(to be codified at 47 U-S_C 332(c)(7)(C)(i- ii})_ DEGNAN7YPESET.DOC 05/18/99 11:01 AM 4 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol_3:1 protection,due process, and applicable state law doctrines such as man- damus_" Without completely preempting the authority of local governments to make decisions regarding the placement of wireless communications facilities,12 the Act provides five separate and substantial protections for the telecommunications facility applicant in the amended 47 U.S.C. §332 (entitled National Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy)_" Section 332 provides that: (A)the regulation of placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities by any state or local gov- ernment shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (B)the regulation of the placement, construction, and modifi- cation of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; (C) once an applicant files a request for authorization to place, construct, or modify a personal wireless service facility, the governmental entity shall act on the application "within a rea- sonable period of time after the request is duly filed", (D)no state or local governmental entity may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such emissions comply with FCC regulations;and (E) any decision by a state or local governmental entity to deny an application to place,construct,or modify a personal wireless service facility shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record_" The application of these protections is, of course, dependent upon the context in which they are applied. 11. See BellSouth Mobility,944 V Supp.at 929(granting relief under both the Act and state mandamus law). 12. See id. 13. §704(a)(7)(B)7 110 Stat_ 151-52(to be codified at 47 U.S C. §332(a)(7)(B)). 14. Id DEGNANTYPESa-DOC 05/19/99 11:01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 5 A_ Governmental Action Shall Not Discriminate The Act provides that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of a telecommunications facility shall not unreasona- bly discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services_t5 The term "functionally equivalent services" refers only to services that directly compete against one another."A governmental authority is pro- hibited from decisions that favor one telecommunications competitor over another,while it is allowed some flexibility to treat differently fa- cilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety effect, at least to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements." For example, the Act does not contemplate that if a cellular tower is permitted in a commercial district, a tower of the same size and struc- ture must also be allowed in a residential district's Accordingly, the articulated intent of this specific protection is to prohibit a land use de- cision or series of land use decisions that would decrease or deter competition in the telecommunications industry and thereby frustrate the purpose of the Act. B. Governmental Action Shall Not Prohibit or Have the Effect of Prohibiting the Provision of Personal Wireless Services Under 47 U.S.C. §332(7)(B)(1)(11), governmental policies that ex- plicitly or effectively ban personal wireless services or facilities violate of the Act, and governmental entities must treat each application to place or construct a facility independently." Although a state or local government may deny an application based on stated objective criteria, the criteria upon which the denial is based cannot have the effect of banning telecommunications facilities,nor will a pattern of unsubstanti- ated denials be tolerated under the Act. Interestingly, in Spring Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Medina, a plain- tiff/appellant cellular provider filed suit under the Act claiming that a six-month moratorium on the issuance of permits for wireless com- munications facilities enacted by the defendant/appellee city violated subsection (13)(1)(II) of the Act because the ordinance's effect was prohibitory.20 Because the moratorium was temporary in nature, how- ever, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington 15. Id §704(a)(7)(B)(i)(1)(to be codified at 47 U_S.C.§332(a)(7)(t3)(i)(1)). 16. H_R. Conf Rep, No. 104-458.at 208 (1996)_reprinted in 19%U-S.C.C.A.N. 124- 222. 17. Id 18 Id 19. Id. 20. Spring Spectrum.924 F.Supp-at 1039--1040- ATACET O, I©_ ' a DEGNANTYPESET.DOC 05/18/99 1 LOt AM 6 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol.3:1 held that the moratorium was "not a prohibition on wireless facilities, nor does it have a prohibitory effect. It is, rather, a short-term suspen- sion of permit-issuing while the City gathers information and processes applications_Nothing in the record suggests that this is other than a nec- essary and bona fide effort to act carefully in a field with rapidly evolving technology.Nothing in the moratorium would prevent Sprint's application,or anyone else's,from being granted.'' Although the Medina Court made it clear that temporarily suspend- ing the granting of permits for telecommunications facilities does not violate the Act if it is of reasonable duration (six months), the Court suggested that if all applications would have been denied during this six-month period; the moratorium would have violated the Act.22 Of course, any extension of the moratorium might also be violative of the Act, constituting an unreasonable delay in processing the application under subsection(13)(1i). C. Upon Application for a Permit to Place, Construct, or Modem a Wireless Facility, a Government Shall Act Upon the Application Within a Reasonable Period of Time Subsection (B)(ii) prevents a governmental unit from sitting on, or refusing to rule on an application to place or construct wireless service facilities_'' Under this requirement, the governmental entity must re- spond to the application within a reasonable time frame, "taking into account the nature and scope of each request"' If the application in- volves a permitting procedure, a public hearing, or comment process, the"reasonable period of time"requirement is satisfied if the period for review of the application is the usual period under the applicable ordi- nance or statutory scheme_75 It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the wireless communications industry in the processing of requests,or to subject their requests to anything other than the generally applicable time frame for ruling on applications!"Thus, a governmental entity need not rule more quickly than it would for an ap- plicant in a non-telecommunications context_ In City of Medina, the plaintifflappellant challenged the city's six- month moratorium on the issuance of permits for wireless communica- 21. Id.at 1040. 22. Id. 23_ § 704(a)(7)(B)(ii) 110 Stat. 151 Ito be codified at 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)0i))_ 24 11 R Conf Rep No 104-458. at 208 0996). reprinted in 1996 U S.CC.A.N. 124_ 'S. Id 2b td ATTACHMENT NO. DEGNAnrrvrrser.uoc 05/18/" 11:01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 7 tions facilities,alleging a violation of the"reasonable time"requirement." Because the city's moratorium did significantly prolong the approval process for a special use permit, and because the moratorium applied only to "wireless communications facilitiesi28, plaintifflappellant seemed to have a strong claim that a violation of subsection (B)(ii)had occurred.' The District Court for the Western District of Washington,however, held to the contrary: [t]here is nothing to suggest that Congress, by requiring action "within a reasonable period of time," intended to force local government procedures onto a rigid timetable where the cir- cumstances call for study, deliberation and decision-making among competing applicants. The City is seeking to determine, among other things, whether tall antenna towers are still neces- sary for the purpose at hand. It is entitled to find that out. The "generally applicable time frames" for zoning decisions, in Washington, may include reasonable moratoria adopted in compliance with state law_To hold otherwise would afford tele- communications applicants the "preferential treatment" that Congress sought to avoid. Medina's moratorium, coupled with its ongoing investigation and its processing of applications, is consistent with this part of the[Act]." In so holding,the Medina court relied heavily on a statement within the city's moratorium indicating that the purpose of the moratorium was to study the Telecommunications Act, and the city's ability to regulate wireless communications facilities in light of the Act!'The court,there- fore, left open the question as to what delays will be considered unreasonable under the Act. A State or Local Governments May Not Regulate Wireless Facilities on the Basis of Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Emissions if the Applicant Demonstrates Compliance with FCC Regulations From an applicant's perspective, the key to enforcing this require- ment, codified in subsection (B)(iv), is to provide the governmental decision-maker with evidence (field tests, engineering, specifications, 27_ Spring Spectrum,924 V Supp_at 1040. 29. Id at 1037_ 29- !d 30_ Id at 1040 31. Id at 1018. ATTACHMENT NO. la.Eq DEGNANTYPESEr.DOC 05/18/99 11:01 AM 8 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol.3-1 etc.) demonstrating emissions from the protected facility are within FCC limits.This evidence must be provided, of course,prior to any de- cision on the application in question. The protection of subsection (B)(iv) is applicable once these tasks have been accomplished by the communication provider. As written,the purpose of the requirement is to prevent telecommu- nications siting decisions from being based upon unscientific or irrational fears that emissions from telecommunications sites may cause undesirable health effects. In a surprising number of public hearings on the issue of cellular siting,individuals appear and complain of allegedly harmful health effects, although the authors know of no studies sub- stantiating such claims-" E.Any Decision to Deny an Application to Place, Construct or Modem a Wireless Facility Must be in Writing and Supported by Substantial Evidence Contained in a Written Record The protection that arguably has the most significant impact upon the telecommunications industry is the "substantial evidence"standard, which gives the telecommunications provider valuable protection in the facilities siting context." The terms "in writing" and "contained in a written record" are somewhat vague, but at the very least they require some record upon which the decision to deny an application could be based."As set forth in the legislative history of the Act,the"substantial evidence" standard set forth in subsection(B)(iii) "is the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions."35 Substantial evi- dence, as used in this context, means "more than a mere scintilla. It 32. See, e.g-, BellSouth Mobility,944 F. Supp- at 926(describing comments made at permit hearing by a homeowner,who spoke in opposition to the construction of the proposed cellular monopole and claimed that its emissions might cause adverse health effects)- 33. See BellSouth Mobility, 944 F. Supp- at 926 ("[T)he critical question before the coup is whether the board of commissioner's decision to deny plaintiffs'application is sup- ported by`substantial evidence contained in a written record.'"(Internal citations omitted.)) 34. Given the intent of the Act to accelerate the development of telecommunications technologies; the language"in writing"and"contained in a written record"appear to man- date that a governmental entity, when denying an application to place wireless facilities, must articulate the reasons for the denial and the evidence upon which said denial is based. H.R. CONr. REP.No. 104-458 at 113(1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.M 124-Absent this interpretation,the"written record"and"in writing"language appears to be superfluous. A contrary interpretation would violate the maxim of statutory construction which presumes that each word contained in a statute is to be given meaning and effect whenever possible. See, e.g.- Weinberger v. Hinson. NVescott& Dunning_ Inc.-412 U.S. 609(1973): larecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.. 367 U.S. 303 (1961): D. Ginsberg and Sons v. Popkin 245 U.S. 204 (1931). 35. 1-1_R CoNr.REP.No 104-458;at 209 reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N 124.223. ATTACHMENT NO. A-15 DEGNANTYPESET-Doc 05/18/99 11 01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 9 means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.j3' In applying the substantial evidence standard, a court should not a merely rubber stamp a governmental entity's denial of an application.A court is in fact obligated to ensure that the denial is supported by sub- stantial evidence: "the [state or Iocal government denying the application]cannot rest its conclusions on a scintilla of evidence or even on any amount of evidence that is less than substantial. Instead, the [denial of an application] can be enforced only if[the court] find[s] in the record `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion."31 Although a reviewing court is not free to substitute entirely its judgment for that of the governmental en- tity, it must overturn the denial of an application "under the substantial evidence test if it `cannot conscientiously find that the evidence sup- porting that decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the denial."'38 The stringent substantial evidence standard set forth in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act must be distinguished from the much more lenient "arbitrary and capricious" standard set forth in the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act which also provides for judicial review of agency action_"The substantial evidence test requires the court to"take a harder look at [agency] action than [it] would if[the court] were re- viewing the action under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard applicable to agencies governed by the Administrative Proce- dure Act."40 Another factor which may affect the level of scrutiny that the re- viewing court will apply to an application to place or construct a wireless communications facility is the type of decision rendered by the state or local government—i_e_, whether the denial is legislative, or whether it is administrative/quasi judicial in nature. Determining whether governmental action is legislative or administrative/quasi- judicial turns on whether the governmental act involves policy-making 36. Universal Camera Corp.v_NLRB.340 U.S.474,477(1951)(quoting Consolidated Edison Co.v.NLRB_305 U S 197,229(1938))_See also America Textile Mfrs.Inst.,Inc.v. Donovan,452 U.S_490,522(1981).Northport Health Servs,Inc.v.NLRB,961 F2d 1547, 1550(11th Cir. 1992); Bickerstaff Clay Prods_Co.v. NLRB,871 F2d 980, 984 (1 ith Cir. 1989);BellSouth Mobility,944 F_Supp.at 924. 37..Northport Health Servs-,Inc.v.NLRB_961 F.2d 154Z. 1550(11 th Cir. 1992). 38. BellSouth Mobility_ 944 F. Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga_ 1996) (quoting Bickerstaff Clay Prods.Co_v.NLRB.871 F.2d 980.984(1 Ith Cir_ 1989)-). 39. Administrati%c Procedure Act_5 U-S C h 70612)(A-0 t 1988)_ 40. Color Pigments Mfrs.Ass'n c_OSHA_16 F_3d i 157 1160 0 Ith Cu_ 1994)(quoting Asbestos lnfo-Assn v_OSHA.727 F 2d 415.421 (5tb Cir. 1984))_ AeT C E -11- . DEGNANTYPESETDOC 05/18/99 11_01 AM 10 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol-3:1 or constitutes mere administrative application of existing policies..'" If the governmental act involves policy-making, it is more likely legisla- tive; if the act involves administrative application of existing policies, the decision is more likely quasi-judicial or administrative in nature.'" Additionally, if the facts utilized by the government in making a deter- mination are specific, rather than general, the decision is more likely administrative or quasi-judicial. This is also true if the decision impacts specific individuals rather than the general population." If the court determines that the governmental action in question is an administrative or quasi-judicial permitting decision, the court must conduct a more stringent analysis of the governmental denial than it would in the case of a decision involving legislative re-zoning. Courts are more reluctant to overturn local land use decisions by governmental entities when the decisions are legislative in nature. As stated by the Supreme Court in New Orleans v. Dukes,427 U.S. 297 (1976), "the ju- diciary may not sit as a super-legislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that nei- ther affect governmental rights nor proceed along suspect lines. It 41. Minton v.St.Bernard Parish School Bd,803 F2d 129,135(5th Cir. 1986)(quoting Hornsby Y. Allen,326 F-2d 605,60"9(5th Cir_ 1964);Crymes v.DeKalb County, 923 F.2d 1482,1485(1 1 th Cir. 1991). 42. Id. See also Front Royal & Warren County Indus. Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal,Va_,865 F.2d 77(4th Cir. 1989)(acts of zoning enforcement rather than rule-making are not legislative);Smith v.Lomax,45 F.3d 402 O Ith Cir. 1995)(firing of clerk involved the application of policy to a specific party and was not legislative in nature); Triomphe Investors v_City of Northwood,835 F.Supp. 1036(N.D,Ohio 1993),afrd,49 F.3d 198(6tb Cir.),cent denied, 116 S.Ct. 70(1995)(city council was acting in administrative or quasi- judicial capacity in denying property owner's application for a land use permit).But see Corn v.City of Lauderdale Lakes,997 F_2d 1369(11 th Cir_ 1993)(city council passed a new ordinance blocking plaintiff's development,which was legislative in nature); City of New Orleans v_Duke's,427 U.S_297 (1976)(city council acted legislatively in amending ordi- nance which prevented plaintiff from conducting bey business);Sprint Spectrum,L.P.v.City of Medina,924 F.Supp. 1036(W.D_Wash_ 1996)(in enacting ordinance declaring six-month moratorium on communications facilities, city acted in its legislative capacity); Nasser v. City of Homewood, 671 F.2d 432 (11th Cir_ 1982)(rezoning of plaintiff's property was legislative act); South Gwinnett Venture v.Pruitt,491 F.2d 5(5th Cir. 1974)(refusal to re- zone property was legislative act). 43. See generally Developments in the Law•-Zoning, 91 Harv_L. Rev., 1427, 1510-It (1978); Cutting v. Muzzey, 724 F.2d 259(ist Cir. )984);Crymes v.DeKalb County,Ga., 923 F.2d 1482, 1485(1 Ith Cir- 1991). 44. See also Corn v_ City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369. )389(11th Cir_ 1993) ("The district court appears to have put itself in the place of the city council and made a de novo review of whether it would have taken the same action the city council did. Such scru- tiny impinges upon the rieht and authority of municipalities to make land use decisions and would alter the allocation of functions between municipal governments and federal courts. This Court has admonished district courts not to usurp the role of city councils and zoning boards.")_ Spence v.Zimmerman.873 V2d 256(1 1 th Cir. 1989)(holding that federal courts ITT -J,H E ��►� DEct:at.'rveEst`r.o0C 05/18/99 11:01 AM 1996-1997) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 11 remains to be seen,however,what level of scrutiny will be applied to a legislative zoning decision in the face of the stringent substantial evi- dence standard prescribed by the Act. IV. FILING SUIT: § 332(C)(7)(B)(V)OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Subsection(B)(v)states,in pertinent part,as follows: Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by state or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within thirty days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.45 A. Type of Action and Evidentiary Questions Although the Act describes the action to be filed by a jilted appli- cant very generically, the legislative history of the Act makes clear that The action should be couched in the terms of an appeal."Given the fact that the action is an appeal, the court, in reviewing the denial of the ap- plication, is limited to the evidence and argument presented to the state or local government below. Efforts to bolster the position of either the communications provider or the government subsequent to the denial of the application will be futile_" It is therefore imperative that the com- munications provider present the entirety of its evidence and argument during the application process below. Like the appeal of a civil trial, an do not sit as zoning boards of review and should be most circumspect in determining that rights have been violated in quarrels over legislative zoning decisions). 45. 47 U.S-C.§332(c)(7)(B)(v)_ 46- "The conferees intend that the court to which a party appeals a decision under F 332(c)(7)(B)(v)may be the Federal district court in which the facilities are located or in a State court of competent jurisdiction,at the option of the party making the appeal_."H.R_ CoNr.REP.No 104-458,at 209(1996)_reprinted in 1996 U.S-C.CA.N_ 124 223(emphasis supplied) 47_ In RellSortth Mobilirr. the county that had denied plaintiffs/appellants- application for a permit to place a cellular tower attempted to file expert affidavits supporting its posi- tion after rendering the denial. and durinp the pendency of the appeal under the Act_ The Court refused to consider the expert affidavits and based its decision out) on the cNidence presented to the governmental decision-maker belox+_ T TA(___j iAMENT N 0. oEGNANTYnESETDOC 05/18/99 11:Of ANt 12 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol.3:1 appeal under the Act will be decided solely on the basis of the record below_" B.Parties for Whom the Act Provides Protection The specific language of the Act authorizes an appeal by numerous potential claimants. The Act specifically provides that any person ad- versely affected by a denial may file an appeal" The Act, therefore, contemplates suits by appellants other than the individual/entity that filed for governmental approval of the proposed facility. For instance, a landowner's right to receive rentals for allowing a communication fa- cility on his/her property may be foreclosed by a governmental denial. Such an individual is protected by the Act" Although an interested party does not necessarily have to file the application in question in or- der to seek relief under the Act,if the party wants to ensure a successful appeal, attention to the amount and type of evidence presented during the application process is important- C.Jurisdictional Issues The Act authorizes appeal in"a court of competent jurisdiction."As stated in the legislative history, a court of competent jurisdiction "may be the Federal district court in which the facilities are located or a State court of competent jurisdiction, at the option of the party making the appeal . . _ .i51 In determining which court is more advantageous to the 48.In BellSouth Mobility,a county ordinance authorized grant of a tall structure permit if certain criteria were met by the applicant.The plaintiff/appellant cellular provider submit- ted, with its application for a permit to construct a cellular monopole, overwhelming evidence which satisfied the stated criteria including: evidence showing that the proposed monopole posed no hazard to navigable airspace; evidence indicating that the monopole would have no adverse effect upon residential property values;evidence demonstrating that the cellular monopole's radio frequency emissions would be well within FCC limits;and that the structure would be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape.Because of this overwhelming evidence submitted to the county, the court held that generalized con- cerns stated in an argument against the monopole were not sufficient to authorize the county's denial of the permit_Id. 49. 47 U_S.C-(332(c)(7)(B)(v)- 50_ In BellSouth Mobility_ the applicant was a cellular communications company that wished to construct a cellular monopole on a specific site in Gwinnett County,-Georgia.The applicant entered into a lease agreement with individuals that owned the proposed site_This option and lease agreement authorized rental payments to the landowners should the mo- nopole be constructed. Although the landowners never applied for any permit to construct the facility,when the cellular provider was denied its permit,the landowners filed suit under the Act along with the provider 7 he Court ruled in favor of both the provider and the land- owners in ordering the count\.to grant them a penmt to constntct the monopole 51. H.R. CoNr- REP. No. 104458.at 209(1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S C.C.A.N. 124, 223. AT Tk,H 10E N T NCB. 16, �` DEcwatsrYPES r_ooc 05/19/99 11:01 AM 1996-1997I The Telecommunications Act of 1996 13 potential plaintiff/appellant, an analysis of the political climate Sur- rounding the governmental denial should be conducted. Telecommunications facilities are often controversial and if local judges are elected, the desires of local voters could play a major part in the ju- dicial decision. Further, the potential claimant should consider whether local courts will be deferential to the actions of local governments with whom they may be, and often are, closely aligned. Finally,the potential plaintiff/appellant should take into consideration the sophistication of local judges and their ability to properly apply federal law- D. Time for Judicial Review The Act specifically requires that a court hearing an appeal under its provisions "shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis"s' No matter what forum is chosen, the plaintiff/appellant should attempt to forego any discovery period and request an immediate hearing. This request is not unreasonable because the appeal will be decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented below, and no discovery is neces- sary. Given the Congressional mandate of an expedited hearing and decision,53 the plaintiff/appellant should be successful in getting a deci- sion within a matter of months." E. Ripeness:Filing an Appeal Within the Required Time Period Finally, and very importantly,the plaintiff/appellant must determine when the appeal is ripe for consideration by the reviewing court. In or- der to be appealable, the Act requires that the governmental denial be a final action or failure to act55 and that the plaintiff/appellant must commence the appeal within thirty days of such action or failure to act 56 As stated in the legislative history, the term "final action"means "final administrative action at the State or local government level so that the 52. 47 U.S.C_§332(c)(7)(Bxv)_ 53. H.R.CoNF. Rrp.No. 104-44$_at 209(1996),reprinted in 1996 U.S.C-CA-N. 124, 223(emphasis supplied). 54. In BellSouth_the Appeal and Complaint was filed on May 21, 1996_ A bearing on the issues was scheduled on an emergency basis and took place on August 1, 1996,at time in which almost all courts were closed during the Atlanta Olympic Games_ Judge G_ Ernest Tidwell certified his decision on August 13. 1996-Thus. the District Court, acting in its ap- pellate capacity under the Act.rendered a final decision less than three months from the date The Appeal of Complaint was filed See BellSouth Mobility_Inc_. Gwinnett County.944 F Supp_923,925-926 IND_Ga. 1996), 55_ S 704(a)(7)(Bxk). 110 Stat, 152_ 56_ Id DEGNANTYPESET-DOC 05/18/99 11:01 AM 14 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [Vol_3.1 party can continence action under the [Act] rather than waiting for the exhaustion of any independent State court remedy otherwise required."" After the plaintiff/appellant receives notice that the application to place the communications facility has been denied, the plain- tiff/appellant must exhaust all available state and local administrative remedies prior to filing an appeal under the Act. Once administrative relief is exhausted,the appeal is ripe even if the plaintiff(appellant has not utilized all available judicial remedies 58 A plaintiff/appellant should, therefore, analyze the applicable ordinance or local statute governing the application to determine whether an administrative ap- peal is provided. If so, the plaintiff/appellant must exhaust the administrative remedies prior to filing suit under the Act. Once ad- ministrative remedies have been exhausted, the plaintiff/appellant must appeal within thirty days of a denial. V_BELLSOUTN v- GwINNETT COUNTY: A CASE STUDY BellSouth Mobility was the first case in which a claimant success- fully obtained judicial relief under Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because this case of first impression will have significant impact on future claims brought under the Act, a brief analysis of the decision is important In BellSouth, plaintiff/appellant BellSouth Mobility Inc. (`BellSouth") sought to construct a cellular communications monopole upon a designated site in Gwinnett County, Georgia."The height of the tower required that BellSouth obtain a tall structure permit prior to con- struction.`°The county ordinance governing the issuance of tall structure permits authorized the county to deny an application for a tall structure 57. H_R_Conf,ep.No. 104-458,at 9(1996),reprinted in 1996 U-S.C_C.A.N. 124,223. 58_ Determining whether or not administrative remedies have been exhausted can be quite tricky. For instance, if a party is aggrieved by a decision of a local zoning board in Alabama,Section 11-52-91 of the Alabama Code authorizes a direct appeal to a state circuit court.Alabama decisional law interpreting this remedy holds that the appeal is purely ad- ministrative in nature_See Ciry of Gadsden v. Enrrekin, 387 So_2d 829(Ala. 1980)where party was required to pursue and exhaust the administrative remedy contained in Section i I- 52-91;prior to seeking judicial relief.Arguably,then,this remedy must be exhausted prior to filing suit under the Act. However, § 11-52-81 by requiring de novo review requires full- blown discovery and authorizes a jury trial to review the decision of the local zoning board. Given this fact,the Alabama scheme for reviewing a decision of a local zoning board in the telecommunications context very well may violate the Supremacv Clause as it is direcily in conflict with the expedited treatment to be Liven applications for telecommunications facili- ties articulated by the Act.See Ala.Code t 11-52-81_§ 7041a)(7)lB)(x)- 110 Stat. 15? 59. Bellsouth Mobility_9,14 F.Supp.at 923. 60- Id. at924-925. A_ E(� HMENT NOJD-a" nrct.AKTYPESrr.DOC 05/18/99 11:01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 15 permit when: (1) the proposed structure could interfere with air facili- ties located within the county; (2)the structure could endanger person or property within the county, or(3) the structure would not be com- patible from an aesthetic viewpoint with surrounding area." In preparing to construct the monopole, BellSouth ]eased the sub- ject property from the owners of the site and filed their application for a tall structure permit with the county."The application was supported by numerous evidentiary exhibits indicating that: (1) the monopole would not interfere with navigable airspace in the area-, (2) the mo- nopole would not endanger persons or property nearby; and (3) the structure would be compatible from an aesthetic viewpoint with the existing facilities_63 No exhibit or documentary evidence was submit- ted in opposition to the application. A hearing was scheduled before the county's board of commis- sioners and each side presented a five-minute argument_ In opposition to the application, a representative from a surrounding neighborhood voiced concerns that the monopole would pose a safety threat to chil- dren, that the monopole might cause damage during a storm, and that the monopole would be aesthetically incompatible with existing structures in the area_ BellSouth also presented a five-minute argument which was based primarily upon the documentary evidence previously submitted in support of the application." At the conclusion of the argu- ment, and without further discussion, the county board of commissioners voted to deny the application_65 BellSouth subsequently received a letter informing it of the permit denial,but the letter did not give any reasons therefor, nor did it specify any evidence upon which the denial had been based-' Because the ordinance in question did not authorize an adminis- trative remedy if an application was denied,BellSouth, along with the owners of the site upon which the monopole was to be constructed, 61. Id. 62. Id.at 925. 63_ Id.at 924-926_The documentary evidence filed by BellSouth in support of its ap- plication included line-of-sight photographs illustrating the view of the proposed monopole from various surrounding locations;an appraisal report evidencing that the monopole would have no adverse effect upon property values; a report indicating that the monopole would present no hazard to navigable airspace in the area; and boundary survey and site plans which demonstrated the nature of the proposed structure and which evidenced the distances from the proposed site to adjacent parcels of land and residential dwellings - 64. Bellsouth Mobility.944 F_Supp.at 925-926. 65. Id.at 926. 66 Id. at 926 Iquotirrg letter formally notifying plaintiffs that their -application for a Tall Snucture Permit was denied at the Board of Commissioners meeting on April 23. 1996--)- TW_HFIENT NO. /0,0a DEGNANrYPESE-1 DOC 05/19/99 11:01 Al`t 16 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review IVA 3:1 filed an appeal from the county's decision in the Federal District Court in which the monopole was to be constructed." In bringing the Telecommunications Act claim, plaintiffs/appellants relied exclu- sively on the requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(iii) [§704c(7)(B)(v), 110 Stat.), mandating that any denial "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."" Along with the appeal under the Telecommunications Act, plaintiffs/appellants prosecuted the action under a state-law manda- Inns theory, arguing that the county's board of commissioners abused its discretion in denying the permit because the evidence clearly sup- ported approval of the application." In limiting its review to the evidence and argument presented to the county below, the court ruled as follows on plaintiffs'/appellants' "substantial evidence"claims under the Telecommunications Act: [T]he court cannot conscientiously find that the evidence sup- porting the board's decision to deny the plaintiffs a tall structure permit is substantial. On the contrary, the court finds that the record evidence supports plaintiffs' application.'° The critical issue, however, was not whether the county had vio- lated the Telecommunications Act,but the relief that would be granted to plaint)ffs/appellants- Fearing that remand of the application to the county would result in an attempt by the county to bolster their decision by hearing additional evidence from the opposition,plaintiffs/appellants argued vehemently that the Act prohibited remand because it would frustrate Congressional intent to provide an aggrieved party full relief on an expedited basis_" Additionally, plaintiffs/appellants argued that remanding the case to the county would frustrate the purpose of the Act because the board of commissioners would still be influenced by the impermissible factors that caused them to deny the application in the first instance--community opposition and political pressure. The county contended that the Court should simply remand the matter to the county and allow it to make a decision supported by sub- stantial evidence.''" The county argued that it was improper for Federal 67. BellSouth Mobility,944 F_Supp_at 926.See also H.R_Conf.Rep.No. 104-458,at 209(1996),reprinted in 1996 U_S.C.CA.N_ 124, 223 authorizing an appeal in the Federal District where the facility is to be constructed - 68. BellSouth Mobility.944 F.Supp.at 928_(internal citations omitted) - 69. Id. at 929_See also O.C6 A. §9-6-20("whenever, from any cause,a defect of le- gal justice would ensue from a failure to perform or from improper performance,the writ of mandamus may issue to compel a due performance /0_ BellSouth Mobility.944 F Stipp_at 928- 71_ Id.at 929_ 72_ Id. ATT"(` T . lt�R�3 DEGNAKIYPESET.noc 05/18/99 11:01 AM 1996-19971 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 17 courts to usurp local government authority by directing issuance of a permit,and that the Act did not authorize the Court to issue such an or- der. The Court held as follows: Section 704(a)of the[Telecommunications Act] does not speak to the issue of what relief a court may grant to remedy viola- tions of the [Act]. Although it permits any person who has been adversely affected by actions that are inconsistent with its pro- visions to `commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction,' it does not specify an appropriate remedy. The [Telecommunications Act], however, does mandate that `[t]he court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.' Indeed, the legislative history of the [Telecommunications Act] makes it clear that its drafters intended that`the court to which a party appeals a decision under section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) may be the Federal district court in which the facilities are located or a State court of competent jurisdiction, at the option of the party making the appeal, and that the courts act expeditiously in de- ciding such cases.' In the court's view,simply remanding the matter to the board of commissioners for their determination would frustrate the [Telecommunications Act's] intent to provide aggrieved parties full relief on an expedited basis.Therefore, defendants' absten- tion argument notwithstanding, the court finds that the [Telecommunications Act] vests the court with sufficient authority to grant plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief if such relief would be warranted under the circumstances.' Accordingly, the BellSouth Court not only found that defen- dants'/appellees' decision violated the Act because it was not based upon substantial evidence, but also specifically ordered the county to grant the application for the permit in question.'° V1. CONCLUSION There can be no doubt that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will have a significant impact upon facility siting decisions made by local governments_ The requirements set forth in the Act give a tele- communications provider protection from the sometimes mercurial 73. /d.(internal citations ornittedl. 74. Id DEGNANT'PESET.DOC 05/18/99 11-01 AN] 18 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review [vot.3:1 temperaments of local governments as they relate to zoning and plan- ning. The BellSouth decision provides additional protection because it indicates that the judiciary should be aggressive in carrying out the ar- ticulated Congressional desire to reduce barriers to entry and increase competition in the telecommunications industry. A A-CHMF Y ATTACHMENT #6 LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-015 November 16, 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 6 ZOQ9 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. RE: CUP 2009-015 for T-Mobile's proposed cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) and Pre-School located at 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 A group of concerned neighbors, parents of CUMC Pre-School students and CUMC members wish to appeal the November 4, 2009, Zoning Administrator's ruling to grant Conditional Use Permit(CUP) No. 2009-015 for T-Mobile's proposed cell tower at CUMC. The following is a partial list of reasons we feel that this ruling should be overturned and CUP 2009-015 should be denied: T-Mobile failed to meet Finding #1 for the Conditional Use Permit. 241.10 Required Findings A. For All Conditional Use Permits. 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; • Decrease in property value - Statements by appraisers and real estate journal articles were submitted into evidence stating that property values decrease if the home is in close proximity to a cell tower. The cell tower would have to be disclosed during a sale. Many people do not want to live or raise a family near a cell tower. Less demand = less market value. • Impact on Pre-school—A survey of CUMC Pre-School parents revealed that 50% of the parents would remove their children if the cell tower is built. The pre-school, which rents/leases space from the CUMC church, would probably close or move to another location. The children could lose a good learning and development center; the parents could lose this excellent neighborhood resource, the pre-school staff could lose their jobs; and, the church could lose the pre-school income. • Noise from the equipment is a major concern based on observing other below- ground and above-ground equipment at three nearby T-Mobile cell tower sites. T-Mobile failed to prove a need for the cell tower. • Adequate T-Mobile cell phone coverage already exists in this area. • T-Mobile submitted erroneous cell phone coverage maps as justification for the cell tower. Dianne Larson Page 1 LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-015 November 16, 2009 • A cell phone coverage test conducted by T-Mobile users proved that T-Mobile's cell coverage maps were inaccurate. • Many T-Mobile users stated that they currently have adequate cell coverage in their homes. • T-Mobile's own website and Billshrink.com website both show that T-Mobile has excellent coverage in this area. • An independent study should be required to determine if there is a need for this facility. There are four T-Mobile facilities within a mile of CUMC, and two are only Y2 mile away. T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 DI. (Chapter 230 Page 50 of 55) 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities D. Wireless Permit Required. 1. Demonstrate existing gaps in coverage • The HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 D1 states that an existing gap in coverage must be demonstrated. • Since T-Mobile failed to "demonstrate existing gaps in coverage," T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. • Application requirement 6.07 demands a "technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio frequency data". • The most technical phrase on T-Mobile's Attachment 6.07 ("Site Justification Study for LA33421-A Community UMC") is "a hole in network coverage". • The required technical explanation supported by"comprehensive radio frequency data"was not included, therefore, T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. Plans showing the cell tower project as most currently proposed were not submitted to the Zoning Administrator or made available to the public prior to the November 4 Public Hearing. • T-Mobile verbally informed the Zoning Administrator at the beginning of the public hearing that the project plans had changed—to an underground vault housing the equipment. The vault would be located in the grassy area (in the pre-school playground?). This location is adjacent to the wall that separates the church property and the neighbors' back yards. • The prior submitted plans showed above-ground equipment enclosed by a wall on the Heil Avenue side of the church property by the current trash enclosure. • The public did not have a chance to review modified plans showing the verbal changes. Dianne Larson A MR LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-015 November 16, 2009 The Zoning Administrator did not review the 30+ pages of new written evidence submitted at the public hearing before making a ruling. Please read T-Mobile's applications and the evidence submitted at the two public hearings. I urge you to overturn the Zoning Administrator's ruling of November 4, 2009, and deny Conditional Use Permit 2009-015. Sincerely, Dianne Larson on behalf of the nearly 350 concerned neighbors, CUMC Pre-School parents and CUMC members who signed the petition to stop this proposed cell tower. Attached: a check for$2002.00 for the appeal filing fee Dianne Larson Page 3 ATTACHMENT #7 .,:.. ,:�. -..� .�.. :�� t��SR ,.F°t li � iii.'` ae v, ,.•`y�j�.��-, •.��'. r u.i. R�1 ?; ,,;... �f::w -"° �� f .:si a�+:.. ..5ro'-,;,; �' resi±,R! .x, t F: .:.-• ,,,..., .I+y"' t'.l.,:y ...:yy . - ,-i''~:Y•P r,., n i �,y ..". .. V•N�"�+ a� i'.4 as {F,.., i ,N aF.3 +U.�'68�IS c-, i.- ,T t r,� ,.,7, +[ ��`� R�� s t4,�+•'•t ML .r'•a.+Ft .;i.. �'6;'.! {4,' w. 4sr► r: _ .,,.,:. :.:•�, :s....:',; •.. ..�. _. :..,i "T _. ,,x�g,,,.,_ ft""' : .,,; 5� •F + � — .lN .4 ..4.. �..,,:.- .r.:.-:., ,, .<. .. ,..,, -.r...�,.. ..-..,. .,, +..,.}:.`i "'::. � •,1-i �.w�: �'r' :alJ Fe.9*r' W!�I `�. ,,-r .! ,:F�•, g*. 2•+.,;.," ',�. ,r�•/. � -r "►► �t� _•..y}� Mgt,7r ,:«.. N �,r�•s{ ��,...,, "..,. '.. , r, r4, cIG :'Y�f14•'i,'kRl. IM?'t y. ; 7,ry+ii1t] llrt+e tt �dflsr{DXrw i] r�+« 14u5 �Uf w yam_ z - • .V8nZ2t� ,7 � , _:.-, b.• a,.>„�91x-.''1",.a..- ,•,t `.'. ,.i !{• �y 1;.,. ��7C1T .�iN f+, ,•, :,►'pr �,h._ • t �s,:d j71 hi!1t - M�" 1"r�iQ. 14�.a k �1 F( �ii r yml«' �:`,i 1,"pr+«liar'+ r i r.+• }I'1.'Mrfii - •+ �a r.,•_Cp Ilr •• •• 1 r�1 j'l +q .,Y a e I'. _ l F r � ...+A p5 _erYt r.a - t "1 1 �"f;r w•.�. I "�`b:. .. IM`not[ease space to wireless �- , '. } • 4 rt • "�j...,..r}n.IhN,r'�e1NTlrl:rw;..••` E rr.', "u`�'� ° - �carriers. Site outside of the City of �,'�Cottege View Park .e A, +. xh• • -q` .'�'. 's t:, • - objectivesty' t „Qt.w'"�` 11 ° .I'- •r'�`- ..8 rjrrV rT '" ntin ton Beach is not Leasing ri alI&�dt�Q'�r w A Y t R4 •w:,.., 1 1.._.. wd' 1y1� T P 1 II a= t R"4raFY. w, -//y�yy' 'It r J a�cg ,Ij€^j• 4y ,�,:; ::�,'� )1',.�.•�ix� i tL;S;:..t 1 •(F afT7N "! s �" ;kS''3 �,. !` •, r ' •• ".°wlll #ui1 J',L • N:'Nl JQF s Y+.9•= • !. 6 ti {f' ! ': r b4i' r kk" 7 �, ^• •- • •coverage MS1,yrtlrr. + vj ►, ::; - i' YN.-(r Y ,:� c, ply d;?,, .. r •";�.'>..,x• .,!:"Tn -. � ,�i �.....i,i...,t,� I� :# d .�,'o i •1::r1'a,4 !Ji',;•. 1 ':t *�r� {t F�id' t�. � t,'�' 'y�- ° t tr'.n.'ilsw.� •• - t .. w,<.. _y ., .�...,'{. ^, It,l". N, , -'�•h ^_ .'r'. �Y:,: p?. Y g ., _.,i' J, aa :, w1;;a1 ., ,,r.r :, ..•.,. � ...� a :,, t-Ps., - F �r:,, s„. x. •. :.,. :; p� f ,tTr Irl+ �t•9';: 1 V,'�" r•4 'i: wl ,: ,�`e ,., F � :v� `+ ,: rprt ..d.�f;Ik-:: ,!'_�•rx„ � :.� k t,,-L l'sy '+�..as „�'�'r5G by � "� :' t {t I �i �'�•, T, t , t .};` r yr u:,"-,;. ':'i•.. rk'. 4. 4' �;!: �;�'r.,.. y.-F- „I. .:,. � .,. >.• r.�.,v �r::.. A x;: <, ,� 83- �•, '�� --r � "=�u�.. .:,• -: 5.,.'�'� +„.�u„d•.�s_ -:.k^'ii.>+ .:?' r. :.�:; yt� ^ r,:.1'a� ., �. 11' ,:." :..R. a 1 _ .s � ,.aFys< ,•r' :o,� s, i�•..„ + „ st, [, Kg r- , •,� "fir•,! ,., ,• .Wi s "`� a �wr �f 1 ?. w'; �� p 4.. , :`, pr 1.. 1 ;.., :. .�#N ..w+,�..,„v ,. •� ,.t,., rwu#'is j� �: 5 r "l_ Ra `�N h {9 I �a it �._1 q1 ;Yp Vv — (*lpt �IN'@IKC •e 1� � � �.1� ,r!{sll.,1�1 't�sOF,i4+ a�L ..I b .aF: 't " �''M�'` �.1, c:l• ..6x' a`"` "w.✓,� .si'' ••• -Mobil(� y. k;�X'•t ,�::i Ys:>�; 4 � .>fc♦- ',�,p. }� it �vp� "..�KY ra :.::: ti ,.,."; •,`r!, a „! A. *'a>i, �r+".:r+�i j iy',• �- r*"*'rw�-�#�� 3«.:a,,...r• � r ,�`.;.. yx�: ::, .. :,." -,:,.,.,. :r. :., _�_ + y� N:Mi'x9r a ..,:': �n�� S �.'.=�iB"�r, •Location. - only ,:., Iq e,w::r,7• ..,,:.lu ., ,k''LCD �+ ;} .,,I (�? I + wx.:.:Y„r '«r,. W 'It"• i t, Lx}w" m ?5;5 ' ON s a to4i$,; („ :..tp a t(a -- -.'.Q �i1r' :'A�*''"ris';i�� i "`-'P?p.-r r,1..r{%'€'i7 :+11 �1+ t,. '"�4w'#;`FF' '_; •lh,' :ar. 8. 9rr. .:iu„{ yel�,wrmwiE' W.y> s �:,,U'J�lt �p,t� i(';.'!�}a ) 'Ti:t .��OIn;< -�:t"" .'"'— + '"., �t:�• • - • •- =4 >`i' 'r�l Sy,r+• _"1,"tkr.. -%a'r,•-"•--- `'ij ,4sr1",p++;� >"U.i..., p II,:'..E. zt.�;q, +1M�','„alp ^;: 1�."` L ,a'qq.. itlsiid`. ";. r�' ;, I'."� t \ .4.:. @!. ;:s*,�• ,q i9,�4:-a�'" i+'.. �.. �,,.I�,M::y r "�r,W!': ::s`+�•#.� � 3t ..� 5�15114'.:.G `�a ��` ;;. � l. ,,••,,ra � ,<, � I�' M,,rtw • s� ';i �1 „SCl�i.: hrl+ -t.''- ,�,^y,+' .. r- r, -,...: qw.ss. ,'rl -. .,r L�.: ,. �:'• :..;"' ;� j� ,.,.. .:` ,. r ,. ,,,: �,. ti �.., ., ,•,. �. ..,:y:. � rt;" � 1{�I;a.,.£r<e .. ,t p :Ir-• .:�.t. `:�,,* "vl r' w` '��r:i'„ „tA L• „�..r. 1 4u•� ,Fl• , .rl�, ,ig,r, .:1„„r' �. ;y .:, . ,., �,. ,.,, �5'. t`; ,.�,'.' s� •- ,:,T. �[:.".d+`I' ,:rr •`-y� Cib4 "'sue'•'., k�;. ,} 19. ,, , ; ,:,: . .. ,:.. • .,,,,+ .; „: ;<.,nr7tg fCu:el,a,« ❑�fie,n:G$ pr `"'i� �`: J. ,. 5- :•+ �a..L$!.,;,��.CxsY••�:: �, ��,��u +�,, ro,..:l;,��,. Y :Git'. "x ,xult' "•,",r.bin,> c `:..,^f ,., OA. .:,r ,',^.-i: �•rth -:1, a,� P ". a+6':. 8°j;1:, • - Elementary •• J'..: �e;...� � x' -t5 - "�7Cx r `f�74::.r .:. t 'tg''"4 s + it r3Uhil hit l.:..tl s1 ." -!.;.': ,+u•_ t n s�::-� �r r R k r .�•• 1 •• 1 • rlr� ' ,-,.* .. 'i 1. 'SFl ti _�' "• '`t �.4 �" a -t?a �'Y.� r�. ° �'�+�x' '4 "i �t (y�a $r rtf�� " P t� tt,, a • �, -. •. • - - coverage �� . .r`iru!+w® �_��' },.� �1 � �4��'rW13tAra`pr r,°'� �,;j{ t.,•�� i 2t •.i .:.pChr� ly, reless c outside. . $r .. Cry. ;�„_1,��,, �'tlf: r1,� h"r?�*" y,.r:• ,ih, r'1� .[..a.+d�'Nt ,.+� a ., fr` •, pr1a '`a-"Jt':a'•• - ilA `g •�" Mr �,,;,, yrz ax "i ,. ia ''M"'.+;?.,t �,r-t�rh'. 1,'Y'�.pl' i w %r zA r.:. ""'-:-" r"=•- .s,, ^s;•, x-:,:,'� i � "'Ct; e� •,t I;`�' �� !,s'"i: I�r..E rt •'.� F a �� ;-�tt" � l`�^'1"� p '� tx�-,'1 { ur "662IHeI.AvetH:un:9tn. ta'n.,Beach,;CA `; at .::� ..,..' a ` 'ri ;C.,z , ,j✓,' r., 7 `:',tf;, ,� rak - -`.. -w.:•,. a..,',.,: y:''.„+.,-.i .. 4 ,C:' rrr.f .: i�' �•1r�k �� 7 s L'7U1?1'[1Y1 ti" �' tN. i• '.c^"' ,. .:... .'Sy7 :� rf..i.,.,;, .:.. ,+ :,,xr c ! a.r:.�, .. , �...:: :;a t•.iu � :.t:. :^� <�,,..,. • . u�r* -;'.r. t..i. E :• i..a3..,` alb U7r.r .,1!' _.,;,r�, .e� Tim-LL 1 3.`�F•>'". e I "•7F'�� al;'' "� '4w i ,r'-'11•i'ii #;.r yc s, s,.+•y�, ,y • -aj�, Bdshop-Dr„ �*�' gVlasvrt'4�L 4 �-• a r,�, , ,� '!� C. ,.. •t � •.::. ..,. ��.t,;M,,.,...y7.�� ,, .,t,•- ,..vtr '. r,.r .•,�.. . :.,,.`- „-. -..""r ,'!"4a"ib rF �, .v ! 2 ,,::,r`fi` ..:�: a L�,A, : *, '� r+d'Y&?.ir ,• d .,rGS� w`�wC"',y, •fi..:y ,. < �' F�g 14'. "„vra-r i Il�.ip: } M1 -i ''i•+=;5. r , ,. .,•. ,:-:� ,. ,:,,,. � tF_z s-i :,a :Yo,'�:. xyj,.,., .....� (+:!•oE a •.'�. #,ta, .•�-... y3, ,�>� ,�: tr i'<r�}� Y5 YC.�.T#•'f•••s •'.-\Ft!@ .FF:, a ^.!X 3 d ,j.,.n. ! • 3 �=:•,Tlf �.fH�zhw " ... :';:,... �, t..,, ;... -}x .. ur.: +...,.r., .,�", .t•-. ,u �•w..:,.. r�t: ��' .y( .,q,:. 1F.-1,,:.,:.� .--: •" -n f yY 1,-� "n,,.F.£.... _ , ,r:: ti rr�° �a`"!T"r :a+,,:+� x ,. i.. � st � .:•..,y, t.., 4 t ,ab. �` ''� s+l -..,H. K! ��' * , ,.±f.;. y;, s e 'RHr ..c, '• , °. u' ttY] 'n i. ,a. ,r�j ..r! ^p S..ii ,,,, F r xa Wt,,�•.� ,,, 11 „y. ,..•. Y, r.t W" r..:,.. a Y .....-A r.Ky - - h.4 R•�-..�,�'Fzi. .;..; ,:.:._ ?1, -^'t*�.� -�.. III�.... ,,::; - _<.I „. f ,.I«� _•.�, ,. ,-. -, ,..-. d+'F^ (fir dI",drira;�r{y ,:® ,.�,� .- � +; rs';T�:" '•;...` ,t, f 'r„y;,?•I ,�,:,��,�+r� ,' , r, .t'' ; 2�:. �,�- s �7,y�;•- a i'F�,:. '�4ra <:��:t '',� � .. .:,Fv (s ,.. uell. .- yf•.Y.4+ -., •1•�d ,�, =° 'Cf! •. ? dly ,wcl .. a , 'ates, i" a ilrr ; at„ELF 2D a �p f C a, u t �q.?; .•,� .3:<% �,.,: .,#'�.,. ,: ,, -, , '!!,, !1M1,...-,.i• t.;,,. ? R*�I. ..r w .., .::. pl._,r :I. .,'... +,y N a, '�.,r.' +' P'••.� i,,,,.fil:�•t � .:.:a •. ;,..:E1.: .. ..;_..4 - ,� •�,�a .� ,.. ,. ..:.,_. .��-r'sf...+ ` a:.;: ... .. :k.:. ,+ux� 1• .I '�.k: yr `�.''.. ..+-;"v ra. � . ".� Y ,., '•.mac, i'',�.•,r'Rt -,:.l�.. ,.;..s ..,;t, .. �. .. �, ,� .��.�, .x a,a::<• '?: r;:'^T � CD'�i.r t::r- e.` i(`*"k�r'ta� ,a't'..'1' � :i. :,,rS„, ., rz„M-•, a ..iwr. .,.r,. I,,,s!(,I, , .,,.u,: re ay"„ ,°, : >. •�" gat c L �� '' s.P`WI,•a, F ', i ., f'{� S.•: ,•.:., re'. ::z- ^r.r:• ra. ,,-,- Q9',. -(. Y �1@ '*.�..,. .._ r"-;•,, :.r,...•. .. : +s rR j tom;.. ,-►:. x: !: k; i,.t: ,.�„•. •, s. ';} :.Y,�a' -: ::::: a ,,.,•� � ,_.a.: •`a<rt.. i. a tY�A }f ^<Gr�.f•.I9 CItC1eF i.... •i,.sl Brad Car L.s��:, :... ..� .... .t F-..:,L� ,. :, ••�.. .,..: a �.;:..s,u.,. �, ,`�t:I. r� ', ..:a .+:.� ..h.: � - :. «, t„ t+ �"1�^�.x�.c .�..s� i:..er?• +g:20p9�7=rrle i�q:.�rf'1..., -- :.,. :.;•+ti �L ...,�.s"3' � ,_:,... z.,..,,,_ rim. e s�- � ,r *;,f'.. .,w,,.: d x' � ,.i,,, a!t. � �• y Part Uly OT .,F , ,�l• ,.., : 54g,:,8 . P' ,,aNr1. L �i -T C:d?. .'7` '''3 : isR'j• ;,�,"+r; Ji. ' G. f&-j ;< Nit f- �' ,..T".rW } y 'n• ' rf w 'l�I,i' + ! { :<+ t utiJrj�rlf�d� � Na Y •rfi r space n '•r. ,: 6::, „, r d,r,alfi '",-d»-°ir.t.�.,. .'r .:t., n tl'ir.,,,r 5::. #" ;•4. ` r<.:y.� 3 ':i. , '�"T: r x. r• - Beach• •••• ,.1:; r•. ¢ ,«:r +"x':' t: .. :. -- '� }, •. ..:See h' #s:=-: j w•. n_ .+. ;"'Y.�'«S,•r^iv. , ry :,H. /n� ,„ �„ �, ,r�. - coverage objective di'J; " .' L~' .W M ., Lek '1,t,ks,y 4l- '•;v, 1,: <x .A °r,`�'�V 6 1 ")• ' •y : sv ui^ ..M' f�.�ll(11C4r,xaJ. � .r., kl�.,� � �s:., .,,:4 S.�f':6. f171f1 ��A+��`�I�I�'�E �i .. r?t =, -. - • - •• - - • - • ••• -• i ,..nxuunnttl■� t Nnunlra:�n 1 n ha um .. ' ifH Iii■:�;; MZEC�: /u■Imn/nnit llUi 1 I/IIn1 /= Ott�'■IIIi rorult 'r' h�+ M -s■nm IIItr4■�Itng nIN1/111H/tHnn/n■N I try'a1, ■mI1111nI111mIt w tl 55 GG 5 77 3i■inni'mG m::3 ----^ - ` 'a-m4annn nw n■ n m gnnuun t n n d 'I Mai t ��{ t e � r.Nnunmi GE �,��nu In a1 im unnw ixin nntlm F riala iii!'iaytl� ZI.��i!n�iliiii'•SI:•r'�:iii'iilia:=iin11 °`'� r c —ti' 'Inn In•n© s !■unor►Intlt :`, nnuung•NnH ¢ I f r +' t x+ r1111!1•L:,Ir U t'-.rA■in111 t nuu pp;�:7 t 1 ul0 -OMI 9^$ 1 k 6m k }( ° � . L$ 8 111/1 1 1 1 n11'',, : HIpp A■r1IO■C_-7:.G�11,2=^S••ul/n Y �� 3 k t11/1■!i1!!1l111/:__g=it1111iat r■�I�tn�g;::;_� ,_.:gH11r, UIOOtllit✓Itn1 '� {r ! III/I 111NInll_:;:-.tlllHot /t11/11 �I■In l { xf■nl...... :=a::nlmlr•■■1111■�•. _ S S6 S: It11gtq� Poltn!! 11110 v111w1H1\ /IIIIItn„■tl■■GiI HIIIII IIIIIIIIt1�= b? ul/11.1rf11/11 IletlHtrv+-au■ m ■ 1 n H mr InnN b? ulll l■:-;,a 1 1 5 111bill t11x71,11U.----=pg tt1\Ittrl••,^,•• _____ 1lHrym GR■0 r lr ,�k 4 �ru■/uu•.i nn 9p•�C::L 3a E a'C�E 5'CC:, nun io ono■7 ,is ?N11un 1111111\f,::_ m::'. of e'# 777rtl =�-`g C•• e.Au.mnnmmnn�iilw P4 x S3 F'r*e ;5 IIIII r• rwl_111 ito e i in t1 G:■i^I■ i11v - 1■!i\/lt '� 'rjL"R �Y�'.:I y Iuu :. ti 6 u■■:gp�Nlinnwx-g-a unnl E tlq r v.a¢;+ Hnum'�� a spy&¢�sy' ~.r.#y+ t^S uw ; ■■t it .Ulltm y y t l Nt :`nut OOn�:--r:OIn■/;mr G, a f /nunl :::S ": Y,(.'f(ak}ya I { IOitltlt=_ • tp i I t i wH IN tlUllOIInIW nun\.1 O iwxjy. Hill nunnuud nnn rml > out a a y ��# "' x; f■n11t r AL Y Y C nnn N■rI i�W � iQ 1 Itlii i..: 0 } ,frcH)[ ^C'+.y'i :. r uxii % t \ % IE-r7C :r"„p ,,,(y{v"`.e nor.�uu =E:N,unnlnn■n. ,y ,,y<4 ) ��W wi �, •I IIIiI C t� T+I.m IN ■noon r a t e a1 E E�^fit.,_nliiai n _ �:un■ t Iu■ 99��zz ..`,I i mu mm■ ' m •nunnnum s mI :intimi■=_;_ iu H .■■■ et:::; w r�rr 'A s ; "t 1'�, I� ;' �, mO111x • Ga�A"�rilii 1 :Q HI n■■OIIH ■un nnn. �og 3E m G :e 7:'��h'"� �s .v �`��3 OIIIIII�® I;t;rF;� 5 uh �T r:GG:ai7` r 4Y:1 Tr r,—=::`= S et4r B11111A11H■ unuupl unun) nnunmanm ou .'. 'I" ■•tlntl■r�, -,ziwnxmununu I !®xr^a '.� lbw,g JJ ,I G=_ _ .'a+� ! • �,uim npuN a'snmm■■ulaL kn■exnnul"I m i ', � _Xl�d^.��I �_:In��ai emu■•li►I itu••:::;-'g m i �' 1_" ..-a =: aj'`tv (:, ■nnn S g nmm�nrxr I onnunnft■o• -,' Q. nu=. ::.Ea J 3" F h - ! ! g ro"ya., is itl1l nnn w■u■D :.�L. E nnnn■m �'# a e er Hfr�_ {„ ^; .11.._ - 5 � a - ■nnuuu■70 j;,Sa�csa'�1 °,:in111■e' .,i�srt G F _'�as al!!'ilii"iiii�rd■iun -N - iil'q! E=as ga GE e _ v,■nl`'a nn►i I,»�.�. t�q .,Go;- g w■III: tt Q � �► E i!»n P 1!-_- i C iu .,,.. , S - � it m' _■nrt m � i�• .Ire �t%?4� Qe �g l0 11 ■�a� k111151l9 �� 8 c�� m l •• � e-gmuuml 1 16iliSillR� ^' ;�tq, tnlnnn an._a..Q-uuunl �niniinainw -F..a+...>{n,.. 6 :unuuu■11■...a.......; �5 �-G>�Ii.tlnuuw loom- t►� ' � � In In1�..'l rr r_ _=r■Iwl•f n■I 1111111/Infer IIIIItI111111utn � �';j- k t¢ :IHIIxu111I1a .,nm: = r ft':� �_:: ! 3 r �- a t _ pn unnw .unnnnln n wmt ■■ •SI . A a r..;,M.mllnnnq��_g_5E e1n1w1 ,4 y, wti,lnnm nnunnrni �� - •��S a■tl - nN�gg -�;`''�n I roan_ �C^'w! ! nl/nnnx/inilbH� I n IIt1=" 3 a A d�Alin Inxu■u. :.a :umm� 5"ML n r L 7 av _ ■ll.lr ,�1 Z_ �,u!*<r�'y-. =C� d.�t;.2 ,,,�'�'.is i IHm ..a�- -eu n■m uM �!{ nnu.r nm IDIOM ` n■itioiuuu■_ G It11u1i 1...£mil.!K-• - :C'. a..sxa-.a._.:.._ •• / E'.y L =a` c.,., t� �i!!ui a IIt I It Inlw_ :t11tIt1 IJ_ _ GC_S C: :�nIt11111\II■■IIIt+'�, ♦ at - -ly�n �/♦��it�:§P;i •-•- � : - On►� G Sulrr.a r:.0 nM� 6 N.s.M.,bA ntnnflil■1u■tlt m r 3 a .� �� IIIIIn OOt I/IIIIImn It1 IIHItO�I t G a C a-■1 1 ON■Iwo■: _ my . ^a y OO 11 IUO 1I _ rlltlnP # .u:: r x�M1a�� G� a Z `a!I uw nuu f p.: 'CC ut.i nnm •t•r nuunmut_' um u: _ '� , abIM 1.wmrtl� E t.n>:. EE :'a::rry rauu '=•-Ipa nu Imo O OIII. = r 'i h is ; 3 i rI... :: to ,e #, � ,. fl fN •• _ -. :C-::a nm n Nuunw �► "nta {� a Sa- Q nM ►unu 5:■.t5 m.n tun a 0 �inu■: 07� 'S �'• I.. f- - ' =" .i l�y Aril a4lxln-HNPnn■a� nngxA■nm!tlIA/��m�Itln1 , +1 ...:.- CS E.I M NI ■ -.,fl mi'iiu iirin■ Z; rs� a.i �a. +�'.^..°;s.-t x`t➢hnuuumr iunnnoin nlunn uuiln utl lunnn .n'i^:> nnm i mue Hr um' Nnm vC Hmtlllmnnnma.l Q` .i ...:a".` 9 la Faw�}— 4 gyI3yyp€I l palx nrw.rn•4 •^ - now uu all t nnnxn/p: q nn untllt■ Gaca7:1:^ 1 nuauaa- '::7,.:. Zijn �®■=C cnj :;C Puy ��.< �3 a tn1.§ y �, . a_•► .: �I ��i Cw rcai -°a-r ,� - . � _�n Gg•g mnr mn \ a ,I�. as ea._. .��.n,_ m■n _.:_ L 1 yr .-r, r■nn C /i m as�E a! r x v41 :a91N1A � . \mu o1 nt►.......... .n 1 _t ii' -_ -_�a' ;u i W ". 7A1 IIIN^rI..reel ii Y ,OtlI/-__ ;`ty ur'■ Iii!!!1: r a C�-n'q - Ia: a t Y_ zu G 9AA iA ::g ■IHy..1•,u/ m .:m - J mnn --f :5:GG ud s A r„C'a r n � ilii ai biili x � a Inn �N -s` a h. r I _ s r1y ■. ..OC 6.vjbd_ g i ► i__..E dai ` E.' r. uiiii Ge "'-■u 7 ..�" t 1 11 11:111110 .`.':'::iGrall- az .Is - _ :d58a rya 71a1'. b '',. U ___ .■ u1 ■u1 n - uwt nl: IS 9 t■ r•6r1n A+ .. -__ + s c ": G nnnl ■ -a ummNm t• IN mm 9S■ �,dr q,l tl c a:E=-_ 1' ":-�./-11 _■nurt a■!!!i!.;�.-.ntI■nntliiil=E NIli!? rnu r ■�P i1Y r-111/� w n +}t ■ a""�i+�i.: 1`Ilaa:l a/1 I/ 11 Nlxltlwnt/t n_ __ Inlnn■N ■t. t Itl1 / masee aay 6.[f ml,t:r,r,:rr,a .• �.' � � (.�?' �' tau 1 1■1111 r ;, 1 - ✓� a _ .HntH �i 2'ia ("a t■_ Y � J{.wF a �� "�`! �i • � ,� '�JJ� I, :"t��i 1�ti� li! !7� . a L i a7vAaw a OQ I BtiQ fQ �I( i at® eai •`��' � .,;.jd y`' 1 le 7 "�� .. +WO pow un��Nam lxl nHlny i ire � y$. .r-" 'x, - 7 -' r,n+ ,r t ks v. • ♦ G . ._..� sll 1&�#�t�s �BIII�1�1��pe�;;'�Gwm�'9 2 5 7 —plli r HI�i�V i,ri i d"'��,Isrrsasr r t,t' �;�s �,r��r na etas j fi Jt- �,r rat . � :..5S J7.. G:— o:•► ° Ir {ry{ m■ m . ��_�.... ¢ _ .... •. ai'ri �y.^J.w mnn :- _ �6 C.,. ►- L � L .1�1 i ��s'.� � :a G ♦`r�., m � t ''Y, �, �� nm-__C•- ....._n,■ ■ii ii ii' - a a 3t'�;'� m=.. a niilln nuI ry" nnumu ni� 1, k $. � 1- .a�C s s:_o•N ' ' r x '^t�,r!a ;, �Iiunuuuun■3 �.■ J Pi ! { _ =_t.. '..., hl : g m - Han mne t . .. ` Gr '. :.:.n� 111E G: �� 1�-}�{ rr•:IIIn� j..�f:fn: It1 111 xlm � :�9 �♦ � q■In111t: - r o III:. ...: 1111� '' = I! 111 ! & 1�! YK��'"Y$:'Y d :�� ur��la��119r•�.in.•a 'SnMM1* Yc', i na,tr flnHrnlr.,y�I•�A 0 _i�r.mw m wtlllll A� AI+k�- 9y ■r1�_'�.!■Ir F��`.r.�.kp :�,'-k"i"�� ! ' L ♦ �.,�. _ ...-- unun■ 6 - 'i�liittlliiiillii-ilili t'�-'- __�=ttl IIi�I■Iw t,-lot � - , ♦9re�_., 1tG�a` R . ' • r C: d S Llll�_ a r u1'm Imw: un1�1��'y■�117 S .. mg 1I nnn t u� Ii" ,`' »0'ea. _e .a a g�■t a��!! ��:mEE a aL s' ATTACHMENT #8 Attachment 4.02 LAO� r� a Cz Coverage Without LA33421A = V� �rpZ5 3 g y _Dr rlton ifi 0 — >v 3t4` f • stone B oy ro n Dr L eilwoo CitQ N 5V .. Rath E O JM.- i im w _. ROCi<mOnt r— + .::g ti.a,,r+,,r,r .'�•�, --.Q.��U;tr�r�an'r'L,��A s.. =:"I�:tI`zY! :`QcG:.'-;'..._-_r,�-1 .�!1�` eiysr,,M.r Ai:r , L] �_ s334,1'8)C r A lleyR A° ro bunnD LA020664 _ - Vi o V y ,i B ir FI ntG� �t c ?' C .r 60 I: Down Dr, co. Moonbe ates, x v" s,:.k. •a r>.ro.... CenteC A• '+o -o :($..1^• ,,.i dx �.-ti`,-rg -t^`isr� u � �tia.l,� `',Fes rs+vn K�� `'%•;F .0 \'��'"& n ram Cir` Marina' I t M keY•Dr Er`�girl . It U� m g . g s, r� ,4 . :�*"dewiVi rg'xm Q:;i..,'`s�� I-__.- �;�. "'r Vr �L A0h2I iUs 93A�x�rs,+' �,,r h` �t tr a7 ly vs' d✓xa�'+ fr`�' w y r4A- r ;4 °Bree D !�avan 3� COrd' av rEA101 CYAVPeXAV.,: R ` — - .i•, a�2`} x $+tij' -,.4' t e W r r i r t.� "")c Q.r .•.1 r i.. ,�F �rKi �� dnah vA tir C C�ld ,, '. .L �I a bOG � iUAS?lis Dr L01gA�ilrr �AV1 „ N11.0 C1 �— ' U LA02378A� s: qy Q; Amazon Dr y La P D ' � q� 3 , m � f�? o Bouquet Dr az r ir�� ro N � �_ cn a (p 4cso c Bo u L 5 y ce `cl �' E 'a'r n BEd emont Dr Auburn r \�� N d ary y que Dr n f4 J o ;"r -!I rm - o g m P : Glencoe Avi m a4 m r BreBat Clr e��! U) sv � f �s BYICt ewat r Dr hainbr `c f C a-Dr- . -. , � jgI .: , �arq t"lo r Danube l.p Dr o arry PI aban Rre lb+, ePnhfll Cie 9Pb :�ari bar' r BI`sbp Dry i, Denis r! r 4 �, c r o Do aid Cir .. na Cir I , �i c ' Brush D: J�*--�'4 n�..ut`"r�T'an�al�tDr c A eftst & i ,Bngfitfi tcf Ct{ s i r Sandi pr <;y yr Brad Dr Carla C a LA03017 Cnat1 � 'M Do le Dr fit �� ' .m m ro ro cI Ba�rraatl ,.,- r a .. h r ir.t _ U L o U __. - C) e Yl:,; ° a: .` Ielt15 Dr.r , ro ir, r r k A02495A A� A?, k t.�st €. coYn DtJft. () yn F'':. a �d =01.. 3 r� R �y P V-�pama$k( — Arnt A..- r...i..ry. ,x r� r ' �. rr� OA : ' .are:, C�` w o d obi LA02463A )e Es •d tote , T. r �A o � ° v, i L 02853D Paul Cir J Cain AVe co ro s, Ir I r j urtls C1 _ a Belsito D77 o ylock br, _G rshwn g Cecar Ave-- Polder Cir Kenllvvortos Ave w f c ° -.B Athena?br U < :� �. Kristin Clr Friesland Dr L Y o e ( Ba a �a C a, .r , Barton Dr Sam " r J� :.0 0 n < U .Holland Dr Glenstone Dr c a y r3 �o fr u, o Y br —1 m w v on Dr S r v O x LA02585'A# _ 6r ~ � p o , ram_ c .. , ...6 ''g;.1,�d ' ._.: ` t,s:""R°^"P 1�'�'l•y:' S e.•�,,r �. ;^ "r i'�" 4# C.: (I3 ,J iv Obi �,� Q ::Sir,* "�" - r C q�'Fn•r k-!�7 vak* t �.. •�' •`�yc3 r� �` �jl.lfton Dr G roKIM N r rti ,> , , 1�rd 'M,P / �a �xb� " ,.�_. ?,...:� ----� -�0 �n�e Be I, ri+ Nwux r —_ `N n. S ^r, •7` „_ d. r ? "i yo;, O- q , _. _--___Clj._—f8--`--C_._— __-__—._._ t7L1].irs,_r�-.__ _..r„4 nnJ �' , r`� ' > 4in o o Coverage Legend .:? ..,.��.�;x T .' -rr .+.�'- $1 r`2<' .. �V: t'B$11/A.Dr.- :'Ths,,nformat,on propert of T Mob11e USA�MInc�is confi a ral and istlntende sofey orpthe use of,the,ind,wdual o entity to.,whorn d s ad ressed Any,other use;,or d,stnbut,on of this r �ris aaF e �uY r :.attgr,S.C.. .. �,;.; `i?a:., vim, N a n`formatlonss,.rictly pihlb,te :Thls:rpappr�edlets�and.ap roxlrnates�our'wgeless coyeragelJarea.outdoors,wh,ch may;change wtthout notice it'ma:include locations with I,mded or �@l1t�S�C�C�-�� drfrl; ,.t: ,,;.r- � .,�.�: 1L ,Is�^�& -'G� ,.. ;� r .. ,tea t ,,. no covcrager�Ourmaps do not guarantee service availab,l,t <�Evnsw,th a co�e�a e:area here are soveral-factors,such as;network chah es;traffic volume,,�service outa es - � .rr, .�,nPe,£, .y " . balu,ura, ur�.o n. 0G.5, .,.:'. 9 Q7 w -8 `V v technical jim,tations signal st[engt your e(�d,pment terrain;struct r s weather and other-con d,tions.that may rnterferti w,th actual service q�alandiava,lab,hty;',nclud,ng the 0 �� C�V �"Oli0ti° ",d. '�r�ir.? "' O - _... abilityto niake't�eceive and nalntln calls r�u o ,f x� �r,�� +W �� x m In Suflid9nlg -6 dbErTN' saYClmart AveCD �, ::. —y - n _._ Attachemet 6.03 k - --_T--. o --- - .._-.. LAOfw" Coverage for LA33421 A c ms a 9 -. uanremOr uir �a Argosy Ave r goSyCir - J x Cornell Dr Carlton Ave t +V o Business U N. Brown Cir c°� n. LA025�oA k Dr G Ln o/b r N°yo nbblesneeilwood ('irhF v — �: z �, s : Pa 3G) n E n' m°. �' M ad e A Rock Ave <� B_A33418X a: Q w e Clr >i OC n LA02066A .. Alles Bel F`ii'. cc N o a Dunn Dr � _ ca < S nlblon Dr @ �e —7 @ r r @ o ; Bluebon et Dr a gh+Ave .W" r �' r r 5 v� F ri C vin Cir dowQr Moonbea Dr v 6n @ Center A 0 1 A�A030 n Cross Dr Marina Vi ing Way Hooker Dr, �re Cir}` � r ;•..; Ingram Cir cn -n B r Q k u ro v die _ sr r Bie�leFr p�' C7 `Cro °. \/ R Y.LA02� vordas etiec lS s e 093A' -mi Ups aar� Ir �� I ro E7v LA13105A 1 �' )' ' :, r @ C YAve. Audrey Dr astle Dr a �rY �IuesailS Dr l..orge Cir Aldrich Ave N1 Cher !®r a - n U r Amazon Dr !y LA02�3�7�8Paz Dr � ��' J J - Hilo CI Yo , o > r@�r _ row.. o �. U - «- � a v <r J �' Auburn r r Bouquet r oi�q rro _ 1A SA;I �que Dr �; J `o' m' '.m r � Er emotl#fit , m Q� Glencoe Ave'' i '�I o ro Brassl Gfr< sv o, NNIIW� rpfia t+ r �Brldgewat rr Alhambra Dr c Barry P! i Cabana Dr C� S.- L? i o "t ' A'33421 A r' r p .. Danube Dr � 4 o Fernhill�Cir I a gpo,� § a r �r ena Cir " t� r en DrBI c5 lr �trTents r c� Brush Dr �Do laid Cir Dr grightfield Cir A �nette lr CranBr Dr` t Carla r 'Sandy ; l @: /O A03®1 ,.� harlotta Or 's Q LA02495A U - �; at,a; _.I n A t rn? y � �IShlelds Dr ti U co Arn Barracuda corn Dr nk xr Q.. Damask fir @- ti Dr i. fc! \..o U a� r m w ar e e rf r- in LAo2.6 AvV s '`Ap- k t�kl st Mobile Estytes V e o °° a ° r T .r rD LA0285{D a r t� , o ' F r t O x u� Cain AVe tn "am ' James Cir r'. <'"I Y " "f �i ' St Paul Clr J Blaylock p Curtis Cir �i Gi�rshwln Dr -or rs��{.N -; o c xr +� Cedar Ave :B Islto Dr r Polder Ci` e >Ave —, Kenilvvorth Dr. '�r E E a v o a' o, \ ¢ J < S L, .Ai:hena Dr U < Friesland Dr t o o m Kristin Cir'; h B J t_ n @ " Barton Dr l I a,r� ., Sb P Glenstone Dr -' �; y J o Cocv � a on Dr - �J @ c o m Holland Dr _. t ro Cor Dr r c o x W g SBLAO\ 259 A'I f�Gr O e� t o ro c.') MCCaCtPIy.Dr _p_.. -{� — v � ...r_ .__ BeJCmf -.._ 7 - --- Burton D o o _o._ to d o ii r m ,� a > — Coverage Lees y ar rn�;yaaH�i �,�i Belva.pr• 3 <)� This information property of T-Mobile USA;Inc is confidedtial and is intendedsole for the use oQhe individual oPentity to.whom it is addressed.Any other use,or distnbutiomof this r - information is strictly prohibited.This map piedicts and'a�proxirnatesfour wjraeless coverage;area outdoors,wh.ichmay change without notice.It mayinclude locations with limited'or W _i Outdour` 1 dI�r io ccvera e.Our maps do;not guarantee ser Ice availability.Even.wrt R(A c i rage area,.there are several factors,such as:network chan - raffic volume,service outages_ CO - g p \ r,:andTothercondbons that m y�iperfere with actual service gRal9�aQd availability,including the o o ��,�� '�� "��°I � r ? echnical Iimita4ions,signal strength,your equipmentaterraln;structures,weather, cu y� ability to make,;reoe` ,and maintain calls. 0 �;� A� gellfield'L" _ a Cir n 7. In Building- td dlrro Harriman Ave m ttac emnt 4. 4 Coverage With LA33421A aM � t , sr ¢ a� FArgosy A� � 1 gosy i,. ��f: rr T � r n w O ,... C CJ @ �r r 3 k. 'PitonVery t y n --- �_' B YLt ;.:., m J- 1p Brown O bbl@Stone Ln BIB, `a° _ c� LA0254 A a. „� ° M ~� a1 Db-ilwood C'ir a c 4 N t N Rathk' -I jl O I E i7 r,�, �1`_ _ i(�D ,y ...� m0 : _ ._ ;. LA3341'8�1, _ -_._l n .•'._ ._ ' ..: ':ad F? fl Rook ilg.r� j *;;.,;.) gip'" _l_... .. eyha Alley. k?fit;ter x 3x3a y'* ,7 -M O ,,eIMFO I p3• �'i Q W W ; F•.' unn DrZ ,.. � -a<'LA02066X Bel'Ail_ Ave. �w c Vir, ti Down Qr Mo;nbe°�� Dr �r rcA -:Rr '� ± m IfgrC�' Gb. Fne Marina i m `o :j n .B e is i`�t I�: xE µ CSreei+ bra......,.:' L� ark et a Cavan rr i ro Cdrdat �. ail 13105Aa MAY,-, a� '4 r Cl C' �/Ave '- J 4 Dr ��,r Q' +� « l ?, ;Aidrl h I ,� �. z �x' I 4 �.� L.qr e Cir \'� L, YY a _ ' i.� °i IU@Balls Dr g ti�0 gA N110 Cl � `� Ai "� q 3� �i� :: §��a .._....-_.._..[� t�,, ,,.-- �C2: :;(fl... ir.. r .tW•i: , t.,;' ," n,,":,I'l .. Amazon-Di i'�'O�A 2�P, >:,LA02445A is c Bouquet Dr - �fq -+ O _ C� E `a�_ ..D- 4Auburnr d a U7 �- s �a. .cQ m ��. _ E2rT1b cQ O ue Qr .c m { _ m P ,C 5: ! r_....; "43�1e I�1 I`Z: tiG >• r I�.'xbY�', r Cn Al :A Glencoe AvCf" n x ;, . di n ridgewat r Dr :�„ a hambra Dr arry ipl C ana-,Dr.._ w_'_! j .'+ 'a n - �LA3421tA"� 1 i Dr � m� � ernhlll Cir t ango � r¢ (7w r � Danube Dr re r ; y` I y4Ve&n Dr r .i��Op(Dr �, Cans r r� � m Do'1ald.Cir na Cr " i aka f:., � f c Brush Dr c; c l PW� Brl h I'bi 4�lia qi{'I' i, it Cir nCta�Dr I,,YJ tr 2rn .: �— !sand ''Dr 9 A i.,..r `kDr} : ".:. rla l A®3oi 7� Do le`D,r B.a .. '" Y v Ca o I 1 O LYA02495A earn ., % �I, r� p �"� ?, (F a m �.Si'll@Ids Dr ,j�p•t, 1,. j " ::'ry .,;':.p ' U--i Dam �i Arn tt �, y � �. � .� y i 1 r c� � � � _ � � � � ask pr n Co Dr s . iLy S 1?.�, � U k:.N4��. ;, ';°�, 1J �( 7 .�'ftfY, i a _ r C N -as r•' _, I F St-MObl,le Estates o m, Ap •0 n.11 9.. 4 v 3 r J rE LQ: - .Y. .'...a Co N LA0�853D ' t "� rsYk�/Eitn Ave a) GI r� I ....- ,L- '"r Pau�Ctr .Q 'a m Belsito Dr c BJa to }r4L G 3rshWin t xz c �s..: a sv Y ck Dr Ct7ftls Cir -- a a �;'� —' ° g Cedar Ave Polder Ci c Kenilworth D :' �. Y=, w' � v €. ve orb a; QQI r" ;c �` kei1a r c o a� Kristin Clrr Friesland Dr L Baya� v a� `' i rn��" c� m °' Barton Dr ' lani c o i'� �� ¢ oiland Dr „ H t z irk H c k .," }rt?§J, +J4(rj ,�f t 3 u C_ J �`� (� r a sr Glen tone Dr f Wagon D sLAO\ 2585:, —' %or ftf U) l�. SE O O -•rq _qe:.r�',d�>' M�4*rMS�, f'��:.,.'� i' y ,��ht Qy , 1 F � lt„1 J:� iRjY'�a<,:iy ¢; r ..Rf D i try y �... —(!j- Cp -•, N Benj ._i='I ,,� • `W d ,SAS r r F ;�ti-ice ,�: !�� / .wr.�` CT l i it 4 q .} r y ;. •' yr£ `4 '.i, t r Qr._._ P �, si.au ?{ r.. B Coverage Legend iisrinformatwn•, r perty f,T,Mobi e USA?'Inc is con ide iairandiissint :!soley foothe use of thesindividual oentity towhom it is addressedrAny other,use pr distnbution of this � , .a a*_r�+o g 1.a�'Yttia?F,, .�.:... T7,. 0 1 formation I�StstnCtl rhiblted. .his rrtap pretlsctsanaaoxlmates our wireless eovera a Rea.outdoors,which Fnay;change without noticeit�may Includealocatlons with I,mlted or J Outdoor .�9 [lV T 1„ wr,. , r d X��F+• i FiA& swr a 'f�i+•ty,o a, 07: , i coverage O r maps dol ot,guar nt �servlceaya�fi�ability.E'ven'with�',a co�e�ae+area,there are severaLfactors,such as:network changes;atraff�c volume�servi'ce outages f .. r: balssiuini ur.o; n .,;i:,AJI' qo .., � ' -, In Vehicle'-B4l dbm c h o y I�terfere•with actual service q al ?andfavailability including the hr ical limdatO s signal stc gth,your eq Fir In, ruct�res west andXo�t�he conditions that may i= t o r4 inityto make,,receive,and main a�n calls. :N pJ� c ice.w m c°Cir r" s,v 'i3+ s. CA In Building-76 dbrn �• Ave i ATTACHMENT #9 Tachn'o'ca� 10-1(apor�tt ID LA33421A A W5,r -04 / k I El The FCC license required T-Mobile to build a wireless network that will provide the best network performance to customers as possible. Also, the FCC license required T- Mobile to put up a wireless network in accordance with the Federal Communication Commission requirements and under the compliance of Federal, State and local mandates laws. The goals of the network performance are to provide best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop-free connections. Also, the site will operate below the radio frequency emission limits set forth by the Federal Communication Commission. T-Mobile is proposing a site installation located at 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 with an effort to adhere all the requirements set by FCC, Federal State and local mandates. AWI r F iX 'Site, ID : LA33421A Site Name : Community UMC Site Address: 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 s 111,1Z, n"'111 R 1� T2 a A - i ---------- The following guidelines were used to determine the best candidate for site LA33421 A: 1 : Site Visit — Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on location, structure height, topography, lease area, etc. 2. Propagation Analysis — T-Mobile USA uses a prediction tool, known as Asset, to project the expected coverage of the new cell site. 3. Drive Test Data — T-Mobile USA uses real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. 7 x a u 1 (Q! LA33421 A mainly designed to improved indoor coverage on the surrounding Residential properties along Edward Street and Heil Avenue in city of Huntington Site can also be located at the corner of Hell Ave and Edward Street but there was no suitaWe candidate that will meet a minimum height of 50'. r! L........... Drive Test Data is the real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. ri et� � Albior� Or OJ Legend I' CfQ_C C ir- o e Or to f-cxc' Or Marina 111k V11 looker i i i❑ - _ - r Outdoor -91dbm A6?093A Qy LAk1134 .; e r Ave r c c v luespLLs Dr Large Cir In Vehicle -85 dbm Proposed Site = D� ., _- � k LA33 Am 421A ®_� vl 1 I�r ; Indoor/In building - .# j -71 dbm o r Ind i t y l w - u twat pr-' - m rJOFiVLk _r' f -K n ette is d r C - �J-, �393A = - Areas with Low In-door �y Coverage. • p m_ra, m 0 LA02833D n ve r I Rk_ r = C a ve .r } _ _ C7, r w r �A�tie❑_ _� - j rlSt Site location for LA33421 was based on this drive test data which shows weak Indoor Coverage M but has good Outdoor Coverage El on the area above. T-Mobile needs to provide Indoor Coverage in this area by installing site LA33421A at Community UMC church. . ,. . ---------- A C i, L -1"J-11 These are the 111�J in areas which T- T ;i e d SRI* r r co gp Mobile needs to 6� improve the coverage. These ues Dr areas currently has 90% Outdoor ontecito Dir rc Coverage (Grey ) LQ q"�—Pq _d r tkfl�htCi r V U, fa yet Having the site _: S t zrli�ht Cir L I LA33421A installed 2L Rin o Cir ,3- 01 "R I, )plight CV'] at community Cir14 Go in r r UMC, the coverage lit ILA— Z3 in these areas will uli n Cir, 4 Cir Defiance Dr ie Jer h DF improve from a_ rare i Bridq te'r, bK Outdoor Converge L U (Grey 0i to In- fti Gurkirn Dr 0 f nfti6-Dr i .,I, 71 r' door Coverage J 'pj)r L h. (Green top Proposed L Site Weber 4� ts, a: n OF _j LA33421A '' Al randal ER, nlyn D Annetbe C! CD ar Gir-t r id,,Kerdrick i Sylvia Dr Cira ClarL Cir IF Dr Far net 'HLydia )205 UII LAA ,d Cr ►-�_Shields D-r La glk "I" fl 0 e L �17 lu mFj unn - - -- " -Ji LA4�066A rn 6r l Dr A Legend: .{au C - a _ p, _Q Center A ,� ,t ^Hooker D �[ c r Signal Level r Dr - Marina V in a d^ Bea Or O J O -40 to-70 dbm ' OILo O -71 to-78 dbm A0?09A '� LA13105A r �� O -79 to-85 dbm O -86 to-94 dbm Uri e • -95to-109 dbm Bluesails Dr Lge Cir Vo a u, _ ofMrind Dr,_ i9 LAO?_37 8A Am ct( � � g { ' ��- S m ' rno U m x zL—' Menu Au s � r ssig? it 3Q6tI4 — C 4; z'' s: 'a— -:— J T-Mobile needs to ice _ _ : ? _ kDrx -_.tC- .. . far, I'° u h r ' - r C p �` g improve coverage ;., :nette d - ,, c�.�- in this area. o ro r - ti^ � r * �I LA024s5A Fs- This can be done �, by installing site ` LA33421 A at 7'n .4-- Community UMCi - in ve i, Church m - - Rook Dr � t Celzr veOD- w IOU C_ c� S L rx �a an br Rolla t C; �, *� LA02585A t 7 B pu Legend: LA02090A LA13105A LI Mobile Competitive Standing L Advantage Disadvantage 0 Competitive 0 L-A33421A p AT&T has better O coverage in this LA02495A area. 0 T-Mobile needs to o improve coverage L�A02053D to be more competitive with AT&T � a 0 LA02585 tl 4, .=I ' nuru u m HH[ 11 u RID LLJ Legend: T-Mobile Competitive Standing LA0209.3a LR7a105A M0 Advantage Disadvantage LAM- competitive F P LA33421 VERIZON has better coverage in O this area. LAO? 5A o T-Mobile needs to improve coverage 'vTd I 2853D to be more F—I competitive with Verizon O LAOMM A? Rol �-N V&P .......... ........ ------ F, o V-PI Or U e nt M r Dr Marina Win sy Or Accumulated Customer d cl) -L 0 i--LIM 5A Complaint for from 2005 FS EdiMer Ave L;a%t le 4 r to Present= 302 3luesails Dr Lc rge Cir cn oftw!nd Dr-.Q- 5 a�lubt Am Df Drop Counts from 10/09- Emoat r 12/09 4258 Calls SSk Cir LA33 h r)� ii goar)r ea 0 A. M S pr it u h --A Pette Gl*t a� --e, r C r r I "fir t5i —E)Z) LA42 95A L9 10 'Frophy M =1 C) — 0 �3 02853D > -j rh' n ID) r- (D a Bels J- Ced r r E N 2 1 r ve n w n ZE Uk2 1< lens CD U3 7 VT n b u X ! u CD ;Z` Dunn PLr IOU Alb ibin or 1"' �Bl -,vWoq iq � uy T Weak coverage on this c3 ri cAd111Or' M61 40 rib ea ii n r P ff area (low on In vehicle and Grci,ss r M arina.y)A' Hooker,Or - ire Cis PY In Building Coverage) br Cava r_,__ Existing sites LA13105A, G a§t Or = A-D LA02495A, and LA02853D C, Val Blues ail&-,,,J)r r cant provide enough > -iJ knazon Cr coverage hence LA33421 A Ubutill CA 0 Edgof6pnt Or: 1 is being proposed to be Cff : fia Mbra Dr ki Jr Or installed in Community 6� M, p2hube Or F MICir Lan UIVIC to provide the needed b6nis "I r -ZJtnfr coverage as well as a U r*ft 6 i M Proo Dr. i,!G�ila r .I , , - .- -D :3 -_ i I I ith ve balance coverage w D le Of Di existing sites. Proposed site location is Av e st PW'Zir Ca4iair, rsh 51 ICI tsitcr r symmetrical with existing Ged 1"b 17- sites hence required U :AtNA4 I. I Kri cove rage objective is Q, - 9 meet t e Or E (n e, 0 lb Yera6e:.Ora 6nd 7' In J Moo Building ", in 01 TV 1 kl"� znv Uwe A h �J 7 §nn Or < Prediction plot shows r PO „terthat the current M66Abeei n 901, I re t W14 Marinas 1 � _V,_ I P, _ 6 i CS C ro -1 - G ,._ proposed sites will CAV .4' , PA Ei meet the desired r "P CL coverage ob�ecteve. PHU la"t P This also shows a �,rnazon b BU uq4 it or balance coverage with NU AUb 11 71 Ca existing sites. �1?7 rr an ---:j7j CW Ub LA33421A Community J 11�_ 11 err & A ran al 7t r d'Dr, f7t a ir UMC is the best 0 IR Shield Dr option for this site. QQ 02 'Rtl biWEsti G qn Isito dr L _j Kn ........... W., 0'a L Elaijo Covorago Logo rid Or 4 _,,kgg __j Ou'door IN r in vol][010 E� In Building Uj OF-1 _n 11r.r,713L -I ---------- ------------ Proposed site location for LA33421 A was chosen based on the coverage requirements aimed to better serve the customer and :provide the best quality service° y a x, w ATTACHMENT # 10 Community United Methodist Church 6652 Heil Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-842-446 l Fax: 714-842-5278 January 15,2010 Jill Arabe Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach 2 'i i 0 10 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - FIVJN - D;-P_. --i CUP: 2009-015 T-bile Cell Tower DearMs.Arabe: Community United Methodist Church (CUMQ submits this letter in support of the T ile Wireless Communications Facility(CUP No.09-015). In addition, CUMC would like to clarify two statements made in the Letter of Appeal filed November 16,2009. .First,the Letter of Appeal states in two places that it is filed on behalf of "CUMC members." The church members and leaders voted on November 25, 2009 to ratify the lease signed by the church in December 2008. Therefore, the church has demonstrated its support for moving ahead with the lease. Second,the Letter of Appeal incorrectly states that the CMC pre-school rents/leases space from the church.The pre-school is not a separate entity leasing space from the church. It is part of the church and is considered as such in decisions affecting the property such as the T-Mobile lease. The church is aware of the potential response from pre-school parents to the cell tower and will continue to keep there informed. Please contact me if you have questions about this letter. Thank you. S nc rely, Duane Hurtado President of Trustees Community United Methodist Church LATE COMMUNICATIONS #13-2 PC MTC 1-26-2010 Y^ ✓�� i._. � � '.*`dig' �,� �a '' ':� a ,9 q'�" .. � s Ir tt�0f o e � /iio,�ih7rri/�{/ ;' �Q ✓,f ��% /9////i �.'.`a � .;,:. y.- 0, r� i ' �//��;,�...: �/i; .'"/'�' �,/, .�H! '� / 3�,:>�"��y '..:� /� %�� yy✓+ i��ii/o r � � // Dili F��: s��y'. ;% /is!�/%/f//y ' / '`x ,✓/i / 1 -. / v, / r;�'�, !:;.N:� //,/ / / „/ //� ro'� '�� //i�. /// �/q .,�ry/''�"��a .�/s yly�/d/:-%/s/y�� h//,�%%'✓��% F, i .,,,, ,y ,, � ,/, .r- r. / / r / �/o, ,✓rig-„�/�r .//i C l 44 C y-s w x 9 me rAFA Full 0:01/l/Ir/ , i a J`'IEOSTgTFs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �+ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 J y��iTgt PROZE�'t`°� LPLAANr41,NG8 F �110�lJl u-" r( BLIaCh 1 6 2002 DEPT OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Ms. Janet Newton President The EMR Network P.O. Box 221 Marshfield, VT 05658 Dear Ms.Newton: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 2002, to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)Administrator Whitman, in which you express your concerns about the adequacy of the Federal Communications Commission's(FCC)radiofrequency(RF)radiation exposure guidelines and nonthermal effects of radiofrequency radiation. Another issue that you raise in your letter is the FCC's claim that EPA shares responsibility for recommending RF radiation protection guidelines to the FCC. I hope that my reply will clarify EPA's position with regard to these concerns. I believe that it is correct to say that there is uncertainty about whether or not current guidelines adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures(exposures that may continue on an intermittent basis for many years). The explanation that follows is basically a summary of statements that have been made in other EPA documents and correspondence. The guidelines currently used by the FCC were adopted by the FCC in 1996. The guidelines were recommended by EPA,with certain reservations, in a letter to Thomas P. Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of Engineering and Technology,Federal Communications Commission,November 9, 1993, in response to the FCC's request for comments on their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM), Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation(enclosed). The FCC's current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations. They"are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electric shock and burn. The hazard level (for frequencies generally at or greater than 3 MHz)is based on a specific absorption dose-rate, SAR, associated with an effect Internet Address(URL)• http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable.Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper(Minimum 20%Postconsumer) 2 that results from an increase in body temperature. The FCC's exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified. These guidelines are based on findings of an adverse effect level of 4 watts per kilogram (W/kg)body weight. This SAR was observed in laboratory research involving acute exposures that elevated the body temperature of animals,including nonhuman primates. The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level(nonthermal)exposures. Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of laboratory animals and epidemiological studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects. However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur. Since EPA's comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased. While there is general, although not unanimous, agreement that the database on low-level, long-term exposures is not sufficient to provide a basis for standards development, some contemporary guidelines state explicitly that their adverse-effect level is based on an increase in body temperature and do not claim that the exposure limits protect against both thermal and nonthermal effects. The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4 W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal. However, exposures that comply with the FCC's guidelines generally have been represented as"safe" by many of the RF system operators and.service providers who must comply with them, even though there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years. The 4 W/kg SAR, a whole-body average,time-average dose-rate, is used to derive dose- rate and exposure limits for situations involving RF radiation exposure of a person's entire body from a relatively remote radiating source. Most people's greatest exposures result from the use of personal communications devices that expose the head. In summary, the current exposure guidelines used by the FCC are based on the effects resulting from whole-body heating, not exposure of and effect on critical organs including the brain and the eyes. In addition, the maximum permitted local SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg for critical organs of the body is related directly to the permitted whole body average SAR(0.08 W/kg), with no explanation given other than to limit heating. 0 3 I also have enclosed a letter written in June of 1999 to Mr. Richard Tell, Chair, IEEE SCC28 (SC4) Risk Assessment Work Group, in which the members of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG)identified certain issues that they had determined needed to be addressed in order to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines. Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures. When developing exposure standards for other physical agents such as toxic substances, health risk uncertainties, with emphasis given to sensitive populations, are often considered. Incorporating information on exposure scenarios involving repeated short duration/nonthermal exposures that may continue over very long periods of time(years), with an exposed population that includes children, the elderly, and people with various debilitating physical and medical conditions, could be beneficial in delineating appropriate protective exposure guidelines. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust that the information provided is helpful. If you have further questions, my phone number is (202) 564-9235 and e-mail address is hankin.norbert(@epa.gov. Sincerely, orbert Hankin Center for Science and Risk Assessment Radiation Protection Division Enclosures: 1) letter to Thomas P. Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission,November 9, 1993, in response to the FCC's request for comments on their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM), Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation 2) June 1999 letter to Mr. Richard Tell, Chair, IEEE SCC28 (SC4)Risk Assessment Work Group from the Radiofrequency Radiation Interagency Work Group January 12, 2010 HB Planning Commission i am Dianne Larson, a resident living within 500 feet of the proposed cell tower. I am opposed to this project, and will be discussing the lack of need for this cell tower and T-Mobile's failure to meet finding #1 for the Conditional Use Permit. More than reasonable doubt exists as to whether the proposed cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) is needed. ® The current cell coverage map ("Coverage Without LA33421A") submitted by T-Mobile as evidence for the need of a new cell tower is inaccurate. The map indicates that cell coverage in the targeted area is only strong enough to use a cell phone outdoors, and is not strong enough to use a T-Mobile cell phone inside a vehicle or in a building. Residents living in the coverage objective area that would be served by this proposed cell tower are currently able to make, receive and maintain T-Mobile cell phone calls in their homes, in their vehicles and outdoors in this area. O Current coverage was proven by talking to neighbors who have T-Mobile cell phones and by conducting a simple one-hour cell phone coverage test. The test procedure and results are documented in the evidence previously submitted to the Zoning Administrator. T-Mobile's coverage map does not accurately represent current coverage conditions. T-Mobile's current cell coverage map also shows four T-Mobile cell towers within one mile of CUMC. Two of these cell towers are within one-half mile. ® The "Coverage for LA33421A" map submitted by T-Mobile shows the proiected coverage for the proposed cell tower. Cell coverage from the CUMC site would extend one mile north, past College View School/Park and beyond the existing T-Mobile cell tower at McDonald's one-half mile away. Coverage would extend one mile southeast, past Irby Park and beyond the existing T- Mobile cell tower at Murdy Park one-half mile away. And coverage would extend one mile southwest, past Spring View School to the existing T-Mobile cell tower behind 24 Hour Fitness. ® The extensiveness of this coverage area directly contradicts another T-Mobile document. ® 1 requested and received, through the HB Planning Department, "T-Mobile's Alternative Locations Map" for this project. ® This T-Mobile document specifically identified College View Elementary School, College View Park, Irby Park and Spring View School as alternative locations but indicated that the school district and the City of HB would not lease space to wireless carriers. ® This document also stated that College View Elementary School, College View Park, Irby Park and Sprinq View School are "outside of the coverage objective." 0 Both of these contradictory T-Mobile coverage documents cannot be true. o Either the coverage extends a mile to the north, southeast, and southwest, or it extends less than a quarter of a mile in those directions. ® Which is correct? Was the city or the public given misleading information? ® T-Mobile has a documented history of claiming a non-existent coverage gap as the justification for a proposed cell tower. Included in the document packet is a "New York Times" article (published January 9, 2009) covering one of the cases in which T-Mobile was denied permission to build a cell tower after an independent study showed that a coverage gap did not exist. My views are based on personal observation and research. I believe that any interaction with T- Mobile requires careful scrutiny. If you are considering allowing T-Mobile to build the proposed cell tower, I urge you to first have an independent study conducted to determine if a need actually exists. T-Mobile failed to meet Finding #1 for the Conditional Use Permit. 241.10 Required Findings A. For All Conditional Use Permits. 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; • If built, the proposed cell would negatively impact the neighborhood. • Decrease in property value- Statements by appraisers and real estate journal articles were submitted into evidence stating that property values decrease if the home is in close proximity to a cell tower. The cell tower would have to be disclosed during a sale. More and more people perceive a stigma attached to the proximity of a home to a cell tower, and do not want to live or raise a family near one. These homes become harder to sell, or sell for less. Less demand = less market value. • Impact on Pre-school —A survey of CUMC Pre-School parents revealed that 50% of the parents would remove their children if the cell tower is built. The pre-school, which rents/leases space from the CUMC church, would probably close or move to another location. The children could lose a good learning and development center; the parents could lose this excellent neighborhood resource; the pre-school staff could lose their jobs; and, the church could lose the pre-school income. These are not insignificant issues. The proposed cell tower would be detrimental to our neighborhood. On behalf of the nearly 350 concerned neighbors, CUMC Pre-School parents and CUMC members who signed the petition to stop this proposed cell tower, I urge you to overturn the Zoning Administrator's ruling and deny Conditional Use Permit 2009-015. Thank you. ~=' _�w, ' ..�_ � ._ »:.-., a.� _......... :"(� ` '..:3'dr + -: ,•, + z_aa .i w., rw� - ., r nab s ... - .,y �;- :-.�. •«:.J,. � ,; ' ., d'+e. 19 !u k �i:@I e, >Aei �D6 Wit" ;: -:.1 t%:t- rs } "-�,=S t-�i,. �c i. - m,R'.: .. , +w ,:} �7II11'.li,+v.-1�1.2i ;,. - ' �u'+^"®««°"'^"'�O U�:Cl r,ht a�r'..+.t.�n«n ��l%Ys rl �i; ) lie k_g y�: ; �,• ,.s�. t a1. a. a. _ - .. „• .. .^.` 'JIIk1';''"1' ^.-> �1 11 Y' "5' I `h, d saw �,k. t!x Fin $!A n - r:. r „Iwf 1 •W ,,,, ac,:z�: -'Ni'� a"' �a •t i , ,r a ,�.-ef .f' „M1 '� a>Fw da 9 ,a e ,,:... .- , ;.,: $aN 0.a• .{��I,,I„A..,Ir. alrCtiC�,II.. `�-�1, • �''�:.Y "�-°� 7'. lYy_ . _ .: f I,. • , , � - ` r ,�,r , ... ' _ �lj'i'k 1: I•,��I rn 6�. y'7� '"'�'1i' R � ¢ ,�.7 �aly.:r 4S�A:T�r u�P 1 II�'i r�'I �� r��'.: 13 '"� i y,p �'.:±�,.�i d q dam, fi , .. n: }re N•:;,� • + I ar-r e- {a'TFa n7 R)r- {: FI L1f_+Rre 4 ^.ii k .< ) Sr: 1r ,.r ..t..,� t,,, kr a,�$�'+�+o�•?^�=� r CE µ� g.-, a: _ B.*.t a.'.,/.• il� t6 +yFlw!":; Ic+ 1f1 ''' { N a'^t 1*�a 1„ , 1,'r=!I fl�.r�:R y k o n 1 ,s <', , ,•" 1 1 �) q 1 1,: : �,i7l' eye, , w••,�;,.:.W v. I;r ).a ib, -1J •�a,::.il a ,u'.w»i, :^ „a-� ri It ..d•"r 1) t-,.+,T'• :� a• - u V',f wv 3J�.-y, w q aa f -«n Ar x.+•': ,} 4 R! a �..,,.I, i;lP�' a �R:._, !y, k, 'wa �r �,, a ;r}psy^w:d: ,*r %%' i + �..a 1 t ,^...;,>>s9 k,, -;...- _ _ +•�':Y. " 1r�'��1M1U .; ;9`� 1 g .. :,-. A.' :f 4 I.: im ma. b+4 I LL I t. n # ii J + ,.:� ¢ ,:' - *u, .l�b. fit.:«..y! ' W. L: p�.. 4 +t; :+. r ; I 7 ).'a d i'¢i n, Aw r"vw"'� A'IJ�),IIt.IA+�II !y "w'i y) � �_� . '� ^ay+e fi^w«• ,r*w--,a �,1 r4�•tC.�( [,it^',��, / .-., ) 1- �y , o �, !�Y t ,53 i FI j � ♦ �_ � °rkR::.A�Y ...N� <., vtpW Qi 1`� .':tKh+i a 'ti 1 �.-,1(� '•r`� y :�"� ,1 'C7e 9 _ Tyr' •,-::e a + ,;t �(y�rp ) '•�S `� 1, r t�' yr _ ssr�- a dP a• t = a +a+b' 1 f; I �. J%"-::t.. WFR.6>~ l9}baft�. 4u. _.9„L ®..Y a is •wr, '' �r`�`'Itt t �, �i7r'4,tl*�, !��; A >� ql+ITt',�r ,� +�pd,r;n.wi, :lyr+iey.9,,, #T'�'b.,�i_v - _ „4'`. � an,,,•„ .,,�:�• _ : l� �� rl ,.•�.:�,,,i�r+xl; ^'Y '�` r `t4NT.� �: �R•4 .. r' ,. +n ., Y:t r D'� si �';9.p L• '.I;' �fty. r {yC «:"�.LrtR..,.�,n�' - :1::r5 ..J.- 1:raD: ,,.;�, .a a K °S .,.,,,.sr � ?dek k� � �x _; � •• -;iFDr,w��►..._ 41R=. g 7" ...; _ q tl,; ^- .. '•e--R L., ,# }}...�•�'Y 1d 'A•a, *:, ,) r°r ji dJi` K,X". I.YFid:.. q. ,::��ai .: •. ,• • ..•::,.,• .... . Y R ¢1�".T�t7+ } ..,tom )• �,.• „�, ��,..,/ � s:: � •,aa r r- .N,�1,a},q:Jl Wa 't �� f�(�, --}: -Hm9:•• ')' ,1, r> p,e+.', ^ ,y �'�t)R. �, D � "J.wa! ;��.: '; I .?:','T , n,.,.+}��" •..,.:}:Aa r4 :I;�r$ar N t7..„k,'. i�',.� ,iti! ,,^M t=tII xn 1 L ,kt� t'k.. ,y'y�i�, �`° ,.s „:,. �,,- ;.�;: a::,. S B. ''.>, +�Sla �µD wV_'t•a�i,)I" 9.•..a i.I ,....�'"Ia'ei,+" -• �` s n,l�y ,..,.... ,,M. 7. 9..-.,.•. ,:,::� •5� �..•::-: , i, :,., ,r, �:,a.r.; 'I!z*"'b. F�..:� �N.-,- -.r 1.'-•yl`y 9�.��'- `xF�::7i' ua"�.a,4.•;Tale ,.•i-• •`li lip ;!%i x'�f•�..y",` :'i:: + x}' i�`_;."s W 5M=,:„. , ,,;., rn,.- �., _4 .,) ,a A3::^�, .,r; a Iti, r, ,y:..s•:•mm'I }GT:.,%, '.n��.r�.":«.,.. T« _ ,,. a ,. „...4� a�..c .- -g.. p .. ,.- , „ , ' F, r, •..:. :, :. � �..��;�";•,a� D�Ila,rtc,� ++. tin 'ai ,'7..A.' '` ,.<.1[.:( .,F� r .yt ... _, P ta•-,.., r� ;,:{11�r '«r$.,', rP!• H l.�i t ,I�t::� I� ,,;q. T iJ)jr.,x t Y .,y •+ i',F't}I.p•. . - ,. pf9 : � � - I,,„I : .n W,:f�Me L±� s✓h,", ff ,;. S�r F� { ..Iw'�.-r i � • � i ! i7�"J u n 17 a 5� di ► a7 a '.3.- •tP , , .,c!'1*I (k 7 1,P'/"ti rb. , 1 s = P: •a!'iry - a. :r r ,b .. h fyl :.7y 5F" ., "P'-.� a ' r Y' d�Y) yn t k �j )k IN '. r 9 t& �f' + + r r! x+ 1 n,q �.'s + `9�1 a^ :esx+L?t^" I w_yWi �x saw. la v .. _..«_.. .__ , ::V�� .L-,,�h, +«ae..«.«" �reld�E!rvA 1C,�=`D r^�..+a .., ••x 1, �'1rr�o�ui aT ) , C 1. rw a-,.'� hto- „p yycl'Tr',Srry„ �y.*.,».'"JM1bn"'twtat'• ar t-'z6{t.a,. MOAN ,�1 +' r a'�dl� "y �' � .. a _.:N$ 1' A Nw 'A 9 t 3 + ! S € Y �. d N 7>k 14{-.RIy'°{ ' a� 'f".. + �• m -w✓ s. }a a'"'d""' .t.. .i:: ) ` rA;c v.:.:r� •. •.:::. , ".�:. __=..__._ _- ...,..."7.:a',,,.,._ � r I a:'o':cY Y w,linyl!D1 _ 1:"± i �M1 t�._,d �+gt;_ .�, ) ."� •,.ar, .. sr , - ds7;¢b,LM, + .._.. ,..y,,n ! y,..c•.$}.. o s "' 3 c v� M�9� ' '. a,.,ev.C,t- ..:.:. M -�'�;' s^:. ;:e -E, + a;i, i. .,y+ ,,1 rM's4`'��k=i�1-r,C.a�,...M'e, ,.:: I, s er. �� ST.I�. ..� :'.,7."` ...V.s .:MA.,• ,[�[��!7 �J S.,•C "e�i:� ( 'r._. Ym e d :.i.: ,�,9•ZF�'rlal N � p .,.- �. .r' .,,S,f ai K., ;::«.,r ;N .,r"?X,,' S'"`. .d�-'e". Yb w,:ra+.v. .,+.- 4 P"" y��ezp'rsc«+..ram".,:en,+a,:^-+ea,r•3 �`+".f�R+j' i. �'y +� ..: a a.,...-,:..m..... [ ,.. „r,r, l: rw( ., �..,}i, 1=..',, , t .v.✓r@ tH .,kr, pv: �. �._.�r+n.8 ° s<• ,� .^ . a. .: .a(3utt,,m:,[�r: ..,a, :. '._a3 ;::.., ,.,.r M1 , t, <!.. - .. ::A a r.p:�. rn � ,� t :',; ,l`,;x,r?;[r •!)`,a �:• , `; : , �.:,„ ��:,::rs .:., u :,L� +•t&,.,,.:"a, !., �..:,.; .ItP'A!:t:.d-� J -+41, s.. a �.:.^M1 ?.. .':; y,��:y... a II a" y - .L,hi, #P ^" 0. tlr �tt+�u k�:7.•.�� , F`. .. , , .t V •, I y ji �.;;p D;..;'." '�� Y,.9i+`;_N`) a q'W�:, _+ ,.-6;:. Sa..: 7'"t .r��,. ,. 1,1ti '%•'�fi :1� ,1 It..;r, «.reA!.: a .W .:5�.`, pM°R"�. ��AU,.:Y443+Ir,rr:ad .�J `;Cs. ..r y Ir ^'�' �`aM1,IP'• y �::T , d�'.+..`:t i'. ::,k r =r, ,.�.,rG k'a s, �Pfsi+p3•.,..,k.. ,L,, :,,��Ctl;�;.l._nf r ,s , }y. ;t,.+: .1+1.. Y`F l .•.' 4.! I M1,. 3°I'Y .htl, ,�,99,�: "-.q'Nd",,. .la".I iRrr.•.a. ..> r � '� , ,..` +tS;.;r. ,,. :::' f r raka x".;: ;•J t „„ T�+. _.,.., a,4� .:.as..`�..,r � ..�:::_•. .,n: �►,►. '-' ,Jxht1 fr();I" «nal aka'% Rr,,'1 LJ d,: I,., '�' I �; -'�a,a..'4'cr I ; ...;,. .`- r Nk ,;."• .....- '." •a? ilr a. -;:,: p' L.:s` a '�,rl ,r. ,a, 'x tr• r'S'-,. +9. ,.M. ,a ,�a';, ..: �.. r•+^r mar, ::. .1 . .r +_'., r,,;,Yn ..£',�.r; ..-_._,:° r, P:a„6.�• .ra• t .4,:.� - '.J.+ ., y 4 rj s ,,'.e'1, L. �.� ,. an,.•ci,.! .;t-11 .; Sr . I ,r ,? 'i d+!:::,,. � P'r xa ( r ar•',: .ty^�R.. -R, y" '"= ,y a ,d1 "M1d , ? 71, '� ��7 � .a 'f: :z, ,: -1�;. ^• �} i s ,a. „� s..x,. ... _r• (► .,� ;as =.,,�J.• <w'� S t , , 3 i. _ f� ,'�. .;w"• gg 3 a `fl'[��t�O.Xb�E; ,. ,..,.., t.. a;,...,. i r'",. z 1 { ::' :... e.�.} - � ,., �§,, ,� -.,,... w w• f: .MxJ �,1.O,Of+ 4•� ''':A. p,,�, li ^r '.y ) ;td"` '•'tv v1 ,m..,r.x ,> 3 z' ` . ' . `1,,,� ., ..., - �, ,,:,.,�,_ .,,.w:,.•+n:t , •t'w" A' :>*, �tf � "arre ,, t .�� f }« r ..,.,; ..,,PA : 4ig . : r. :•:, •.cY. m:--:c_ q ..�,.S •�,:;,t,f-.i, 1@ ... .dts�.�°k'. .a�..;,•... -- r.,i V��1i4';�a-- �°I e�, � .r.,° ,.+, M ♦:,_„ b.:, :. ..:,�, '.} ,.._ iR ,., '}'a __ `.,k t+,`,1.b. ..w. s ,.:! x 1 _, +D '.l.aal �','; :;-;5:.•. '',t: ,.� ,,, ., {(},;..: _ _. � --. ._r. r�l'a '.�!. �'-�,.,,,� �4h'.w t' -., .x•: ,r �. .. . w, `e:M,i'rf'zdi+e; �1 ,,._ ,.:� r , '�—.��y ,a •4fi! i,l: _ +.� „ :a.: 17., .:.e._ .,, ,,9} ,,, n.< '.', 1• .,:... # .:.- I =".; .fTl. ..r"tJ+' �',.. _. _ + r' -t - ..z .,.�,r : - a�`•i9;; k.•,.. 1Fd 3� , fr r,t, �. �,.. a d :..:: ,.-a= :+, �r s ..-,}, •aer� 'r• i c� ;. 'dYl t5 " ! -!i k!I�"a a c .,..:6.- .. :'.. 'F ,,.:.,, ,• ,: :,.: r.. s'v .._'. i.?(`:.. t ..Maas a r• [:!,as ..:...a. , „ l,. ,... d,.; •^9 ,....,t..6� y, - .E'I•':.:f� :,.._,. tl ,. _ , 1 -^.; .. _ S- ., Al, •:y+e � .. �, }� 6= .._..�+ +t, :a•�11 r .�. 'Y al I,.{.,,,) :Rd + 'i ,:. .. . �..f �.J ,� fives i' '.4,:7.. ,t..:...,�, -. `9� .. 'k„$'i�,;': .Y �•- �rr.��8•..m, - +.::. �91 s' ;:b. .u ,a 1L'.. p: .. ,,,1....r-se..a ,_ RI YI -1'Mki .C�<;,wa ;1 ,�:- �.X •Ra.: ', •a_' 11 r - f' a h :r!:+ ,.•,, . �- . '.e�r�-�9 ��.►_x'K �'d a6�a.C) ,`� P�r� ,� �-�r,�+ 'J� `�"I�,ig w $.,�"-...rA.,,..«.={•�-a. E, «.. 't�+' :.trf -. �,,.�' ,.,;h ,.,lZj arT ..,,r:,. .c: { das:. r'o-+k+e««+an+e++ ,�x-..;4:-5•ti �"; 1' a,+, -� a, ,t - r ,.,. •�✓`r,i, .>� „ 4 Dr ' ..♦c ,ti' ar ±C,.; yl.: •„ +g„<.ar.r •,_r:S..: , .a .,,_. �•�.>'. .;, -.,:.. •x-,,:; wria.:.. +, �4j� t .�ti t'r-. 1, .R•,.eiYSl ,k�447.+? 1 �. f a rf 8 x ' .....r::s..,+Ir'.._r Lar .I:: I „ 9 hi.:LL fY-:, .{, n. 'a1:r". ':<.-I ..n ,s-.k`.�... + w ..,.ei• »;:,, a ';,•* a t Y.�:q nT'>3�,4.^ tP,y� ,. -- ,, ui:''- g , '.:r ..:.:AJ--.. .. _ _, ,i :x�� .;,.,'...1 ,.•4�' ;lP;,• �, nl..-.:::;!w,,�.t„+.s-;;.afi'�t]'' w s- �,s , ;'f- �e "q`�: � ..,., a6 �.,..-=3 , �s, s -}:" �gtl",Im• S-•. 111f..,t';, R .'''te,s A+'7 ..: }i ,rq,..: r..r,Ws:-p 'q,! ,G) :1.... ,ai. -a .r.',•.; ,G[7•,k,u., _.,,5. rL` x ,` .,,. ,x-..: -.3 ,, y.. ,.:/n 4 .� !'_ },. ,nL r. S :`:: �,• a^yp.. ,q�, s' - 3": ,, ,'Jtit:a T}., `m t�'i* •,,, .7 ,•..a. 5 :!W'- , ti',..Y �, s �'r i - k' 11... 'P=;',•.�:.ter-i ivnF�Yk..�,-,.-Y;;i t- r :1 t{kN ALk - I �_ Yt� X ��t1°fy,ar,•lu [P@� ;� ... i :.,...y _. , �;;- `.I,': i;:lf �1�,-�I�sl � ':2 r M r': , a�.l•:�YlLI �,;y�n} ,�' - SI,.•w.,1 r- � �•�", :,. �, :.�: :wt Ra 'A:.:. a .,.^! g:� - e #I .;++� 1 :•it .:Ise :.,:+,, .:. � `ti.g, , �a :) �f+j�.4" ,N,i � .:�•� ,t ., f � �dv ;: ,... v tl f .�'f -`lily, ,rl ;� ,, y,`?;&.!a r,:; s.{,:.a ;r s M m';fie;I�fal.�_� :�f �s:, "A:��,a d$�r`•t?:�,. s $L�.aF� ;f,. s'7 o••. •--:�,� i. la a,.; :x;r , ..,. Ll- } ,altar' 1'! ..:-.5.... �" C� •+.�t 1 1 ;.14 a 7, r'7 � ". d°:- i" "+ .ii..'R r+r, M„ t .� "z,r. �;ada;1 'i ',}5 .sl ••7✓.a,,._ }r' �., `rg�,.�..tt -�„' ^� Citof .�R I � i>,< d " `)'a • � � '� w.ti t W'�. A ;�1Rs-r'� � ! M �1 + 5w..::.� (,� ;aRr.q . • i'"^^ ,.y 4.•3 tja t} ..!;N .:nx R,C.„ R ) .9':Y °+X, r° :I i rr•-"�•.r; Ai. r ar;-+ 0� �- ;A' ;:4 a a;a7n • }„�.91r`Il'lVl�tl { � n " � d?a•i:�-„- h K.; It ! f y, ; 7 lak9 tL,}�';� F r+ + '`µ i R`� i•„ li �'' .. xb?,f +"' t- t t' ... s .. ";+=,p IS,'. C ,,5, t I ^v !�;',''}t'7, fM�a}, as �):etiT•k,-.$ ,.,, �'... ),..;«,.v - ,-'..rt ..�h-. > .;.t`9'.r r, „� � }€ �a � �p�f � •7 3 A^1C#% c .� �.,. ' °r'•., - " .:t K,.,:. x :. �!'+'„ a 1.,,,v, '. +. .,�. 'M31 :§ 't =..+ six"•ip r„ A,°><,t.. a IM;'.;z .r�r.;uuanilrl T-Mobile in the nevus ... USING FALSE STATEMENTS OF "GAP IN COVERAGE" TO JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR A CELL TOWER. THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL INCIDENTS OF OPPOSITION TO OMNIPOINT (a.k.a. T-MOBILE) CLAIMING A CELL TOWER IS NEEDED BASED ON "GAP OF COVERAGE" FOUND IN A QUICK ONLINE SEARCH. THESE RESIDENTS FOUGHT OMNIPOINT/T-MOBILE AND WON. http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t content.cfm?pagename=Cell%20Tower%20Leasing Residents to pit their engineer against T-Mobile's on coverage needs November 6,2007 TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NY-Residents fighting a T-Mobile 65-foot cell tower on Dogwood Avenue, in front of the Franklin Bridge Centre Shopping Plaza in Franklin Square, have hired an engineer that disputes the carrier's claim that there is a gap in the cell phone coverage in that area. Residents said they conducted a test last year to show there is no gap in cell coverage.They tried 100 cell phone calls from inside buildings, on the street, in cars, in homes and they all went through,they say. On December 6 during a zoning hearing, attorneys for T-Mobile will question the residents'expert during a December 6 zoning hearing. •••more t51jr flork info Mixed Signals on Cellphone Towers By DERRICK HENRY Published:January q,2ooq 1 fyF F METROPCS wanted to install eight cellphone antennas "The expertise is with the industry,"said Richard Comi, on the roof of Biltmore Towers,a 12-story condominium co-founder of the Center for Municipal Solutions,a building on Lake Street in White Plains.Verizon consultant on municipal telecommunications. Wireless sought a similar deal. The industry also has legal support for cellphone towers. MetroPCS negotiated a 25-year lease with the "The courts tend to look favorably on this use,"said condominium association's board that would have paid Deborah M.Kole,a lawyer at the New Jersey State $27,600 a year. League of Municipalities,adding,"It's almost got to be disproved that this is a good use." But some Biltmore residents resisted,saying the board had violated its own bylaws in granting the lease.And Still,acceptance of the towers varies among towns and eventually they won.Verizon walked away from its deal states.One community might see potential revenue from in September,three months before Justice Alan D. a tower,while another might see it as an intrusion. Scheinkman of State Supreme Court voided the "Obviously,the issue of towers can be contentious when MetroPCS lease. people want services but don't want the facilities,"said Cellphone towers have proliferated throughout New Jackie McCarthy,a spokes*aroman for PCu-k—the York City's suburbs in recent years,often welcomed by municipalities and by residents who would benefit from the tower and antenna sib-ng industrl. We tens or lunareds of ii ousands of do'Llars u year mat _J-:Y--m-car _Gweru'onorau_ ,iBoston? the Titan` `er%xu:'_�='4, _'�� e=toT_'r�S i-r c_r �'. �T_ ,rt€V��;z_rar^mac � r s�nT_ vc.to „+J `ioi andn Danbury,Conn.;Long Island;and Morristown and acted on in a reasonable time,usually determined by Freehold,in New Jersey. now a town would consider regular building applications. TowerSource,of Colorado Springs,which maintains an e,,ctensive database of cellphone tower sites,said the The issue usually comes down to aesthetics.said Nevin number of towers in Connecticut had increased 27 Fry,president of Scenic America,which seeks to percent in the last two years,to 1,441 in 2008 from 1,135 preserve and enhance the visual character of in 2oo6;in New Jersey,the increase was 19 percent,to communities.Some solutions have included installing 2,630 towers in 2008 from 2,215 in 2oo6.TowerSource antennas on water towers,bridges,farm silos,tall did not have numbers for Westchester or Long Island buildings,even in church steeples.Sometimes a tower is but said towers in New York State had increased by used for multiple carriers.And some towns have decided nearly 19 percent since 2oo6,to 6,18o in 2008 from that it is easier on the eyes to have more but shorter 5,213• towers.Mr.Fry said. Throughout the region,battles over the location of "There's no single magic bullet for this,"he said."Every cellphone towers have been won and lost. community has to decide what works for it." "It's no different than any other zoning or planning At Biltmore Towers,the opponents earned a rare victory issues,"like noise and dog leash ordinances,Mr.Comi, in court.Justice Scheinkman ruled that the of the Center for Municipal Solutions,said. condominium association's bylaws limit commercial F_ uses of the building to those that benefit only its The center says it does not take a stand on the occupants.MetroPCS and the condominium board had proliferation of cellphone towers but works with argued that the rooftop was needed to provide cellphone jmunicipalities to evaluate the justification for wireless service to White Plains. services.On Long Island,a civic group m n Square,a hamlet in Nassau County,hired Mr.Comi to "The industry still has a significant number of cases evaluate an application by T-Mobile for a 65400t tower where there is controversy,"said Douglas W.Dimitroff, by a strip mall;ultimately,the Board of Appeals in the the president of the New York State Wireless i j Town of Hempstead denied the application. Association."It's always been difficult to put cellphone L'_ towers up in residential areas." Mr.Comi said that the center looks at about 200 applications a year and that only about 2 percent become Franklin Square on Long Island was one of those places. contentious.Most of those cases end with the proposed T-Mobile wanted to install the 65-foot tower at a strip tower being modified,he said. mall.Six wireless antennas would be inside.For aesthetic purposes,the company proposed topping the But in Franklin Square,Mr.Comi said,the group's pole with the American flag.Another option was to paint opposition relied on three factors:"resources, it brown. commitment and perseverance." Ron Lipsky,president of a neighborhood group,the In addition to those,he said,opponents must Franklin Square United Neighborhood Association,said understand how wireless companies demonstrate their he realized that fighting T-Mobile would be a big task need for the towers."It's really one of the key issues,"he requiring a long-term effort.He and others organized said."Do they really need it?" fashion shows and other fund-raisers and campaigns in applying for towers,the industry often cites the with slogans like"Refuse to Lose"to maintain interest federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,which was and momentum in their fight.They raised about intended to help wireless companies increase the $30,000,he said. number of sites and to promote competition in the "We had to find ways to keep people focused and cellular telephone industry. united,"said Mr.Lipsky,who is a lawyer."Most Under the act,municipalities cannot create laws that communities are not prepared to fight the company." prevent or have the effect of preventing cellphone tower For starters,raising health concerns over radio sites.It also prevents them from giving preference to one frequency emissions would not work,because if those cellular provider over another,and applications must be emissions meet federal standards,courts will not give "We want to provide those services,'said Joe Farren,a weight to local concerns,Mr.Lipsky said.To fight on CTIA spokesman."And the only way to provide those that issue would have been useless,he said. services is towers." Instead,the group focused on aspects like T-Mobile's David Wendlandt,co-owner of TowerSource,said:"The aesthetics tests,which were conducted using a crane whole thing is to find a willing landlord.Alternative sites extending to 65 feet,the height of the proposed tower. are becoming much more attractive." When Mr.Lipsky heard about the second of the two tests,he arranged to have the crane photographed from Mr.Wendlandt said that on average,a cellphone tower a could bring in$i,000 to$i,5oo a month in rent from a all over the area where T-Mobile contended there was a coverage gap. wireless company. The 59 photographs were presented to the Board of That can attract willing landlords,like the East Meadow Appeals at a hearing and,the board later ruled, Fire District on Long Island,which approved an 8o-foot contradicted T-Mobile's statements that the tower would tower to be built next to a firehouse near Carman Avenue and Salisbury Park Drive.The tower will be topped with have minimal visual impact. ------ -- "- a flag;it is unclear when it will be built. When Hempstead's Board of Appeals denied T-Mobile's j application last October—three years after the The Town of Hempstead approved that East Meadow 3 application was submitted—it said that the company i tower in late November over the objections of some had not proved that it needed the tower to close a gap in residents worried about health effects.Another tower,at service.The ruling also said that T-Mobile had not made a firehouse on East Meadow Avenue,is being reviewed. as good-faith effort to find alternative sites that wer�ss Carey Welt,East Meadow's fire commissioner,said he intrusive,an important part of the Telecommunications ' Act- l— — __ ______---.--------.-.-__--- 1 expected T-Mobile to pay the district about$2,00o a month for the tower.With each tower having space for T-Mobile did not appeal the decision.In a statement,it equipment for five carriers,Mr.Welt said he expected said,"Moving forward,we plan to go back to the them to bring in about S24o,o0o a year in rent. community and work to find a solution that both addresses the concerns we've heard along the way and "We were pretty much told that if they didn't put it on allows T-Mobile to provide seamless coverage our property,they would put it next door, Mr.Welt said. throughout Franklin Square." Although Mr.Lipsky's group won its fight,the demand Chuck May,a landscape architect from Fishkill,N.Y., for more wireless services and places to install antennas whom Mr.Lipsky's organization hired to prepare a visual-impact study during the fight with T-Mobile,said grows. there was another,more basic factor in winning the In Lewisboro,for example,the Town Board selected Franklin Square case.Besides the legal and technical Verizon as the applicant to seek approval from the Town issues involved,the residents had tenacity,he said. Planning Board to build a 120-to 16o-foot-tall cellphone "They didn't give up,"Mr.May said."'That's what tower on town-owned land near a park on Route 35• happens when people in their community band together Town officials have said that Lewisboro suffers from and put their seat belts on.They're tough" incomplete cellphone coverage and last year sent out a request for proposals to build a tower. The industry has also seen an increase in demand for features other than voice.For example,the number of monthly text messages had grown to 75 billion last June from 7.2 billion in June 2005,according to CTIA—the Wireless Association,a trade group.Demand for features that allow people to surf the Web and use video-and music-based services are also on the rise,it said. November 4, 2009 Regarding Huntington Beach CUP 2009-015, T-Mobile fails to meet: 241.10 Required Findings A. For All Conditional Use Permits. 1_ The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; The CUMC Pre-school, which rents space from the CUMC church, surveyed parents of the enrolled pre-school students regarding the proposed T-Mobile cell tower. The result of that survey was: 50% of the parents would pull their children out of the pre-school, 15% of the parents were as yet undecided, and 35% would keep their children in the pre-school. If over 50% of the students leave, the pre-school would flounder financially and would probably either close or move to another location. The children would lose a good learning and development center; the parents would lose the excellent neighborhood resource; the pre-school staff would lose their jobs; and, the church would lose the pre-school income. The proposed T-Mobile cell tower would "be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity_" DENY this permit for the welfare of our neighborhood! Thank you. LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-0-15 November 16, 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CUP 2009-015 for T-Mobile's proposed cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) and Pre-School located at 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 A group of concerned neighbors, parents of CUMC Pre-Schooi students and CUMC members wish to appeal the November 4, 2009, Zoning Administrator's ruling to grant Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2009-015 for T-Mobile's proposed cell tower at CUMC. The following is a partial list of reasons we feel that this ruling should be overturned and CUP 2009-015 should be denied: T-Mobile failed to meet Finding #1 for the Conditional Use Permit. 241.10 Required Findings A. For All Conditional Use Permits. 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; • Decrease in property value - Statements by appraisers and real estate journal articles were submitted into evidence stating that property values decrease if the home is in close proximity to a cell tower. The cell tower would have to be disclosed during a sale. Many people do not want to live or raise a family near a cell tower. Less demand = less market value. • Impact on Pre-school—A survey of CUMC Pre-School parents revealed that 50% of the parents would remove their children if the cell tower is built. The pre-school, which rents/leases space from the CUMC church, would probably close or move to another location. The children could lose a good learning and development center; the parents could lose this excellent neighborhood resource; the pre-school staff could lose their jobs; and, the church could lose the pre-school income. • Noise from the equipment is a major concern based on observing other below- ground and above-ground equipment at three nearby T-Mobile cell tower sites. T-Mobile failed to prove a need for the cell tower. • Adequate T-Mobile cell phone coverage already exists in this area. • T-Mobile submitted erroneous cell phone coverage maps as justification for the cell tower. Dianne Larson Page 1 LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-015 November 16, 2009 • A cell phone coverage test conducted by T-Mobiie users proved that T-Mobile's cell coverage maps were inaccurate. • Many T-Mobile users stated that they currently have adequate cell coverage in their homes. • T-Mobile's own website and Billshrink.com website both show that T-Mobile has excellent coverage in this area. • An independent study should be required to determine if there is a need for this facility. There are four T-Mobiie facilities within a mile of CUMC, and two are only mile away. T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 D1. (Chapter 230 Page 50 of 55) 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities D. Wireless Permit Required. 1. Demonstrate existing gaps in coverage • The HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 D1 states that an existing gap in coverage must be demonstrated. • Since T-Mobile failed to "demonstrate existing gaps in coverage,"T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. • Application requirement 6.07 demands a "technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio frequency data". • The most technical phrase on T-Mobile's Attachment 6.07 ("Site Justification Study for LA33421-A Community UMC") is "a hole in network coverage". • The required technical explanation supported by"comprehensive radio frequency data" was not included, therefore, T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Wireless Permit Application. Plans showing the cell tower project as most currently proposed were not submitted to the Zoning.Administrator or made available to the public prior to the November 4 Public Hearing. • T-Mobile verbally informed the Zoning Administrator at the beginning of the public hearing that the project plans had changed —to an underground vault housing the equipment. The vault would be located in the grassy area (in the pre-school playground?). This location is adjacent to the wall that separates the church property and the neighbors' back yards. • The prior submitted plans showed above-ground equipment enclosed by a wall on the Heil Avenue side of the church property by the current trash enclosure_ • The public did not have a chance to review modified plans showing the verbal changes. Dianne Larson Page 2 LETTER OF APPEAL CUP 2009-015 November 16, 2009 The Zoning Administrator did not review the 30+ pages of new written evidence submitted at the public hearing before making a ruling. Please read T-Mobile's applications and the evidence submitted at the two public hearings. I urge you to overturn the Zoning Administrator's ruling of November 4, 2009, and deny Conditional Use Permit 2009-015. Sincerely, Dianne Larson on behalf of the nearly 350 concerned neighbors, CUMC Pre-School parents and CUMC members who signed the petition to stop this proposed cell tower. Attached: a check for $2002.00 for the appeal filing fee Dianne Larson Page 3 Page I of 1 Arabe, Jill From: Mr Bill Kettler[bill_kettler@yahoo.comi Sent: Tuesday, September 22,2009 10-24 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: RE: Conditional Use permit#2009-015 (CUMC/T-Mobile Cell Tower) Resending after using spell check:) Good Morning Jill, My name is Bill Kettler. I'm a home owner(16592 Dale Vista Lane)that parallels the CUMC Church. I can see the church from my front and backyard. This is a nice church/Preschool and currently has been a nice feature to our community. But adding a 55ft Cell Tower to this landscape will negatively effect the aesthetics of what I see outside my home and will not be a positive feature to a prospective buyer of my home if I ever decide to sell. I'm not in favor of this Cell Tower on the CUMC property. Bottom line it's a Cell Tower not a palm tree. Aesthetically,this is going to be an "Eye Sore" and this location is not a good fit for our community. Please relocate this Cell Tower to a more desirable location: For Example: behind "Big Lots" or in the "Stater Bros" location. A Cell Tower in a neighborhood is a terrible idea and not considerate of the neighbors who surround CUMC. Respectfully, Bill Kettler 16592 Dale Vista Lane Huntington Beach, CA 9/2.5/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: gones2325@verizon_net Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:39 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Proposed CUMC Cell Tower Hello Mrs. Arabe, My name is Nancy Jones and I live at 16611 Dale Vista Lane. I am writing to let you know that my family and I live directly behind the CUMC,and are vehemently opposed to the proposed 55 ft. cell tower. Whether or not it is disguised as a palm tree, it will be a huge eyesore,and one which will adversely affect my home value. T-Mobile can find a location for there tower in a business area,not a neighborhood community like ours. I know that my neighbors all feel the same way,and we are talking about starting a petition. Please let me know any information you have on the matter. I appreciate your time and assistance. Best, Nancy Jones Ryon &Nancy Jones ijones232S a)verizon.net eLhl;" NOF 9i25/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: Diane Anderson[deladuke2000@yahoo.com1 Sent: Thursday, September 24,2009 5:16 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: RE_ Conditional Use Permit#2009-015 (CUMCtT-Mobile Cell Tower) Jill, My name is John Anderson. I have lived directly behind the CLINIC church for many years. My wife and I have worked very hard to raise our family of two boys and give them a good life. We live in a fine neighborhood and have done our best to maintain a nice home there. The Church has always made my wife feel safe and was a source of comfort to her. However, the proposal to build a huge 55 foot cell phone tower is an absolutely unacceptable idea. This eye sore,no matter how one dresses it up,would be detrimental to my property value and make it Iess appealing to potential buyers. I do not want this structure towering over my house and neighborhood. It does nothing to enhance the area and is an invasion of my privacy. It can be seen from my front and back yards. Please reconsider this proposal and find a different location. May I suggest somewhere other than an established neighborhood consisting of many homes.? I respectfully request that the City of Huntington Beach not approve an increase in building heights for this zone_ Regards, John *Duke* Anderson 6651 Mason Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 O. 3 9/2 s/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: carol[carolsettimo@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 7:37 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Fw:Conditional Use permit#2009-015(CUMC/T-Mobile Cell Tower) Miss Jill Arabe, We are Carol Settimo and Tom Point who live at 16542 Cooper Lane(for 40+ years) and we back up to CUMC school yard,where the proposed T Mobile cell tower is proposed to be going up. We do not want to see another pole, covered up and looking like a palm tree:<),go up in our neighborhood. There are enough wires and poles in our older neighborhood as it is! We are worried also about property values possibly going down because of this additional cell tower being placed in our backyards. Thank you for hearing our comments on this cell tower we would like to be placed somewhere else! Carol Settim/Tom Point 16542 Cooper Lane 714-847-2029 PSWhat about the children who daily attend CUMC nursery school, is this tower something we want to have close to our innocent children who we are suppose to protect? No virus found in this incoming message_ Checked by AVG - www.avg com Version: 8.5.409 /Virus Database: 270.13.1 12/2393 - Release Date: 09/24/09 18:00:00 _ i-,p 9/)5/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: bmaguin@verizon.net Sent: Friday, September 25,2009 8:36 AM To: Arabe, Jill; maguin@verizon.net Subject: Fwd: cell phone tower at CUMC I am writing to express my extreme disagreement with the T-Mobile Cell Phone Tower Proposed at CUMC Church. From a planning perspective, it is the wrong location for the tower. A preschool and residential area is not an approriate place to put the tower. Within a quarter mile,there is a retail center, that is both more aesthetically pleasing location. It is also my understanding that the tower height will be in excess of the allowable height, and that an exemption must be made to erect the propsed tower. Along with many fellow residents,I urge the Planning Department to keep the interests of all residents in mind, and ensure T-Mobile erect the tower in a more appropriate location. Respectfully, Brad Maguin ------------ Forwarded message ------------ From: bmaguin@verizon.net Date: Sep 25, 2009 Subject: cell phone tower at CUMC To:jarabe@surfcity-hb.org Page 1 of 1 Arabe, Jill From: Hetherington, Michelle IMHETHERINGTON@OCSD.COMJ Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10.23 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Conditional Use permit#2009-015 (CUMC/T-Mobile Cell Tower) Jill, My name is Michelle Hetherington. I'm a home owner on Abbott Dr. which is the street next to the CUMC Church. We have church access from our street and is what we see at the end of our street. I love my neighbors,neighborhood and living in Huntington Beach. The church adding a 55ft Cell Tower to the landscape will negatively affect the aesthetics of our neighborhood and will reduce the property value of my home. I have read articles when T-mobile was installing the cell tower at Harbour View. The city voted to spend up to $50,000 for T-mobile to move the tower to a more suitable location. How can the middle of a neighborhood be a suitable location? The demonstration which prompted the city to move the tower at a cost to the city shows that people do not want to live by cell towers. Why can't the tower be in a commercial area,not residential. The city should consider make a ruling on the location of cell towers for aesthetics and property values to protect the residents in Huntington Beach. I'm not in favor of this Cell Tower on the CUMC property. Please relocate this Cell Tower to a more desirable location. A Cell Tower in a neighborhood is bad for the community of Huntington Beach. Michelle Hetherington 6561 Abbott Dr. Huntington Beach, CA � 9/25r2009 ��t Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: GBean37467@aol-corn Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 111-41 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Cell phone tower @ Community Methodist Church I was given your email address last night at a meeting at Community United Methodist Church where I attended a meeting last night regarding the proposed cell phone tower to be placed on their property_ The meeting was actually a session put on by T-Mobile and was not meet with much acceptance by the local residents_ It was more of an information session with only their materials similar to a marketing push. Most of the residents were quite upset which was understandable since most of them did not even receive any notice of this. There was a couple who's backyard faces the parking lot of the church who went door to door in the neighbor to inform the people of this proposal_ Also, there was not notice to any of the parents of the preschool that is on the premises to the parents. Based on an article that was in the OC Register on Monday,April 27 pertaining to the cell phone tower being built next to the Harbor View school 1 thought the City council was going to change the rules and notify parents when a cell phone tower was going to be placed near a school. T-mobile last night said they did not have to notify anyone other than residents at least 300 ft from the property-I think they forgot or did not consider the nursery school on the premises. What can the parents,and residents do to fight this move proposal_ Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ginny Bean concerned grandmother Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: Diane Anderson[deladuke2000@yahoo_coml Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9.31 PM To: Arabe, Jill Cc: deladuke2000@yahoo.com Subject: Conditional Use Permit no.2009-015T-Mobile Wireless Tower Jill My name is Diane Anderson and I live at 6651 Mason Drive. I have lived behind CUMC for over fifteen years. I was very shocked that CUMC was allowing T-Mobile to put a cell phone tower in my neighborhood. The cell phone tower will be an eye sore and it does not belong in a neighborhood. T-Mobile wants to put this cell phone tower in my neighborhood to improve their service but customers in my neighborhood claim they already receive a strong signal. The cell phone tower will be directly behind my home. T-Mobile claims that property values will not be affected. Will T-Mobile and the City of Huntington Beach guarantee to buy my home for its current value before the tower is installed should we be unable to sell it? Or pay the difference in property value decrease that results from the cell phone tower? The notice of public hearing states a relocation of a five-foot high block wall trash enclosure . Will the relocation be closer to the homes? Trash bins closer to the homes will bring the property values down and raises lots of health concerns_ T-Mobile claims the Cell Phone Tower is harmless to human health. In fact, some studies have shown the opposite to be true_ A Cell Phone Tower near a preschool and neighborhood children, including my own, is gambling with their lives. Thank you Diane Anderson /Lx%?o0� ATTACHMENT NO, 5.E) Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: marleysmom2@venzon_net j Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 1.11 PM To: Arabe, Jill;cumchb@cumchb.org Subject: CUMC Cell Tower 2009-15 Dear Ms. Arabe, My home is located on Kettler Lane only I block from CUMC and while I will not be able to see the "palm tree" tower when I stand on my front lawn, as many of my friends and neighbors will,I will have to look at it each time I leave my neighborhood. Prior to purchasing our home on Kettler we leased a home on the corner of Dale Vista and Mason,a home that is directly behind CUMC and will be greatly impacted by the tower,while we were living there we fell in love with this neighborhood and the people who live here. So much so that we were please when we were able to purchase a home in the neighborhood_ By allowing CUMC to erect this tower you will be directly effecting the property values of all of the homes in this neighborhood,not just those that are adjacent to CUMC. I ask you,would you allow this 55 foot tower to be erected in your neighborhood? As for CUMC, they have been always been a blessing to this neighborhood,their neighborhood! We love hearing the church bells every Sunday and the kids playing in the school yard and enjoy the Christmas cards they send. How could they think to do something that will impact the whole neighborhood without getting the approval of the other members of the neighborhood? I respectfully request that the City of Huntington Beach and T Mobile seek out an alternate, non- residential area to erect this tower. If the people of Huntington Harbour don't want it in their neighborhood what makes anyone believe we want it in ours. Jennie Bolotin 16732 Kettler Lane Huntington Beach, CA 9128120(}9 ATTAC 6 t . 5.9 Page I of 1 Arabe, Jill From: adamrodell@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:41 AM To: bill kettle@yahoo_com aburris@ocregister_com,Arabe,Jill Subject: GMUC Preschool Parent Hi Bill: I received a call from a concerned neighbor yesterday. I asked her to forward me something in writing_ I am forwarding this to you, Jill, and Annie. PIease forward this on to the group as others with children at the CMUC Preschool may feel more comfortable about "speaking out against the Tower" as they learn that other parents are just as concerned. Adam Rodell -----Original Message----- From: LitMermade@aol.com To: AdamRodeIl@aol.com Sent: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 6:05 pm Subject: Cell phone tower ATTN: Adam, Annie, Jill I cannot attend the public hearing at city hall on Sept 30,2009 regarding the prospective building of a T-Mobile cell tower due to my work schedule&the inadaquate short notice given for the meeting_ I also was not able to attend the T-moble meeting at CUMC due to the short notice&a schedule conflict. i am a parent of a preschooler that attends CUMC preschool_ I am completely against a cell phone tower being built in this location. Ironically, I just read an article from The environmental working group(ewg.org)on the health risks of cell phone use. According to what I read, these towers send high power signals out&these signals"bathe the body in low levels of sustained radiation." "Scientists do not yet understand the effects of long- term exposure to cell phone tower radiation-the necessary studies have not yet been completed." Why take any risks with our children?There brains are in the developing stage &are more vunerable to radiation_ I'm sure that there are other locations that would be suited better for the purpose. 1 know many other parents that are just finding out about the prospective cell tower are upset about it_ I even heard talk about pulling their children out of the preschool. That would indeed be a shame because CUMC preschool is a lovely school with a wonderful caring director and staff_ The children are more than blessed to be in such good care_ I hope the church will reconsider allowing a T-mobile tower on it's property as they find that parents are very concerned about the potential health risks. Sincerely, Jamie White ATTACHMENT NO. s_to 9i28/2009 Page I of 1 Arabe, Jill From: adamrodell@aol.com j Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:54 AM To: Arabe, Jill; cumchb@cumchb.org Subject: Fwd: CUP 2009-015 Concerns -----Original Message----- From: adamrodell@aol.com To:Jarebe@surfcity-hb.org;aburris@ocregister.com;emuchb@cmuchb.org Sent: Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:47 am Subject: CUP 2009-015 Concerns Dear Jill and Annie: My name is Adam Rodell. I am a resident in the immediate neighborhood (16631 Fountain Lane)where the proposed installation of a T-Mobile Cell Tower is being considered. Before I begin, I just want to thank both of you personally for reading this as I know you've been receiving quite a bit of correspondence from many concerned neighbors over the last several days. Yes, I too stongly oppose this location as well. Many of the obvious reasons have already been mentioned in these prior communications (i.e., safety, aesthetics,property values, etc.)_ I will certainly be joining many of my. neighbors at this coming Wednesday's meeting to voice my objection and reasons for concern. I just felt it was necessary to ask both of you, in your special capacities,to understand that this neighborhood's concerns are emanating from an overall feeling of frustration that we have been intentionally mislead and exempted from the "information" loop leading up to this hearing. This neighborhood was given literally less than ten days notice that there was even a proposal in existence for such a tower to be installed in the first place. Combining that lack of notice and ability for an organized opposition to gather pertinent information regarding this matter seems unconscionable,doesn't it? Furthermore, T-Mobile's attempt to seem concerned with our neighborhood and community's interest seems most contradictory to the blatant "less than junk mail quality" delivery of a notice inviting residents to a meeting that was no more than a huge 'one-way, self-promotion without any benefit of true talking points, structure, or qualified officials present to answer our real questions. The CMUC was even less concerned with our local community as they did absolutely nothing to notify the immediate neighborhoods of this proposal. I write this letter with the hopes that }ou will assist all of us who are very concerned about this matter to convey our concerns and ask that The City of Huntington Beach;T-Mobile; and CMI,UC please slow down and allow us an opportunity to hear their sides and respectfully voice our concerns. To this point, is seems that this proposal has been railroaded through the process without any regard to the citizens who are likely to be negatively impacted the most. Respectfully_ Adair Rodell E 5. 9!28/2009 �r- Scalix message content Page l of l Arabe, Jill From: Michele Keith[michelek@ci-garden-grove_ca-us] Sent: Sunday, September 27,2009 11:07 AM To: Arabe,Jill Subject: OPINION RE: Proposed cell tower on Heil I wish to voice my concern over the T-Mobile intent to build a cell tower in/around my neighborhood. I am a T-Mobile cell phone customer (for over 10 years). When I first got my cell phone service the reception at home in Huntington Beach was unsatisfactory. I had to go into my backyard (on Kendrick Circle) and find the "spot to stand and not move as I made my cell phone call. Too often the call was dropped. This is not the case today. There is perfect reception in and around my home and neighborhood. I prefer to use my cell phone in my house rather than my land line because of the perfect connectivity. For the past 2 years I have been impressed with the ability to phone anywhere at anytime. I object to more cell towers being built anywhere un-necessarily. Michele Keith Kendrick Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9/28/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. -P 16521 Fountain Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 K September 25, 2009 Zoning Administrator 2000 Main Street Huntington Peach, CA 92648 Re: Conditional use Permit No. 2009-015 (T-Mobile Wireless Communication Facility) Dear Zoning Administrator: 1 live on Fountain lane, next to the Community United Methodist Church. It's a great location - - BUT - - I'm very concerned about the possibility of a communications tower being built on church property. It would be extremely close to many Domes. Several studies have shown the health risks associated with proximity to such towers. My neighbors and I would be subjected to radiation from the tower 24 hours a clay, seven clays a week. Please consider the health of the residents on Fountain Lane and adjacent streets, and do not allow the construction of the proposed communications tower at the Community United Methodist Church on Heil Avenue. Sincerely, Carla Smetana ATTACHMENT NO.�5yr 3 Page I of 1 Arabe, Jill ; From: Betty{bmcfarland2@verizon_net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4.34 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: CELL TOWER We wish to express our opposition to the cell tower at Community United Methodist Church on Heil Avenue in Huntington Beach. We have great concerns, not only from the radiation hazards of the microwave transmitters, but also the ascetics and the very likely loss of property values in our neighborhood_ Our home on, Mason Drive, adjoins the church property. Don and Betty McFarland ATTACHMIENT N.O. 9128/2009 Arabe, Jilt From: summer powers[summer-powers@me.comf Sent: Monday,September 28,2009 623 PM To: Arabe, Jilt Subject: CUMC cell tower Hello Jill, We five 2 houses from the church and my husband and I feel that a residential neighborhood is not the place for a cell tower. T-Mobile has also been denied at Harbour View school and feel our neighborhood deserves the same. No cell tower in our back yards_ We will definitely be able to see it clear as day from our backyard. I personally do not want to see that when I am relaxing in my Jacuzzi. Thank You, Summer Powers 6601 Abbot dr. r Page I of 2 Arabe, Jill From: debbie zentil[dzvirtual@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 28,2009 9:00 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: T-Mobile Cell Tower at CUMC This is in response to T-Mobile's request to be granted a conditional use permit for a cell tower_ This permit has had to be requested as the tower will stand 50 feet tall which exceeds Huntington Beach codes_ I have done some research into the safety of these types of towers_ The American Cancer Society ("ACS") has declared that these towers do not pose any harm for persons or structures that do not come in direct contact of the waves that they send out. Their study was done on based stations that "usually range in height from 150-270 feet." Here, we are talking about a station that is to be 50 feet high with antenna starting at 45 feet; up to 225 feet lower than the towers studied by the ACS. The ACS article goes on to state: "Public exposure to radio waves from cellular phone antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted at high above ground Bevel_._" Again, this study was done on towers ranging 150 to 270 feet high. Here, we would have the reverse, an antenna which was substantially closer to the surrounding homes and structures. The closer the home to the antenna the more waves that home and its tenant would receive_ Again, the ACS, talking about standards of much taller stations states: "Exposures that exceed these recommended standards can sometimes be encountered on the rooftops of buildings where base stations are mounted. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited." If the studies the ACS is basing its results on are taken from towers 3 or more times higher than the one proposed to be put in here, than our homes are, at a minimum, going to receive three times the exposure and "access to [those] areas should be limited!" The legal standard to'be applied here is: Does the utility outweigh the potential danger/risk. When I interviewed the T-Mobile representative at the meeting at CUMC I was advised that the cell tower "would service no more than 15 callers at one time." l do not believe that benefiting an additional 15 callers to cell phone service outweighs the potential exposure of an entire neighborhood and its visitors (the regulars at CUMC) to cancer, sleepless nights worrying about getting sick and decreased property values_ In addition, our neighborhood has conducted its own neighborhood survey_ Of those who used T-Mobile (myself included [unless the tower goes in then I become a former T-Mobile user and the need lessens for the tower]) everyone received adequate service. Again, the utility here does not outweigh the risk_ As a long-time resident and home owner of Huntington Beach I am pleading that this tower does not go in. I have had three small bouts with cancer and am considered high risk for future cancer. I simply cannot intentionally put myself in situations that may cause cancer and I love my home and do not want to leave. 9/29/2009 j�;t: Gi _A:E s `titE-1.1E 1Q n Sala Page 2 of 2 Please give great thought to the necessity of this tower and the safety of the residents of Huntington Beach_ We love our Huntington Beach and we love our neighborhood-, please reciprocate_ Debbie Zentil Legal Assistant Phone: (714) 293-1216 9/29/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill i From: millar0125@aol_com Sent: Monday, September 28,2009 11:01 PM To: Arabe,Jill,- cumchb@cumchb.org Subject: T mobile Cell phone tower I would like to express my concern over a proposed cell phone tower installed at the Community Methodist Church on Heil Ave. Concerns listed below. • Possible health effects to children attending pre-school at the Church • Health impact to residents living close to the tower (appears there is conflicting information regarding health impact of these towers) • Eyesore • Find a better location with less impact to neighborhood(less populated) Appears this issue was previously addressed at a local school back in April. I would believe that some of the arguments used to cancel the construction of that tower could but used with this situation as well. Although this would be constructed on Church property, the impact extends beyond into the neighboring community. Thank you for your consideration. Marilyn Millar 16691 Dale Vista Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92647 AT TAGWO-E T NO. 9/29/2009 Page 2 of 2 ® A T-Mobile customer next to me says her reception is fine so it sounds like T-Mobile is wanting to install the tower for the revenue to be gained by sub-leasing to other carriers. i �t Shame on CUMC and T-Mobile for wanting to install a radiation emitting cell tower over our neighborhood,our children, and the children who attend their church and pre-school. I would be livid if I had a child attending that pre-school. This is dispicable! Please have this STOPPED Jill and do please forward my email of concerns to whomever in your organization you feel needs to understand the breadth of the disgust our neighborhood has for this proposal. We are absolutely nauseated and beside ourselves. Jill,in my opinion,this should have already been shot down by the city,or there should already be Iaws on the books prohibiting churches that were given these special zoning permits to bring community services to the neighborhood from utilizing them in this sad,,destructive, dangerous and predatorial manner. Please feel free to give me a call and tell me what I can do further to help STOP this_ I was out of town when the notices were mailed. We have not had enough time to gather all the petition signatures of those who object and I will be pounding the streets this evening along with another neighbor. I look forward to meeting to you Jill. I have had many great experiences at the HB planning department, but I have dealt almost primarily with Hayden Beckman. I know you are looking out for property owners- and appreciate you and your team. Thanks much! Ronald M. Passmore, MBA, PMP Senior Project Manager 949-355-9612 ATT 9l29/2009 Page I of 2 Arabe, ,Jill From: Blanca Evans(bevans@combancal-coml Sent: Tuesday,September 29,2009 3-08 PM To: Arabe,Jill Subject:Seek to Stop the Building of the T-Mobile Cell Tower in the Community Unitec Methodis Church of Huntington Beach &Preschool Property! Let these be recorded as our concerns regarding the building of a T-Mobile cell tower in the Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach (CUMC)& Preschool property. My husband Richard S_ Evans and 1 live right behind the CUMC and Preschool, at 6641 Mason Drive, Huntington Beach 92647, for over 25 years. We seek to stop the building of T-Mobile's cell tower at the Church and Preschool property for the following reasons: 1) "Potential negative impact on the brain development cycle in children"(Children are still children whether.they are in a public school or private school.) 2) "Parallels between cell tower radiation and their potential effects on children" 3) "Close proximity of the proposed cell tower and the pre-school site and it potential negative impact on the children_" 4) "Potential connection between environmental elements and the negative health risk of exposures" (For the pre-school children and residents around the area.) 5) "Adequate notice to adjacent residents." (A matter of this magnitude should be addressed with more time and not two weeks prior to the hearing. After all,T-Mobile (and this is a fact)has had at least 5 months to prepare_ My husband and I were gone for a two-week vacation returning on September 23rd. Notice went out just the week before_ We actually received notice of 8 days! Our neighbors were also out on vacation and did not receive any notice from the City. Parents of the children in the affected Pre-school were notified only 2 weeks before the hearing—a parent of a child going to this Pre-school can testify to that. Lack of consideration and lack of care to protect the safety of the children involved_) 6) "A cell tower may negatively affect local property values" Now, please note that our concerns are very similar to the concerns of those residents and parents recorded in the Minutes of the Council/RDA Special Meeting of April 27, 2009, and subsequently,the Council approved to stop the construction of the cell tower at Harbour View Park. t must remind you that the City does have a responsibility to maintain a high quiaify of life for all residents in the City of Huntington Beach—children and adults of ail races alike, all beliefs alike, whether residents are rich, poor, and whether children are going to public or private school!! WE DEFINITELY OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER Blanca D- Evans Cell 714-269-2221 P-S_ I would like to speak at the hearing of September 30th, 2009, to be held at 1:30 p.m. Thank you €r €t' L E Page 2 of 2 This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. The ] information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. if you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. C 9/29/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: dalia brunner[daliabru@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:25 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Cell Tower Dear Jill, I was just notified by a neighbor that T-mobile is planning to put up a cell tower at CUMC which is a block from my house. I am really upset about this_ The plant nurseries in the area who are under the cell towers warn people about radiation risks. Please don't put our children in harms way. Let's do the right thing and protect our city and the children. Thank you_ Dalia Brunner 7I 4-492-9128 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: Tonya Wick jtonyawick@gmail_com] 'v Sent: Tuesday, September 29,2009 9:50 PM To: Arabe, Jill Cc: Bill Wick Subject: Opinion for Conditional Use Permit No_ 2009-015 Attachments: CellTower CityHail_doc Dear Jill, Thank you very much for speaking with me today (September 29,2009) about Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-01 S (T-Mobile Wireless Communication Facility). Attached is a letter voicing our strong opposition to issuing the permit to Duane Hurtado, Community United Methodist Church_ Thanks, Tonya& William Wick 9f 30l2049 William&Tonya Wick 18102 Wellbrook Circle Huntington Beach,California 92647 (714)235-0822 cell (714)375-5307 home William & Tonya Wick 5eptember 30,2009 City of Huntington Beach Office of the Zoning Administrator Huntington Beach,California 92648 Dear Zoning Administrator, We are the parents of a young child that attends nursery school at the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower site on the property of the Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) at 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach_ As the parents of a young child in the direct vicinity of the proposed site,we want to voice our strong opposition to issue a conditional permit (No. 2009-015)to CUMC. We have serious concerns about cell tower radiation and it effect on young children. We are concerned that the cell tower radiation may exceed FCC acceptable standards. We have also been following the city's failed attempts to place towers on the public properties of Harbour View Elementary and Bolsa View Park We hope that you take our concern for our child, and those of other concern citizens of past failed attempts into consideration when issuing the permit to CUMC_ Thank you for your time, William & Tonya Wick Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: Ron Kuga[rkuga@hotmail_com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9.53 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Cell Tower Proposal Heil Av To Whom It May Concern: Yes I am against a cell tower being built in my neighborhood. I would like to have been notified much earlier about this construction so I could have evaluated the pros and cons of this cell tower. But it seems that the notification I received by mail and the time the hearing on this matter on Sep. 30th, 2009 shows the true "TRANSPARENCY" of the church involved with this matter. I think I've had enough of "TRANSPARENCY" talk from the federal government and now this in my neighborhood! I presume the church will be getting some financial gain to have this cell tower built on its property. So the Almighty Dollar seems to be the true root for this church to go ahead with this project—wonder what the true "ALMIEG -STY" would say about the endevors of this church. God does not need a cell phone to speak to all of us... I'm sure God has no cell phone... I'm sure God does not "text" also.., so why does a church need a cell tower built on its property and to put a blight in my neighborhood. I can see the church from my home... I do not need to see a cell tower! NO CELL TOWER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD !!! Ron Kuga HotmailQ has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out. ATTAC M ENT N0- 9/3012004 Page I of I Arabe, .fill From: Kathy Utley lutley_kathy@yahoo_coml Sent: Wednesday, September 30,2009 11:56 AM To: Arabe,,till Cc: bill kettler@yahoo.com; hutley@loyolahs.edu Subject: Opposition to T-Mobile cell tower at CUMC Dear Ms. Arabe, My name is Kathy Utley,and I live at 16661 Dale Vista Lane which is approximately 45 yards from the Community United Methodist Church_From our driveway,we can see the church, and pass by the property on our way to and from our home. It's as if it marks the entrance to our neighborhood_ I am writing you to voice my husband's and my concerns and opposition to the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at the CUMC. We feel that it will not only be an aesthic"eye-sore" entering into the tract,but also fear it will depreciate our property value.-One local appraiser,Tina Burke, has said that "any industrialization of an area such as a cell tower will result in lower property values". Over the last 12 years that we've lived in this neighborhood,we've only seen improvements in property value,the quality of homes, our neighbors and the proposed enhancement of Irby park_We feel it is unjust to allow the CUMC to collect income at the expense of the surrounding homeowners. In addition, the CUMC houses one of best preschools in the City of Huntington Beach. It has been developing and preparing our young children for success in school and getting along in life for over 35 ? years. Our family has had a tenure of 8 years at the CUMC nursery school. The staff are experienced, loving and knowledgeable, and the facility has always felt inviting and safe_ With the addition of a RF radiation emitting cell tower,whether it be disguised as a palm tree or not,I fear for the health of the children. Children are most susceptible to genetic damage from RF radiation used by the frequency of mobile towers due to their thinner skulls and rapid rate of growth (Chopra,Rajesh).Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center states that studies have shown that even at low levels of radiation,there is evidence of cell tissue and DNA damage and links to brain tumors. Finally,a study by Bruce Hocking in Austrailia,found that children living near RF radiation producing towers similar to cell towers had twice the rate of leukemia than children living more than 7 miles away. Therefore,the CUMC nursery school will not be a safe place for children. What will become of the magnificent institution that has been serving our young people for so long? Even though we can not see, hear, touch,taste or smell RF radiation, it is still all around us and in high doses. We are being polluted by it everyday,just as we would smog,noise or litter_Do not polluted my neighborhood or depreciate it's value. Please do not allow the CU1v1C to build a cell tower_ Thank you, Kathy Utley 16661 Dale Vista Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714)848-2818 Page I of I Arabe, Jill From: Marilyn Kuga[mariIyn@?kuga_tvl Sent: Tuesday,September 29,2009 2:48 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: STOP!CELL PHONE TOWER NOT WANTED IN HUNTINGTON BEACH To Whom It May Concern- I am against any proposal for installation of a cell phone tower at the Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) site on Heil Avenue between Goldenwest and Edwards in Huntington Beach. - Future health concerns. - Another money-making project for CUMC? - Beginning of many, many more towers in residential neighborhoods? - Property values would be adversely affected by the greed of an irresponsible church and a telecommunications corporation- What's in it for them? Is that their only concern? Sincerely, Marilyn Kuga IN ENT NO. 5-2 9/29/2009 Cell Tower-NO! Page I of I Arabe, Jill ,.r From: Laura Harris[laurah3@verizon_net] Sent: Tuesday, September 29,2009 1:17 PM To: Arabe,Jill Subject: Cell Tower-NO! Ms.Arabe, I am a resident of Huntington Beach on Dale Vista Lane,not a full block from the proposed site for the T-Mobile Cell Tower at CUMC. 1 am writing you to express my passionate disagreement regarding the building of this tower. As a T-Mobile user myself, t have no problem with my cell sites from my home or locally. I see this eye- sore as being unnecessary_ Why this tower needs to be in the middle of a neighborhood verses in an industrial area is beyond my understanding_ Also, there has been much debate over the negative health risks that these sites can have on residents. I have a daughter who currently goes to CUMC Preschool and another child on the way. My concerns over this issue would definitely influence my preschool choices now and in the future. We would even consider moving from a home and neighborhood we love. Thank you for hearing my arguments against the Cell Tower. I am confident that my opinion will be weighted and heard_ Sincerely, Laura Harris 16682 Dale Vista Lane n r�n r-i n nn Page I of 2 Arabe, .Dill From: Ron Passmore[ron_passmore@yahoo.coml z Sent: Tuesday, September 29,2009 3:57 PM To: Arabe,Jill Cc: Bill Kettler Subject: Cell Tower-CUMC/T-Mobile,6666 Heil Avenue, HB Dear Jill, I live at 16632 Dale Vista Lane in HB and I vehemently oppose the building of the cell phone tower by T-Mobile on the property of Community United Methodist Church(CUMC) @ 6666 Heil Ave. • There is very strong evidence that the radiation from these towers is dangerous to my health and the health of our children. • The tower is an absolute eyesore and has no business in the middle of our neighborhoods. • It is a commercial installation and has no business in our neighborhoods, and the city is obligated to protect us from this type of encroachment. • CUMC was given a zoning permit to bring their community services to our neighborhood,and they should not be allowed to utilize a loophole to install this ugly and dangerous commercial installation. • T-Mobile should be restricted to developments in pure commercially zoned properties_ Home owners in the tract aligning commercial zones typically buy their homes at a discount due to the proximity to the commercial zone. • This cell phone tower will immediately cause all surrounding properties to appraise lower,and we will lose money on the investment we made in our property, and HB. • CUMC and T-Mobile are trying to profit at my expense and the expense of my neighbors_ .....4 N ✓.E 9/29/2009 Page I of I Arabe, Jill _ From: larsondj@verizon.net Sent: Monday,September 28,2009 1-13 PM To: Arabe,Jill Subject: OPPOSE T-Mobile CUP 2009-015 Attachments: council minutes 042709.pdf Hello Jill, I am a homeowner and I live within 500 feet of the proposed T-Mobile 12-antenna cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC)and pre-school_ I AM OPPOSED TO THIS CELL TOWER !!!M!! wish to speak at the public hearing before the Zoning Administrator on Wed. Sep 30 at 1:30 PM. I am very concerned about the health risks due to long-term exposure to cell tower emissions. The CUMC students and staff would be exposed 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. But the local neighbors will be exposed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! The research regarding this danger is ongoing_ Higher incidences of cancer, childhood leukemia, neurological problems, etc. are associated with people living near sources of these emissions than for people living farther away_ Responsible environmental decisions need to be made now in order to minimize potential negative health impacts later. urge that HB city codes be modified to require a much longer prior notification period, and a much larger notification area_ In addition, I also urge that HB city code modifications include required notification to the parents of students who attend a school near a proposed cell tower—regardless of whether the school is public, private or a pre-school. 1 am attaching a document that I want entered into the public minutes of the Zoning Administrator hearing_ The document is the Minutes of the April 27, 2009, City Council/Redevelopment Agency special meeting. I feel that the April 27 minutes should be included because it shows: • a history of public concern and outrage about the attempts by Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (A T-Mobile USA, Inc..Subsidiary) ("T-Mobile")to site a cell tower near Harbour View Elementary School- • that people are aware of and concerned about the negative health risks of long-term emissions from cell towers. • that citizens want modifications to the city codes regarding length and extensiveness of public notification, and want additional modification to protect children from cell tower emissions_ a pattern of T-Mobile attempting to build cell towers near schools even though T-Mobile is aware of the public concern and outrage- Thank you_ Dianne Larson 9/28/2009 Minutes Council/RDA Special Meeting City of Huntington Beach Monday, April 27, 2009 5:00 PM -Room B-8 6:00 PM -Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A video recording of the 6:00 PM portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is archived at www.s u rf c ity-h b.o rg/g ov a rn me nt/a ge n da s! 5,00 PM-CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tern Green called the special meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to order at 5:00 PM- ROLL CALL Present: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr(arrived at 5:07 PM), Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen (arrived at 5:01 PM) Absent None ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION ITEM ONLY- None- PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION ITEM ONLY (3 Minute Time Limit)-None. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Coerper, second Green to recess to Closed Session- The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen NOES: None ABSENT/OUT OF.ROOM: Bohr CLOSED SESSION (City Council) Litigation-Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956-9, the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuits (and potential lawsuits): Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956-9(b)(3)(A), the City Council recessed to Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation- Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27, 2009 j Page 2 of 6 known to a potential-plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed. Number of Potential Cases: Unknown at this time_ Subject: Potential Litigation re: Site License Agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (A T-Mobile USA, Inc_, Subsidiary)for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park_ 6-00 PM-RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Bohr reconvened the special meeting of-the City Council at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION Pursuant to the Brown"Open Meetings"Act, City Clerk Joan Flynn announced the following communications to the City Council received after distribution of the agenda packet Communications received regarding Administrative Item#1 -Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park: 1)Anonymous, 2)Heather Lenore,3) Lisa Vallefuoco Bayley, 4) Cindy and Jeff Busche, 5) Suzie Slope (2),6) Kevin Veal, 7) Lisa Veal, 8) Barbara Hamilton Howard, 9) Ron and Jen Johnson, 10) Mary Ellen Houseal, 11)Todd and Deborah Rosenlof, 12) The Parkin Family, 13) Drew Kovacs; 14) Lisa and Tony Rudy, 15)JoAnne Flory, 16)Ana Youngsma, 17) Diana Rovano, 18)Joan Smith, and 19) Dan and Linda Fillet_ COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE MEETING Communication submitted by Traci White,dated April 26,2009,voicing opposition to Administrative Item#1 -Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park. Petition entitled Reject the Cell Tower submitted by Julia Lucas, undated and containing 119 signatures. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) The City Attorney announced that in regard to the settlement agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and T Mobile, by a vote of 7-0,the Council directed staff to renegotiate the existing license agreement with T Mobile for Harbor View Park, and agreed to reimburse appropriate expenses in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Mayor Bohr added that T-Mobile representatives committed verbally that they will not proceed with the construction on the cell site at Harbour View Park_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Bohr led the Flag Salute_ ATT C E i NO, Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27, 2009 Page 3 of 6 i 1: PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING ITEM (3 Minute Time Limit) (The numbers following speakers'comments reflect the approximate point in time in the archived video the speaker appears at http_llwww_surfcity-hb.org/govemment agendas) James M_ Jackson, M.D_, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ He noted the parallels between cell tower radiation and their potential effects on children. (00:06:09) Gracey Van Der Mark, concerned parent, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She noted that the cell tower radiation may wind up exceeding FCC acceptable standards and thanked the Council for voting to remove the tower_ (00:09:34) Fred"Skip"Booth,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. Mr. Booth referenced a book by a neurosurgeon who studied brain cancer and its causes in children_ He also referenced policies from neighboring jurisdictions that limit cell tower construction_ (00:11:30) Mike Thermos, Homeowners of Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary) for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ He noted the close proximity of the proposed cell tower and the adjacent school site and its potential negative impact on the students. (00:13:14) Tay Norton spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She thanked the City Council for their efforts and decisions related to the proposed cell tower site. She further suggested that the Council conduct public hearings before they make any policy decisions on matters where students or school sites are impacted. (00:15:32) Heather Lenore, resident of Huntington Harbor, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She noted the negative impacts of cell towers on the brain development cycle in children. She thanked the Council for their decision in moving the cell tower. (00:17:38) Ralph Bauer, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary) for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He suggested the Council conduct public hearings on these types of matters in the future_ He also noted that Measure"C"may come into play when considering policy decisions relative to parks and referenced the City's subdivision Ordinance. (0020:00) Patrick Munoz thanked Council for their decision to reconsider a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He thanked the Council for listening to the community on this issue_ (002225) .a` �p P"p N 0. t F Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27,2009 J Page 4 of 6 Cindy Osterhout, principal of Harbor View School,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications,Inc. (T-Mobile USA, inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She thanked the Council, City staff, representatives from T-Mobile, and the students and families of Harbor View School for their work in this matter and for keeping students and staff safe. (00:22:52) Mary Busche, resident,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She mentioned her children and grandchildren who attended Harbor View School, the future consequences of potentially harmful environmental decisions, and the community's support for removal of the cell tower equipment. (00:25:37) Jim Shaffer,resident,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He expressed concerns that this item was initially considered on the Consent Calendar rather than at a public hearing. (00:28:35) Annalisa Phantumabamrung,resident,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She expressed concerns that the community did not receive adequate notice regarding the proposed cell tower. (00:29:48) Christina Tsimerekis, parent of Harbor View student, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She thanked the Council for their work in cancelling the contract with T Mobile, however,she also expressed concerns with the Council's due diligence in this matter. She also referenced the apparent lack of proper notice to adjacent residents and the school site. (00:33:42) Mayor Bohr reiterated the City Council's decision in Closed Session regarding this matter_ Debi Windle, parent of Harbor View student, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She thanked the Council for tonight's decision and suggested the City adopt certain provisions to their zoning code to protect students and children from such future cell tower construction_ (00:36:46) Tim Branoff, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He suggested a modification to the City's development application process as to proactively determine potential impacts to school sites. (00-39:48) Margaret Tracy, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She expressed concerns and made inquiries as to placement of a cell tower near Bolsa View Park_ (00.41:19) Diane Rector, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc (T-Mobile USA, Inc Subsidiary) for a wireless telecommunication facility CounciVRedevelopment Agency Minutes April 27,2009 Page 5 of 6 at Harbour View Park She mentioned how a neighborhood element,such as a cell tower, may negatively affect local property values_ (00:41:44) Jerry Rich,resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He noted the City's efforts in maintaining a high quality of life for residents and supported tonight's decision_ (00:42:49) Norm Westwell, President, Ocean View School District,thanked Mayor Bohr and Councilmember Carchio for attending a community meeting held on April 23, and spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He encouraged the Council to consider widespread public notification when a matter of this magnitude is to be discussed.(00:44:24) Jodie Arendt spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_(T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She referenced a personal cancer diagnosis and the potential connection between environmental elements and the negative health risk of exposures. (00:45:53) Deane McDaniel, resident, inquired as to whether the Council will be considering action to remove other existing cell sites in the City_ (00:47:24) Noting that there were no further speakers, Mayor Bohr closed public comments_ ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. (City Council) Reviewed status of site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (a T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. A motion was made by Bohr, second Hardy to direct staff to bring back a Zoning Text Amendment that addresses the permitting and entitlement of cell sites located within 500 feet of school sites to require a Conditional Use Permit and public notice.The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES- Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen NOES: None Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27,2009 r Page 6 of 6 ADJOURNMENT-Council adjourned at 6-50 p-m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, May 4, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntingto3B;ch, California. 4� $lot) City C rk and ex-officio Clerk f the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: 9?&Irld City Clerk-Cle ayor-Chair �'TT �f s r� T NO. 5 �Cr Page I of 2 Arabe, Jill From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:22 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: FW: Cell phone tower @ Community Methodist Church One more for the file_ From: GBean37467@aol.com [mailto:GBean37467@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30,2009 5:08 PM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: Fwd: Cell phone tower @ Community Methodist Church Dear Mr. Ramos, My husband attended the meeting today in my behalf since I had to work. He took very good notes of the proceedings today. I am a member of CUMC and attend church on Sunday. I have never been informed of this decision by our finance committee and Mr. Hurtado said there were meetings involving this decision by the church. They probably had Finance meetings but the congregation was never informed about this proposed cell phone tower, I think this was something that was discussed in their meetings_ realize that this is a very sensitive issue and we are not supposed to make it personal with health concerns, but.....when we make precedence by not having them near parks or schools it should still hold for private schools and after school programs at a church and residential neighbors. The Canadian government banned any cell phone towers within 1000 feet of any school,what do they know that we don't? We all know in our generation how different medical findings and big business can skew reports and doctors can be paid to be consultants. Do we not all remember cigarettes, asbestos, lead paint, 3 Mile Island and dumping chemicals in to local rivers where not supposed to affect our health let alone our future in our children. oppose this permit and as a member of the church and resident of HB when does big business lose? Sincerely, Ginny Bean From: GBean37467 To:jarabe@surfcity-hb_org Sent: 9/2512009 11:40:50 A-M_ Pacific Daylight Time Subj-. Cell phone tower @ Community Methodist Church was given your email address last night at a meeting at Community United Methodist Church where I attended a meeting last night regarding the proposed cell phone tower to be placed on their property_ The meeting was actually a session put on by T-Mobile and was not meet with much acceptance by the local residents. It was more of an information session with only their materials similar to a marketing push. Most of the residents were quite upset which was understandable since most of them did not even receive any notice of this. There was a couple who's backyard faces the parking lot of the church who went door to door in the neighbor to inform the people of this proposal. Also, there was not notice to any of the parents of the preschool that is on the premises to the parents_ Based on an article that was in the OC Register on Monday, April 27 pertaining to the cell phone tower being built next to the Harbor View school I thought the City council was going to change the rules and notify parents when a cell phone tower was going to be placed near a school T-mobile last night said they did not have to notify anyone other than residents at least 300 It from the property - I think they forgot or did not consider the nursery school on the premises. 9/30/2009 Page 2 of 2 What can the parents and residents do to fight this move proposal. _ Thank you for your assistance_ Sincerely, Ginny Bean concerned grandmother 9/300609 AT TAC IfIt"V E-J T NO. 3 AOL Email Page I of 2 Arabe, Jill From: BeauBlondy@aot_com Sent: Sunday, October 11,2009 11:54 AM To: cumchb@cumchb.org Cc: Arabe, Jill Subject: T-MOBILE CELLULAR TOWER AT THE CHURCH OCTOBER 11, 2009 RESPECTFULLY, ATTENTION REQUESTED: COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: website; cumchb@cumchb.org CC: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JILL ARABE, Project Planner,jarabe@surfcity-hb.org I am an average person that watches TV news like most in the evening, with thoughts and opinions. My interest was peaked with a story that aired about your church, COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, and the cellular conglomerate, T-MOBILE- A story about a cellular tower that is proposed to stand on the Church's property as well as among the community, neighborhoods, and schools_ Have these people within these companies no respect for anything or anyone anymore that they hunt even within the sacred homes of worship? Shame on them. What is wrong with the Church? Aside from the researched and documented dangers posed by cellular towers, emitted to the environment and the people, are you that desperate for money? Is the greed that great that you would place your community, your congregation, your members, your CHILDREN for heavens sake, in harms way? For a buck? What other reason would there be? Better cell service for the Church? It is said that the devil works in clever ways. That through greed many will fail and fall to his Will. Seems you may be slipping into that pocket, if you are seriously considering taking this offer_ Shame on you. I believe the Church to be a place, and for some a last resort, to turn to for Hope and to have Faith, to feel protected. I am getting the sense, based on the criticism and protests by the people of your Community, that these folks DO NOT WANT THIS TOWER IN THEIR BACKYARDS. Are you not listening, or are you intentionally turning a deaf ear, only hearing "show me the money!" ??? There have to be other ways that the Church can raise money, instead of putting people and their health in harms way. Listen to the people of your community, to the members of your congregation, to people outside the City who are appalled by this story, and stand on their side as they have stood with you_ They are they ones who come to your 10/21/2009 A E A C el A E �� 14 0- 5 M AOL Email Page 2 of 2 House of Worship every day, every week, every month, every year, faithful and supportive. If you are torn, ask GOD and listen hard, he will provide the answer. I would have to believe it will not be based on greed or money ..-or better cell service. Respectfully submitted, Nansea Hernandez i l 0/21/2009 - Page 2 of 2 Sent from my 1Phone Thank you, ij Keith Bohr $egin forwarded message: From: summer powers<summer.powers@me.com> Date: October 6, 2009 4:48:36 PM PDT To: kbo�surfcity-hb.org Subject: CiJMC Cell Tower Hello Mayor Bohr, We live at 6601 Abbott Dr. We are 2 houses from the preschool. We have lived here for close to 10 years and are not planning on leaving. We absolutely do not want the cell tower in our backyard. T-Mobile said it would not be visible from our house. When in fact we will have a plain sight view from our back yard. We feel this cell tower is better suited at Murdy Park or behind Stater Bros. Why is anyone even thinking of putting it in a complete residential area. I know the Church is zoned for commercial. But come on it is surrounded by houses only. Please don't let them bring our property value down. Please can't this be put in a safer area that is not occupied all the time. I am a housewife and stay home with our two boys. Thanks, Summer Powers 10/21/2009 Page I of 2 Arabe, Jilt ' From: Monica Moretta(monica-moretta@sequoia-ds.comi Sent: Wednesday,October 07, 2009 4:01 PM To: Arabe,Jill Subject: RE: Re: CUMC Cell Tower Thank you, Jill. I have forwarded the information to T-Mobile_ Monica Moretta 1 Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services,inc. One Venture,Suite 2001 Irvine,CA 92618 kk'(949)241-01751 A(949)753-7203 monica.morettapsequoia-ds.com Save a Tree-Please do not print this email unless necessary. From:Arabe,Jill [mailto-jarabe@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:52 PM To: Monica Moretta Subject: FW: Re: CUMC Cell Tower Monica - Below is a copy of the email I sent to a resident in response to an email she wrote to the Mayor_ I will forward the resident's email shortly. Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach (P)714.374.5357 From: Faufand, Herb Sent:Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:39 PM To:Arabe, Jill Subject: RE: Re: CUMC Cell Tower Please forward to applicant From: Arabe, Jill Sent:Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:20 AM To: summer powers Subject: Re: CUMC Cell Tower Summer, On behalf of the Mayor, this email is being provided in response to your written correspondence dated October 6, 2009. The City appreciates your concerns with regards to the proposed wireless communications facility at the Community United Methodist Church site. Your comments will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator (ZA) for consideration_ Please be advised that the project was scheduled for a public hearing before the ZA on September 30, 2009, at 1:30pm in Room 138, Lower Level, City Hall. The ZA continued the item to the October 28, 2009, meeting in l 0/2112ao9 r*A t I !V11EN,T NO. 5. 14a Page 2of2 order for the applicant to provide a completely stealth design of the project_ Pursuant to Section 23096.B_3 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, examples of completely stealth facilities may include, but are not limited to architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, fa4ade mounted antennas treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing building, flagpoles, church steeples, fire towers, t and light standards. .. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feet free to contact me at (714) 374-5357 or via email at jarabe@surkity-bb.org. jab Ar►wvArabe, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach (P)714.374.5357 10/21/2009 ATTACHE<IIEE T NO. 3. { t 1 e' Gt 4 October 19, 2009 Huntington Beach City Council: am Dianne Larson, a Huntington Beach resident, and I am OPPOSED to T-Mobile's proposed ce -cower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) which is near the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edwards Street. There are MAJOR INCONSISTENCIES and what I personally consider to be INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION and FALSIFICATION of facts presented to the public and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach in T-Mobile's application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2009-015 for a cell tower at CUMC_ Three areas of concern include: the Coverage Objective area, • Alternative Site locations and • verification of an actual need. - Based on T-Mobile's inconsistencies and what I believe to be intentional falsification, I believe that this cell tower should be stopped_ I also urge the City Council to modify city codes to require an independent study of current cell phone coverage before applications for permits are even considered. Thank you. Coverage Obiective Area have submitted T-Mobile documents that specify different Coverage Objective areas for this cell tower. 1. "T-Mobile LA33421A Coverage Objective" is an aerial view with a yellow oval indicating an area: • just over 1 mile east to west (from just west of Goldenwest to the west side of Springdale) and • just over 3/ mile north to south (from the north side of College View Elementary School to just north of Warner)_ 2. "T-Mobile's Alternative Location Map" is another aerial view showing a much smaller Coverage Objective area_ • This pdf was emailed to me after I requested to see the Alternate Locations T-Mobile had researched_ • approximately _4 mile east to west • approximately .3 mile north to south • This document specifically identifies College View Elementary School, College View Park, Spring View Middle School, and Irby Park • states that the school district and city will not lease space to wireless carriers • states that these locations are "outside of the coverage objective_" "Coverage for LA33421A" "Attachement 6.03" (misspelling copied from T-Mobile document) Dianne Larson Pagel `� �J AT TA fNAF q� [ N0_ t This document shows the most intense cell tower coverage level ("In Building") completely blanketing College View Elementary School, College View Park, the playground at Spring View Middle School and the northern half of Irby Park All of which were specifically identified as being "outside of the coverage objective" on T- , Mobile's Alternative Location map. Mid-level cell tower coverage ("in Vehicle') extends north to Edinger Ave where T-Mobile has an existing cell tower site at McDonalds; east of Goldenwest just beyond T-Mobile's existing cell tower at Murdy Park; south almost to Warner-, east almost to Springdale Lowest level cell tower coverage ("Outdoor') extends even further. Alternative Site Locations I have submitted T-Mobile's "Wireless Permit Application Form" and attachments received by the Huntington Beach Planning Department on April 20, 2009. 4. "6.00 Candidate Sites" (page 7 of 9) of application_ ® 6.02 indicates that no other"leases, lease-options or similar formal or informal agreements" were "attempted." 5. "Site Justification Stud)" (LLA33421-A Community UMC Site Justification) (paragraph 3) states that "alternative candidates were ruled out due to the lack of interest to lease space, and height restrictions that will not satisfy T-Mobile's coverage objective." 6. "Proiect Description" (paragraph 3) • Despite T-Mobile's statement that the "coverage objective is primarily the residential neighborhoods located to the north ,south, east and west of the intersection of Main Street and-Palm Avenue," (emphasis mine), T Mobile claimed research of alternative locations included "Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church, and even city parks." 7. "T-Mobile's Alternative Location Map" (discussed in Coverage Obiective Area 2.) ® This document specifically identifies College View Elementary School, College View Park, Spring View Middle School, and Irby Park and • states that the school district and city will not lease space to wireless carriers If no other leases or informal agreements were attempted, how did T-Mobile rule out at least six "alternative candidates... due to the lack of interest to lease space"? Verification of Actual Need 1 have submitted an additional T-Mobile coverage document, an enlargement of a portion of the Thomas Guide map book for the area surrounding the intersection of Heil and Edwards, and a spreadsheet showing results of a simple cell phone coverage test_ Dianne Larson Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. � �� $. T-Mobile's "LA33421A Predicted Coverage Without the Proposed Site" was available to the public at CUMC on September 24, 2009_ This document shows a portion of T-Mobile's "Coverage Without LA33421A" (Attachment 4.02) which was submitted with their application. "4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps" (page 5 of 9) states that Attachment 4.02 is to be a "map of existing RF coverage" (so why is the hand-out titled "predicted"?) These hand-out and Attachment 4.02 show coverage in the CUMC area as only strong enough for"Outdoor" use of T-Mobile cell phones and not strong enough for"In Vehicle" or"In Building" cell phone usage. I am able to make, call and maintain calls without being dropped inside my home. The other T-Mobile cell phone users I have spoken with who reside in this area also claim adequate cell phone coverage. 9. Using a blow-up of the Thomas Guide map of this area, Debbie Zentil, my neighbor and fellow T- Mobile cell phone user, and I conducted a simple test of In-Vehicle cell coverage. On October 17, 2009, a T-Mobile IN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test was conducted by two Huntington Beach residents. • Calls were made on Saturday morning, October 17, 2009, between 10:55 AM and 11:45 AM_ Late Saturday moming was chosen because most people would be home and cell phone use would potentially be at its highest in this residential neighborhood. • Ten IN-VEHICLE phone calls were made/ received between two T-Mobile cell phone users in the Coverage Objective specified by T-Mobile's proposed cell tower site LA33421A at CUMC. • Test locations included next to College View Park, next to Spring View Middle School's playground, and near Irby Park. (These locations are potentially Emergency 911 locations.) • The locations of the cars during the test are marked on the Thomas Guide map. • All calls were made & received inside vehicles which were pulled over to the side of the road and while the engines were running_ • Calls lasted from a few seconds to over two minutes in duration. • All ten IN VEHICLE cell phone calls were made, received and maintained (call not dropped) without any problems. • The quality of all the calls was excellent- 1 O-A spreadsheet titled "October 17. 2009 T-Mobile IN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test conducted by two Huntington Beach residents" shows the details and results of this test. 11_T-Mobile's "Site Justification Study" (LLA33421-A Community UMC Site_Justification) (paragraph 2) states that the CUMC "facility is needed to correct a hole in network coverage." The simple, 1-hour In-Vehicle test shows that T-Mobile's "Coverage Without LA33421A" (Attachment 4.02) coverage map is incorrect, and therefore invalid, as justification for the cell tower at CUMC. Areas that T-Mobile shows as only strong enough coverage for "Outdoor" cell phone calls is actually robust enough for"In Building" cell phone usage_ At best, T-Mobile's coverage map reflects old, outdated coverage data and does not accurately represent current coverage conditions_ ,ore testing would be necessary to determine it there is any inadequate coverage at all_ Dianne Larson Page 3 r. lqf CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WIRELESS PERM#T 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 fours or the required information to be provided should be directed to the City Planner assigned to your project or to the Director of Planning 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 communications facilities in the City of Huntington Beach_ <Continue to next page> APR 2 0 2009 Huntington eact, f't_ANNIPfG DEPT r 06595 19174 3l30l07 4 Page 1 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: m t I 1.00: Applicant Information 1.01: Project Community United Methodist Church located at Address: 6666 Heil Ave. 1.02: Project Assessors Parcel 146-483-29 Number: omnipoint Communications, Inc. a subsidiary 1.03: Name of Applicant: of T-Mobile USA Inc. ( T-Mobile) _ 1.04: Name of Property Owner_ (Ms-) Pastor Jan Wiley, Senior Pastor 1.05: Applicant is: _Owner xx Owner's representative _ Other 1.06: Applicant's Address Line 1: Agent Representative for T-Mobile One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Address Line 2: 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA 92707 1.08: Applicant's Address Line 3: 1.09: Applicants Address Line 4: Please contact: 1.10: Applicant's Phone number: 714.850.2414 Monica Moretta Phone No:949241.0175 949.350.5376 Fax No:949.753.7203 1.11: Applicant's Mobile number: monica.nioretta 0 sequo ia-ds.com 1.12: Applicant's Fax number 714.850.6630 Applicant Representative 1.13 Applicant's Email address: ]oe_thompso 'Mobile_com lfApplicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 3.01. <Continue to next page> W6595 19174 3130107 Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: —MM 2.00: Project Owner Information 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'): omnipoint communications, Inc_ a subsidiary 2.02: Project Owner Name(i.e., carrier or licensee): of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ( T-Mobile) . 2.03: Address (line 1): 3 Imperial Promenade, Santa Ana CA 92707 2.04: Address (line 2): one venture, Suite 200 2.05: City: Irvine State: CA Zip: 92618 2.06: Contact Person Name:. Monica Moretta 2.07: Contact Person's telephone number/extension: 949.241.0175 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 MM if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.09". Initial here MM if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. <Continue to next page> 06-595 19174 M0107 Page 3 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm . IACHN4 E 111,4 T N 0. q 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. 3.02: Indicate whether the dominant 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 XX Increase the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a significant area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity (such as a roaming agreement with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03 If the answer in 4.02 is not"Other'proceed to 5.00. 3.04 Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the"Other" dominant purpose of this project_ Designate this attachment,"Attachment 4.04"_ Initial here to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application_ <Continue to next page> i I i f I 06-595/9174 3/30107 Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MNI 4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps 4.01: Where a 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 7.00. For the coverage maps required here,the following mandatory requirements 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 reiected. 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, if any(if none, so state). This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project. Designate this map"Attachment 6.02". Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 6.02 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 6.03"_ Initial here rug to indicate that Attachment 6.03 is attached to this application_ 4.04: Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and by other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map "Attachment 6.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application_ <Continue to next page> 06-595 9174 3/30/07 Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here- mm 5.00: Project Photographs and Photo Simulations t' 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: I. Minimum size of each photograph and photo simulation must be 8.5'by I I' (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 photos and photo simulations. Photos 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- S. All`before'and after photos and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do not place a smaller`before' photo in a box on the same page as a large`after' photo simulation. The number of site photos, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photos and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination. The Applicant must submit photos and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photos and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach_ <Continue to next page> 06-595 19174 W30107 Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here_ Tati k e,+�I6V1�16 E �tJ_ ✓ 'c1t i 6.00: 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 8 is required. All others proceed to 9.00. 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 at 1.01 and 1.02? Yes xx No 6.03: If the answer to 8.02 is NO, proceed to 8.05. 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 8.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 8.04 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 objectives of the project? xx Yes No 6.D6: If the answer to 8.05 is NO, proceed to 9.00. 6D7: 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 8.07". Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 8.07 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 MOW Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM _ -ATT CPr-T.-t1T t'30. 5 ; 7.00: Identification of Key Persons z 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: 7.10 (1)The site selection for the proposed project,including alternatives; 7.11 Name: Monica Moretta 7.12 Title: Agent.Representative T13 Company Affiliation: sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. 7.14 Work Address: one venture, suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 7.15 Telephone 1 Ext.: 949-241.0175 7.16 Email Address: monic ds_ _om 7.20 (2)The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.21 Name: Jose Pena 7.22 Title: RF Engineer 7.23 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.24 Work Address: 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana, CA 92707 7.25 Telephone/Ext.: 310.279.9925 7.26 Email Address: Pena, Jose [Jose.Pena@T-Mobile.coml 7.30 (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any; 7.31 Name: Jose Pena 7-32 Title: RF Engineer 7.33 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.34 Work Address: -4 imperial Prom nadP Santa Ana CA 92707 7.35 Telephone 1 Ext.: 310,279.9925 7.36 Email Address: Pena_ .Tn,P r o-,-PPnagT-Mohi l P roml 7.40 (4)Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project. 7.41 Name: Joe Thompson & Duan Dao 7.42 Title: Zoninq Manager & District Manager 7.43 Company Affiliation: T-.,,I i 1 P 7-44 Work Address: -t imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA 92707 7.45 Telephone/Ext.: 714-850-2414 7.46 Email Address: joe.thompsonOT-Mobile.com 7.5 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 aretwere performed by each additional person_ Designate this attachment`Attachment 7.5 . Initial here mm to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no Attachment 7.5, or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.5 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-595/9174 MOW Page 8 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: rag PROJECT DESCRIPTION rt.._ ( E ��D lip LA33421-A COMMUNITY UMC " " � ' SEQUOIA 6666 HELL AVE APR 2 0 7009 Otnt -ENl S(0.VICtl.INC_ HuNTiNGTUN BEAcH, CA 92648 APN_ 146-483-29 L t;urttington each PLANNING EPT Omnipoint Communications, inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, inc. (T-Mobite) proposes to construct, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas in three (3) sectors, two (2) GPS antennas, five (5) BTS telecommunication, one (1) BBU equipment cabinets, coaxial cable runs from the antennas to the BTS, and power and Telco utility connections. in order to completely conceal the wireless facility the panel antennas wilt be attached to a netn► €ty f` i€elgsili de�i : tea; Ecee. The facility is located in an area surrounded liy mature landscaping as depicte t`i tta photo simulations- The equipment cabinets wilt be located in a lease area inside of adesign to be painted and textured to match the materials of the existing buil . All utilities runs for the project will be routed underground_ This location also provides for easy maintenance access from Heit Avenue Street _ The coverage objective of the site is primarily the residential neighborhoods located to the north ,south, east and west of the intersection of Main Street and Palm Avenue. This area suffers a tack of coverage, resulting in poor for - e s _ omers and limited a wireless telecommunications service options for the residents and visitors to the area. T- Mobite underwent a search for potential site locations that included properties along Haft Avenue and Edwards Street T-Mobile research the possibility of a facility in alternative locations such as: Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church, and /c,-- even city parks. However, both locations were further away from the coverage objective an closer to on-air sites. Community United Methodist Church is the best location considering that coverage objective for this area- The search was limited to these areas because they provide the only potentially zone-able site locations in the search area. The existing landscaping also provided an opportunity to locate the monopatrn around existing mature palm trees, and more than 60 ft away from the front property tine. The city code preference for disguising the facility and aesthetically integrated into their surroundings determined the site location and design.The properties within other parts of the search area were ruled out do their proximity to residential areas and lease restrictions.TzMobile was also limited in where the facility could be sital in-EaLadQft�ft to other nearby facilities in the area surrounding facilities are shown on the Rf propagation maps included with this application) which limited the ability o site to be located at the intersection of Heit Avenue and Edwards Street. The proposed site is currently developed as a church with a existing mature landscaping and this is the taller structure in the area. The surrounding area of subject site location is characterized by mature trees and thus a monopalm is not an uncommonly seen part of the landscape. The property is completely developed and encompasses the necessary infrastructure to serve both the existing and proposed facilities. The proposed wireless facility is located to approximately 185 feet from the southem property line and at this location it wilt not block access into the site and site circulation_ Proposed access is adequate in serving the parking needs during maintenance visits. The proposed facility will not impact potential development in the surrounding area. The proposed project wilt be unoccupied and only require a single maintenance visit per month. The project will make negligible noise that is most often less than the ambient noise level of the area surrounding the equipment. Wireless facilities are passive in nature and have been located in all zoning districts without impacting property values_ 1 1t � s fu" 'EF IT NO 5.rSs SITE JUSTIFICATION STt,v. FOR r-. LA33421-A CommuNiTY UMC _ S EQUO M 6666 HEIL AVE aPR O 2049 tDrrloymFNT S*RV,ct3.INC. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 i APH: 146-483-29 hu lgtorl each P yrItNG EPT_ Omnipoint Communications, Inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) selected the proposed location for a needed wireless facility as it was the best location available for the facility when considering the needs of the network, land use patterns in the area, willingness of the landlord to enter into a lease for the facility, and the zoning code requirements of the City of Huntington Beach. The facility is needed to correct a hole in network coverage created by the local demand on the existing network. As the number of users of the network increases the coverage area of existing sites decreases creating areas where it is difficult to make a call or keep a call connected. The area surrounding the proposed site, approximately at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edward Street, suffers from this situation. This intersection and surroundings became the target search area for the facility. The facility will increase signal strength and the network capacity in and surrounding the neighborhood adjacent to the site to better serve the communications needs of the residents, workers and visitors in the City of Huntington Beach. Radio-frequency propagation maps shows the existing coverage and the modeled coverage after installation of the facility at the proposed height are attached. Approval of the facility at the proposed height provides the needed coverage for the surrounding neighborhood, providing a high quality signal for both indoor and outdoor users of the network. The proposed site is zoned Residential Low Density (RL) developed as a church. Alt adjacent- land uses are zoned residential but the facility is located more than 100 ft away from residential developments. In fact, the location was selected since is not developed or used for residential purposes. The alternative candidates were ruled out due to the tack of interest to tease space, and height restrictions that will not satisfy T-Mobile's coverage objective. The current location is best suited for the facility as it offers space for the equipment and antennas, when considering zoning restrictions and design compatibility and offers the best opportunity to screen the installation from public view through the use of screening. All equipment is proposed to be inside a CMU watt and behind a planter that separated the block watt from the front property line (approximately 20 ft.). This equipment location was selected as the space available created did not altered the functionality/ circulation patterns or character of the existing development_ The proposed facility is an unmanned telecommunications facility and has no habitable or occupied space. The facility will operate (transmit and receive calls) 24 hours per day for residents and visitors of Huntington Beach. The facility has no "employees" or "customers" per se. Customer use does not require any access to the facility and only periodic maintenance is performed on the facility (approximately one hour per month_)_ Existing streets, access drives, and circulation patterns are adequate to serve the project and wilt not be impacted by the project_ 1IA33V1-AConwuTtyLWf_ Site_.klq iczbon Letter of Authorization j na,r Irf, �C 200g APPLICATION FOR ZONINGILAND USE ENTITLEMENTS APR 2 0 Lilintiagi= eact Property Address: 6662.Heil Ave,Huntington Beach,CA PLANN1NC EPT. Assessor's Parcel Number: 146483-29 I/We,the owner(s)of the above-described property,authorize Omnipoint Communications,Inc., a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA,Inc.,with offices located at 3 MacArthur Place,#1100,Santa Ana,CA 92707, its employees,representatives,agents,and/or consultants,to act as an agent on my/our behalf for the purpose of creating,filing and/or managing any land use and building permit applications,or any other entitlements necessary to construct and operate a wireless communications facility on the above- described property. I/We understand that any application may be denied,modified,or approved with conditions,and that such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. UWe further understand that signing of this authorization in no way creates an obligation of any kind. OwTn s): Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach, a California corporation By By: Signature ur - Signat Print Name�L(/4s IfjCQ '� Tt —4-00 Print Name: Title: 4 0c,+r h"-5TfiA_1S Title: Date:: d Z hal ZD®V Date:: State of Calif o 'a ) County ofn ) On &.. before me, e /D ��5-S ,Notary Public,personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrumem i certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct- WITNESS my hand and official seal. KELLE1.O.CROSS cOMM. it 1661066 z Signature: Notary Public-Catitornia o z of Counit cow-Expiees Apr:25.2f1t0 P Pagel � i May 1,2006 pQR 9 2p09 oath P"ngjNkon tNG�EPj- To Whom It May Concern, Sequoia Deployment Services,its employees and agents are authorized representatives of T- Mobile,USA,Inc.(T-Mobile),and have been contracted to perform real estate leasing,land-use entitlements and architectural and engineering services for T-Mobile's telecommunications Facilities. As an authorized representative of T-Mobile,Sequoia Deployment Services may sign,submit, review land-use applications and permits,represent at meetings and hearings,accept conditions of approval,and negotiate leases on T-Mobile's behalf_All final land use documents are subject to T Mobile's review and approval. Furthermore,all leases are contingent upon T-Mobile's signature. If there are any questions or comments,please contact me immediately. S/ cere , osepirThompson Zoning Manager / Southern California Market T-Mobile USA 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA, 92707 Desk 714/850-2414 Mobile 949/350-5376 Fax 714/850-6630 fE UOIA PLOYMENT SERVICES. INC. DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET To: City of Huntington Beach FROM: Moretta Department Planning Agent Representative Case Planner To be Determined Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. on behave of T-Mobile. COMPANY: DATE: City of Huntington Beach April 20, 2009 SITE IDENTIFIER: ADDITIONAL REFERENCE NUMBER: APN: 146-483-29 T-Mobile LA33421-A Community UMC RE: Wireless Permit Application Attached please find the following items: Quantity Title 1 Check for $ 149 for Planning Fees. 1 One Application for Wireless Permit Application. 1 One Letter of Authorization- 1 One Copy of Agent Authorization. 1 One Project Description. 1_ One Site Justification. 1 One Set of Pictures of the Site. 1 Set of Propagation Maps including RF Report 3 Sets of Photo Simulations. 3 Sets of Complete Plans. 1 One Set of Plans reduced to 8 ii x 11. NOTES/COMMENTS-- The attached items are being submitted to the City of Huntington Beach for an Application for a Wireless Permit Application on behalf of Omnipoint Communication, Inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile). Please contact: Monica Moretta at (949) 241.0175 or monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com regarding this application. Thank you, Monica Moretta SEQUOIA VE[LO7NINT 3envt ems.Ir.c One Venture, Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949-741-0175 ONE VENTURE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949.753.7200 FACSIMILE: 949.753-7203 5f LA33421-A Community UNK Transmittal fa Wiiretess pennit.dcx _ - '�"- i 0 It 48 v obile'vi LA3a421ACoverage Objective LA33509A,mainly designed to Improved Residential coverage along the surrounding areas of Edward Street and Heil Avenue in city of Huntington Beach. There are currently high customer complaint in the area due to weaV Indoor coverage. This can only be fixed b nsta ^ng this pro�aosed sTfe. Site can also be located at the corner of Heil Ave � and Edward Street but ' ere was no suitable candidate that will meet a minimum height of 50'. .I i< e;r .J . .. : :. /Y"' �' !�a � :µ . .{r';• P 11 lNt��'' 'I♦ - A:n) H :D _.. .. � w....:........:......�;2 v u b.cf t►�r U( .Y'c1 i, _ t , r i)'"" .•, i' + �r• ...;,�,-. _,- .:. ::. �.:.: fNa 1,;.. ....• .«. �. :/�.7F �R, Yu! eq ;,w.� 11 •fm �• - ;rr� +�. rn Bllltr �, ♦I �.�-. t 1 ::o Y a!I n� r �• 1 f `1 �:�.. 1 w...,. , 'e. J� .�rtiv•.d'• a •.ii"rAq � irl?91t1(Ix'I),I: _ !i --� y .l • a t.r v cc rr '(4 � ,q, 3 V ' '' ,,,. .>�R7'.ro :. .-:� c41J' ✓ '. 111 ��., �e i'. 'fit•.. :';. ,W: r n,i-"_� :h��l'rt:+: .I •'.�"'` • AI►[1 : r G b trn . Y 41� , lY 1(Dt wv I 711en41t _ , bY1 're. ]i'� s 1 ! el J�,ay •d..,« • r .�••q r•1.16 • ,tl.hr•• Stte mtside of theyx T.•� • t t '�� r�t o lrl I(.. f a r !I. • i .j M+rlc u' 'YV 4 D�t)'JFFWI f Iix lal f r ` ,• Ih�. College view Park.City of t Cln {ti�Ilt•Y l , I'I^ -+',: N::,Q,. Y i s ' I}1,�•Y':y;r_. - f ,xl .rwl f:4, I 1 I !,+1. R, _ • .. V k 5 1. •rlMl" r��{: '_-$i ,� aG.. : .,i .w. IaJ :i 1 Ma s W�. -.. 1 i -._..•v. ,qace _ • ,R; � A4i ari.1 1! i I'I� Gdl;) a •.'1', � • �� i-1 4a� I�w j rAYS� / ! ro:Y. • rll.rl� f Ark .�,_a Ml�'r41 IrA UrJ .I It 1. yJl4.�_ } ',�:.. Nla,a J .. ..m r-1, s ,.'i( t :: �.,'p:Z'wtl A10.'.!4 .:-..� i,,. r,1!d"a �:+.•.•1Y1 �'..'�, Y'4 .+�'�..� �t,...� I.:E .:,•.; t 1 1 ;7 Y,1�C:1• ... i( `I' ♦ "'"'".=:j'.�.k"•"..r ,.Iw •1.,.1 1�, r.-•�,. rN. ,„..:.� 1�. '! �',:ni N tr';� r.• �-q,{ .�, �;. Y �, r aJ'"ra ..:,.ty I r.! AA 1;: ),,,... .nTk. ,51e:�M•�� t ,i �• r. �•',' '14:'':II.M:° ' ` �.: A u,,.'" i.:.:.:�1; f . '� .L 1 - f I 'AU .,aa..�r �. I:IµY.RL.. I (s a.. ..» N r _7 -...• Ai,.;1; C (�}..,' i,{y,: •C1. d .•� 1. _� to � ,:,:. YI -.,.poi,-'T ,,,,,,.-<*.;6,• n, P• �� ..� _ AU�)11 3Ynsi�l...:rw�i •:i, �- 1. ::...e 1P.q., 1 U'i„► :" -1, fl" :aa.:fJk•JI •1.,a » ;.•,...• `0.".'� Y. ',�• .It 'I h'� NMC`1. x'r' 'f✓''°r 'r`r_ h� tY+1 .:.� i Ns �sl c'^l y� q y' .,I r ''.�, P I«,�` ,7�' r t� I, ,,, r.,�1 b� �r.a.Est eti•fin. IIA ,,.,., ' ,�4� "',.i.» i + :i:i 1 �',, '� �, �a {.�. -rN •C. •"'�I' • •tTly1;1 • '` '' !.': tf " ilYq •-' n r:` �' 1 F d.' tr .°R I Ie.. �•i a�!.r. � 1 d .._ • d,.,y; M:� r,�, 1 � r� � '�,, i r '�� n P Q. �, 7 M3MMMM_ � +e 1}M..w Im (rn 1. ',, r r { •J p, I v.: �i ♦ ea ells u q, N�d �:• J , .:I w ..5' ^* �.%. �'11•.•..v'1 1}Y,'..I•.1{9�-.•h:I. . '.!. 1" :�.11-`•�";.1 +J i >�:" � � ,,,:�,rk. gr�n�, 11 �y�r� 0 '�6. 6 1 ^�� ...a.,1 �J.�a...�w I ;IP• ! , 1 r , li ��1 Ig7Nt.►. Y i ';1 . . ,,r�,I,, 1,r, ,.,r- -c;.• n!.'q it .� „!:1 , �p..'Ll W"- �� 1'_., y,�: :al '�r_ :!C ..� 1 a I •il';,•(N. .. . !•". 1. /-.,.' 1 .1,• tr t. `.� I•.,�,. �_ ��, IdU� .,z !y � - • • '` f._7 1 :, !E,•., w MY .e€., ,.tt.:t1, .Jr+',,.•1 �.•,.i 1 -r'j i+.'. B f a..ryr 1 w R a,. lC.�y .w n ,l - �'• .,��' `:1 ,,;.,. ) "v .,, 1 ,.^: ., N r:,;•,,r•., ,,t ,Y t l 17"r r 'Lf-.r ` � � >Y,•1 ,ti. 'l G, "i'� �.:. f f 'Ir PM•i+.. �.., , '�!'A. "k.�' •. ,+••' A;'`.:P rri D'� .,,^I�.w. ."�I' rrC, "t .I�Y :� - 1•,.1 T YJl"�`.:Yil 40....C.J.,j,,.J1Y, '�'1•�'•'1� �i.� ',.w� -,1;� Ai; �.,:., p( •,. :.!• ., q I. -., ,. �,n `r.+..•,:v...,...I�-.•..•.a 'II� '11 ic�i,n-a:: 1w ..:A7, �..�.... r� - ',�.•'' ..,Y. !,. 1 :: :1 , .w_. YI:: .l.4 •� %{t�ul :1r 'f11 ��. U:r'* :7 ar .., ,: :; , .ir_' µr.Li?' ,,. r-: .-ti.a!'1!�•.� .� .;Ia N�7tI�. � .w �:.� ;P, Y.I`4:, _., :.,,ar',K., ,�. •.. r I =•r •.;j:ry••-a'r't�;.r,�D c� l_il i.ur-,:.y ��; lui-.; •. i pYr �, Ilz m,r° eiql"ettar .. 1 !J• M 1 I7y N,�� w tl, a Mx ']t E 1, ,1 i S,llnll �� i '�-. I:.r�•; r'.o➢«4i� 1 '1� �'' � W-.' _ uk! .1,• I .l` ,clll,. q' it 1a: 1.,mar t a{� l! �� i t /P 1 F sl n 71 I I ' ►ans•uh ¢ 1 ! . �. 6 a .Jr:•a��^I a! it rl' fl 7w ;n 1 i1 Ynir " 1r" n. I 1Y Iillilf(T r•D.G, !'•i t t t'1:.: •�,.Chr,�.rty, - . •- . , 'W. t1 t` • "1�1',".'N W.k?� 1. 1� 1 4'Yr; tS,'i.'Yrt �'I v I��.' r� :ir ,, n'•'yr w0.! :, ,a1, _ j �'� � Y�}�`......21.• ;F�'�YjIJI r WI , � r.. �11 19�� 91 � ' r .. +. 1 '"rt•np,.w � ;,. ,..s+•,. '� _ _ _• «..�.1 ae 11°^ln1 V 1 Y „..,. ._. ........•--.,:"- `^:�!,NI -"".,"'.IA. .s+ �� 1 r - ., ,., -:...•. ,. 'a.. ..,, .,. .; ,.. __: 'r:-c: .. ..:: .......,.. .. 'k ),. !!.I ar•'�"1't .w l�..ln , �� 1° r W�- �.1 �•� I 'S ! D? �,Ar, 1 ... .. 1:l 5... p..e--7T". pl i' :.+t •.♦: F A ��' s •�G� 1 r. .Y )r 6'1662IH'�JII,Avu1Hunl4ln� fc�n E3aiitc�� LA �2ki�lI 1 . ,. t..� "--+.br,:�'=Y;',.�' .. a..lr' •.• .R,'i:. hl r'. r�'.t. 1 ^. '�. 'L.J,U. !~�Ii..€�.'y.. � .ihl e, i( (!+r•1 !. ,`,Y ,.) ,. - .,. .,.: -..,,. J: .: ,sY%Il.t. :?Sbr 4fl'�7 ,,, 4. . �.' n ' ,;� •�t,,.� ;�� h.k r :.� ,.ni,�; r, �: I,. -., ,I .. �.. .11"+„�I1 w. :.,.: 1 .iy1!d y,df" ,., .6,5 e'� iOr r• 7k': .'�( I 1 • ^11" • l.�°�, l ,q ',T �"',I'. P.{�a, ..+'p.,7(9 b . ..r;1y� ,,,{ :d. �'�. 14a •:r 1 i � 1! �. 't f . .� uyrl�� I. 7t,Y. �,,R_. •ti a•��• f• ��r I. 1 �, '.,p- r I' p.- • ,IdAfr.k,q^,-. .� �I tl, r,, �°•°:a 1 To,...,F .�,d'-,r `LY; vrr•rr,n•n(a q'.i.�"`Dr �.�:,: ... - 1- ,Ib I .Mr L r. .r.._. 1 _I( 1 I a 1,��1, .k� ST {�,:�. rfi `:'.�.IM9r �`!. r +.: ',•::�,' .. .1�1. /, r` f.�„ ,.,J 11 ..•YC;.;•.i �.":/�.a..y .�.; •C!1! - -9'L�• p'i:p° ,M[!$'•i Tn r..,r. ,'.:,;, la -..,� I :.,.'9'p�ll". �..�All 11 }"l:-J t.".'".rd'1 !X:1#I• {i,:orl • r :�'� Y - �,. A�I;a�r�i�, l!illrAnLtq•�� IJa w lro f H I er i _ (y111 1 C_•r.r. a�; ,;' ..P a .:blMtlx� )1 I 1 •1, ti ''• ��Ir 1'• A Y t.'""i. Y , a 7 , • ! }` A.:r • r j cj oq I. � .. •� L 'F rIN'7t:r r o- N m?A r.r,�, Q g ••a�l'J „� ; MildV� .', ,-,: .:,,,:W', - ,. ),?r' ,- , `.;5:.. , ,. �.pl':•.,".l ,iJ ,.A;1� ,.t.. n' w-��. '�I,e� f.. '-•1' _ `i` I r ,( II'�gx;. ':,. -•'( .f:- t p:iY,:?, ,• 1 :I'.1 ...:r. ;:•<:, <'hrlw w `r 4, If,-1.T;,b 1•I -: :: -' 'a, . a+ �:li :.. 'r, _•.• ,,...QI 7I, W i-1`+ 16],: h: ..�'' ,�nP I �� :'j: - ',..+.•; v, ..,° i L..lr ,. ,. `t r- :,:.•,_61 /� ., -':�;li (r'. ti, y •.D:f i-' y -• ..d �- ,r' �;., ., ,bp.,.• .•. ..I T. dl j 'p• ,Mt ww .y�'b ''NA 41 !1 ,� r1'. v'.`i w: 14 f�: ,1^ J.'✓ :1'I`r 1.•:.. ,I.II,.., i _ ►, «.p. ��,r." � , , �,w II. � � f I �"�' ( (y�":� n' ::rYj.A ,r �I Yy y, .:1. 5,g,, ''� :.. .i: .,•. ;, Y. ._.,^ :r'. 'C� - € `� rw+'.n u1Wh '9 Q-r,,:.�1 '•,�C.1-'"';. `I`C.1 ' �"�I 'w � } tl - �GJ �::. ... .,A N ', 1 y> ,-.,.CCi I. , -('� '• „j•r'�.y;',�'-.I•, t,•. I��F�yC '�r1.J.Il.1a(.). �,+'< ;Lr i' > f l I r.. - �+ .-, .=:..J f��....:�,..,,. - ��- "� : : _;:L:. r';:..:x• .,..J...»•,.•r».':w+--rw•.:. .�1:.� �,-1h-A !MI ,Stitt`.,;: --- Lr, - »..1. ,-, '�;:•• ,i.:,sTl.,,• 'Irr,,_�. ,. „ :. . ,1 ,.,,ti a ;MyYlw ''tb„6ga� e- •a f Ij'. ":� P.I (I'.+��'C]..,1W�'11 r • •l Yr' pi .'AR,,, Vi;I,, i I a in ! t� tan tf w d 1 • k''• r c Ir., r...:;a d.! (.it 4 a• r 1...,' r .�'e •.:�. L ) �• r', a 1 sn ,1:.'..u.. . ,.a „... ,.a,:x•. , .," ,A, - -_ -, . .M.,.r., -,'.Aa.,. J: :,,: ,. e,• f -i/.i ,1, A 1. .�1 -,Le1m Alr�Is/, ,1YI�.i�: . ,.R 4 ;.°. �i;, w •�r '♦,4 '(_ , �,t 1 - k,d'..::,llt w. ':3.f :•r w',. za , , 1Jt rs*a ♦1 S"�: . ILsy''— - ^ .N {r.ialil'4:a,rrl.r"MID �; v YIiF ..Iw..,.x,� --.,- ,., ,r , , w r i.+".. Y''I r A'0•:11�"n'1� f' YL' h'Y vl9vdl�'p t.', oe •W, .9 Yn.,�,, "III; - ,�; ��•' .,i1.-,dl L . i•5 L. _ -.� I' .,,-�� I:l..' �.:Ar4o,141 (1 :,•._:J ♦,'n.�'� i '1 q1.9'/ �N .� M1� ""�...4 �:�� ►'• �, �r.�' a'. Itii '•r:, r"..-.. I r •L',,H Ji•,,i , :>.: ,. Y 11!N , .rw..,,,,: ,,.. -...:.. ••.•_. .i -..� �"1 a�rn,.,�+w ':.:.-. � 1,I :"p�It•i- rl, 1 e...;'71Dj ,�.. ..,, •:i, .. a,., 1`;.. Y, t.:1 .o i�j`1.: :x,.w rl s • "�T ..; �k'I! -C f:` M.11 .:/L.,!IiM.'; ;... .Y:,. {S Y Q ,:: ,. ':'' ,N ih NT ♦,W, uJ yip t.M. � � xll I� '..•b An...::�i M., '''q�.. .. fl,t � ��F'�C �~ �4 .;: ..':/,►1(1• 1 '' .•.'d:,_ , .t.,,. ,•• .::o Il�Irlll[�I.IA.1 ! Pa rv...:. l� . hr'a>raS, "•!r„"" •J.• aM 7 _„� Ib..fC,l t ' Y,�.b „ t.=a':V'.:I :, CI' _..,r tl. ,,,- i aH,.�.. ,� p..,.;• q ;...l•" !I �`� Y ijj-I 1... � .•f r" k t W� : ';D' ';1♦ I s � < ,. +1 Y�. -° .:y� Y i° �� 1 y�01'� I ._..,";' � Jt,k 'ftlr�,l,, ',•:'�.1 � I ': l'� �.. 4•- t Iffl �,f. ;..:M (, , :- �5,q, ., ...L, M ,� 1 •w b•. E'K` A,.. :1-:, � 'f�' •"'1 .1 .`� .• rKf•n+ • ,•-t rrl.Y tI 1 l '« .r -}, .„ r ,, ,..i;,., q , • r ,,.,, ,M.. :: ;u.,n ,. �r^ 1 1 nlr. .i. �O�.FI) a3J3 -,b � r� ' ��trvullllu ; r i i - !I I(' t-�esiptY�c,Y. t: 4'm��s•c.u.� _ � f�Y 19YNYIFr�[� y Y . 4 \fiT� r? III 1 � r7•7 i� 9• r �W or.- A�� + • •• �4t1 °e �,, I U ^4 ��"5� vl`� 1�r'Ivlr 1! I�' Ott 9 .. !fl.s ^�m• y 1\t ( Qt j&t$_li ]� ' c 1 aH x�0.�tll 4 4bU1+4+I iY1 i I lx V�4 F �r•�, _>t i ;iAr � r•0 rr �,.. :rs t y f:.. j t r,l c ��((�� I r a:, :' . 1'• r \ II.T .' t ,� t e2 � L 'sU ne,I.Is�:�'> 41 /Yrs'Qil lutly' 1:,: �i. � `'( •• e° e D`e, ss� '•w --r. :. " � � C `(,d!,af,;.:: @ .. ) .•q■r ;r"A '.-0 '-. �.qqU�r Urlir dll r jr C('!r _ �of •:�• "� '" �.:.,..,:.. Y...:.. :, yl^ ::. o•k[�;�}�'� L� � \{ �_1 S� Y�.. rf Oka ��s„'Y• .:+,; -..:��' ��: �H..:�;: ;?'• � a/ �r \r t I C�"iyf`Sii':VT��.. >, "�j "19':.. )!r {%I�t..... f ..Hi : :4A11A;.{I�P"� _� '.• �' ,... 1 , yy • ILL p }w SIR y 17 ,� 1 A` _ �`�'r' y IjI IF s... .r�Ebs -' l ��:• I t "�'. r .(> ,;;: ? m., _ .. F I'ti.` ' •u.V M.t>r�{ 'y11S9t�:E�u� a6 QIII�iF¢z�y r `c ♦Iyl �: - I.. .,:.. ,; �,� --_. .. .:. -,' ;. �� ,w��.�"`l I , to Itl�!il: �J a• .'� ,•-a ..(�I111111 Viol ''.I r e""�' ';. ®.^� � �li.� + ) p$Id 41�F. 6;+pl 5 .{ •'\+ :r� '. "`nl ��I r a :-.;�. •Y?Ji®': r'�� rC: '0 :::;�'�/.0 0. 1 : "��IY"�.� !i _ � xx(ph!�"1tJ)�ss� �� "..d�FJ��tr 'Lai II)j17 :: 11A - .I� ,! r t��...' •qll•��'k�s4 r (�ff,�r �r Neil ��'�t;,�� ,:l S•1� i.,f,�� .r .. �.J I it IE"':I III ,'' _ b .. = •G ��,::. 9�1i'7('�J�lu I�,I` �^.d A> S, •� •�'sl r r.•:,��• • :. .lK,O� ro ! ', q�� /] ' �t+� �� .M• ��II�U `ii� � �' • F"" ._l,rJill•I•� ;, ° I r. /_Y® :• • : i WU+.{lIL _. L t •t�+Y S-F c .:,. f „• - i�a��r ' � k':Pa'' e 11 L' �I'„ "- 3 ira• ® . 31i. �' *�� { } � � r l s Y It rt,�i1� p �>�� - � j .f � !� �'�I r� • � �,. `+d; .•.•Y � , � J L.l fir`^ .�``.: �:�.II t,•1 IS �! aKY� N sF,r (t(� �� .IndA' Win• .\ ' • .�.�� rrS f a)JJ'.:.Iz•? p, I y 111 I j ;u e� r D• M119I� --, a r ) y �, -1 • 1•yl it I;k �F t_' 'j':.Ir 1 tI 1 15 ° I� r .•; Cl- 1 • 1 Hnm,l p r ` 'eS'A'.O16� v�'. i d>! � _fir .`( �r 'o;d� a 9• ,it. Il.r;tp '` '•1 I II•J�J�I. � . ti ' •/ may' 1 t � ,r c - Eicd I ° : ,yI i Jt C F�If, a?��i I;III�� a •" j�.: � � ry:- • , ; r Ip :Y� :'r ills `' ' _ L �i �I pIF •:� ti. 9 ` • r...'rl. �' r - •af r �[v - J s w r --� s ._r• s1,�Y I I J I } �..i L..'.� srr..r ; • : � r1�� ,,f r+,z„ � �:1� �.. li, _•• � l .p '.�� ._� �J'`2 Fr�,s f r r :a\i1� �S�. + 11 t ! r t- 1.'�� 1®Ic'" +:.1�' • � tlil� ��+ I{ 6 r 1 .. ^✓-,� - �wAl' ��I yyi� IJiI . .11��:.:..�.-..:� . � t I I f ' ,l - 4 1.1 I, �;1$!S G 1 1.N ate• , F r,.� .•'�-'f+ "(' y. 6LQ•._a1 � Coverage/ -.- in I�ilCiu116�1 t !'lUl"u LLrt17R7 'Y �ii�ik9C�7nfiY4e13t� =1Lf.J 06, i0n� •u. dl[y(b;' :•p I16GV,ycA,i7r �l o Y., 'r /� f ,.. .fT)4T[L(r�.�� 1. .1 t f rtT1?t�IFs{Iln liac�r.tal��?•• r ' �"� Outdoor .. • _ • �( • • �Jl..� ul7k�r10- o (- �o a �a 1 r.J11;aIF��1�C✓X'� 1� _�j • :tea UlfCijj••rILTl[•11 RIM;�-111•�': • 1 x f1�111��1o�1Uj• � - •:' `•Uj r •. e - :1In Vehicle-64 dbm In Building ♦ r>s tl e, s ...+: C. �.n..w !_a4 .D��`i/.:i�� I .r�� _4e�,1 t.!.� .. �... ..'ar.��••.�_r�.�•.,�r•��.�..��.�...��-��r�i'i�w�Y� �3�h8d6� _ •'14 A�.1'rd0 SSyytt I ` /�•' a� „r. .. -.r _ ►ram'. , t 5'' Coverage for LA33421A VA 017,7, ist Or 0-71 nter I • � M� . � r,roeL',w fo- IF q�(,!I1 ,�t� r � ��'� i�rvSr a! =S .. �•'�_ "• • - • •�� (qC�C/•� ' _ - 1 . ! i •• .. � '. ,Jt, �'+'��r al (. !S c`� dtlJfz4:i:`ri Yf �► r �I�I ;� I r � �r•�w� b 3 -�� I r ,, I,r �+ I lC IXy�,I(-�' • l ,r ,,.�_ iw�+.uw�w�.� " S`'`7-• r :o �- 1� a i,.1 r iP 2! 1,I I� rwi , 1 I Yrt� f j� .7 • y 7 �., m - (II l��J��Itl �cf��a��i 1 k�4�((>�J �1 �I[,�o t , �� , 1 •: ��, .'—',7�� U' L'JI1' a u+(f fil Urol� P'�x ��r (1 r I •• , .a 4 : ti' . �f I l�r f P l�• Y • �•. � ��' 1'I,1 �r "''ice i. r ; r • r .t a f 'I l �Wtry— 1, ° wA+�jk 1 ' r'�14�•,� r.. ..I `,r � r'��. ' I � 'j fS �Cr e 'l" Icl•Il •• 1 �N.,' taf�r ro �PI A�1 II!:'?c nitl' ..y I } j1 f I`_ � :. @ i�r�.�.e�r(,�t"y� jm, n/ qAu.nd+r p�'N� �y '� -(•�'��i �!he .t.;, r Its 1. r ! I ,"1 d 1 1 `I \ w. ��v .A�]�1 �'lt�!i'�IPI! R 1r�4`ls P�iw .L 2 y\ �a' �. J°.- �'.I ii,l!. - r 4:j. s' I �u '•.J v d � ,, ..L.r;' 1 ❑n "r r I l% ' �,� � t L><1tt II ,,ws I .'�.J`�"�w��.YY�µl"�,tL'��-.i111 „{r: { J,...E5.1..�.�._ 11 .!'. 1..31 r,v ru 1. ..f,n ',Il! :Jr t / ,�. :4tJ` �:o.n.l �� ® eN •,., �'qfd<..ICI 'I 66 J l .c 2 I,.a' .., : ,(.�,� ^..1 . E w�� d! 3 ! ��(I p (?e:: d�J:..r.:.�. .w>•� o� � o ::a .:�Q2. :e.t,�� , , IF a:ol•,. nat .w - :�dL•\' A '•:!'L f(° .`..,. {{ o �.': 4;n p I e' tl,.til,: F�Seli�se r,t9,1�•,�' Fib;@. 4.' � °�',`r k � �l ��, �` �1{�X1 UI r:� ,q, ;t .a'o• A b r� '4t� ';? ,. S :. r• k ouq+.. +;.�I� t Sfi.. ,��` 1 ' I,r °it 11'jY •��Yv b;� "i .F3Hd1_rp�r 11 t " �R�`l..J�"�° • :. �. F,"'. ,• _ . • .,•` •n CHSi'1'7�r�[.:/•1.. 4 :..,�:x-�! IY��d �1. �1 ..,. �{:+IRifi 1'�htln^L/L'+.'iS1 �' I ;�I -+y �� ... tiil'kS�f - �f� ��i�'� '.+J r ;v ,y , ur ;rsrllt•.A/'w, -9 '"a N 1 7�-•�_J.� 1 C r ... \'1A"ih'6''$Y°IL1a.,•. `.:° , �,/a lk l, (44r ,'ll •,Q�.. hSr,x Y •Ff^��. i;FY. ('"n�-. f L.�r� I7" .7 ;:� 1 s"I ,1` �� r ,r�A Q:1 ,i w •A A iv^! R�,,�a U ;.;. �I ..�+ 1: r _�i I� f`�!l R� s�,,,, ry ; t I , '6Sn. �kll[ ,( •• '' 4� e 1 ��•UI{ tl*y.:' � �. o /i- ` �e .Y_ I. � ��tiF' 4 :.' ��' ••` Y:1'�y� '� a�.. .8 C'J F dA a A_:=r.. �f '�: /�, YI Ir�'tw :'�jl�r!!t s: •• Y ',.M ec''• . �,: f • .^ � �'- 9. � -: ,•`s .r� r�r�ryiSEi _� '�•�7�®•:a-Y•_ i:.:,�(.iY. 1"4�-Y,, ,��r raVJ;'��.. y ..., 4 n IMF �',I t,' ` ` , , ' ��' - i•„ 1 �.:A 9.9®. �•• :1I:Y�:`r1.;9a 1 :• - �,L6 '�{l�1'tr(17r�{Wrr�(r�/, .-�� .��d �m�� lull I R 4 tr.. r�, tlr- V .�•il ...- t��I'b;,� SCn�+ I� jl.. '•�r�.. �_l�: rl, � r#• I tf=I�� ,f i .'. 'rY:� .a I 3 1 [ pp � � ,G -.• /' : _ ,IFL '1�`,t1st,l'{`'I'`1,•�(c �� 't�+.0 �A �Y+�: •a° �111�, j "'. 'r � .l 'k�l ,.sat§�, � <�' �' �' E4 +� ,•.Y u ��• il� tr,S ',%J, Y LI:�t1: y.-.. ', � ,.i �� .-• '_',� �.:'us� :• • � �Iff0. �� ! 1 . WAIN. iv • •I -i r>UV�°'��,��n)11:J'f:-, �! !.dl�5� 1,'RI�,.a _ — I :�r; MWO ilihl,{a a Ze. . �� t�� + . ' :'�°-` �`'Yl � r ••.•F � � � 4 '✓}lYIJ?fO�? G¶n:H') ��k�l ve�+r t� W�� •� ,r. � �: •��,.• Il F{,''A��'' •y.i PRa.I�'f•bo� � !i w., X:, 7�. 1�!)" C 7 f � " ,'y • � ;�cm(,�+"5 �N'��F I G' "j t' ns,:t�(�•McL'��a'� � �T • 1 lJl; rl rV.:4N�s'��ti� A Sa; - • ..®, r is I' rJ i�"}N y / I.1"i�c5 d�,t �',Vt • n rp - • � � _ f ' �' _ I' '.r�J'� :i0 i, ►'� ,I. t�.f ��•��1 ,�II' ! r, �1 F _ �I�f�i+r��R �11P _, •� f 7'k"v I r� ';..s .� 1,1't - 1'5N� ,... ' .�•,•. .r � IN , ;'b" c - - ICM f�Wf{Y ��61' � J� ' t ,Cv � ��^q • * .1 A �t�r 1�.. -., • I 7 [ li n, l^V.•,1Su g .r ...._. _._.. ._ r° C() � n Q _ Ir(, C 1 r 1 1 •• fr-. it ,�'AC i� L -'a' � .r, '> • ' � 5.F:' • - .. ' it •° • { ! kG 4�I _ • � r: ... r ��`4y``�•�"e•`'; ,. '�`Sa,.r�"a�.�eo lYw,. 1 K �}{i{``/� f rys� ��f. � :y e �}}�� .r�y,}�,��y� - - I' • A�-.1 �� a'h ^ . { I �'d � �1�� '1 W�A��A�11fLlf-'�^•".° >Fr,7 � � ••• •• ••. � • •,."�..}`. f f. �• ��.� - (711+•!'1�tlflii��+l17+�117 � �/ fZ,c�y,�lS,S.�.li:lMr,�. o r • 171 r g, Ym , aMobilelw LA33421 A Predicted Coverage without the 5 Weak overage on this h�arlrtia r 3 (low on In vehicle and In Building Coverage) Existing sites LA13105A, `t r LA02495A, and LA02853D uss Oir ant provide enough rs not Or L imzon coverage hence LA33421 A E ' ntOr "�"rn '``` , is bein ro o be rOr w Gem installed in Community Or w car UMC to provide the needed i coverage as well as .� !„ .7 . balance v I ce co er a a e With t ex!stin sites. .. g Nt 5, 8 Proposed site location is bosh 5 �, lsito rF -imatdcaLwfth-existing, r.. north w � sites hence required Sao coverage objective is t ;torw Dr m t A eet b oowlag#teoone In Vohlol* +� i --MLOW ------------ six DR I C-MAll, DO CTR _V_ Ml ' A)R TON -W -1 A jj-1 f 1A Pik E ti oYAN J11 1- 't . 0 A OR _- rj-N R Olt J I -t AF AY E Ali' DI) 0 GE LU.............. .. 'p- N Arai OA' -DR D! F�'I u its t3 lco 1 R Wl wo K TH) U_Vfftllk PV r. I -IR GLORT UR I l RAP%K OR DR ! YMENE,FIR L Irk qqqI AU LA C vi L MR c -.. v - R13 v IR A RLA CIR -Sy Ail VIA LYD M FART iltAf I 0�5 PO ATTACHINPIENT �,.10, s.�(, October 17, 2009 T-Mobile IN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test conducted by two Huntington Beach residents PHONE TIME MADE / CALL PLACED MIN :SEC RECEIVED PERSON ADDRESS OR NEAREST INTERSECTION RESULTS 1 10:55 AM MADE DIANNE LARSON 16631 DALE VISTA LN, DALE VISTA/FOUNTAIN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 16641 DALE VISTA LN, DALE VISTA/FOUNTAIN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 2 11:01 AM 1 :52 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6352 SHAYNE DR, SHAYNE/MERCIER EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL RUTH DR/ PATRICIA LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 3 11:04 AM :48 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL 16571 SIMONNE LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON 16331 NORMANDY LN, NORMANDY/RINGO CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 4 11:08 AM 1 :07 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL BONNIE DR/ KETTLER LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON OAKMONT LN/ EDGEMONT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 5 11:13 AM 1 :16 MADE DIANNE LARSON EDGEMONT DR/ REDLANDS LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 16752 DEBRA CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 6 11:16 AM :53 MADE DIANNE LARSON DEFIANCE TUFTS LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL EDWARDS ST/ FARINELLA DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 7 11:21 AM 2 :06 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6811 BRIDGEWATER DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL GLORIA DR/TORJIAN LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 8 11:26 AM 1 :16 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6502 OAKGROVE CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 7244 HEIL AVE EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 9 11:31 AM 1 :58 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL BRIDGEWATER DR/ HOBART LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON 6511 ABBOTT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY M,+w 10 11:39 AM 2 :12 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6361 GLORIA DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL LAKEMONT LN / EDGEMONT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY �V' Alternative sites considered for Agoura Hills cellular tower J www-theacorn-com I The Ac-.. Page 1 of 2 HOME Previous Page Contact Us E-_o�� die �� I� Camarilio Acorn e00oroarkitt 0 r mt,01 Acor.r surd yaAey Acorn► Sr Mist Acmax lhu&Cm-uw.u,Btm e. Thousand oaks neom Hrt.tS.Oar:l"'t"&Ntxri%"vw,acc Advertiser kxlex Shopping Going Out Health Faith youth Real Estate News Front Page October 15,2009 Search Archives Frord Page Faww -Day Alternative sites Considered for Agoura Hills Cellular tower r • Q " • D ° Graduates 2 City wants facility away from elementary schoolconywxlily By Stephanie Bertholdo berthotdoO-fheacom.com Heaftt+& wdkmss Agoura Hilts City Council members will hire an independent consultant to determine whether i ach year ve ash readersto Bulletin the public right-of-way on Thousand Oaks Boulevard will make a better location for the bke&wAcorns onvacatim Board proposed cell antenna that was planned for Lindero Canyon M-iddle School. lien serd ns a br>211ring BusirDess snapshot of our favorite paper Sys Council members heard presentations by T-RAobile representatives and opponents to theSports h garfous amens ofthe t� project on Sept 23,and continued the public hearing to Oct 28- 4obe.7Msah ye "vaM ym pets our dfVantreaders lovote pohm Representatives from OmniPoint Communications,the parent company of T-Mobile,and foryowfavonb Acom r Faft SurePoint,a network infrastructure consulting firm,submitted a report to the council outlining Eck be►e for corms dotaay F alternative sites for the unmanned wireless facility- �� E)"ng& Cbdc ads for version_ � - SurePoint representative Robert Wheaton said T-PAobile had a'significant gap in coverage' in the area,He said the company had reduced its initial plan of three antennas to one_ Ed�lorials Vacation Opponents have told the City Council that T-Mobile has exaggerated its need for additional Photos covers e. in AdvertisingOpponents of the Lindero cell tower say children are vulnerable to the health risks posed by Private Pady radiofeequency(RF)emissions from the antennas and that Classifiers %could be revised in Feb- 2010 changing the balance of power from cell companies Private parry back to cities_ order Rerdats order By law,city councils can only consider the location and aesthetics of cell tower placement, Rer"s not whether they are harmful to children- Reel Estate oral Us The Federal Communications Commission has deemed that the small amount of RF waves copydomp z60Doo-zoos-2M emitted by cell antennas do not pose a health risk to students. a-eee wbk t o— MWACIV R, d MOMS The Las Virgenes unified School District,a separate government agency,has already contracted with T-Mobile to place the antenna at the school The district has four cell towers 5— at other schools, Of the eight alternative sites discussed at the meeting,only one area—a city right-of-way on Thousand Oaks Boulevard—was deemed a viable alternative by the company-Wheaton said that other sites were not acceptable because either they did not meet the company s w31 f nSe e S � n coverage goals or the city's zoning laws were prohibitive- v�r9 so°»ere mw A water tank site at Woodglen and Ridgebrook drives in Agoura Hills was considered as an ° = alternative location,but the placement is not allowable under current zoning laws,Wheaton said- Other areas that were reviewed,but nixed by T-Mobile because of city zoning were the Agoura Hills Recreation Center at St Paul Luthern Church,Lindero County Club and the north and south sides of Thousand Oaks Boulevard at Lindero Canyon in Westlake Village_ Residents still opposed Agoura Hills resident Rina Baraz Nehdar,representing a group of citizens opposed to the placement of a cell tower at the school,accused T-Mobile of taking advantage of the 'anemic school budget and a zoning loophole'to'worm their way into a place where they XURED Uc should not be" 119MI&GES Deborah Lopez,a Fesident of Agoura Hills,is also opposed to the antenna at the school. She said St- Paul Lutheran Church'would die to have that income http_//www-theacorn-conVnews/2009-10-15/Front Page/Alternative sites con Altemative sites considered for Agoura- ills cellular tower( www.theacorn.cow I The Ac.__ Page 2 of 2 ' Fd questioned whether r T-Mobile proved have a significant a in coverage ._ ed a le has prow they e 9 gap ro9 er the company had"chosen the feast intrusive(location}for the community-' o said the growing awareness about the dangers of RF emissions led the Los `"`srY f ounty Board of Supervisors on June 2 to draft a resolution urging'the federal --�� t to allow local municipalities to use health and environment factors as criteria for 1 - N towers near lmmes or sdroofs_goals resident and cancer nurse Mary Ann Rush said she didn't believe there were Y health hazards associated with an antenna the'size of a knitting needle' Decision postponed Since T-Mobile had already submitted a study indicating the gaps in its coverage,it is now up to the city to prove why it believes the cell phone company is in the wrong,Agoura Hills Islington Green F F�w.L'e�dp+y Attorney Craig Steele said. _4 —1- i FALL LLF-,IUWW XAI£ Council members agreed to hire an independent consultant to review T-Mobile s information. I#—tv w The City Councirs Dan Kuperberg would Dice to see how the federal government rules on the revised Telecommunication Act before malting a decision about the antenna at Lindero_ �r-w •-Fr»�. ..� 'We would have a lack of vision...it we passed a law on Monday knowing the law is going to change on Tuesday,'Kuperberg said'The lkelihood is that the entire landscape is going to change_' But Steele said T-Mobile's application would not be affected by a change in the FCC law_ htip://www_theacom-conVnews/2009-10-15/Fi-ont_Pagc/Altemat-lve_sites considered for__. 10/15/2009 T-Mobile accused of installation violations Page I of 3 `.carn r Print_T#ais,;Artcle:. Back to advertisement I vour ad here ArticleSFC"te t -cm_ T-Mobile accused of installation A 0 ' i RN violations Seth Rosenfeld, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, October 5, 2008 o T 'P Neighbors wondered why workers waited until late on a summer night to erect an antenna atop a building near the Bon Air shopping center in Greenbrae_ As it turned out, the crew-allegedly working without the required permits-was installing the antenna for T-Mobile,the cell phone giant that has been rushing to set up hundreds of cellular transmission sites around Northern California. That Marin County installation is one of several in the Bay Area where T-Mobile has been accused of ignoring local zoning rules to set up cell sites,according to building officials and public records. Other sites allegedly in violation are in San Francisco,Alameda and San Leandro. In addition,five former employees who helped T-Mobile install antennas told The Chronicle the firm has routinely put up and modified transmission sites without getting permits. The Chronicle reported last month that the California Public Utilities Commission is investigating whether T-Mobile is violating a commission rule that requires cell phone companies to comply with local zoning and building laws. The PUC has fined other cell phone firms up to $4.37 million for violating local building codes.A PUC investigator declined to comment on the case. T-Mobile spokesman Rod De La Rosa said the company is committed to complying with the rules. "Building and maintaining cell sites to bring the best service to customers is often a complex process,"he wrote in an e-mail. "As we learn of issues,we address them." The commission inquiry comes as T-Mobile introduces its G1 smart phone,based on Google's Android operating system_ 'Pressure' from T-Mobile 4-_1Vt http:/Iwww.sfgate_com/cgi-bin/article_cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/BUQDI34FCV.DTL&type=___ 10/15/2009 T_Mobile accused of installation violations Page 2 of 3 According to the former employees,T-Mobile offers its managers bonuses if they meet quarterly goals for putting up new sites.The managers have pressured subcontractors to take shortcuts when installing antennas,they said. Affiong the subcontractors was Lee Middleton,who said he worked for Irvine's Delta Groups Engineering Inc.Earlier this year,Middleton was assigned to review records for about 1,033 T- Mobile sites around the Bay Area. "Way more than half'were missing documentation showing that the work had been done properly,he said in an interview_ Middleton brought these discrepancies to the attention of T-Mobile managers,he said,but"no one wanted to take responsibility."He said he felt pressured to sign off on the projects despite the missing records. "I was uncomfortable about that,"he said. Subsequently,Middleton was told not to report back to work at T-Mobile,he said. Middleton said he told Delta Group managers that he had raised issues with T-Mobile,but they did not support him and he resigned_ De La Rosa said T-Mobile would investigate the allegations.A Delta vice president declined to comment. In the Greenbrae case, a T-Mobile subcontractor applied for a building permit in July to replace antennas at t000 Drakes Landing Road. An official at the Larkspur Planning Department,which covers Greenbrae,wrote in a July to letter that a use permit was required and that the installation would encroach on city property. Later,neighbors noticed the late-night work crew and complained.On Sept. tt the department notified T-Mobile's representative that the installation had been done"without the proper permits." De La Rosa said the firm had a permit for this site and does not believe it is encroaching on city property- Also in larkspur,T-Mobile antennas on the Tamalpais retirement center were installed improperly, records show_ "The new panel antennas and wiring are exposed and unsightly,and lack the approved decorative fiberglass enclosures,"senior planner Kristin Teiche wrote on Jan.22. T-Mobile also failed to get a required inspection from the building department,she noted. T-Mobile was told to fix the problem within 3o days, but nine months later the firm has not done so_ "They are the only carrier that we have had trouble in getting them to comply with our permitting requirements,"Teliche said_ http_//www_sfgate_com/egi-bin/article_egi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/BUQD134FCV_DTL&type=.__ 1 0/1 512009 T-Mobile accused of installation viola--)ns Page 3 of 3 a Fixing the problem f,r When temporary permits expired,T-Mobile continued to operate the antenna for almost two years, said Sonia Urzua,a senior planner with the Alameda County Planning Department_T-Mobile is fixing the problem,she said. De La Rosa said T-Mobile now has a temporary permit_ In Alameda,T-Mobile got a permit to install a cell phone antenna atop Alameda High School_ But the firm operated the site without the final inspection required by the Division of the State Architect,said division spokesman Eric Lamoureux.As a result,the school district could be liable for accidents resulting from the installation,be said. In San Francisco,T-Mobile installed a panel antenna inside a sign at the Ananda Fuara restaurant on Market Street,one former subcontractor said_T-Mobile never obtained permits,said Jonas Ionin,a senior city planner_ San Francisco officials stopped T Mobiles installation of two other antennas in North Beach-one on Columbus Avenue and another on Filbert Street-after discovering the temporary permits lacked appropriate review,he said. T-Mobile failed to submit a complete five-year plan for cell sites in San Francisco,Ionin said,and as a result the city has frozen all of the firm's pending applications.De La Rosa disputed the assertion that T-Mobile was late in filing its plan. Several Bay Area planning officials said their departments are short staffed and rely on the goodwill of telecommunications firms to follow the rules.Improper installations often come to light only because of complaints,they said. E-mail Seth Rosenfeld at sosenfeld@sfchronicle.com. http://sfgate_com/cgi-bin/artide.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/BUQD 134FCV-DT L This article appeared on page C- 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2008 Hearst Communications Inc. I Privacy Policy ( Feedback I RSS Feeds l FAQ l Site Index l Contact http://www_sfgate_com/cgi-bin/article_cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/BUQD134FCV_DTL&type=_._ 10/15/2009 At City 6ouncil Meeting O2d] ber 19, 2009 o tdlGoo d evening. I am Blanca Evans, a Huntington Beach resident, and I am AGAINST the prop T-Mobile cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) which is near the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edwards Street. I live in a kid-friendly, family-oriented neighborhood where neighbors respect each other and speak to one another, and where residents of different ethnic backgrounds live side by side peacefully. I have lived in my home for almost 30 years and have developed many long-term friendships with my neighbors during those years_ I love my neighborhood, my neighbors and my home. The character of my neighborhood will change if the proposed T-Mobile cell tower is built at Community United Methodist Church. Neighbors are worried about the impact of the proposed cell tower- 0 Property values will decrease because we, as homeowners, will have to disclose that the cell tower is located in close proximity—for me, just on the other side of my back wall- a If my house is less desirable to potential buyers because of its location next to a cell tower, the price goes down. ® People who are aware of the international health concerns of living close to a cell tower will not want their young children to be constantly exposed to the cell tower's emissions. ® If young families, or families-to-be, will not purchase homes, live and raise their children in this neighborhood, the neighborhood will lose its vibrancy and become stagnant. Neighbors with young children are already talking about moving if the cell tower is built. Now is not a good time to sell a house because home prices are low due to the economy. Some of the neighbors have "upside-down mortgages" and owe more than their home is worth in the current market. Neighbors will have to decide whether they will sell their home and just take the loss, or whether they will try to rent their homes_ I believe that the people who would rent a home next to a cell tower: © are either unaware of the danger, ® are aware, but don't believe the danger is real enough to take precautions, ® or, don't plan to be in the neighborhood long. I am worried that this will cause my neighborhood to change in a negative way. I believe there will be- • more resident turnover, • less neighborly interaction, ® more isolation of neighbors who do stay, ® less pride of ownership in the neighborhood, ® and lower market value_ I don't want to lose my neighborhood's warm and friendly feel_ Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, I ask that you place an immediate moratorium on building cell towers within 1500' of school and residential properties_ Thank you for your attention_ I tr; Page 1 of 1 Arabe, Jill From: Don [dmcfarland2@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:41 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: T-Mobile Attachments: FCC-07-177A1_pdf Please place the attached file in the minits for todays public meting. This is from FCC on the NEW requirements for Backup Generators at Cell Sites_ 1 1/4/2009 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 Before the Federal Communications Commission [ - 1 I Washington,D-C.20554 �= 1� ' ' " `17 [ KOV 0 4 2909 In the Matter of ) Huntington Beach Recommendations of the Independent Panel ) EB Docket No_Ob-i t 9 PLANNING DEPT_ Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on ) WC Docket No. 06-63 Communications Networks ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: October 2,2007 Released: October 4,2007 By the Commission_ I. INTRODUCTION I. In this Order,we consider six petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification(Petitions)' of the Order that adopted Section 12.2 of the Commission's rules which requires that certain local exchange carriers(LECs),including incumbent LECs(ILECs)and competitive LECs(CLECs),and commercial mobile radio service(CMRS)providers have an emergency backup power source for all assets that are normally powered from local AC commercial power-2 For the reasons set forth below,we grant in part and deny in part the Petitions_ We modify Section 12.2 to address several meritorious issues raised in the Petitions_ This modification will facilitate carrier compliance and reduce the burden on LECs and CMRS providers, while continuing to further important homeland security and public safety goals_ II. BACKGROUND 2_ In January 2006,Chairman Kevin J. Martin established the Katrina Panel pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act,Public Law 92-463,as amended_3 The mission of the Katrina Panel was to review the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications infrastructure in the areas affected by the hurricane and to make recommendations to the Commission regarding ways to improve disaster 'See Petition for Clarification or,Alternatively,Reconsideration fled by The American Association of Paging Carriers(AAPC)on August 10,2007(AAPC Petition);Petition for Reconsideration filed by the DAS Forum on August 10,2007(DAS Forum Petition);Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration filed by MetroPCS Communications,Inc_(MetroPCS)on August 10,2007(MetroPCS Petition);Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration filed by NextG Networks,Inc.(NextG)on August 10,2007(NextG Petition)-Petition for Reconsideration filed by PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association(PCIA)on August 10,2007(PCIA Petition):and Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration filed by The United States Telecom Association on August 10.2007(USTelecom Petition)_ See also Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding,Public Notice,Report No_2827(rel.Aug. I4,2007). CTIA also filed a Petition for Reconsideration but withdrew its Petition on September 28,2007. See Petition for Reconsideration filed by CTIA The Wireless Association®(CTIA)on August 10,2007(CTIA Petition). 2 Recommendations of the Independent Panel Rei-wit,ing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Comimmicatioru Nerworks-Order_22 FCC Red 10541 (2007)(Katrina Panel Order). See also 47 C_FR. § 12.2. '5 U.S_C. Aph_2(1988) ATTP�C t i t..,t- = f k r. s,y, s Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 ility and communications among first responders such as police,fire fighters, preparedness,network reliab and emergency medical personnel_4 The Katrina Panel submitted its report on June 12,2006 5 The Katrina Panel's report described the impact of the worst natural disaster in the Nation's history,as well as the overall public and private response and recovery efforts_ The Commission's goal is to take the lessons learned from that disaster and build upon them to promote more effective,efficient response and recovery efforts,as well as heightened readiness and preparedness_ 3. The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(Notice)on June 19,2006 inviting comment on what actions the Commission should take to address the Katrina Panel's recommendations.6 On July 26,2006,the Commission issued a Public Notice asking commenters to address the applicability of the Katrina Panel's recommendations to all types of natural disasters(e.g_,earthquakes,tornadoes, hurricanes,forest fires)as well as other types of incidents(e.g.,terrorist attacks,influenza pandemic, industrial accidents).' The Public Notice also asked parties to address whether the Panel's recommendations are broad enough to take into account the diverse topography of our Nation,the susceptibility of a region to a particular type of disaster,and the multitude of communications capabilities a region may possess-8 The Commission received over 100 comments and reply comments in response to the Notice_ 4. In June 2007,the Commission released the Katrina Panel Order directing the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau(PSHSB)to implement several of the recommendations made by the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks(Katrina Panel).9 Among other things,the Commission adopted a rule requiring some communications providers to have emergency/backup power. The backup power rule adopted specifically states: Local exchange carriers(LECs),including incumbent LECs(ILECs)and competitive LECs(CLECs),and commercial mobile radio service(CMRS) providers must have an emergency backup power source for all assets that are normally powered from local AC commercial power,including those inside central offices,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carver system remote terminals. LECs and CMRS providers should maintain emergency backup power for a minimum of 24 hours for assets inside central offices and eight hours for cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals that are normally powered from local AC commercial power_ LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32.1 1(b)(2)of the Commission's rules and non-nationwide CMRS providers See the Katrina Panel Charter available at bitp://w-,vw.fcc_gov/eb/bk-lp/HKIPChatier.pdf(last visited September 9, 2007);see also the Notice of Establishment of the Commission's Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hum-cane Katrina on Communications Networks,71 Fed_Reg_933(2006)_ S Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Report and Recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission, hme 12,2006(Katrina Panel Reportj. "Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking_EB Docket No 06-119, 21 FCC Rcd 7320(2006)(Notice). Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,21 FCC Rcd 8583 (2006)(Judy 26 Public Notice). x Id 9 Katrina Panel Order.22 FCC Rcd 105-11 (2007). Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 with no more than 500,000 subscribers are exempt from this rule-t0 5_ On August 2,2007,the Commission released an Order that extended the effective date of Section 12.2 of the Commission's rules,the backup power rule adopted in the Katrina Panel Order,to October 9,2007." The Commission did soon its own motion in order to provide additional time to consider the issues raised by CTIA in its Motion for Administrative Stay and to hear from other concerned parties on the issues raised in that motion.12 6_ As indicated above,seven petitions were filed seeking reconsideration and/or clarification of the backup power rule adopted by the Commission in the Katrina Panel Order.13 The petitioners assert that the Commission should rescind,modify and/or clarify the backup power rule adopted in the Katrina Panel Order. The Commission also received five timely comments to these petitions and several additional ex parte comments_ III_ DISCUSSION 7. Petitioners argue that the Commission should rescind or substantially modify the backup power rule_14 Among other things,several petitioners assert that the rule should be modified to implement the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council(NRIC)best practice as recommended by the Katrina Panel and that the Commission should clarify that the rule applies only to assets directly related to the provision of critical communications services-15 Finally,some petitioners argue that,if the Commission wants to pursue implementation of a backup power rule,it should issue a Notice of Inquiry or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.16 8. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Notice and Comment. Several petitioners contend that the Commission's adoption of the backup power rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)17 by failing to provide adequate notice that it was considering the adoption of that rule and failing to provide opportunity to comment-'8 They argue that the Notice was too general to adequately support the backup power rule ultimately adopted and that the final rule deviates too sharply from the initial proposals to satisfy the notice and comment requirements-19 Petitioners contend that the Notice never discussed,the backup power issue in terms of a potential mandate and only asked how the Commission could best ro 47 C_F.R_§_122_ 11 Recommendations ojthe Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Order,EB Docket No.06-119,WC Docket No.06-63,22 FCC Red 14246(Delay Order). 12 See CTIA's Motion for Administrative Stay filed July 31,2007:NextG's Request for Partial Stay of the Commission's Back Up Power Rule fried July 31,2007 and Errata filed August 1,2007,and PCIA's Comments in Support of Stay Requests filed August 2,2007_ See also CT1A's Motion for Administrative Stay filed September 24,2007_ 13 As noted before,one of these petitions was subsequently withdrawn_ 14 See,e_g.,AAPC Petition at 1-5_PCIA Petition at 8. 19-20,T-Mobile September 4,2007 Comments in Support of Petitions for Reconsideration(T-Mobile Reply)at 16-18,USTelecom Petition at 1-13. IS See,e_g.,USTelecom Petition at .3. 16 See, e_g, PCIA Petition at 5- '-'See 5 U-S.C_ §553(b)(APA requirements relating to notice)- '8 See, e-g-PCIA Petition at 3-4_ I5-19:T-Mobile Reph-at 8-USTelecom Petition at 9-I3. t91d "�T, f"•4�r}B•-i'7'�E, m" BI°t l r��- i r Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 encourage implementation of the Katrina Panel's backup power recommendation that the Commission encourage the implementation of NRIC VII Recommendation 7-7-5204.20 Petitioners also assert that the Notice did not suggest that the physical scope of the backup power recommendation might extend to all cell sites other remote assets or that the Commission intended to select a specific durational requirement for emergency power,let alone an eight-or twenty-four hour standard_2' 9. Section 553(b)and(c)of the APA requires agencies to give public notice of a proposed rule making that includes"either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved"and to give interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on the proposal.22 The notice"need not specify every precise proposal which[the agency]may ultimately adopt as a rule";it need only"be sufficient to fairly apprise interested parties of the issues involved.n23 In particular,the APA's notice requirements are satisfied where the final rule is a"logical outgrowth"of the actions proposed.24 10. In this instance,the Commission provided adequate notice in compliance with the APA regarding the backup power rule. The Katrina Panel Report repeatedly stated that the lack of adequate backup power for communications facilities was a critical problem after Katrina that caused communications network interruptions and hampered recovery efforts.25 These findings provided the context for the Report's recommendation that the Commission encourage the NRIC best practice that states: "[sjervice providers,network operators and property managers should ensure availability of emergencylbackup power(e.g.,batteries,generators,fuel cells)to maintain critical communications services during times of commercial power failures. . . ."26 In the Notice,the Commission noted that the Katrina Panel observed significant challenges to maintenance and restoration of communications services after Hurricane Katrina,due in part to problems with access to key resources such as power and/or generator fuel.27 The Commission also noted that the Katrina Panel recommended that the Commission encourage the implementation of certain NRIC best practices intended to promote the reliability and 211 See,e-g_,T-Mobile Reply at 5,-USTelecom Petition at 9-13. 21 See,e-g.,MetroPCS Petition at 6-7;PCIA Petition at 3-4, 15-19;T-Mobile Reply at 5,8;US Telecom Petition at 9-13. n See 5 U.S.C.§553(b),(c)_ 23 Nuvio Corp.v.FCC 473 Fad 302,310(D.C.Cir.2006)(internal quotations omitted). '4 Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia v.FCC,906 F.2d 713,717(D.C.Cir_ 1990). 25 See Katrina Panel Report at i("lack of power and/or fuel"was one of the"three main problems that caused the majority of communications network interruptions");id. at 5-6("[T}he duration of power outages far outlasted most generator fuel reserves,leading to the failure of otherwise functional infrastructure-");id. at 9("In general, cellular/PCS base stations were not destroyed by Katrina,although some antennas required adjustment after the storm. Rather,the majority of the adverse effects and outages encountered by wireless providers were due to a lack of commercial power or a lack of transport connectivity to the wireless switch.. .");id. at 14("While the communications industry has generally been dingeni in deploying backup batteries and generators and ensuring that these systems have one to two days of fuel or charge,not all locations had them installed. . .Where generators were installed and operational,the fuel was generally exhausted prior to restoration of power-");id at 17("Backup generators and batteries were not present at all facilities. Where they were deployed,most provided only enough power to operate particular communications facilities for 24-48 hours-generally a sufficient period of time to permit the restoration of commercial power in most situations,but not enough for a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina.")- Id at 39. Nol,ce. 21 FCC Rcd at 7323. t Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 resiliency of the 911 and E91 I architecture,including a recommendation that service providers and x_ network operators should"ensure"availability of emergency backup power capabilities(located on-site, when appropriate).28 The Commission sought comment on how the Commission can best encourage implementation of these recommendations consistent with our statutory authority and jurisdiction and welcomed further suggestions on measures that could be taken to strengthen 911 and E911 infrastructure and architecture.29 The Commission also invited"broad comment on the Independent Panel's recommendations and on the measures the Commission should take to address the problems identified" and to build upon the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and promote greater resiliency and reliability of communications infrastructure,heightened readiness and preparedness,and more effective, efficient response and recovery efforts,in the future.30 11. Further,in the Notice,the Commission sought comment on whether it should rely on voluntary consensus recommendations or whether it should rely on other measures for enhancing readiness and promoting more effective response efforts.31 The Notice also invited comment on whether the Katrina Panel's observations warranted additional measures or steps beyond the report's specific recommendations and welcomed suggestions and recommendations of different actions or additional measures beyond the Katrina Panel's recommendations.32 1n its report and recommendations,the Katrina Panel found that the lack of power and/or fuel was one of three main problems that caused the majority of communications network interruptions and significant impediments to the recovery effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.33 The Katrina Panel Report also noted that during and after the hurricane,the power needed to support the communications networks was generally unavailable throughout the region and that backup batteries and generators were required for communications systems to continue to operate.34 The Katrina Panel further noted that"the majority of the adverse effects and outages encountered by wireless providers were due to a lack of commercial power or a lack of transport connectivity to the wireless switch_"35 Additionally,the Katrina Panel Report stated that"[w]ireless providers cited security for their personnel,access and fuel as the most pressing needs and problems affecting restoration of wireless service"and that the loss of power in the wireline telephone network also had a huge impact on the ability of public safety systems to function.31, The Katrina Panel noted that electric utility networks had a high rate of survivability following Hurricane Katrina due, in part,to the 28 Id_at 7326_ See also Katrina Panel Report at 39(recommending that,in order to ensure a more robust E91 I service,the FCC should encourage the implementation of the following NR1C best practice: Service providers,network operators and property managers should ensure availability of emergency/backup power(e.g_,batteries,generators,fuel cells)to maintain critical communications services during times of commercial power failures,including natural and manmade occurrences(e.g.,earthquakes,floods,fires,power brown/blackouts, terrorism)_ The emergency/backup power generators should be located onsite,when appropriate. See NRIC VII Recommendation 7-7-5204.) 91d. 30 Id.at 7320,7322. 3'Id at 7322. Id. - `3 Katrina Panel Report at i. 13. 17-18(problems with maintaining and restoring power for communications infrastructure significantly affected the recover process). 34Id_ at 14_ 3S Id. at 9. - Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 fact that they were built with significant onsite backup power supplies(batteries and generators)_37 Although the Katrina Panel found that"the communications industry has generally been diligent in deploying backup batteries and generators and ensuring that these systems have one to two days of fuel or charge,"it also noted that not all locations had such backup batteries or generators installed and that, because all locations were not able to exercise and test the backup equipment in any systemic fashion, some generators and batteries did not function during the crisis.38 Although the power outages during and after Hurricane Katrina were exceptionally long,the Panel's observations clearly emphasized the importance of power supply to resiliency of communications networks. 12. Taken together,the questions raised in the Notice as well as the Katrina Panel Report's findings regarding the lack of emergency power were sufficient to put interested parties on notice that the Commission was considering how to address the lack of emergency backup power,including through the possible adoption of an emergency backup power rule_ Specifically,the Notice sought comment on how the Commission could best encourage implementation of various NRIC best practices,including ensuring the availability of emergency backup power_39 Even if that language were not read to propose a mandatory rule,the Notice still gave ample notice that this was a possibility_ The Notice specifically inquired about"whether[the Commission]should rely on voluntary consensus recommendations,as advocated by the[Katrina]Panel,or whether[it]should rely on other measures for enhancing readiness and promoting more effective response efforts,"40 a line of inquiry that the Commission reiterated in the July 26 Public Notice_41 Moreover,the D.C_ Circuit has held that the ultimate adoption of a mandatory rule can constitute the logical outgrowth of a voluntary standard_42 Thus,because parties could have anticipated that the rule ultimately adopted was"possible,"it is considered a"logical outgrowth"of the original proposal,and there is no violation of the APA's notice requirements.43 13. Indeed,we note that the National Emergency Number Association(NENA)did propose a backup power requirement in response to the Notice.44 In addition,St_Tammany Parish Communications District I told the Commission that"[vooluntary consensus measures . _ . have fallen short many times" and that"it is imperative that[wireline] and wireless telephone providers be required to demonstrate they have adequate backup procedures in place,'4S Carriers also commented on the importance of having 371d_ at 12_ 381d at 14, 17-l 8. 39 Notice,21 FCC Red at 7326¶16(emphasis added). 40 Notice,21 FCC Red at 7322 9 7(emphasis added). 4r July 26 Public Notice,21 FCC Red at 8583;see also Separate Statement of Commissioner Copps("I am especially pleased that we seek comment on whether voluntary implementation is enough or whether we need to consider other measures."). 4'See New York v.EPA,4I3 F.3d 3,44(D.C.Cir_ 2005)(EPA's adoption of certain mandatory environmental - requirements following earlier proposal of a"menu of altemativ&'approach by which state governments would be allowed to choose any or all of these requirements,was a"readily foreseeable outcome[]that could result from the proposal"and thus was the logical outgrowth of that proposal). 43 See Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA,358 F_3d 936,951 (D-C_Cir.2004)(discussing APA notice requirements and the"logical outgrowth'test). 44 See NENA's August 7,2006 corrnients in response to the Notice at 6_ Cf Rybachek a EPA,904 F_2d 1276,1288 (9'"Cir. 1990)(finding that final rule was"logical outgrowth"of earlier proposal where agency issued NPRM mentioning only the possibility of case-by-case imposition of environmental requirements but issued final rule mandating these requirements after public comments recommended mandates)_ 4$ Cornrnents of St. farnmany Parish Communications District 1.at 1-2 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 backup power_ CTIA observed that wireless carriers"must ensure network reliability and reliance'and ; that,to do so,they"provision their cell sites and switches with batteries to power them when electrical grids fail"and"maintain permanent generators at all of the switches and critical cell sites,as well as an inventory of backup power generators to recharge the batteries during extended commercial power failures."46 USTA likewise gave examples of telephone companies that had already deployed backup power capabilities that enabled their cell networks to remain in operation for several days after a loss of main power_47 In light of these comments,we do not find credible the argument that the Notice failed to apprise parties that the Commission would address the issue of backup power in this proceeding. 14. Petitioners'argument that the Commission did not give adequate notice that it might select a specific durational requirement for emergency power,such as twenty-four or eight hours,also lacks merit. Had we adopted a general backup power requirement that did not require a minimum amount of backup power,we would have risked creating an illogical and meaningless requirement that would have allowed providers to have only one minute of backup power. Thus,parties should have realized that an emergency backup power mandate would inevitably include a specific durational requirement_ 15_ Statutory Authority. PCIA asserts that Section I of the Communications Act,the statutory authority upon which the Commission adopted the backup power rule,is patently inadequate statutory authority_48 PCIA contends that Section 1 of the Communications Act,as amended,(the"Act")" is only a general grant of jurisdiction that,absent other specific authority,does not authorize the Commission to impose requirements to maintain backup power at cell sites.50 PCIA argues that the Commission's ancillary authority under Section I of the Act does not empower it to act where such action would be "ancillary to nothing_i51 16_ The Commission's Section I ancillary jurisdiction covers circumstances where: (1)the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I covers the subject of the regulations,and(2)the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.52 This two-part test for ancillary jurisdiction was developed by the Supreme Court in 46 CTIA—The Wireless Association Comments("CTIA Comments")at 8. 47 Comments of the United States Telecom Association at 5-6. 48 PCIA Petition at 15-16. "47 U_S.C_§ 151_ so PCIA Petition at 15-16(citing Am.Library Assn v. FCC,406 F.3d 689 and Motion Picture Assn of Americo,Inc. v_FCC, 309 Fad 796)_ 5'PCIA Petition at 15(citing Am_Library Assn,406 F.3d at 702 and United States v_ Southwestern Cable Co.,392 US 157, 178(1968)). PCIA further states that it"agrees with CTIA that the Commission's reliance on only Section I is an insufficient statutory basis to sustain the new regulation,"citing the CTIA July 31,2007 Motion for Stay at 8- 11_ CTIA also states that Section 1,standing alone,is not the type of clear expression of Congressional intent that is necessary to impose such a heavy obligation on the wireless industry and,indeed,this would be particularly anomalous in the context of CMRS,which since its inception has been largely deregulated at the federal level(citing Nat'l Assn of State Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC,457 Fad 1238. 1245(1 Ith Cir_2006)(describing the"the pro-competitive,deregulatory framework for(wireless service providers)prescribed by Congress.")(quotation omitted))_ See CTIA's July 31,2007 Motion for Stay at 10-1 l. Finally.CTIA asserts that,even in cases in which the Commission has relied on Section 1 in addition to other provisions of Title I of the Act,such as Section 4(i),47 U.S_C_§ I54(1),to adopt regulations pursuant to its ancillary authority_ the courts have routinely rejected such efforts. See CTIA's July 31,2007 Motion for Stay at 9-11. s, United States v Southwestern Cable Co__ 392 LI.S 157_ 17 7-78(1968)(SowhiLestern Cable)(upholding the FCC regulatory authority over cable television). Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 Southwestern Cable.53 IT To fulfill the first prong of the ancillary jurisdiction test,the subject of the regulation must be covered by the Commission's general grant of jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act,which encompasses"all interstate and foreign Communication by wire or radio_„54 In the instant rule making,this first prong of the ancillary jurisdiction test is met because the backup power rule adopted by the Commission in the Katrina Panel Order pertains to the provisioning of"interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio"55 The second prong of the ancillary jurisdiction test requires that the subject of the regulation must be reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities_56 It cannot seriously be disputed that the backup power requirement is"reasonably ancillary to the effective performance"of the Commission's responsibilities to promote public safety. Section 1 itself makes clear that one of the Commission's missions is to"make available _ [a)wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities _ . . for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.- 47 U_S.C_ § 151 (emphasis added). Section 1 thus requires the Commission to "consider public safety"and to"take into account its duty to protect the public_" Nuvio Corp. v FCC, 473 F.3d 302,307(2006);see also id. at 311 (Kavanaugh,J.,concurring)("the FCC possesses statutory authority . . _ to address the public safety threat by banning providers from selling voice services until the providers can ensure adequate 911 connections")- And as this Court has recognized,it is well"within the Commission's statutory authority"to"'make such rules and regulations _ . . as may be necessary in the execution"of its section I responsibilities."57 Section 303(r)also provides ample authority to support the Commission's action here. Section 303(r)provides that the Commission may"[m]ake such rules and regulations_ . . as may be necessary to cant'out the provisions of this Act_58 18. The presence of a backup power source installed by all local exchange carriers(LECs), including incumbent LECs(ILECs)and competitive LECs(CLECs),as well as commercial mobile radio service(CMRS)providers for all assets that are normally powered from local commercial power including those inside central offices,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals will facilitate communication for the purposes of national defense and the promotion of"safety of life and property"during emergencies. Communications networks cannot operate without a power source. The Commission must therefore be mindful of an adequate power supply,particularly in emergencies,if it is to discharge its core responsibilities under Section I of the Communications Act to regulate communications for the promotion of national defense,public safety and the protection of property. If commercially supplied power is incapacitated,the communications network will also fail_ The backup power rule adopted by the Commission is a short-term attempt to sustain communication in a severe emergency for the purposes of promoting the Commission's salient purpose pursuant to Section I to regulate interstate communications by wire and radio. 19. PCIA's reliance on the broadcast flag ruling by the U.S_Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Court)is misplaced_ In that case, the Court found that the Commission had not satisfied the 5 Id. This test was subsequently applied by the Supreme Court in United States v_Midwest Video Corp.,406 U_S. 649(1972)(Midwest Video 1)and United States v_Midivest Video Corp_, 440 U_S.689(1979)(Midwest Video]I)_ S4 Southwestern Cable, 392 U_S.at 167_ See also,Ant_Lbran Assn. 406 F 3d at 693_ "47 U_S_C_§ 15). Sb Southwestern Cable, 392 U-S.at I78. s'Rural Telephone Coalition v_FCC, 838 F_2d 1307. 1315(D C Cir. 1988)(quoting 47 U_S.C_§ 154(1))_ s 47 U S_C_ � 303(r)_ See also 47 Lt_S C_ § 332 S =� °4 S .82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 second prong of the ancillary jurisdiction test because the restriction on recording digital television i programs that were transmitted by cable or over-the-air broadcast exceeded the Commission's authority to regulate the transmission of communications by wire and radio given that the restriction pertained to a regulation imposed outside the course of the act of transmitting the communication_59 In this case,by contrast,backup power is necessary for the communication to be transmitted at all. 20. Arguments Regarding Lack of Record Support Consideration of Important Factors or Reasoned Basis for Rule_ Petitioners contend that the backup power rule is arbitrary and capricious because the Commission failed to explain why a mandatory obligation including an inflexible minimum 8 or 24 hour period was necessary and why it rejected less restrictive alternatives to the rule,such as a voluntary best practices regime as recommended by the Katrina Panel_60 Several petitioners also allege that the Commission failed to consider the impact of the rule, failed to consider important aspects of the very problem it sought to redress,and failed to explain why present carrier preparedness plans are inadequate_61 Additionally,several petitioners argue that the backup power rule adopted lacks record support. 21_ Petitioners argue that there is no record evidence to support the backup power mandate in general,or the eight or 24-hour minimum in particular.62 Some petitioners note that the comments described in the Order when discussing the backup power rule do not concern CMRS providers at all,do not suggest any mandatory minimum standard,or have nothing to do with backup power_63 However,the rule adopted by the Commission enjoyed strong factual support_ First,as described supra at 9 11,the Katrina Panel repeatedly emphasized the importance of power supply to resiliency of communications networks_ Further,it noted that backup generators and batteries were not present at all facilities.64 Additionally,the Katrina Panel Report stated that power for radio base stations and battery/chargers for portable radio devices are carefully planned for public safety systems;however,"generators are typically designed to keep base stations operating for 24 to 48 hours_,65 This language,along with the Katrina w Panel's recognition that 24-48 hours is generally a sufficient time to permit the restoration of power in most situations,66 clearly provides support for requiring LECs and CMRS providers to maintain backup power for a minimum of 24 hours for assets located inside central offices. The 24 hour requirement imposes relatively less burden while still generally providing sufficient time for restoration of commercial power or for carriers to allocate additional power sources. Further,the Commission recognized the burdens of ensuring longer durations of backup power at other locations,which have subsequently been detailed by petitioners,and reasonably required only 8 hours of backup power for such locations, 59 Am-Library Assn,406 F_3d at 703-704_ b0 See e.g.PCIA Petition at 6;September 4,2007 Comments of Sprint Nextel(Sprint Nextel Reply)at 4; USTelecom Petition at 3, I0-12_ 6r See,e_g_NextG Petition at 2-13;T-Mobile Reply at 8;USTelecom Petition at 2-3,7-13_ 62 See,e-g.,MetYoPCS Petition at ii,4,6-7;PCIA Petition at I5-18;USTelecom Petition at 9-13- 63 See,e-g.,DAS Forum Petition at 5-7;Sprint Nextel Reply at 2-3,-USTelecom at 12(noting that NENA's comments addressed only wireline providers central offices and did not discuss any specific time frame for backup power and that St-Tammany Parsh's comments discussed only backup procedures and made no mention of backup power.). 6° Katrina Panel Report at 17. 65 Id"at 7. NENA further states that its representative on the Katrina Panel urged that wireless sites should include generators with a minimum of five days fuel supply and backup battery systems rated for a minimurn of eight hours. See NENA's September 11,2007 Comments at 1-3_ Id at IT 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 including,but not limited to,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals_b' This will provide at least eight hours for commercial power restoration or carrier actions to obtain additional backup power sources.68 22. Additionally,the Katrina Panel's recommendation was that the Commission encourage the implementation of the NRIC VII Recommendation 7-7-5204. That recommendation states that"[seervice providers,network operators and property managers should ensure availability of emergency/backup power. __" The terns"service providers"and"network operators"clearly include CMRS providers_ In the Katrina Panel Order,the Commission noted that NENA recommended that"the FCC or state commissions,as appropriate,require all telephone central offices to have an emergency backup power source."69 NENA states that,in its comments in the Katrina Panel Docket,it chose to mention telephone central offices as emblematic,not exhaustive,of critical switching points in wire and wireless networks, and it also endorsed the broader scope of NRIC Recommendation 7-7-5204.70 23. The Commission determined that a mandatory backup power requirement would be in the public interest. Although several carriers described their backup power plans,the Katrina Panel Report made clear the importance of backup power for resilient communications and restoration of communications services that have been disrupted_ The report further made clear that,although many tamers do have backup power or backup power plans,not all locations have backup power. The Katrina Panel also noted that because those communications providers did not necessarily test and exercise their backup power sources in a systematic fashion,generators and batteries might not function during the ensis_7t Imposing a backup power rule would ensure that more communications assets have backup power and that providers ensure the availability of this power. Access to communications technologies during times of emergency is critical to the public,public safety personnel,hospitals,and schools,among others. Therefore,because the benefits of ensuring resilient communications during times of crises are so great,the Commission determined that a backup power rule was in the public interest. Moreover,it is important that both LEC and CMRS providers have backup power,because the public,public safety personnel,and hospitals,among others,rely heavily on both types of providers. In fact,many Americans now rely on only a wireless phone and public safety entities,hospitals and others are increasingly relying on wireless technologies.72 As the Katrina Panel Report and commenters note,lack of commercial power was one of the main causes of wireless outages during Hurricane Katrina,access to fuel was one of the 67 47 C.F.R.§ 122 68 In the US Telecom Petition and a Verizon Wireless Ex Parte,both providers reported that the majority of their remote sites have backup power. See USTelecom Petition at 2,8(noting that the vast majority of all network remote terminals have onsite backup battery power typically designed to an eight hour engineering standard,although the actual life of the battery at any point in time depends on numerous factors and some remote terminals are too small to support a battery);Verizon Wireless Ex Parte filed September 4,2007(stating that Verizon Wireless'internal design standard is for eight hours or more of backup power(generators,batteries or both)at every cell site where possible,that the majority of its cell sites have on-site generators or batteries capable of providing backup power for much longer than eight hours,that only a small percentage of sites have only batteries that will not last for eight hours,and that only a handful of sites have no on-site backup power at all)- 69 Katrina Panel Order, 22 FCC Red at 10565 1 76;NENA Comments at 6. 'Q NENA's September 11.2007 Comments at 1-3. 'Id. at 14, 17-18_ See,e_g.,Implementation of Section 6002(B)of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Eleventh Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions 11''ith Respect to Commercial Mobile Services.2I FCC Red 10947, 110)0,1 158(2006)("In the Iast three years alone_the total mobile telephone subscriber base has increased 50 percent_`) 10 NO 3, 1; ' 1i :c i Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 wireless providers' most pressing needs during that catastrophe,and it is important that both wireless and wireline carriers ensure network reliability and resiliency by provisioning their sites with back up power_73 24_ Petitioners also allege that the Commission failed to consider burdens and important matters, some of which affect the ability of carvers to comply with the rule_ They contend that legal impediments, including contractual obligations and inconsistency with federal,state and local environmental,safety, building and zoning laws will make compliance with the rule difficult,if not impossible and could result in preemption issues regarding state and local laws_74 Petitioners note that carriers have site leases with contractual obligations that regulate the placement,installation and operation of power sources.75 Additionally,petitioners assert that compliance with the backup power rule could result in threats to public health and safety. For instance,petitioners state that the installation of a generator and its combustible fuel on the roof of a school or public building,where many transmitters are located,may pose a risk to public health and safety even when in compliance with law.76 Further,petitioners assert that the Commission failed to properly consider the length of time it would reasonably take for providers to comply with the rule. They contend that compliance will take a significant amount of time and the time allowed by the Katrina Panel Order is insufficient,because providers must obtain permits,do site inspections,conduct structural engineering analysis,renegotiate leases,obtain permits,ensure compliance with legal requirements,evaluate backup power needs,and order and install the necessary equipment_77 Petitioners also assert that compliance will take time because thousands of"non-critical"sites do not have backup power and many of the sites that do have backup power do not have the amount required.78 As discussed in greater detail below,petitioners also argue that physical and other practical limitations make it difficult or impossible to comply with the backup power rule_ Finally,petitioners argue that the Commission did not adequately consider the economic burden the rule will impose.79 73 See,supra 11 1 1, 13_ 74 See,e_g_,DAS Forum Petition at 6-7, 10;MetroPCS Petition at ii,8-12;PCIA Petition at 9;T-Mobile Reply at 9. 75 Petitioners state that,in order to comply with the rule,carriers would be required to maintain a large number of battery and fuel-powered generators at cell sites. Because these power systems contain lead,sulfuric acid,oils and flammable liquids,they are subject to a host of federal,state,and local environmental and safety laws that strictly limit their placement and use. They note that,at a multi-carrier site,compliance with the rule could require the addition of several thousand pounds of additional weight,which would implicate local building code limitations. Petitioners note that placement and operation of diesel generators raises environmental issues and implicate federal and state environmental laws are implicated by the rule. They state that state and local government laws and ordinances require permits before installing new diesel generators and issuance ofsuch permits can be delayed while authorities negotiate to address concerns re:noise pollution,ventilation,fuel leakage,etc_ Petitioners argue that site leases that contractually limit the placement of such equipment will have to be-renegotiated prior to installation_ See, e.g-,id- 76 See,e.g_,DAS Forum at 9;MetroPCS Petition at 8-9;T-Mobile Reply at 10. Because several petitioners refer to The CTIA Petition,we note that CTIA also noted that a rooftop location could expose the equipment to lightning or other weather conditions that could compromise the equipment_making it more susceptible to fuel leakage and fire; that the location of such equipment in a church steeple may not provide adequate ventilation;and that pollutants emitted by diesel generators have been identified as leading contributors to a variety of environmental and health problems_ See CTIA Petition at 18-19_ See, e-g.,PCIA Petition at 51, 10,T-Mobile Reply at 7,9, 11-12, USTelecom at 8; Vertzon Wireless Ex Parre at 2- 3_ 7 s!d 7,See.e-_MetroPCS Petition at 5- 13_NextG Petition at 2-3. 10-15_ PCIA Petition at 5_ Sprint Nextel Repl} at 3-4_ 11 t � F ;1E a r t 1 k Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 'G. 25. We find that Petitioners' arguments regarding legal impediments and threat to public health and safety to be compelling and modify Section 12.2 to state that LECs and CMRS providers are not required to meet the backup power requirement if they demonstrate,through the reporting requirement described below,that such compliance is precluded by: (1)federal,state,tribal or local taw;(2)risk to safety of life or health;or(3)private legal obligation or agreement. With respect to private legal obligations or agreements,LECs and CMRS providers should make efforts to revise agreements to enable rule compliance where possible,for example through renegotiations or renewals. Obviously,the Commission will disapprove of attempts to circumvent the rule through private agreements. We believe such exemptions are warranted because those impediments create a substantial burden for LECs and CMRS providers to overcome in order to comply with the rule that in some cases may be insurmountable. In the case of risk to safety of life or health,such an exemption is obviously in the public interest. As noted,supra at 17,some petitioners assert that the Commission should clarify that the backup power rule applies only to assets directly related to the provision of critical communications services.80 We agree that the requirement should be clarified to apply only to assets necessary to the provision of communications services and modify the rule accordingly. We decline,however to limit the rule to "critical"communications services,because,although that term was included in the NRIC best practice recommended by the Katrina Panel,it is not well defined and we believe,for public safety and public interest reasons,all assets necessary to the provision of communications services should have backup power_ We also agree with AT&T that on-site power sources satisfy the requirement of this rule if such sources were originally designed to provide the minimum backup power capacity level required herein and the provider has implemented reasonable methods and procedures to ensure that batteries are regularly checked and replaced when they deteriorate.81 Finally,we find that the requirement should not be limited to assets normally powered from local "AC"commercial power. Regardless of the type of commercial power used,assets necessary to maintain communications should have backup power and be as reliable and resilient as possible_ We also note that the NRIC best practice recommended by the Katrina Panel did not limit its recommendation in this way- Accordingly,we delete the reference to"AC" in the rule_ 26. While today we address concerns raised by LECs and CMRS providers regarding their obligation to ensure emergency backup power,given the importance of backup power reserves during times of emergency,we will seek information regarding the extent to which LECs and CMRS providers are in compliance with this rule_ Accordingly,we also modify Section 12.2 of our rules to require LECs and CMRS providers to file reports with the Commission that identify the following information_ (1)an inventory listing of each asset that was designed to comply with the backup power mandate;(2)an inventory listing of each asset where compliance is precluded due to risk to safety or life or health;(3)an inventory listing of each asset where compliance is precluded by private legal obligation or agreement-, (4)an inventory listing of each asset where compliance is precluded by Federal,state,tribal or local law; and(5)an inventory listing of each asset designed with less than the required emergency backup power capacity and that is not otherwise precluded from compliance for one of the three reasons identified in paragraph 25, above.82 LECs and CMRS providers must file these reports within six months of the %0 See,e-g",Me1rOPCS Petition at 13;NENA September 11,2007,Comments at 3;NextG Petition at 17;Sprint Nextel Reply at 2;USTelecom Petition at 3. 81 AT&T Ex Parfe Notice filed September 27,2007;see also Verizon WirelessF.x Parte filed September 4,2007 (noting that batteries begin to deteriorate the minute they are installed and,although Venzon Wireless has methods and procedures in place that insure that batteries are regularly checked and replaced when they deteriorate,it cannot guarantee that every battery designed to provide 8 hours of backup power will actually do so). 8'LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32-1 l(b)(2)of the Commission's rules and non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers are exempt from the rule and the reporting requirements in paragraphs 26-27 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 effective date of this requirement,and must include a description of facts supporting the basis of the LEC's or CMRS provider's claim of preclusion from compliance- For example,claims that a LEC or CMRS provider cannot comply with the backup power mandate due to a legal constraint must include the citation(s)to the relevant laws and,in order to be deemed precluded from compliance,the law or other legal constraint must prohibit the LEC or CMRS provider from complying with the backup power requirement. The mere need to obtain a permit or other approval will not be deemed to preclude compliance with the backup power requirement. Claims that a LEC or CMRS provider cannot comply with the backup power mandate with respect to a particular asset due to a private legal obligation or agreement must include the relevant terms of the obligation or agreement and the dates on which the relevant terms of the agreement became effective and are scheduled to expire_ Claims that a LEC or CMRS provider cannot comply with the backup power mandate with respect to a particular asset due to risk to safety of life or health must include a description of the particular public safety risk and sufficient facts to demonstrate substantial risk of harm. We direct the PSHSB to develop an appropriate auditing program to ensure that carvers'exclusion filings are reasonable and accurate. 27. LECs or CMRS providers identifying assets designed with less than the required emergency backup power capacity and not otherwise precluded from compliance for one of the three reasons listed above must comply with the backup power requirement or file,within 12 months from the effective date of the rule,a certified emergency backup power compliance plan that is subject to Commission review_ That plan must describe how,in the event of a commercial power failure,the LEC or CMRS provider intends to provide emergency backup power to 100 percent of the area covered by any non-compliant asset,relying on on-site and/or portable backup power sources or other sources as appropriate. The emergency backup power must be sufficient for service coverage as follows: a minimum 24 hours of emergency backup power for assets inside central offices and eight hours for other assets such as cell sites,remote switches,and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. The provider must be able to ensure backup power is available for 100 percent of the area covered by any non-compliant asset pursuant to the emergency backup power compliance plan on the date that the plan is filed- All reports and plans required by Section 122 of the Commission's rules will be automatically afforded confidentiality, because the information in those reports and plans is sensitive, for both national security and/or commercial reasons- This reporting requirement should not be burdensome in light of many LEC and CMRS provider arguments that they already have business continuity plans that address the issue of backup power and in light of the fact that the plan is not due until 12 months after the effective date of the modified rule which will require Office of Management and Budget approval before going into effect. In any event such burdens are outweighed by the importance of having backup power for communications assets- 28- Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to consider the length of time it would reasonably take for CLECs and CMRS providers to comply with the rule and that it will take significant time to evaluate backup power needs,conduct structural engineering analyses,renegotiate leases if needed,prepare necessary applications for permits and other authorizations,ensure compliance with all applicable building codes and environmental regulations,coordinate with counsel,architects,construction personnel and government officials,order and receive the necessary equipment,and properly install the backup power source.83 We note that the Katrina Panel Order was released on June 8,2007,almost four months ago, and LECs and CMRS providers have known of the backup power requirement since that 83 See,supra n77- Some petitioners also note that the rule will result in an increased demand for batteries and generators that might cause a production strain and limit the timely availability of these resources_ However,they have provided no proof in support of these assertions and for the reasons stated in this paragraph,we believe providers will have adequate time to comply with the rule_ Moreover,rote modifications we adopt today will decrease the amount of backup power sources that will need to be installed. I 4k' Stet Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 time_ Further,the modified backup power rule adopted her will not go into effect until OMB approves the new information collection,giving providers additional time to come into compliance_ To the extent LECs and CMRS providers identify non-compliant assets,they will receive even more time to file emergency backup power compliance plans_ In addition,the modifications to the rule mitigate these concerns by exempting assets from compliance when precluded by law,private legal obligation or agreement,or risk to safety of life or health and by allowing an emergency backup power compliance plan in cases where assets do not comply with the 8-24 hour rule and are not subject to the exceptions_ As such,we believe that it will be feasible for providers to comply with the rule- 29. Several petitioners argue that compliance with the backup power rule is burdensome due to physical and other practical limitations,that the required space might not he available at many sites,and that providers may be forced to modify structures containing cell transmitters or to build new structures. 84 They assert,for example,that roofs and floors need to be designed to support the weight of power sources,that many rooftop cell sites were not engineered with the additional weight requirements made necessary by the backup power rule,and that many of those structures may simply not be able to physically support the weight of additional batteries or a generator.85 Petitioners also argue that there is not enough space at many cell sites to add additional backup power sources and note that cell transmitters are often placed in locations with limited room,such as building rooftops,church steeples and inside buildings.86 USTelecom notes that some remote terminals are physically too small to support a backup battery or a battery over a certain size-" T-Mobile reports that,in the case of liquid propane-fueled generators,Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements mandate a 10-foot radius clearance between the liquid propane fuel tank and its ignition source.88 T-Mobile argues that this could substantially increase the amount of space needed to install a backup power source.89 30. We are not convinced that LECs and CMRS providers should be excused from having emergency backup power solely because they have chosen to place their assets at locations with limited weight or space capacities. The ultimate goal of this rule is to ensure that tamers have sufficient emergency backup power,particularly during times of emergencies. We recognize that,in order to comply with the rule,some carriers may have to modify sites to accommodate additional equipment or,in some cases,find other,more suitable,locations for their assets. We believe,however,that any such burdens are far outweighed by the ultimate goal of this rule. For similar reasons,we also reject the notion that carriers should be excused from complying with the rule for vague"practical"reasons. Having said this,however,a carrier could be excused from the rule to the extent that the carrier can demonstrate that an asset with purported physical constraints fall into one of the three exceptions listed above- AdditionalIy,where assets do not comply with the 8-24 hour rule and are not subject to the exceptions,we $4 See,e_g_,DAS Forum Petition at 9,4-5;MetroPCS Petition at ii,9-13;T-Mobile Reply at 11;USTelecom Petition at 2;Verizon Wireless Ex Parte filed September 4,2007 at 2-3_ 8s Id sb Id. PCIA asserts that the backup power rule is at odds with federal efforts to limit the physical presence of cell sites and the policy of promoting collocation_ PCIA Petition at 8-10;see also T-Mobile Reply at 10-1 1. While we recognize the desire to collocate and the flexibility afforded by collocation,the goal of ensuring reliable and resilient communications outweighs any benefits afforded by collocation. Further,The backup power rule,particularly as amended in this Order on Reconsideration_does not necessarily prevent collocation_ 87 USTelecom Petition at 2.8. 88 T-Mobile Reply at I;see also PCIA Petition at 9(stating that fire codes require safety zones around propane and diesel tanks)_ 89 Id I4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 now allow an emergency backup power compliance plan- 3 1_ Although petitioners argue that the economic burden that the backup power rule will impose is substantial,the record before the Commission showed that several carvers have already deployed back- power power capabilities,some of which allow them to remain in operation for several days in the event of a loss of main power.90 In any event,we find that the benefits of ensuring sufficient emergency backup power,especially in times of crisis involving possible loss of life or injury,outweighs the fact that carriers may have to spend resources,perhaps even significant resources,to comply with the rule.91 Petitioners assert that compliance may be costly;however,the record does not show that it is"cost- prohibitive"for carriers. Moreover,the rule modifications,including new exemptions described above and the provision that providers file an emergency backup power compliance plan to ensure 100 percent coverage in areas covered by non-compliant assets,will decrease any economic burden substantially. Finally,we find that the goal of ensuring that carriers'networks have sufficient emergency backup power outweighs the economic burden described by petitioners and particularly the reduced economic burden in light of the rule modifications adopted herein. The need for backup power in the event of emergencies has been made,abundantly clear by recent events,and the cost of failing to have such power may be measured in lives lost_ 32_ Some Petitioners argue that,contrary to the ultimate goal of protecting the provision of services,the backup power rule will not advance,but will actually risk undermining,carriers' emergency preparedness goals and efforts to achieve important business continuity and disaster recovery goals.92 Petitioners contend that the rule deprives carriers of the flexibility necessary to make intelligent and efficient plans for network resiliency as well as giving carriers the flexibility to respond to disasters in real time while remaining in compliance with the Commissions rules_93 Petitioners assert that,by diverting manpower and resources away from more appropriate efforts to tailor emergency communications plans,and by denying carriers the ability to move resources away from areas not impacted to those that have been impacted,the rule undermines rather than promotes the important goal ofpublic safety_94 33. We recognize that carriers need some level of flexibility in the design and deployment of their networks. This need,however,must be balanced with the critical goal of ensuring that communications networks has sufficient backup power,particularly during times of disaster. The modifications we make today strike a fair and equitable balance of these two interests. The modified rule we adopt today will ensure that LECs,including ILECs and CLECs,as well as CMRS providers maintain sufficient Ievel of emergency backup power for assets that are necessary to maintain communications and 90 See,supra 1 13_ See also T-Mobile Reply at 7(T-Mobi)e already provides varying degrees of backup power at 95 percent of its cell sites,most have less than 8 hours of power but some have more than 8 hours)_ 91 Although its petition has been withdrawn several commenters reference the CTIA Petition,and we note that CTIA asserted that the reasons the Commission gave for encouraging but not requiring other Katrina Panel recommendations apply with equal force to the backup power issue- For instance,like the implementation of diverse 911 circuits,CTIA contends that mandatory minimum backup power is"cost-prohibitive in certain cases" CTIA Petition at 24,n33;see also Katrina Panel Order,22 FCC Red at 10564-65¶75_ However,the costs of implementing diverse 911 circuits are often shouldered by PSAPs which depend on limited sources of public funding and do not hare the financial resources of commercial companies_ 9'See, e_g__MetroPCS Petition at 13_PCIA Petition at 8, 19-20;USTelecom Petition at I-3,7-9_ 93 See, e.g_, MetroPCS Petition at it-6-7_ 13;PCIA Petition at 8. 19-20_ Sprint Nextel Reply at 2-3;USTelecom Petition at 2.7_ Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 that are normally maintained by commercial power. At the same time,the modifications adopted herein provide some level flexibility,both in terms of the exceptions provided and the requirements for submission of an emergency backup power compliance plan in cases where providers are not compliant. Moreover,inclusion of on-site back up power does not preclude the ability of carriers to maintain strategic stores of fuel,batteries or other backup equipment in other localities as a further layer of redundancy. Petitioners argue that enforcement could also lead to the termination or disruption of wireless cell sites,threatening the availability of service,including E-911 service.95 Petitioners further contend that carriers may have little choice but to shut down or move certain transmitters rather than risk operating in violation of the new rule or endangering public health and safety_96 NENA disagrees and contends that these arguments suggest that cellular providers should be immune from any disruptive regulatory discipline.97 We believe that the exemptions now provided along with the requirement to develop an emergency backup power compliance plan in cases where assets do not comply with the 8-24 hour rule and are not subject to the exceptions described herein will mitigate these concerns_ 34_ Paging Carvers. The American Association of Paging Carriers(AAPC)argues that the Commission did not intend to apply the backup power rule to paging carriers and should so clarify. Alternatively,AAPC asserts that,if the Commission did intend for this rule to apply to paging carriers, the Commission should reconsider and exclude paging carriers98 or instead adopt the Katrina Panel's actual recommendation on this issue,as set forth in the Katrina Panel Report. The backup power rule adopted in the Katrina Panel Order requires commercial mobile radio service(CMRS)providers to have emergency backup power. CMRS providers that have no more than 500,000 subscribers are exempt from this rule. Therefore,paging carriers that are CMRS providers with more than 500,000 subscribers must comply with the rule. Paging services are a critical part of emergency response. Many first responders, hospitals and critical infrastructure providers rely on paging services during emergencies.99 Therefore,it is critical that these services be available during crises_ Backup power at paging carrier facilities will help ensure the availability of these services. The importance of paging services is further demonstrated by the fact that paging carriers participate in the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee and are subject to the Commission's Part 4 outage reporting rules. For these reasons and those set forth below, 95 See,e_g.MetroPCS Petition at ii,4,8-13;PCIA Petition at 6, 12;NextG Petition at 1-3, 13-19. 96 Id. 97 NENA takes issue with the claim that forced shutdown of non-compliant sites will threaten public safety. NENA asserts this argument suggests that cellular providers should be immune from any disruptive regulatory discipline because so many 9-1-1 callers use wireless phones. NENA notes that wireless carriers made an analogous argument in 1993,during the early consideration of 9-1-1 caller location rules,suggesting that cellular telephony,of itself,was such a boon to 9-1-1 access that precise caller location should not be required_ NENA Comments filed September 11,2007 at 3_ 98 AAPC argues that the rule should not apply to entities defined by Section 20.9(1)and(6)of the rules,or to Narrowband PCS licenses as defined by Section 24.5 of the rules. AAPC Petition at 4_ As noted herein,we find that the rule should apply to CMRS providers,as defined in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules. 99 See,e_g.,Testimony of Bruce Deer,American Association of Paging Carriers before the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Meeting Transcript at 123(March 5, 2006)("And ,ve realize that today.still,with all of the advent of all of the communications methods of electronic forms that hospitals still use predominantly pagers for emergency communications to reach their doctors and their emerging medical staffs-")-,Testimony of Vincent Kelly,President and Chief Executive Officer,USA Mobility before the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Meeting Transcript at 132("(P]aging devices continue to play a critical role for first responders and are still used extensively by policy(sic]officers,fire fighters,rescue workers. In addition.hospitals and health care clinics a well as government agencies rely heavily on paging services.'-) 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 we modify Section 12.2 to clarify that the rule applies to CMRS providers,as defined in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules_ 35. AAPC argues that the Commission intended to exclude paging carriers from this backup power rule. AAPC asserts that the Katrina Panel Order bases the CMRS classification in Section 12.2 on a definition developed for the E-911 Proceedingt00 and,because paging carriers do not provide E-911 service,the inference is that the Commission intended to exclude paging carriers from this rule. The parts of the Katrina Panel Order cited by AAPC,however,do not define CMRS providers,but instead provide an exemption for non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers. In a footnote, the Commission merely stated that this exemption is based on the Tier III CMRS definition. AAPC contends that the etymology of the backup power rule supports a finding that the Commission intended to exclude paging carriers and to apply the rule only to entities that are required to provide E-911 service as defined in Section 20.18 of the Commission's rules_101 AAPC notes that the Katrina Panel made its backup power recommendation"in order to ensure a more robust E-911 service"and that,when requesting public comment on this recommendation,the Commission explained that the Panel "recommends that the Commission encourage the implementation of certain NRIC best practices intended to promote the reliability and resiliency of the 911 and E91 I architecture."102 However,the backup m power rule includes no such limitations and,in the Notice,the Commission specifically sought comment on whether the Katrina Panel's observations warranted additional measures or steps beyond the report's specific recommendations and welcomed suggestions and recommendations regarding additional measures or actions beyond the Panel's recommendations.103 The Commission also sought comment on whether it should rely on voluntary consensus recommendations,as advocated by the Katrina Panel,or whether it should rely on other measures for enhancing readiness and promoting more effective response efforts. Further,AAPC argues that the deliberate use of the term"cell sites"in the rule supports the conclusion that the Commission did not intend that the rule apply to paging carriers because paging carriers do not operate cell sites in their networks_104 The reference to cell sites,however,is only one example of an asset that is normally powered from local commercial power and the assets identified in the rule are not an exhaustive list_105 36. AAPC requests,in the event that the Commission did intend to apply the backup power rule to paging carvers,that the rule be modified to ensure that it does not apply to paging carriers. AAPC argues that it is unreasonable to lump paging networks together with other types of CMRS networks for purposes of this rule without considering the particular engineering and cost characteristics of paging networks themselves. Although AAPC argues that applying the requirement to all paging base stations and terminals would be particularly troubling for paging carriers,106 the burden will be mitigated by the too AAPC Petition at 2. In support of this assertion,AAPC cites the Katrina Panel Order at 178&n. 103, Appendix C(Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)at 127&nn.59-60,citing Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems(Order to Stay), CC Docket No_97-102, 17 FCC Red 14841, 14848& 22(2002)(the"E-911 Proceeding")_' 101 AAPC Petition at 3-4_ 102 Notice, 21 FCC Red 7320,7326¶ 16;Katrina Panel Report at 39_ 103 Notice,21 FCC Red at 7320-7323_ iO4 AAPC Petition at 4_ "'The rule states,in part,that LECs and CMRS providers must have an emergency backup power source for all assets that are normally powered from local commercial power,including those inside central offices,cell sites, remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals_ 47 C_F_R. y 12.2_ 106 AAPC notes that,unlike cellular and broadband PCS networks_paging networks make substantial use of simulcasting and"fill-in"transmitters to assure adequate signal penetration in buildings and to co%er terrain- (contmued__} 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 _ rule modifications adopted herein_ Additionally,the burden for paging carriers would not necessarily be any more onerous for paging carriers than for other CMRS providers. Paging providers use a variety of facilities to provide coverage which are,in most cases not that different from the facilities of other CMRS providers_ The fill-in facilities employed by paging providers are similar in size and power requirements as those used by other CMRS providers. In many instances,paging providers use high-powered transmitters that are located in multiple transmitter sites. While there may be challenges to overcome such as space,zoning and structural limitations for these facilities,they are no more onerous than those faced by other CMRS providers_ In addition,the backup power rule might be less burdensome for paging carriers than for other CMRS providers,because the number of fill-in paging sites that paging carriers deploy is likely less than the more extensive deployment of assets required by other CMRS providers. AAPC asserts that the Commission should define CMRS as those services that are identified in Section 20.18(a)of the Commission's rules,as it did for purposes of Section 605(a)of the WARN Act,where the Commission defined the statutory phrase"commercial mobile service"107 That definition,however was limited to Section 605(a)of the WARN Act and was done for specific purposes of that section of the Act that are not relevant to the backup power rule.108 Further,the membership of the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee established pursuant to the WARN Act includes paging carriers. In light of these factors,we decline to modify the rule as suggested by AAPC,and clarify that paging carriers are required to comply. 37. Distributed Antenna System(DAS)Nodes and other non-traditional sites. NextG,MetroPCS and other petitioners ask the Commission to clarify that DAS Nodes and other"non-traditional"sites, such as cellular repeater sites,micro-cell and pico-cell locations,electric poles,light poles,and flagpoles, are not"cell sites"as the term is used in the Commission's new backup power rule_109 In the alternative, these petitioners request that the Commission reconsider and amend the rule to eliminate the backup power requirement for DAS Nodes and other"non-traditional"sites.110 Other petitioners make similar arguments for"non-traditional"sites and emphasize the burden of complying with the backup power rule due to physical constraints and economic resources."' NextG explains that it provides telecommunications services to wireless carvers via a network architecture that uses fiber-optic cable and small antennas mounted in the public rights-of-way on infrastructure such as utility poles,street lights and (.-_continued from previous page) shielded areas. AAPC states that,in emergency conditions,not all base stations are usually required to maintain an acceptable level of service_ According to AAPC,the design of paging networks involve engineering and cost trade- offs that do not fit neatly into a matrix that the Commission can or should promulgate into law. AAPC acknowledges that paging carriers typically do have backup power sources for their critical base station sites,but they may not have backup power at all sites_ AAPC Petition at 4-5. 107 AAPC Petition at 3,citing Implementation of a Grant Program for Remote Community Alert Systems Pursuant to Section 605(a)of the Warning,Alert,and Response Network(WARN)Act,Declaratory Ruling,PS Docket No_ 07-8, 21 FCC Red 7214(2007). log The reasons this definition was adopted for Section 605(a)included: (1)because including current MSS offerings in the definition of"commercial mobile service"could render meaningless the grant program of Section 605(a),we cannot equate"commercial mobile service"with the Commission's definition of CMRS;(2)defining "commercial mobile service"to include only carriers that are obligated to provide E911 service focuses limited resources on communities that need them most:namely,those communities that have no access to wireless E91 1 service_ See Id_ 109 See, e.g_, NextG Petition at 8-10,DAS Forum Petition at 34,MetroPCS Petition at 12-13,and Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance August 30,2007 Comments(MA Reply)at 1-4_ 110 See, e g._NextG Petition at 1-1 See also id_ See. c o . MetroPCS Petition at n, 12-13_ le Tim `� Et A I NO l --,Z F i Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 traffic signal poles_ NextG argues that DAS Nodes should not be treated as a cell site because the DAS Node does not include some of the features typically associated with a cell site_ The antenna is not associated with a base station or network switching equipment at the DAS Node site.r I2 NextG and MetroPCS maintain that even if the Commission does treat the DAS Node as a cell site this equipment should be exempt from the backup power rule because it is"technologically,financially,and politically infeasible"to install eight hours of backup power.113 DAS Forum argues that the impact due to the loss of power to a portion of a DAS network is far less than the loss of power to a traditional cell site because the balance of the DAS network continues to function when one node is damaged-114 38_ We decline to exempt DAS Nodes or other sites from the emergency backup power rule.►1. Rather,we believe that to the extent these systems are necessary to provide communications services, they should be treated similarly to other types of assets that are subject to the rule. We note that many of the arguments made by petitioners are similar to the physical constraint arguments raised by other parties. As we stated earlier,we see no reason why LECs and'CMRS providers who choose to place assets at locations with limited physical capacities should generally be excused from compliance with the rule. We realize that many providers have begun to use DAS and other small antenna systems as part of their communications networks. That fact alone,however,is far outweighed by the need to ensure a reliable communications network. To the extent petitioners raise concerns regarding legal impediments,private agreement constraints and safety risk issues,we note that the modifications to the rule we make today should address those concerns_ DAS Forum and PCIA argue that the backup power rule will adversely impact the public interest and Commission policy goals,because the increased expense of compliance will prevent wireless carriers from further deploying their networks in this manner and that this will decrease capacity,coverage and reliability and affect emergency communications and wireless E91 I coverage.116 Petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence that the backup power rule will prevent wireless carriers from deploying their networks,particularly in light of the reduced burden of compliance that will result from the rule modifications we adopt in this Order on Reconsideration_ Moreover,as noted above,the Commission finds that the benefits of ensuring backup power for communications assets outweighs any economic burden that LECs and CMRS providers may incur as a result of this rule_ IV_ CONCLUSION 39_ For the reason stated above,we deny petitioners' requests that we rescind Section 12.2 of the Commission's rules,but find that the petitioners have presented an adequate basis for modifying this backup power rule as detailed above and in Appendix B. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 40_ Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA),5 U_S_C_ § 604,the Commission has prepared a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Order on 1t'NextG Petition at 1,8. NeXIG Petition at 2-3, I0-13;MetroPCS also argues that compliance would be burdensome,impractical and,in many instances impossible-particularly at remote sites,where MetroPCS claims that it will be forced to discontinue services in some instances. MetroPCS Petition at 4. 8-13. 114 DAS Forum Petition at 3-5_ 115 We also again clarify that the list in the rule is not exhaustive and the inclusion of the term"cell sites"does not limit the rule's applicability. rin Se c, e _ DAS Forum Petition at 3_ NextG Petition at 2-4, 10-17. 19 NO cl Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 Reconsideration on small entities. The Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is set forth in Appendix C,infra_ The Commission's Consumer&Government Affairs Bureau,Reference Information Center,will send a copy of this Order,including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration_ 41. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis_ This Order on Reconsideration contains new information collection requirements_ The Commission,as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,invites the general public,the Office of Management and Budget("OMB")and other Federal agencies to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this Order on Reconsideration,as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due 60 days from date of publication of the Order on Reconsideration in the Federal Register_ In addition,pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C_3506(c)(4),we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might"further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." In this present document,we have assessed the effects of requiring LECs and CMRS providers to have back- up power or emergency back-up power compliance plans and to file reports regarding compliance with these requirements as set forth in Section 12.2 of our rules. We have specifically exempt LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company set forth in Section 32.11(b)(2)of our rules,117 and non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers. We find that this imposes minimal regulation on small entities to the extent consistent with our goal of advancing our public safety mission. 42. Congressional Review Act Analysis_ The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see 5 U.S_C_ 80I(a)(1)(A). 43. Alternative Formats_ Alternative formats(computer diskette,large print,audio cassette,and Braille)are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to FCC504@fcc_gov or calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at(202)418-0530,TTY(202)418-0432_ VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 44. Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED,pursuant to Sections 1,4(1-)-(k),4(o),201,218,2I9,301, 303(g),3030),303(r),332,403,405,621(b)(3)and 621(d)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(k), 154(o),201,218,219,301,303(g),3030),303(r),332,403,405, 541(b)(3),and 541(d),and Sections 1.3 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules,47 C.F_R_ §§ 1.3, 1.106, That this Order on Reconsideration in EB Docket No_ 06-119 and WC Docket No_06-63 IS ADOPTED_ 45_ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by The American Association of Paging Carvers,the DAS Forum,MetroPCS Communications,Inc_,NextG Networks, Inc., PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association(PCIA),and The United States Telecom Association ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed above,and the remainder of those petitions ARE DENIED_ 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section 12.2 of the Commission's rules IS AMENDED as specified in Appendix B,and Section 122 shall be effective on the date of Federal Register notice announcing OMB approval of the information collection now contained in that rule. 47 C F.R. ` ,2 11(bx2)- 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 47_ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,Reference Information Center,SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration,including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration_ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H_Dortch Secretary 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 APPENDIX A List of Petitions for Clarification and/or Reconsideration,Comments,and Ear Pane Comments EB Docket No.06-119 WC Docket No.00-63 Petitions for Reconsideration 1. American Association of Paging Carvers 2. CTIA-The Wireless Association® 3. The DAS Forum 4. MetroPCS Communications,Inc_ 5. NextG Networks,Inc_ 6. PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association 7. United States Telecom Association Timely Filed Comments Responding to Petitions for Reconsideration I. BridgeCom International,Inc.;Broadview Networks,Inc.;Cavalier Telephone,LLC;DeltaCom, Inc.;Eureka Telecom,Inc. d/b/a InfoHighway Communications;IDT Corporation;Integra Telecom,Inc.;McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services,Inc.;Mpower Communications Corp.;Norlight Telecommunications,Inc.;Pacific Lightnet,Inc.;RCN Telecom Services,Inc., RNK,Inc.;Talk America Holdings,Inc.;TDS Metrocom,LLC;U.S.TeiePacific Corp.d/b/a TeIePacifrc Telecommunications 2. Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance 3. National Hydrogen Association 4. Sprint Nextel Corporation 5. T-Mobile USA,Inc. Ex Parte Comments I. AT&T Services,Inc_ 2. Cellular South and Rural Cellular Corporation;Leap Wireless;MetroPCS Communications, Inc.;SunCom Wireless;and United States Cellular Corporation 3. CTIA-The Wireless Association® 4. CTIA-The Wireless Association®and United States Telecom Association 5. The DAS Forum 6. Embarq,United States Telecom Association,Verizon,and Windstream 7_ The National Emergency Number Association 8. NextG Networks,Inc- 9- PC1A-The Wireless Infrastructure Association 10. United States Telecom Association I L Verizon 12_ Verizon Wireless CTIA withdrew this Petition on September 28.200T 22 fpa fF C�/ Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 APPENDIX B Final Mule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble,the Federal Communications Commission amends Part 12 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations(C.F.R.)as follows: PART 12—REDUNDANCY OF COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 1. Section 12.2 is amended to read as follows: §12.2 Backup Power. (a) Except to the extent set forth in Section 12.2(b)and Section 12.2(c)(4)of the Commission's rules, local exchange carvers,including incumbent local exchange carvers and competitive local exchange carriers(collectively,LECs),and commercial mobile radio service(CMRS)providers, as defined in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules,must have an emergency backup power source(e_g.,batteries,generators, fuel cells)for all assets necessary to maintain communications that are normally powered from local commercial power,including those assets located inside central offices,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. LECs and CMRS providers must maintain emergency backup power for a minimum of twenty-four hours for assets that are normally powered from local commercial power and located inside central offices,and eight hours for assets that are normally powered from local commercial power and at other locations, including cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. Power sources satisfy this requirement if they were originally designed to provide the minimum backup power capacity level required herein and the provider has implemented reasonable methods and procedures to ensure that the power sources are regularly checked and replaced when thev deteriorate. LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth :'_3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 in Section 32.1 I(b)(2)of the Commission's rules and non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers are exempt from this role- (b) LECs and CMRS providers are not required to comply with paragraph(a)for assets described above where the LEC or CMRS provider demonstrates,through the reporting requirement described below,that such compliance is precluded by: (1)Federal,state,tribal or local law; (2)Risk to safety of life or health;or (3)Private legal obligation or agreement. (c) Within six months of the effective date of this requirement,LECs and CMRS providers subject to this section must file reports with the Chief of the Public Safety&Homeland Security Bureau. (1)Each report must list the following: (i) Each asset that was designed to comply with the applicable backup power requirement as defined in paragraph(a), (ii) Each asset where compliance with paragraph(a)is precluded due to risk to safety of life or health; (iii) Each asset where compliance with paragraph(a)is precluded by a private legal obligation or agreement; (iv) Each asset where compliance with paragraph (a)is precluded by Federal,state, tribal or local law,and (v) Each asset that was designed with less than the emergency backup power capacity specified in paragraph(a)and that is not precluded from compliance under paragraph(b)_ (2)Reports listing assets falling within the categories identified in paragraphs(c)(1)(11)through (iv)must include a description of facts supporting the basis of the LEC's or CMRS provider's claim of preclusion from compliance. For example,claims that a LEC or CNIRS provider cannot comply this section duc to a legal constraint must include the citation(s)to the relevant la"(s)and.in 2.1 e ( t-J of Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 order to demonstrate that it is precluded from compliance,the provider must show that the legal constraint prohibits the provider from compliance. Claims that a LEC or CMRS provider cannot comply with this section with respect to a particular asset due to a private legal obligation or agreement must include a description of the relevant terms of the obligation or agreement and the dates on which the relevant terms of the agreement became effective and are set to expire_ Claims that a LEC or CMRS provider cannot comply with this section with respect to a particular asset due to risk to safety of life or health must include a description of the safety of life or health risk and facts that demonstrate a substantial risk of harm- (3)For purposes of complying with the reporting requirements set forth in paragraphs(c)(1)(1) through(v),in cases where more than one asset necessary to maintain communications that are normally powered from local commercial power are located at a single site(i_e_,within one central office),the reporting entity may identify all of such assets by the name of the site. 4 In cases where a LEC or CMRS provider identifies assets pursuant to paragraph c 1 v O P P P g P O( )( )> such LEC or CMRS provider must comply with the backup power requirement in paragraph(a)or, within 12 months from the effective date of this rule, file with the Commission a certified emergency backup power compliance plan. That plan must certify that and describe how the LEC or CMRS provider will provide emergency backup power to 100 percent of the area covered by any non- compliant asset in the event of a commercial power failure_ For purposes of the plan,a provider may rely on on-site and/or portable backup power sources or other sources,as appropriate,sufficient for service coverage as follows= a minimum of 24 hours of service for assets inside central offices and eight hours for other assets, including cell sites, remote switches,and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. The emergency backup power compliance plans submitted are subject to Commission review. (5)Reports submitted pursuant to this paragraph most be supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury and signed and dated by a duly authorized representative of the LEC or CMRS provider with personal knowledge of the facts contained therein_ ATTAC "'T�sTt "t � !1�lE�>_4 '� t €'fir � Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 (6)Information filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection(c)of this rule shall be automatically afforded confidentiality in accordance with the Commission's rules- (7)LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32.11(b)(2)of the Commission's rules and non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers are exempt from this reporting requirement_ 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 APPENDIX C Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,as amended(RFA),r an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(Notice) in EB Docket No.06-119.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in this docket,including comment on the IRFA. On June 8,2007,the Commission released an Order in EB Docket No.06-119 which included a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(FRFA).3 In this Order on Reconsideration,the Commission includes a Supplemental FRFA which conforms to the RFA.4 A- Need for,and Objectives of,the Rules 2. In the Order released on June 8,2007,the Commission adopted a rule requiring local exchange carriers(LECs),other than those that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32-11(b)(2)of the Commission's rules,5 and commercial mobile radio service(CMRS)providers, other than non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers,to have an emergency backup power source for all assets that are normally powered from local AC commercial power,including those inside central offices,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals_ The Commission received seven petitions seeking reconsideration of this rule on various grounds,including the inability of carriers to comply with the rule due to legal constraints(i.e., other Federal,state and local laws precluding compliance with the Commission's rule),constraints due to private legal obligation or agreement that precludes the ability of carriers to store additional backup equipment necessary to comply with the rule,risk to safety of life or health,physical constraints,and economic burden_ In response to the petitions for reconsideration,the Commission amends its rule to exempt assets where the LEC or CMRS provider has demonstrated that it cannot comply with the rule due to federal,state,tribal or local law;risk to safety of life or health,or private legal obligation or agreement_ The Commission also amended the rule to require LECs and CMRS providers to file reports that list each asset: (1)that was designed to comply with the applicable backup power requirement;(2)where compliance is precluded do to risk to safety of life or health;(3)where compliance is precluded by a private legal obligation or agreement;(4)where compliance is precluded by Federal,state,tribal or local law; and(5)that was designed with less than the required emergency backup power capacity and is not 'See 5 U_S.C.§603. The RFA,see 5 U_S_C_§§601-12,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996(SBREFA),Pub.L_No. 104-121,Title 11, 110 Stat.857(1996)_ See Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,21 FCC Red 7320,7330,Appendix A(2006)_ s Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks,Order.22 FCC Red 10541 (2007)(Katrina Panel Order). See 5 U.S.C. §604_ s Section 32.1 1 pro.ides that Class B companies are those companies that have annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations that are less than the indexed revenue threshold. 47 C_F.R. §32.1 1(b)(2)_ The Wireline Competition Bureau recently announced that the 2006 revenue threshold for Class A to Class B companies is SI34 million_ Public Notice_"Annual Adjustment of Revenue Thresholds_--DA 07-1706(WCB,Apr-It 12,2007). Although Section 32.11,by its terms,applies only to ILECs,we are applying the same revenue categories to CLECs for the purpose of the exception to this requirement. lot NT F 1^ Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 precluded from compliance for the reasons stated in(2),(3)or(4)_ For assets in category(5),LECs and CMRS providers must comply with the backup power requirements or file a certified emergency backup power compliance plan that certifies that the LEC or CMRS provider will ensure 100 percent coverage in each of the areas covered by any non-compliant asset_ Further,the Commission clarifies that the rule applies only to assets that are necessary to the provision of communications services that are normally powered from local commercial power. Finally,the Commission clarified that that on-site power sources satisfy the requirement of this rule if such sources were originally designed to provide the minimum backup power capacity level required and the provider has implemented reasonable methods and procedures to ensure that batteries are regularly checked and replaced when they deteriorate. 3_ Although the rule now requires that LECs and CMRS providers file a report,and in some circumstances a backup power compliance plan,the amendments to the rule significantly reduce the burden on LECs and CMRS providers by providing appropriate relief from the requirement that they have backup power sources for all assets normally powered by commercial power. As noted above,the modified rule exempts assets where compliance is precluded by risk to safety of life or health,private legal obligation or agreement,or federal,state,tribal or local law,and allows providers with non- compliant assets that are not otherwise exempt to file an emergency backup power plan. B_ Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public 4_ MetroPCS Communications,Inc_ (MetroPCS)argues that the Commission's burden estimate in the FRFA regarding wireless carriers was based on mistakes of fact and that compliance is not feasible for MetroPCS,which qualifies as a non-nationwide provider with more than 500,000 subscribers_6 MetroPCS asserts that the Commission erroneously concluded that the requirement will not create an undue burden because several communications providers reported in their comments that they already maintain emergency backup power_' MetroPCS contends that,while backup power at switch sites is common,no wireless service provider has reported that it routinely provides 8 hours of backup power at all remote sites-8 As noted above,several petitioners argued that the Commission did not adequately consider the burden that the backup power rule would impose on LECs and CMRS providers- C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 5_ The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of,and,where feasible,an estimate of,the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.9 The RFA generally defines The term"small entity"as having the same meaning as the terms"small business,""small organization," and"small governmental jurisdiction."1) In addition,the term"small business"has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act_" A"small business concern"is one 6 MetroPCS Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration at 7-8,citing FRFA 124 and n60_ 'See FRFA,124 8 MetroPCS Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration at 7-8_ The American Association of Paging Carriers (AAPC)cites parts of the FRFA that are identical to sections in the Katrina Panel Order in support of its arguments that Section 12.2 of the Commission's rules should not apply to paging carriers. AAPC Petition for Clarification or, Altemati,�ely,Reconsideration at 2,nl. Those arguments are fully addressed in the Order on Reconsideration- 9 5 U.S.C. §604(a)(3)- t0 5 U.S_C_ §601(6)_ " 5 U-S.0 §60l(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern"in the Small Business Act_ 15 U.S_C_§632)_ Pursuant to 5 U_S_C. §60](3),the statutory definition of a small business applies`unless an agentv_after consuttatron with the Office of AdvocacN of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity (continued _--) Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 which. (1)is independently owned and operated;(2)is not dominant in its field ofoperation;and(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration(SBA)_12 6_ Nationwide,there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses,according to SBA data.13 A"small organization"is generally"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field_i14 Nationwide,as of 2002,there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations_t5 The term"small governmental jurisdiction"is defined generally as "governments of cities,towns,townships,villages,school districts,or special districts,with a population of less than fifty thousand."16 Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.17 We estimate that,of this total,84,377 entities were "small governmental jurisdictions__"18 Thus,we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small_ 7_ In the following paragraphs,the Commission further describes and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the rules the Commission adopts in this Order_ The rule changes affect LECs,including both incumbent LECs(ILECs)and competitive LECs(CLECs),and CMRS providers_ 8. Since this Order applies to multiple services,this FRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a service-by-service basis. In the case of CMRS providers,when identifying small entities that could be affected by the Commission's new rules,this FRFA provides information that describes auctions results,including the number of small entities that were winning bidders_ However,the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in a particular service. The Commission does not generally require that licensees later provide business size information,except in the context of an assignment or a transfer of control application that involves unjust enrichment issues_ 9_ Cellular Licensees_ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for small businesses in the category"Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications_"t9 Under that SBA category,a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees_20 For the census category of"Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,"Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms (___continued from previous page) for public comment,establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register." 5 U_S_C.§601(3)_ 12 15 U.S.C_ §632. 1?See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No_CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002). 14 5 U_S.C_ §601(4)_ rs Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac &Desk Reference(2002). 16 5 U_S_C_ §601(5)_ "U.S_Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States- 2006, Section 8,page 272,Table 415_ 1s We assume that the villages,school districts,and special districts are small,and total 48.558_ See U-S Census Bureau,Statistical Abstract of the United States- 2006_section 8. page 273, Table 417_ For 2002,Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county7 municipal,and township governments nationwide was 38,967,of which 35,819 were small- Id 19 13 CF_R. § 121.201_North American Industrn-Classification System(NAICS)code 517212. =o Id Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 in this category that operated for the entire year_" Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.Z2 Thus,under this category and size standard,the majority of firms can be considered small_ 10. Broadband Personal Communications Service_ The broadband Personal Communications Service(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,and the Commission has held auctions for each block_ The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than$40 million in the three previous calendar years,23 For Block F,an additional small business size standard for"very small business"was added and is defined as an entity that,together with its affiliates,has average gross revenues of not more than$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.24 These small business size standards,in the context of broadband PCS auctions,have been approved by the SBA_25 No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the C Block auctions_ A total of 93 "small"and "very small"business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D,E,and F.26 On March 23, 1999,the Commission reauctioned 155 C,D,E,and F Block licenses;there were 113 small business winning bidders.27 On January 26,2001,the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction 35_28 Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction,29 qualified as"small"or "very small"businesses. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35,including judicial and agency determinations,resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant_ 1 I. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards"small entity"bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than SI 5 million in each of the three previous calendar years.29 The Commission awards`very small entity"bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than$3 million in each of the three previous calendar years.34 The SBA has approved these small business size 21 U-S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Subject Series: Information,"Establishment and Firm Size (including Legal Form of Organization,"Table 5,NAICS code 517212(issued Nov_2005). 2'Id_ The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees,the largest category provided is for firms with"1000 employees or more_" 23 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap,Report and Order,i 1 FCC Red 7824,7850-7852 11 57-60 (1996);see also 47 C.F.R.§24.720(b). 24 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap,Report and Order-, I I FCC Red 7824,7852¶60_ 2S See Letter to Amy Zoslov,Chief,Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Federal Communications Commission,from Aida Alvarez.Administrator,Small Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998. 26 FCC News,"Broadband PCS,D_E and F Block Auction Closes,"No_71744(rel.January 14, 1997)_ See-C, D,F_and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes;'Public Notice, 14 FCC Red 6688(VdTB 1999)_ Zs See"C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes;Winning Bidders Announced,"Public Notice, 16 FCC Red 2339(2001). �947 C_F_R. §90.814(bx)) 30/d_ Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 standards for the 900 MHz Service_31 The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995,and closed on April 15, 1996_ Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the$15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997,and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the$15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band_32 A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10,2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses_ One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses_33 I2. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16,2000,and was completed on September 1,2000_ Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the$15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5,2000,a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold_ Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed"small business"status and won 129 licenses_ Thus,combining all three auctions,40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business_ 13. In addition,there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firrns provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations,nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $3 million or$15 million(the special small business size standards),or have no more than 1,500 employees(the generic SBA standard for wireless entities,discussed,supra)_ One firm has over$15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis,that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities_ 14. Advanced Wireless Services_ In the AWS-1 Report and Order,the Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish to provide service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 21 10-2155 MHz bands.34 The AWS-1 Report and Order defines a"small business"as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding$40 million,and a"very small business"as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding S15 million_ The AWS-1 Report and Order also provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent. 15. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(Incumbent LECs). As noted above,a"small business" under the RFA is one that,inter alia,meets the pertinent small business size standard(e.g.,a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees),and"is not dominant in its field of 31 See Letter to Thomas Sugrue,Chief,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Federal Communications Commission,from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration_dated August 10, 1999. The Commission notes that,although a request was also sent to the SBA requesting approval for the small business size standard for 800 MHz,approval is still pending. 3'See"Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 'FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,"'Public Notice, 18 FCC Red 18367(\WTB 1996). 33 See"Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes"Public Noticc_ 17 FCC Red I446(XA TB 2002)_ 34 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands,WT Docket No.02-353. Report and Order_ 18 FCC Rcd 25I62(2003)(A It'S-t Report and Order)_ >1 In � t�� Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 operation.i35 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that,for RFA purposes,small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not"national'in scope.36 We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis,although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other,non- RFA contexts. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services_ The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carvers. Under that size standard,such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.37 According to Commission data,38 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers,an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have more than 1,500 employees_ Consequently,the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 16. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers(Competitive LECs) Competitive Access Providers (CAPS) "Shared-Tenant Service Providers "and"Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard,such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees-39 According to Commission data'40 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services_ Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees_ In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are"Shared-Tenant Service Providers,"and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees_ In addition,44 carriers have reported that they are"Other Local Service Providers." Of the 44,an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service,competitive access providers,"Shared-Tenant Service Providers,"and"Other Local Service Providers"are small entities that may be affected by our action_ 17. Cable and Other Program Distribution_ The Census Bureau defines this category as follows_ "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming_The establishments of this industry deliver visual,aural,or textual programming received from cable networks,local television stations,or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis_These establishments do not generally originate programming matenal_i41 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 3S 15 U_S_C.§632_ 36 Letter from Jere W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of"small business." See 15 U_S_C_§632(a)(Small Business Act);5 U.S.C_§601(3)(RFA). SBA regulations interpret"small business concern"to include the concept of dominance on a national basis_ See 13 C_F_R. § 121.102(b). 13 CF.R_ 6 121.201_NAICS code 5171 10. '$FCC,Wirefine Competition Bureau,Industry Analysis and Technology Division,"Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,page 5-5(Feb. 2007). This source uses data that are current as of October 20,2005. " 13 C_F_R_ § 12120),NAICS code 517110. 40 Trends in Telephone Service,Table 53. at U.S. Census Bureau_2002 NAICS Definitions,"517510 Cable and Other Program Distribution"; h11p:1/1!kv%�A census goy%epcd naics02'defTIDFF517.HTM. �ATT�CHMENT INK). �� Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 Cable and Other Program Distribution,which is: all such firms having$13.5 million or less in annual - reeeipts_42 According to Census Bureau data for 2002,there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year_43 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under$10 million,and 43 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but less than$25 million.44 Thus,under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small_ 18_ Cable Companies and Systems_ The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards,for the purpose of cable rate regulation_ Under the Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,nationwide-45 Industry data indicate that,of 1,076 cable operators nationwide,all but eleven are small under this size standard_46 In addition,under the Commission's rules,a"small system"is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers 47 Industry data indicate that,of 7,208 systems nationwide,6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers,and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers_48 Thus,under this second size standard,most cable systems are small_ 19. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934,as amended,also contains a size standard for small cable system operators,which is"a cable operator that,directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed$250,000,000.i49 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator,if its annual revenues,when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed$250 million in the aggregate_S0 Industry data indicate that,of 1,076 cable operators nationwide,all but ten are small under this size standard_5i We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 42 13 C.F_R_§ 121.201,NAICS code 517510_ 43 U.S_Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Subject Series:Information,Table 4,Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002,NAICS code 517510(issued November 2005)_ 44 Id. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of$25 million or more_ 45 47 C.F_R_§76.901(e)_ The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard of$100 million or less in annual revenues_ Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act_Rate Regulation,Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Red 7393,7408(1995). 46 These data are derived from: R.R.Bowker,Broadcasting& Cable Yearbook 2006,"Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,"pages A-8&C-2(data current as of June 30,2005); Warren Communications News, Television& Cable Factbook 2006,"Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,"pages D-1805 to D-1857_ 4'47 C_F_R_§76.901(c)_ 48 Warren Communications News, Television& Cable Factbook 2006,"U_S_Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2(data current as of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not available_ 49 47 U.S_C_§543(m)(2);see 47 C_F.R_ §76.901(t)&nn_ 1-3. so 47 C.F.R. §76901(f);see Public Notice, FCC Announces Not,Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator.DA 01-158(Cable Services Bureau,Jan_ 24,2001). st These data are derived from_ R.R_ Bowker,Broadcasting& Cable Yearbook 2006,"Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,"pages A-8& C-2(data current as of June 30,2005);Warren Communications News, Television& Cable Factbook 2006_`Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,—pages DA 805 to D-I 857. Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 revenues exceed$250 million,52 and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 20_ Pa in . The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the broad economic census category of"Paging_"53 Under this category,the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees_ Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.54 Of this total,804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.55 In addition,according to Commission data,56 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of"Paging and Messaging Service.- Of this total,we estimate that 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees,and five have more than 1,500 employees_ Thus,in this category the majority of firms can be considered small_ 21_ We also note that,in the Paging Second Report and Order,the Commission adopted a size standard for"small businesses"for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments_57 In this context,a small business is an entity that,together with its affiliates and controlling principals,has average gross revenues not exceeding$15 million for the preceding three years.58 The SBA has approved this def nition.59 An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area(MEA)licenses commenced on February 24,2000,and closed on March 2,2000- Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned,985 were sold_60 Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses_61 An auction of MEA and Economic Area(EA)licenses commenced on October 30,2001,and closed on December 5,2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned,5,323 were sold_62 One hundred thirty- two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction,consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13,2003,and closed on May 28,2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses.63 We also note that,currently,there are approximately 74,000 Common 52 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to§76.901(f)of The Commission's rules_ See 47 C.F.R_§76.909(b). 53 13 C_F_R_§ 121.201,NAICS code 517211- 54 U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Subject Series: Information,"Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization,"Table 5,NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov_2005)_ 55 !d The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with"1000 employees or more." -% Trends in Telephone Service,Table 5.3. 5 7 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 2732,281 I-2812,paras- 178-181 (Paging Second Report and Order);see also Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030,10085-10088,paras.98-107 (1999). 58 Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 2811,para_ 179- 59 See Letter to Amy Zoslov,Chief,Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,Wireless Telecorrimun1 cat Ioils Bureau,from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration.dated December 2, 1998. 60 See"929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,"Public Notice, 15 FCC:Red 4858(WTB 2000)- 61 jd-- 6' See"Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes_'Public Notice_ 16 FCC Red 21821 (WTB 2002)- E' See"Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Clo,,es_"Public Notice. I8 FCC Red 1 1 154(WTB 2003) 14 U Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 Carrier Paging licenses- D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 22. Backup Power Supply. The Order on Reconsideration maintains the requirement that LECs and CMRS providers have an emergency backup power source for all assets necessary to maintain communications that are normally powered from local commercial power,including those inside central offices,cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carrier system remote terminals. Under this existing requirement,LECs and CMRS providers,as defined in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules,must maintain emergency backup power for a minimum of 24 hours for assets inside central offices and eight hours for assets at other locations such as cell sites,remote switches and digital loop carver system remote terminals that normally are powered from local commercial power_ 23. In the Order on Reconsideration,the Commission clarifies that the assets subject to the rule are those necessary to ensure communications that are normally powered from local commercial power and that CMRS providers,including paging carriers,as defined in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules,are subject to the rule. The Commission further exempts assets from the rule where LECs and CMRS providers can demonstrate that they can not comply with the rule due to constraints related to federal,state,tribal or local laws,risk to safety of life or health,or private legal obligations or agreements_ LECs and CMRS providers must file a report with the Chief of the Public Safety& Homeland Security Bureau that identifies: (1)each asset that was designed to comply with the applicable backup power requirement;(2)each asset where compliance is precluded due to risk to safety of life or health,private legal obligation or agreements,or federal,state,tribal,or local law;and(3)each asset that was designed with less than the required emergency backup power capacity that is not precluded from compliance under(2). Our expectation is that this requirement will not create an undue additional burden, because the exemptions adopted in the Order on Reconsideration will substantially decrease the burden imposed on LECs and CMRS providers and several communications providers reported in their petitions for reconsideration and other filings that they already maintain some level of emergency backup power_64 Additionally,the Order on Reconsideration also maintains the previously adopted exemption for LECs that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32.11(b)(2)of the Commission's rules,and for non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers. Further„ providers identifying assets designed with less than the required backup power capacity and not precluded form compliance for one of the three reasons listed above,must either comply with the backup power requirement or file an emergency backup power compliance plan that certifies that the service providers will ensure 100 percent coverage in each of the areas covered by any non-compliant asset. Filing this plan will presumably be less burdensome that implementing a backup power source for these assets in compliance with the rule_ Many providers have also reported that they already have business continuity 6'See USTelecom Petition at 2,8(noting that the vast majority of all network remote terminals have onsite backup battery power typically designed to an eight hour engineering standard,although the actual life of the battery at any point in time depends on numerous factors and some remote terminals are too small to support a battery);Verizon Wireless Ex Parre filed September 4, 2007(stating that Verizon Wireless' internal design standard is for eight hours or more of backup power(generators,batteries or both)at every cell site where possible,that the majority of its cell sites have on-site generators or batteries capable of providing backup power for much longer than eight hours,that only a small percentage of sites have only batteries that will not last for eight hours,and that only a handful of sites have no on-site backup power at all)_ See also CT1A comments at 8(observing that wireless carriers"must ensure network reliability and reliance"and that_to do so,they"provision their cell sites and switches with batteries to power them when electrical grids fail and'maintain permanent generators at all of the switches and critical cell sites,as well as an inventory of backup power generators to recharge the batteries during extended commercial power failures). Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-177 plans that address the issue of backup power_ Finally,the Commission clarified that on-site power sources satisfy the this rule if such sources were originally designed to provide the minimum backup power capacity level required by the rule and the provider has implemented reasonable methods and procedures to ensure that batteries are regularly checked and replaced when they deteriorate. This too should lessen the burden on providers- E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 24. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,which may include(among others)the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;(2)the clarification,consolidation,or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;(3) the use of performance,rather than design,standards;and(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for small entities.65 25. Backup Power Supply. The Order on Reconsideration does not disturb the previously- adopted exemptions from the requirement for LECs(both ILECs and CLECs)that meet the definition of a Class B company as set forth in Section 32.11(b)(2)of the Commission's rules and non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers. Thus, for example,paging carriers that are non-nationwide CMRS providers and have no more than 500,000 subscribers will be exempt from this rule. The Order on Reconsideration also provides relief to LECs and CMRS providers subject to the rule for assets where they cannot comply with the rule due to legal and other constraints as described above. Finally,the Order on Reconsideration provides that,for non-compliant assets designed with less than the required emergency backup power capacity that are not otherwise exempt,LECs and CMRS providers must comply with the backup power requirement or submit an emergency backup power compliance plan. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Order,including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.67 In addition,the Commission will send a copy of the Order,including this Supplemental FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and Supplemental FRFA(or summaries thereof)will also be published in the Federal Register.68 65 5 U.S.0 5 603(c)_ 66 Although this subscriber level is based on the"Fier III CMRS definition,which is defined as non-nationwide CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers as of the end of 2001, we note that we are not exempting from this requirement those non-nationwide CMRS providers that have grown to exceed the 500_000 subscriber threshold since 2001 as we believe that such providers are at a size where they should be able to comply with the emergency backup power rule. 6 See 5 U_S_C. §801(a)(IXA). 6R See 5 lt_S.C_ �604(b)_ i6 fpsATT Page I of I Arabe, ,dill From: debbie zentil[dzvirtual@msn_coml Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:54 AM To: Arabe,Jill Subject: T-Mobile Cell Phone Coverage Jill: I have used T-Mobile for many years now. The reason I use them is that I do get such good coverage from my home @ 16641 Dale Vista Lane, HB_ I work part-time from home so need to be able to use my work (cell) phone from my home office_ I have never had a problem. Debbie Zentil Legal Assistant Phone: (714) 293-1216 Facsimile: (714) 847-5619 �FE�E�l� 2SFE�o� F i f 'Y t.. j I I/4/2009 ,ax JCtti o� - F i-ro�-v-•s�oa vVnLo-t 11-t7L-t97 15:tlL i'g= l�L _,�-may peach ,M .. �l�.f!!1��Lam► __. -- � - - - ��f_ _�-`• -r3_.F'�_�4s.-.: NEtrrrbe-°o p iges tcl [i 4(OV4M-PaSr 2 U t Pkssknead::anachffierwpriof to.the.meeting on November d,2009 - as 2.1 j.� J f i. a ,kF t '�• .. ..- .- . � ., : .., - ., � .:-- 'Y?'• �':rl"` f,"a�- It:agnTl�a _ . FAITT�CHMENT NO. 5-Its November 2,-2009 - _'_'•"'�_O` _ :fit:[- 2� r"_rSGZt�)y-++JtYlppVI•JccI. ARy. ar a 'the United:t'�4 dedist Church NurserySchool and I am WrItm _•`.:- you W reeds ivthe T-]k Mile CeII Tower that tlde'church wants to place on its propa"_ The e Nurser Y Sc cf a�:Hirecior,View Comp rr W—No=may be reached at (714) 842-3,630,. abra tvd;s sl :otades to Mete ne.tivhat adti onsparaAs would.takc if the a-o eharci y.Out of°IU4`r�+opi p i`ii y-fie(5�)of pairai S cell ib v v the iirdicatcrl":tom; 'Yes". =�a -aw their c�rld-fmm""tl�nurser}+ s-hool.if Vte chinch'event p"- If'eed[tow�x .AShoPerty':aid' oil ume(49)-in&mted"No or l Jirdecided". AIsasi�h$If _04dakifiid.very strongly�have.determined by their owu.irfvtstigatit► •;= '~':: ` _` tom= : ceflt�iair t�uver on ebtae:3r propt ty=is Actrimental to the general weifaie of et 241of the Huritiugton.$eacbe t t Siivisioo woe)_As.Paie�rs,we have aI ri and morat r 1ii to - ght cspo�si CityiakicTres ' dot+eriiiations for oxc.ii[lclsea a hiu est that ou use db4caeir - gs'dut�d-ta,you- II tale into ooas> io i. out opinions and heavily we'aglE deciiiojEt"_p MM PirenW who sea&"iheir cWIdren to nursery schoof iii she' e - - s- bae. bafin o en isues of their childr crs. - questioil .cedfamecames In�a"tib*glia ote_than Wf oftbe.{arents witldraw their children from the nursery scbooL this-:-!-: vaili:.ratems'djr'tliieff" ive oy,pert eptr °off the stumuriding.neighborhood, lest!-[o It#ei[ter. UM got prcieity-�raleees ire 4}+c area.. e. =an;appliaafioa fora cd37ea1 - �, t •:,: . ate;. use meet all: •:.As j�riei'aF permit -r+®gati'saed- �;. user{tt)or{B')::o€-G p'ter 24t Sctxitia 2�#_146--wid a failure to make all the re�'e3'4 un8ci ( j;_err -$) snail zequere denial ©f d%6 apphoation. Thank you for yanr consi�aaEfbo�a=ice t�ingtter; -_ - - _ 14.D. W. (562) cc: Kay ffdh-RtoeFeu, ATCP �i�sitex , ACHME T INIO� IE3 Page I of 2 Arabe, .fill From: larsondj@verizon.net Sent: Thursday,October 22, 2009 7:28 AM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: Re: Re:T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility(CUP 09-015) Good morning Jill, FYI - in case you don't already know... T-Mobile is supposed to have a Public Hearing in Agoura Hills on Oct 28 - it was continued from Sept 23. CouId that be why he requested a continuance?? BUT... breaking news in Agoura Hills !!!!! A MORATORIUM WAS ENACTED TODAY AGAINST APPROVING NEW CELL TOWER PERMITS ►!!!! Agoura Hills —Zoning MORATORIUM on cell towers!!!! Stephanie Bertholdo article http:l/www_theacorn_com/news/2009-10- 22/Front Page/Agoura Hills puts new cell towers on hold.html Agoura Hills —Zoning MORATORIUM on cell towers!!!! Public Notice http://www-theacorn.com/node/81136 Agoura Hills cell tower—T-Mobile —Telecom Act 1996 — revision in Feb 2010? Stephanie Bertholdo article htte//Www.theacorn.com/news/2009-10- 15/Front Page/Alternative sites considered for Agoura Hills cell.html T-Mobile's application is already in the works so it is exempted from the moratorium. Dianne Larson Oct 21, 2009 1 l :32-46 AM, jarab 6�surfcitN hb=ore Wrote: 11 apologize_ To clarify, the project is: a Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-015 (T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility) at 6666 iHeit Avenue, 92648 (south side of Heil Avenue, between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street) S If you have any questions, please contact me. Ji�,L A vtv�A v cc,I>t� :Assistant Planner �r` ATT GH1AE- NT R4 11/4/2009 Page 2 of 2 City of Huntington Beach (P)714.374.5351 From: Arabe, )ill Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:23 AM To: 'heaublondy@aol.com; Summer Powers; Ginny Bean; 1arsondi@verizon.net'; 'Mr Bill Kettler'; 'rjones2325@venzon.net'; Diane&John "aka" Duke Anderson; Carol Settimo; Brad Maguin; Michelle Herthington;Jannie Bolotin; 'litmermade@aoLcom'; Adam Rodell; 'michelek@ci_garden-grove.ca.us'; 'bmcfar}and2@verizon.net'; 'dzvirtual@msn.com`; 'millar0125@aoLcom; 'marilyn@kuga.tv'; Laura Harris, Ton passmore@yahoo.com'; 'bevans@combancal.com'; 'daliabna@yahoo.com; 'tonyawick@gmai}.com; 'rkuga hotmail.com`; 'utley kathy a yahoo.com' Subject: CUP 09-015 - continuance This email is being provided to notify you that a continuance request has been submitted by the applicant for additional time to prepare plans and photosims as a result of the Zoning Administrator's request for a completely stealth design of the wireless communications facility. The applicant is requesting to continue the project to the November 4u'ZA meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. JaLAnwA rcbw, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach (P)714.374.5357 c Fez } }A 2009 CUP 2009-015 Zonin,, administrator Public Hearing Sep 3._-2009 � motor Dianne Larson - homeowner living less than 500' from the CUMC cell tower site I would like to thank the Zoning Administrator for listening to and considering public b'Y opinion before making a decision on T-Mobile's request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No_ 2009-015. 1 would also like to thank the staff at the Planning Dept and City Clerk's Office for their professionalism and helpfulness. i am OPPOSED to T-Mobile's proposal to build a freestanding, 12-antenna cell tower on the grounds of the Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) and Pre-school. ® 1 believe that T-Mobile does NOT meet Finding #1 in the Conditional Use Permit application for these reasons: POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LONG-TERM EXPOSURE TO CELL TOWER EMISSIONS o T-Mobile's application states that the proposed cell tower with 12 antennas, 1 GPS antenna and associated equipment "will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity„ o i am very concerned about the potential health risks associated with the long- term effects of exposure to, and the gradual absorption of Radio Frequency(RF) and Electromagnetic (EM) Radiation from, cell tower emissions. o Higher incidences of cancer, childhood leukemia, and neurological problems are associated with people living near sources of radio frequency and electromagnetic radiation emissions than for people living farther away. o Children,with thinner skulls and developing brains, are more at risk than adults_ o The CUMC students and staff would be exposed 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. o The local neighbors would be exposed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! o The research regarding this danger is ongoing but scientists are already cautioning that people should minimize and avoid exposure to these emissions whenever possible. o Article —"Residents protest 2"d Surf City cell phone tower" (www_ocregister.com, Annie Burris, May f, 2009) - Residents protested cell sites at Harbour View and Bolsa View parks, 1 next to Harbour View Elem School, citing health effects - Omnipoint ("T-Mobile") said towers were regulated by FCC guidelines o Article —"Cell Tower Radiation Poisoning of School Children" (techbuz.blogspot_com, Ray Conley, Sept 10, 2009) - references several CURRENT studies finding increased incidence of cancer for people living near cell towers - references several articles in which the medical and scientific community is calling for FCC to re-evaluate the current guidelines and standards because they are set too high - LS � W [[� D SEr 3 0 2009 Dianne Larson Huntington Beach �._. -- t.:sC,c'T N � P[ANNiNG DEPT. CUP 2009-015 Zonir., Administrator Public Hearing Sep 3�, 2009 - LAUSD and the EU currently have resolutions opposing placement of cell towers near schools o Article—"President Obama panel exploring cell tower radiation risks"(emgournai.com, Jan 29, 2009) - This cancer panel was set up by President Obama in JAN 2009 —the month he was inaugurated o 1 believe that long-term exposure to the radio frequency and electromagnetic radiation emissions from the proposed 12-antenna cell tower will be harmful to the pre-school students and staff at CUMC, and to the local residents. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUE o T-Mobile's application also states that the proposed cell tower and associated equipment "will not be... detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood". o I believe that the presence of a freestanding, 12-antenna cell tower that is easily seen from my home less than 500' feet away will greatly reduce the number of buyers willing to purchase my home and therefore, reduce the value of the property_ o Many people are aware of the potential health risks linked to cell towers and do not want to live or raise a family in that environment_ o Tina Burke, a local realtor/certified home appraiser said within the last week any industrialization of an area such as a cell phone tower will result in lower property values" o Article from "Appraisal Journal" dated 1996, refers to a legal ruling regarding for obtaining damages due to decreased property values from proximity to EM radiation • 1 object to the basis of Finding #4 in the Conditional Use Permit application for these reasons: LACK OF NEED o T-Mobile's project assumes a need to improve cell phone coverage in the area. o Based on Empirical evidence, I do not recognize this need: I have a T Mobile cell phone but do NOT experience any difficulty using it_ o Billshrink_com website (http://www.bilishrink.com/cell-phones/carrier/t- mobile 2-html) compares cell phone company signal quality for T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon, - showing that although Sprint, AT&T and Verizon have strong coverage in this area, the T-Mobile coverage is stronger — FULL strength. o T-mobile's coverage map (coverage_t-mobile_com) shows full strength coverage in this area except for the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station area and a small residential area around the edges. o T-Mobile's "Need" may actually be outdated exaggerated or non-existent 17 �E�r Dianne Larson Page 2 CUP 2009-015 Zoning Administrator Public Hearing Sep 3,,, 2009 o I suggest that a current independent study of cell phone coverage be required and submitted whenever a cell antenna or tower project is proposed. o Especially since there are multiple cases on the internet showing T-Mobile proposed cell towers based on a need to fell a coverage gap that did not exist. o I am including several internet articles about several cases including Hempstead, NY, in which T-Mobile's application was denied in Oct 2008 o Article —"Mixed Signals on Cellphone Towers" (Jan 2009) mentions the `Center for Municipal Solutions' that evaluates"the justification for wireless services"- - In reference to the Hempstead, NY case, the denial was based on lack of proof that a tower was needed, and "that T-Mobile had not made a good-faith effort to find alternative sites that were less intrusive, an important part of the Telecommunications Act." Even if a current and accurate need to increase cell coverage was shown as a result of a current, independent study, I continue to object to the site location at CUMC for these reasons: CO-LOCATION and PHYSICAL LOCATION o T-Mobile's literature repeatedly claims they are committed to co-locating with existing structures in order to minimize the need to build new freestanding structures. o Quotes from T-Mobile literature o I do not believe T-Mobile has exhausted all the existing local antenna, cell tower and structure possibilities. o There-are commercial areas and open areas in the immediate vicinity. o An antenna mounted in any of these areas would be farther_from residences and certainly not on the doorstep of a pre-school_ People would still be exposed to the radio frequency and electromagnetic radiation emissions from the antenna at these locations, but not on a 24/7 basis as in a residential area. o I do not believe a "last resort" condition has been reached that justifies constructing a new,freestanding, 12-antenna cell tower structure in a pre- school and residential environment ® I am also concerned and angered that instead of proposing to install a minimum impact solution (single antenna, or co-location with existing structure?) in the area to reinforce the alleged `weak"coverage T-Mobile is proposing a freestanding, 12- antenna cell tower at this site. After T-Mobile uses their antenna the other antennas would be available for T-Mobile to lease to other companies. T-Mobile is apparently attempting to operate an income-generating,and Radio Frequency and Electro-Magnetic radiation-generating business at a pre-school! J!eC-i`3 Dianne Larson Page 3 CUP 2009-015 Zoniriy Administrator Public Hearing Sep au, 2009 • People understand that in order to use cell phones, antennas are necessary. And it may be possible that a single antenna is needed in this area. But it is important to be cognizant of future effects of our actions. • Responsible environmental decisions need to be made now in order to minimize potential negative health impacts later. 1 STRONGLY URGE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 2009-015 egtlt b�-Se_ 7--*.1ki-4e. % �var - ,� r -*l 19,4— Thank you for gi mg me the oppoh(inity to expr 4f6o m n op io on this matter. h,tf Att �a l�`d a. SrLz �D lien, Requests for City Code Changes I understand that the City Council is already looking at changing city codes and I want to add my requests_ I urge that HB city codes be modified to require a much longer prior notification period, and a much larger notification area. In addition, I also urge that HB city code modifications include required notification to the parents of students who attend a school near a proposed cell tower—regardless of whether the school is public, private or a pre-school. urge that a current, independent study of cell phone coverage be required and submitted whenever a cell antenna or tower project is proposed. I addition to the previously mentioned documents, I want to enter the Minutes of the April 27, 2009, City Council /Redevelopment Agency special meeting into the public minutes of the Zoning Administrator hearing I feel that the April 27, 2009 minutes should be included because they show. • a history of public concern and outrage about the attempts by Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (A T-Mobile USA, Inc_, Subsidiary) ("T Mobile") to site a cell tower near Harbour View Elementary School_ • that people are aware of and concerned about the negative health risks of long-term emissions from cell towers_ • that citizens want modifications to the city codes regarding length and extensiveness of public notification, and want additional modification to protect children from cell tower emissions. • a pattern of T-Mobile attempting to build cell towers near schools even though T- Mobiie is aware of the public concern and outrage_ AIT Dianne Larson Page 4 Residents protest 2nd Surf City cell phone tower(view, cell,council,phone, tower-New__. Page I of 2 THE MANOC C04M-rr IMGISTER oc,.psstecconr Wednesday. May 6,2009 Harbour View Park , adjacent to a playground CA Accil at Harbour View School. Residents protest Council members voted to redo the Harbour n� S U 1 1 l.�f t� cell View contract with T-Mobile after about 200 residents expressed concerns that the tower could cause cancer and complained that they -ef-Fed` phone tower were not notified about the construction. Residents near Bolsa View Park also V expressed concerns about the health effects Mayor says he doesn't plan of the tower and said it would be an eyesore to rework contract for tower in the community. near Bolsa View Pbrk, unlike "I'm very disappointed in the plan to install the cell phone tower," resident Margret Tracy decision to change another said at Monday's council meeting."Dozens of tower. homes will be subjected to radiation 24 hours a day,seven days week. That is unacceptable." By ANNIE BURRIS The Harbour View and Bolsa View cell phone The Orange County Register towers were unanimously approved by the council Jan. 20 and were expected to bring HUNTINGTON BEACH-A handful of the city$5,000 a month for up to 20 years . residents who live near Bolsa View Park criticized the City Council for approving a Mayor Keith Bohr-who spearheaded contract with T-Mobile that allows a cell revisions to the Harbour View tower phone tower to be built at a park near their agreement -said he doesn't plan to revisit homes. the contract for the Bolsa View tower. Bahr said he was willing to change city rules about The residents asked council members to cell phone towers near schools, but rework the contract with the cell phone additional restrictions on cell phone towers company, similar to a council decision April near residential areas was too broad of a 27 regarding a cell tower being built at scope- Advertisement Send flowers for any occasion .. Bou e7 It"0I 199h Older ONLY at proflo�rscom/happy ProFlowerg or call i-877-888-0688 Print Powered By `r- . http_//www-ocregister.corn/articles/viem�-cell-council-2394939-phone-tower 9/27/2009 Residents protest 2nd Surf City cell phone tower view,cell,council,phone,tower-New__. Page 2 of 2 IWGLSTER ocneptstsrcom "I don't think we are going to that level," Bohr said of analyzing towers near homes_ "To me, that is just too blanketing it." During the April 27 meeting, the council also asked staff to change city rules to require notification of local residents when future cell phone sites are planned to be built within 500 feet of a school_The changes will come back to the council for an official vote_ Councilman Joe Carchio said he would visit Bolsa View Park to see how close the tower would be to homes. "The public perception is they don't want them in their backyard,"Carchio said of the towers. "If we can't put them there,where are we going to put them so that people are able to have good reception? It is kind of a Catch 22." Fareregulated Mobile officials said the cell phone towers / by the Federal F CC r e4 Communications Commission, "which sets \ �J conservative, science-based radio frequency emission guidelines to protect the health of citizens." Contact the writer: aburris@ocregister.com or 949-553-2905 Advertisement Print Powered By f. vy namicsw - httpJ/,�v","7.ocregister.com/articles/view-cell-council-2394939-phone-tower 9/27/2009 Ray Conley, CFA: Cell Tower Radiation Poisoning of School Children Page l of 2 FA Ray Conley, Cr_ Technology, Investing, Et Random Stuff THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2oo9 Cell Tower Radiation Poisoning of School Children fis r A substantial body of research suggests that radio frequency(RE) radiation(the kind emitted by cell towers as they provide"signal"to +AJ 0 mobile phones)has harmful health effects on humans and animals, _even in amounts welt below FCC exposure limits. Surprisingly, the FCC standards for RE emissions are based on thermal effect but the case for non thermal hazards from RFs is substantial. Here are a few examples: A study presented in the peer-reviewed publication of Germany's environmental medicine society found that the risk of newly developing cancer was three times higher among those patients who had lived during past ten years(1994-2004),within a distance of 400m from a cellular transmitter, in comparison to those who had lived further away.The study indicates a 99%confidence interval that the difference observed was not due to a random statistical effect. An Israeli study published in the peer-reviewed journal The International Journal of Cancer Prevention also showed an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station. in a two year period,there were 4.15 imes more cancer cases in the area of proximity to the cell tower than in the entire population.The authors made a point of noting, "The measured level of RE radiation(power density)in the area was i� \1 u (J C_ low;far below the current guidelines based on the thermal effects of r e �. RE exposure. We suggest, therefore, that the current guidelines be re- �f s evaluated." C ��e.11 itihhh The Bioinitiative Working Group, a collaboration of neuroscientists and others studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation from a variety of sources, has taken the position that "current standards are inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity,chronic exposures and that an entirely new, biologic atly-based standard is needed." The European Union, which deployed GSM cellular technology on a broad basis tong before it was deployed in the US, and thus has been r`n``` able to observe longer exposures on its population, formally adopted a resolution in April 2009 recommending that GSM antennas be kept a 1 safe distance from schools. �— �` il'� o Why would a resolution be needed to keep towers out of schools? 1'� F.1, °?l E tl 1 L http:/!techbuz.blogspot.com/2009'09/celIAower-radiat)on-poisoning-ofhtml 9/29/2009 Ray Conley,CFA: Cell Tower Radiation Poisoning of School Children Page 2 of 2 Because the cell tower companies prey upon schools that have prime locations and need the money_They also take advantage of the lack of finance and legal resources at most schools so they can get an advantageous contract. Parents in Cupertino, CA successfully fought a proposal to place a tower at Monte Vista High School,as have many other schools and 1 ` municipalities throughout the U.S. In 20W, the Los Angeles Unified L___A V 5 b t School District(LAUSD)Board of Education adopted a resolution (? lr eft opposing the placement of cellular telecommunications towers on or A--O immediately adjacent to school property until appropriate regulatory S G`_ 0O IS standards have been adopted. For a list of other municipalities f! t examining this issue,see http://cloutnow_org/locatres/ _ However, their success is even more notable since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits municipal governing bodies from saying"no"to cell towers based upon health concerns. See page 117 of the Act (Section 704 amendment)_Who was the genius legislator who put something like that into taw?In reality, it was more ttkety instituted by the cellular companies through a lobbying process to provide liability coverage,should the truth eventually emerge_ I predict the tort cases from cell tower induced cancer will eclipse the tobacco industry's damages. � O 2 � `T hapJ/Iechbuz_blogspot.com/2009/09/cell-tower-radiation-poisoning-of_html 9/29/2009 President Obarna panel exploring cell tower radiation risks, sign petition « EW Journal Page I of 2 FNW Journal awareness ... acceptance ... action • Home . 20120 Video • ABOUT Cell Phone Ban . CNN Larry Kind Global EMF Facts President Obama panel exploring cell tower radiation risks, sliLyn Petition Presidential Cancer Panel Exploring Cell Tower Radiation Risks 29-01.2009 by admin Category Electromagnetic Health Blog Source: birminghammail.net Jan 29 2009 by Neil Elkes,Birmingham Mail January 29,2009;US PRESIDENT Barack Obama has turned to a Midland anti-mobile phone mast campaigner to help the fight against cancer_ Eileen O'Conaor,as a founder member of the Radiation Research Trust,has led the battle against the relentless growth of mobile phone masts and technology for the past seven years. And now the US President's cancer panel,set up by Obama to research the possible links with both nuclear and electro- magnetic radiation,has asked Eileen for her views on the issue. The trust has supported widespread research into the possible dangers of mobile and wireless radiation and campaigns for the technology to be made safer. Eileen said:"Obama's panel has launched an information gathering exercise and I was invited to provide evidence"_ VVI ile I am not building up my hopes,I am delighted the issue is being taken seriously by the President_ "President Obama recently said science is about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.""It's about listening to what our scientists have to say; even when it's inconvenient and I welcome this approach." The evidence gathered by the panel will be considered in drawing tip advice to the new President on measures needed to be taken to improve the health of Americans_ Any steps taken are likely to be considered around the world g y l 1 rC f E F,}l a Eileen first suspected a link between mobile phone mast,, and cancer when the arrival of a mast in her borne village of Wishavk.near Sutton Coldheld coincided with a cluster of cancer cases_ including her own_ hitp://emfjournal_cotnQ009/02/17/president-obarna-panel-exploring-cell-tower-radiation-n___ 9/29/2009 President Obama panel exploring cell tower radiation risks, sign petition « EN4F Journal Page 2 of 2 The campaign hit the headlines in 2003 when the mast was pulled down in the middle of the night and residents blockaded the site to stop it being replaced. The Radiation Research Trust funds and draws together scientific research from around the world and lobbies government to adopt a more cautious approach to mobile technology_ A key,theory is that it is the electromagnetic radiation frequency,and not intensity or power of the signal,which can cause the damage.It is also thought that some people are more sensitive to the effects than others_ Comment from Camilla Rees,Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org: Wbat Obama's advisors will learn is that people are being made sick by the radiation being emitted from cell towers, health care costs are being driven by related illnesses,peoples Iives are unfairly crumbling because of the lack of responsibility exhibited by industry and governments in designing these technologies and the serious biological and DNA- level effects of microwave radiation have been known about for decades.He will also learn that,under pressure from the telecom lobby,the Telecommunications Act of 1996 included language taking away state and local government's rights to limit towers on health or environmental grounds.This power grab is a travesty that needs to be reversed to protect the health of humans,animals,and nature. If Obama is the courageous,intelligent,truth telling man we want to believe,informed by his team of the health hazards of microwave radiation,he will need to immediately stop the proliferation of the Wi-Max network underway in this country and press industry to fund safer means of telecommunications.He should pressure Congress to mandate the FCC lower EMF emissions guidelines for industry,repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,and establish cell- phone and wireless-free neighborhoods,government buildings,public spaces and schools. These are the mandates of ElectromagneticHealth_org's Petition to Congress found at: http:f/www_thepet itions ite_coml6/urge-congress-on-ern f-safety-fcc-must-change-exposure-guidelines-for-m icrowave- radiation-exposure For journalists wanting to learn more about the known biological effects see www.Biolnitiative_org.There is no question there are biological effects,the uncertainties concern the various potential mechanisms of action. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) • President Obama,your concern about FMF Sign Petition — MCS I EMF f EMS ^ • Sign Our New Online Petition— President Obama_ Stay Home! ® Fight FOCA Petition February 17,2009 - Posted by Moderator { EMF, EMR, Health, WiFi, awareness, cell phone, cell tower, electromar;netic Gelds_ Jectr_on-_aLmetic radiation, electrosrno«, family, mast, tower( cancer, Cell r)hone, Cell tower, DNIA, electromagnetic radiation field, EMF, FCC, mast, radiation, telecom I I Comment lit tp://emfjoumal com/2009/02;17"president-oama-pane l-exploring-eel l-tower-radiation-n__ 9/29/2009 Property Value and Cell Towers Welcome to ProQuest-CSA, your Guide to Discovery. We found results for your query on related:itZ_R9ZiO9c1:scholar.google.com/- See more results from your CSA Iliumina subscription provided by CSA. Electromagnetic radiation field property devaluation Rikon. M Appraisal Journal[APPRAISAL J_].Vol.64, no.1,pp.87-90.1996. The Criscuota v. Power Authority of the State of New York decision by the New York State Court of Appeals seems to provid8th®r+ieaRs to obtain damng s d p-to diminution of pmpedy values as a result of rLoximify to an electromagneticF1.This article explores ramifications of the decision and its application to valuation problems. Descriptors: Article Subject Terms decision making economics I electromagnetic fields litigation Article Geographic Terms USA, New York Ap J6 7P 6je- s d kc V a PI,- Y, I- V 4" [�O of�� J(-) UP �� E `//v�w�� L�f (IS)Ar1nk , �� ► 2 , k+ Rated 3.bi5 1:y 20 Usta T-Mobile • Maps, facts and reviews overview my Fula ala I Z=1_8_1 U ..................... ............ 740oolle has a fast-growing subscriber base using its nationwide GSM network,74y1obils Is well. known for Its aggress Iva pricing and Innovative Key Features: features such as my7aves and Hotspol @Home,7. National Coverage 100blie Is also well-regarded for Its customer ,ivvlce.as Shown ny Its long-slandIng position at COMA Ille too of JO Powers CUS(Omer care survey. Signat qualfty for 92641�LU fZollover minutes J111 f V Pr*.Pald Plans Sprint Boll J"O MY F eve$ Ogll AT&T Hottest Phones LUAU aou verIzon !X; A Curve 6200 Customer Service (677)334-7069 Email User forums R. ........... j1p A 5 i7i '-7 Y� T_Mobile Coverage Page 1 of 2 Check if T-Mobile coverage is right for you with personal Coverage Check Street ey`- _ Int�rseCuon ez Broadwa,and'V 1481h Street City State Zip 92647 clear Voice Coverage I Data Coverage t Prepaid and FlexPay coverage map> Learn more about T Mobde s expanded coverage > signal.Strength �S(" -S' A r 4 .B.est Goasf. -fair None j ZOOM he- " VAIR" l area ( S � cv ,v S�e✓t D t1 t'� t. Zoom ``� �3w 1.. Ovt 1 Please zoom in to see street level coverage details for the areas where you live,work,and play- print Map Legend z Address Location =a -T_Mobile HotSpot `"Display T-Mobile Roaming Coverage 4 Roaming HotSpot (Additional charges apply) and a T-Mob+lE- HotSpot t�";G.r' (t.t�^er t,".-�'�P-. {•' - . ._. "1. c'r= c . .-_�._" � .. -,_. .. .,'_it'.:O'." �'.':::' � ` �[( y��{p..> ..: ...:..... . .. - ,. �- " ' F. ..�... . ![(_ ..'I:'� .,•`1�L ... __ .-. _ _ -.. .,O -:,nor.;-, t7" � t http_//coverage_I-mobile_com/default-aspx 9/29/2009 T-Mobile in the news ... USING FALSE STATEMENTS OF "GAP IN COVERAGE"TO JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR A CELL TOWER. THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL INCIDENTS OF OPPOSITION TO OMNIPOINT (a_k.a. T MOBILE) CLAIMING A CELL TOWER IS NEEDED BASED ON "GAP OF COVERAGE" FOUND IN A QUICK ONLINE SEARCH. THESE RESIDENTS FOUGHT OMNIPOINT/T-MOBILE AND WON. http://wwnw.wirelessestimator.com/t content.cfrn?pagename=Celt%20Tower%2OLeasing Residents to pit their engineer against T-Mobile's on coverage needs November 6, 2007 TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NY-Residents fighting a T Mobile 65-foot cell tower on Dogwood Avenue, in front of the Franklin Bridge Centre Shopping Plaza in Franklin Square, have hired an engineer that disputes the carver's claim that there is a gap in the cell phone coverage in that area. Residents said they conducted a test last year to show there is no gap in cell coverage_They tried 100 cell phone calls from inside buildings,on the street, in cars, in homes and they all went through, they say_ On December 6 during a zoning hearing, attorneys for T-Mobile will question the residents'expert during a December 6 zoning hearing_ • •more threw Mork 61mes . Mixed Signals on Cellphone Towers By DFIMCK H ENRY Published:January 9,2oo9 ti F_ _ I L x 2 l L - -t SHAMS Cell tox,ers throoghoui the New York Rgpor..vine in obvious view and others disguised as trees,flagpoles or doubling as church steeples. 4ETROPCS wanted to install eight cellphone antennas "The expertise is with the industry:said Richard Comi, -story condominium co-founder of the Center for Municipal Solutions,a I the roof of Biltmore Towers,a building on Lake Street in White Plains_Verizon consultant on municipal telecommunications. Wireless sought a similar deal. The industry also has legal support for cellphone towers. MetroPCS negotiated a 25-year lease with the "The courts tend to look favorably on this use,"said condominium association's board that would have paid Deborah M.Kole,a lawyer at the New Jersey State $27,600 a year_ League of Municipalities,adding,"It's almost got to be disproved that this is a good use." But some Biltmore residents resisted,saying the board had violated its own bylaws in granting the lease_And Still,acceptance of the towers varies among towns and eventually they won.Verizon walked away from its deal states.One community might see potential revenue from in September,three months before Justice Alan D. a tower,while another might see it as an intrusion_ Scheinkman of State Supreme Court voided the MetroPCS lease_ "Obviously,the issue of towers can be contentious when people want services but don't want the facilities,"said Cellphone towers have proliferated throughout New Jackie McCarthy,a spokeswoman for PCIA—tr` York C'iVs suburbs in recent years,often welcomed by Wire.. s IxArasttr-aciu e ass �aL�rr_,ti-�_ire :ni?s c municipalities and by residents who would benefit from the tower and antervna siting inc-astry. Ine ierls or hunt`[.�reCi.s Oi WOnSanuS Oi tionars a year diai .- - t_' J;Uituv :,_ _ F rue.;can Town:-'o:po doT,, _ S-j-=Eon,the nat.nat.on,s F<<_=tS c a Gr. r.o [} L; i:e a`:c n..nr c;. r,rtr)✓=t ?'__ V. C n_Str,'8Ii'i on <}n� Danbury,Conn_;Long Island;and Morristown and acted on in a reasonable time,usually determined by Fre,Ghold,in New Jersey. how a town would consider regular building applications. TowerSource,of Colorado Springs,which maintains an extensive database of cellphone tower sites,said the The issue usually comes down to aesthetics,said Kevin nuhiber of towers in Connecticut had increased 27 Fry,president of Scenic America,which seeks to percent in the last two years,to 1,441 in 2008 from 1,135 preserve and enhance the visual character of in 20o6;in New Jersey,the increase was i9 percent,to communities.Some solutions have included installing 2,63o towers in 2oo8 from 2,215 in 2oo6_TowerSource antennas on water towers,bridges,farm silos,tall did not have numbers for Westchester or Long Island buildings,even in church steeples_Sometimes a tower is but said towers in New York State had increased by used for multiple carriers_And some towns have decided nearly i9 percent since 2oo6,to 6,r8o in 2oo8 from that it is easier on the eyes to have more but shorter 5,21,3_ towers,Mr.Fry said. Throughout the region,battles over the location of `Where's no single magic bullet for this,"he said."Every cellphone towers have been won and lost_ community has to decide what works for it" "It's no different than any other zoning or planning At Biltmore Towers,the opponents earned a rare victory issues,"like noise and dog leash ordinances,Mr_Comi, in court Justice Scheinkman ruled that the of the Center for Municipal Solutions,said. condominium association's bylaws limit commercial uses of the building to those that benefit only its The center says it does not take a stand on the occupants_MetroPCS and the condominium board had proliferation of cellphone towers but works with argued that the rooftop was needed to provide cellphone municipalities to evaluate the justification for wireless service to White Plains. services_On Long Island,a civic group in Square;a hamlet in Nassau County,hired Mr_Comi to "The industry still has a significant number of cases evaluate an application by T-Mobile for a 65-foot tower where there is controversy,"said Douglas W_Dimitroff, by a strip mall;ultimately,the Board of Appeals in the the president of the New York State Wireless Town of Hempstead denied the application. Association."It's always been difficult to put cellphone towers up in residential areas." Mr.Comi said that the center looks at about 200 applications a year and that only about 2 percent become Franklin Square on Long Island was one of those places. contentious_Most of those cases end with the proposed T-Mobile wanted to install the 65-foot tower at a strip tower being modified,he said. mail_Six wireless antennas would be inside.For aesthetic purposes,the company proposed topping the But in Franklin Square,Mr.Comi said,the group's pole with the American flag.Another option was to paint opposition relied on three factors:"resources, it brown- commitment and perseverance." Ron Lipsky,president of a neighborhood group,the In addition to those,he said,opponents must Franklin Square United Neighborhood Association,said tinderstand haw wireless companies demonstrate their he realized that fighting T-Mobile would be a big task need for the towers_"It's really one of the key issues,"be requiring a long-term effort.He and others organized said_"Do they really need it?" fashion shows and other fiend-raisers and campaigns In applying for towers,the industry often cites the with slogans like"Refuse to Lose"to maintain interest federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,which was and momentum in their fight_They raised about "Mded to help wireless companies increase the $30,000,he said_ number of sites and to promote competition in the "We bad to find ways to keep people focused and cellular telephone industry_ united,"said Mr_Lipsky,who is a lawyer.-Most Under the act,municipalities cannot create laws that communities are not prepared to fight the company_" prevent or have the effect of preventing cellphone tower For starters,raising health concerns over radio sites_It also prevents them from giving preference to one frequency emissions would not work.be(nnse if those cellular provider over another,and applications must be emissions meet federal standards,courts will not give "We want to provide those services;said Joe Farren,a weight to local concerns,Mr.Lipsky said_To fight on CITA spokesman."And the only way to provide those -;that issue would have been useless,he said. services is towers." Instead,the group focused on aspects like T-Mobrle's David Wendlandt,co-owner of TowerSource,said:"The aesthetics tests,which were conducted using a crane whole thing is to find a willing landlord Alternative sites extending to 65 feet,the height of the proposed tower. are becoming much more attractive_" When Mr.Lipsky heard about the second of the two t Mr_WendIandt said that on average,a cellphone tower tests,he arranged to have the crane photographed from all over the area where T-Mobiile contended there was a could bring in$i,000 to$i,5oo a month in rent from a coverage gap- wireless company. The 59 photographs were presented to the Board of That can attract willing landlords,like the East Meadow Appeals at a hearing and,the board later ruled, Fire District on Long Island,which approved an 8o foot contradicted T-Mobile's statements that the tower would tower to be built next to a firehouse near Carman Avenue have minimal visual impact_ and Salisbury Park Drive_The tower will be topped with a flag;it is unclear when it will be bunt. When Hempstead's Board of Appeals denied T-Mobile's� application.last October—three years after the The Town of Hempstead approved that East Meadow - application was submitted—it,said that the company tower in late November over the objections of some had not proved that it needed the tower to close a gap in residents worried about health effects.Another tower,at ' service.The ruling also said that T-Mobile had not made a firehouse on East Meadow Avenue;is being reviewed_ a goon-faith effort to find alternative sites that wemless fey Welt,East Meadow's fire commissioner,said he intrusive,an important part of the Telecommunications Act- expected T-Mobile to pay the district about$2,00o a month for the tower-With each tower having space for -T-Mobile did not appeal the decision-In a statement,it equipment for five carriers,Mr.Welt said he expected :aid,"Moving forward,we plan to go back to the them to bring in about$24a,000 a year in rent community and work to find a solution that both -We were pretty much told that if they didn't put it on addresses the concerns we've heard along the way and allows T-Mobile to provide seamless coverage our property,they would put it next door, Mr.Welt said- throughout Franklin Square." Chuck May,a landscape architect from Fishkr"Il,N-Y., Although Mr.Lipsky's group won its fight,the demand whom Mr_Iapsky's organization hived to prepare a for more wireless services and places to install antennas visual-impact study during the fight with T-Mobile,said grows_ there was another,more basic factor in winning the In Lewisboro,for example,the Town Board selected Franklin Square case.Besides the legal and technical Verizon as the applicant to seek approval from the Town issues involved,the residents had tenacity,he said_ Planning Board to build a i2o-to 16o-foot-tall eellphone t '"They didn't give up,"Mr_May said."That's what tower on town-owned land near a park on Route 35_ happens when people in their community band together Town officials have said that Lewisboro suffers from incomplete cellphone coverage and last year sent out a and put their seat belts on.They're tough_" request for proposals to build a tower. The industry has also seen an increase in demand for features other than voice-For example,the number of monthly text messages had grown to 75billion last June from 7.2 billion in June 2oo5,according to CTIA—the Wireless Association,a trade group_Demand for features +hai allow people to surf the Web and use video- and insic-based services are also on the rise,H said. Group formS in opposition to cell tower ( newstransen-pt.gmnews-com I News Transcript Page 1 of 2 Group forms in opposition to cell tower Ornnipoint wants to place structure on Robertsville Road BY ZACII LEVINE Correspondent When residents who oppose the placement of a cellular communications tower on Robertsville Road in Freehold Township continue to make their case at the Oct 30 meeting of the Freehold Township Zoning Board of Adjustment,they will be trying to convince the board not to grant a variance to the applicant,Omnipc inL Otnnipoint,more commonly known as T-Mobile,is proposing to construct a 120-foot-tall monopole with cellular antennas and a related equipment shed at 169 Rob6nsville Road-The application requires a use variance because a cell tower is not a permitted use on the residential property. The previous hearing on the application was held at the zoning board's Sept.25 meeting. The Oct-30 hearing will be held in the main meeting room of the Freehold Township municipal building,Stillwel(s Corner Road The Freehold Township residents may want to consider the successful fight against a cell tower that was recently waged in Franklin Square,Hempstead, N_Y.Residents in that Long Island community knocked down a proposed cell tower with a final vote on Oct.2. • : MConnecting IE Nome Bu err andSeYrs for Over a Century. :-woI Hi�6.ae rr t3ortt� � Howcn t\J n:al (7-32)sr,.-r srxr In that case,Omnipoint wanted to build a 65-foot-tall cell tower in front of the Franklin Square Shopping Plaza Community members were outraged at the idea and came together to form the Frarrklin Square United Neighborhood Association. The association's first order of business was to hire attorney Tom McKevitt- "It is difficult finding attorneys to represent towns in these cases because usually all the attorneys in this business actually work for the major companies,' McKevitt told the News Transcript this week. He said the first meeting with the zoning board took place in September 2006 and ran for 10 hours-Another hearing in May 2008 lasted for about nine hours. "It is rare for a zoning board to find in favor of the community,but the residents were very adamant in not having the tower built,"McKevitt said."I told the community before I took the case that no one was allowed to mention environmental or health aspects(cormected with cell towers),since neither are proven just yet I told them if they mentioned that,I would leave the case immediately." At the Freehold Township zoning board meeting on Sept.25,representatives of Omnipoint began presenting testimony to support their contention that a tower is needed on Robertsville Road to close a gap in coverage.Residents indicated they do not want a tower near their homes- Last week a flier was circulated in Freehold Township which states that residents have come together to form Freehold Against Cell Tower(FACT). In a statement provided to the News Transcript,the residents said,"We,residents of Freehold Township,have gotten together and formed the FACT coalition to oppose the placement of a 120-foot tall cellular tower right in the middle of our residential neighborhood.The area they want to place this 12- story structure in is located between Green Acres and a Scenic Corridor Roadway(estabfishedApril 2002 by Monmouth County)- "in addition,there are two schools within a half-mile,as well as three parks-Furthermore,the site is in a valley and is definitely not the proper location T- Mobile already has a tower on Dutch Lane.If they are permitted to put up this tower in a residential area,a precedent will be set_ "Being exposed to electromagnetic radiation 24/7,decreased property values,the aesthetics,additional traffic the towels maintenance and infrastructure will create—all these are enough reasons for us to come together and let Freehold Township and Omnipoint know that we strongly oppose this tower's placement in a residential area- Meanwhile,McKevin offered some advice to residents who do not want a tower on Robertsville Road- make give the residents two peeves of advice for fighting this cell tower.First prove that you don't need the tower We had a group of people make approximately 140 calls in the area tof Franklin Square where the tower was proposed),showing that service for TMobile was fute the way it was. "Second,we brought in a landscape architect�A ho proved that the tower was a bad idea aesthetically The tower was 65 feet tali and the nearest residential property wasn't evert half that size"he said "Atso it Is Important to note that even though the zoning board found in our favor.the applicant can bring the issue t0 federal court.so nothrnn is compleleh over Lust v el " It Is expected that Onempontt v itl present tesunu+m trout addeuxral xA itn".w>>.hen the heannr in Freehold Township resumes on Oct ,tt http_//newst ran sci-ipt_gmne«'s-com,'nexus/2008�I0291front_page/002.htrrll Ti t k9�2 tZ0�91�' `-- c TAKE DOWN THE BOARD[wwxv-timesnewsweekly_com (Times Newsz—ekly Page I of 3 Login Get News Updates Profile Subscriptions Mdgmk e d Q WF sc"IT s" Local News January 8,2009 ® Search Archives search corr�6est-- TAKE DOWN THE BOARD Activists Seek To Disconnect BSA After Maspeth Antenna Approved story and photo by Robert Pozarycki - ------------ --. - Angry with the Board of Standards and Appeals'recent support of plans to 1199th - install a cell phone antenna atop a Maspeth home,a handful of activists Atannersary called for the panel's ternrihadon during a press conference on Monday, Issuej News .Jan.5 in lower Manhattan. tP�ews s = During the event outside the BSAs Rector Street headquarters,members of the -ocMores&cases L .`. Juniper Park Civic Association and City Council Member Tony Avefla condemned the agency for giving the green fight to T-Mobile LISA(which conducts business as Omnipoint Communications)to erect the largescale "a"es t `; device on the roof of a twofamly house on 72nd Place in Maspeth- Op-Ed Originally Planned to be a 25'-tall antenna disguised as a flagpole atop a 25'- People& >F- high residential building,as previously reported,T-Mobile reduced the total Culture sreir�ers of the.ha�er Park cW= height of the tower by 10 feet in the application approved by the BSA on Dec_ trot L nks Av aheW apress� Totaside�„d 16_The changes were made after objections were raised by bcal residents at bout us of standards grid Appeals headqsarters in several public hearings held pre-viously. - Manhatten on Monday.Jar-5 cafng for the agency to be disbanded_The raft ware Made Manny Caruana,a Maspeth resident and JPCA board member,stated that rd in the wake of the Dec-16,2"decision by kcivedisi She BSA to app"we plam for the consbuction numerous local elected officials,civic groups and residents had opposed the A Gasvred of a call phone tower atop a meth home. antenna plan from the very beginning.Among them was Community Board 5, which recommended in October 2007 rejection of the application- er In addition to the size and scale of the original antenna plan,as reported,residents had also raised concerns over krctfrve � 2oa2� possible health problems that could arise as a result of prolonged exposure to radio frequency radiation produced by Rdy T the active antenna. .61,,E ncq At Righft Rm -W Despite the overwhelming opposition from the Maspeth community,Caruana said,the BSA nonetheless voted unanimously at their Dec-16 meeting to approve the scaled-back version of the cell phone tower plan.Charging that the panel lacked the expertise to make the appropriate decision,he.denounced the board for not holding a public hearing on the matter after business hours in the area affected by the tower. "Here they are in Manhattan,making decisions for communities in Brooklyn.Queens and Staten Istand,"he said, ,web adding that hearings are held"at an unreasonable time of the day and making it almost impossible for residents of sae moteha these communities to come down and testify. "The decision they made on this cell tower is so unreasonable that anyone with any common sense that looks at it would immediately say.This is a piece of garbage.-Caruana added."But we have no recourse at this point" Though T-Mobile had stated that the new antenna was needed to eliminate a coverage gap in the area,JPCA members charged that no such gap existed in the area around the 72nd Place site.Chung testimony before the BSA, Robert Doocey noted that T-Mobile customers tested their phones in the area and found that they received clear reception. Christina Wilkinson,the civic group's secretary,added that after objections were raised by residents at p�"= hearings,the BSA Rdrarr T-aA^�ile for information on other sites in the area where the cel{ hone tower c placed.The communications company,she said,did not provide a public response o e request. Caruana suggested that TMobile's true motive for the cell phone tower in Maspeth was to develop its own 3G(third- generation)network in order to keep up with competitors who have installed similar systems for faster wireless communication. Council Member Avella labeled the board's decision as"one more example of the abuse of power of this little known agency. noting that its five members—appointed exclusively by the mayor—answer to no one else in city government. He stated that the BSA.in recent years_has approved variances tot developers to build structures outside of the zoning codes enforced in certain neighborhoods of the city The quality of life of sorne of those communities has either been darn-aged or destroyed as a result of these decisions.Avella observed 't! riF_di http:/IwwIA'-timesnewsweekly_com/news/2009-0I-08/l,ocai Newsr AKE DO'AIN TH_._ 9/3012009 TAKE DOWN THE BOARD I w—w_timesnewsweekly-com I Tunes Newswee'kly Page 2 of 3 'They are entity unto themselves,'he said-Time and time again,as in this case,the community board opposed iL The civic association opposed it-Every elected official opposed iL The borough president opposed iL And yet,BSA grants the authority to build this cell phone tower- "ft is time for the Board of standards and Appeals,in the interest of good government,to be abolished,"the legislator added_ in recent years,Avella noted that he has introduced several pieces of legislation in an effort to reform the BSA s practices.Among the bills he authored or co-sponsored would have expanded the board from five to 13 members,with the City Council,borough presidents,comptroller and public advocate appointing the eight new members. But each of the proposals has been stalled in the City Council,which Avella charged was the result of'the real estate indushYs influence"on city government The approval of the cell phone tower in Maspeth,the Council member said,sets an"unbelievable"precedent in the city,alluding to the possibility that other cell phone companies may seek to erect similar devices in residential areas- While the health effects of prolonged exposure to cell phone antennas remain unclear,Avella suggested that the city ought to'err on the side.of caution"in rejecting future applications to install the towers in residential communifies- "If you go back 50 years,no one thought asbestos was deadly,"said the Council member. Currently,any decision handed down by the BSA may be challenged through an Artide Wr lawsuit fed by residents in the community.When asked if such legal action would be taken to stop the Maspeth antennas construction,Avella stated that it was unlikely due to potential legal expenses and a tight statute of limitations_ "It is an almost an impossrblity:he said_'How many communities can come up with the money"to sue the city?"It shouldn't be on the community to sue its own govemmer►t" The Council member said that other courses of action were being considered to Wok#the antenna proposal.including an inquiry with the Federal Communications Commission,which oversees the operation of cell.phone anbennas- "We as a municipality have virtually no control over where these cell phone towers are cited because of federal legislation,"Aveila added-"That is something that has to change." Readers Comments Post new comment Your name: Anonymous E-mail: The content M this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. Home e- Comment:' CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions htt ://www-timesnewsweekly-corn/news/2009-0I-08/Local News/7'AKE DOWN TH-_ 9/30/2009 P - - - 0 h 10 CIO c� C(xMi4c,7Aer ----------- /Ut C- I rA ct c a h a d a s fed a /P a -u r- CC) 0 ca 617 T11 - T- M b le- 1-1 ��Aa fi'v- [OCA-(16 y[ -s 1-� ea-c k4 Sep Z�; -Tt d t 7-ILL) h DO -S nz� c I PIT iT-Mobile works to co-locate L n an existing structure before Buildings work well as loc.' recting a new structurelike to minimize the visual impais monopole. of antennas. it e f 4 E T-Mobile often partners with schools,hospitals and places of worship as locations for cell sites_ K MVI I sites to fit f � �:, �v • Per Pew Research, 74 percent of Americans who own mobile phones said they have used their n _ handheld devices in an emergency and gained valuable help' 4U Questions about wireless and home values Some homeowners have questions about whether the presence of new cell saes affects their ability to sell their homes One issue is whether there are undesirable health effects from r� living or working near a tower. The Federal Communications Commission and independent S � organizations like the American Cancer Society and World Health Organization Consistently say there is no evidence that exposure to the low level of RF signals emitted by cell saes -Mobile poses a health risk 4nother issue is the assumption that new lovvers may degrade views Gr otherwise be �� Unsightly_ Vlhrele-ss r'aruci, to the C)' each C.�'n'?n IUII!t� �Ir!(1 \ih�(✓ i[ ... _ - reduce the v1sual inlpacl of ceii site Oil the iocial cCmmunily Ifrr"iUoh des;url rl�nt�(t!t• III.` I camouttage and lariascapind Ifi addition, T-Mobile is committed to rnimmizinc; It he need for new freestanding structure::, and roughly two-thirds of fireless facilities are buitf cr! [ ecrsiirg structures such as local oovertarrent buildings- r _.4 t "ir�s1w _: i Minutes CounciURDA Special Meeting City of Huntington Beach Monday, April 27, 2009 5:00 PM - Room B-8 6:00 PM - Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A video recording of the 6.00 PM portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is archived at -www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/ 5:00 PM-CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tern Green called the special meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to order at 5:00 PM_ ROLL CALL Present: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr (arrived at 5:07 PM), Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen (arrived at 5:01 PM) Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION ITEM ONLY- None_ PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION ITEM ONLY (3 Minute Time Limit)- None. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Coerper, second Green to recess to Closed Session_ The motion carved by the following roil call vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen NOES: None ABSENT/OUT OF ROOM: Bohr CLOSED SESSION (City Council) Litigation- Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956.9,the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuits (and potential lawsuits): Pursuant to Governrnent Code Section 54956.9(b)(3)(A),the City Council recessed to Closed Session to confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation. Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27, 2009 Page 2 of 6 known to a potential-plaintiff or plaintiffs,which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed. Number of Potential Cases: Unknown at this time. Subject: Potential Litigation re_ Site License Agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc_ (A T-Mobile USA, Inc_, Subsidiary)for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park_ 6:00 PM- RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Bohr reconvened the special meeting of the City Council at 6:02 p.m_ ROLL CALL Present: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION Pursuant to the Brown"Open Meetings"Act, City Clerk Joan Flynn announced the following communications to the City-Council received after distribution of the agenda packet Communications received regarding Administrative Item#1 -Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park: 1)Anonymous, 2) Heather Lenore, 3)Lisa Vallefuoco Bayley,4) Cindy and Jeff Busche, 5) Suzie Slope (2), 6) Kevin Veal, 7) Lisa Veal, 8) Barbara Hamilton Howard, 9) Ron and Jeri Johnson, 10) Mary Ellen Houseal, 11)Todd and Deborah Roseniof, 12) The Parkin Family, 13) Drew Kovacs; 14) Lisa and Tony Rudy, 15) JoAnne Flory, 16)Ana Youngsma, 17) Diana Rovano, 18)Joan Smith, and 19) Dan and Linda Fillet_ COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE MEETING Communication submitted by Traci White, dated April 26, 2009,voicing opposition to Administrative Item#1 -Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Harbour View Park. Petition entitled Reject the Celt Tower submitted by Julia Lucas, undated and containing 119 signatures. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) The City Attorney announced that in regard to the settlement agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and T Mobile, by a vote of 7-0, the Council directed staff to renegotiate the existing license agreement with T Mobile for Harbor View Park, and agreed to reimburse appropriate expenses in an amount not to exceed $50,000- Mayor Bohr added that T-Mobile representatives committed verbally that they will not proceed with the construction on the cell site at Harbour View Park. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Bohr led the Flag Salute. Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27, 2009 Page 3 of 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL MEETING ITEM (3 Minute Time Limit) (The numbers following speakers'comments reflect the approximate point in time in the archived video the speaker appears at http_ftwww.surfcity-hb.org/govemment agendas) James M_ Jackson, M.D., resident,spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a-wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He noted the parallels between cell tower radiation and their potential effects on children. (00:06:09) Gracey Van Der Mark,concemed parent, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She noted that the cell tower radiation may wind up exceeding FCC acceptable standards and thanked the Council for voting to remove the tower.(00-09:34) Fred "Skip"Booth, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ Mr. Booth referenced a book by a neurosurgeon who studied brain cancer and its causes in children. He also referenced policies from neighboring jurisdictions that limit cell tower construction_ (00:11:30) Mike Thermos, Homeowners of Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, inc. Subsidiary) for a wireless telecommunication facility of Harbour View Park He noted the close proximity of the proposed cell tower and the adjacent school site and its potential negative impact on the students. (00:13:14) Tay Norton spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park She thanked the City Council for their efforts and decisions related to the proposed cell tower site. She further suggested that the Council conduct public hearings before they make any policy decisions on matters where students or school sites are impacted. (00.15:32) Heather Lenore, resident of Huntington Harbor, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications,Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She noted the negative impacts of cell towers on the brain development cycle in children. She thanked the Council for their decision in moving the cell tower_ (00:17:38) Ralph Bauer, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc- (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He suggested the Council conduct public hearings on these types of matters in the future. He also noted that Measure "C"may come into play when considering policy decisions relative to parks and referenced the City's subdivision Ordinance- (00:20.00) Patrick Munoz thanked Council for their decision to reconsider a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc_ Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He thanked the Council for listening to the community on this issue. (0022.25) t g=� tom' [ Y Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27,2009 Page 4 of 6 Cindy Osterhout, principal of Harbor View School, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She thanked the Council, City staff, representatives from T-Mobile, and the students and families of Harbor View School for their work in this matter and for keeping students and staff safe. (00:22:52) Mary Busche, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She mentioned her children and grandchildren who attended Harbor View School, the future consequences of potentially harmful environmental decisions,and the community's support for removal of the cell tower equipment_ (00:25:37) Jim Shaffer, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park- He expressed concerns that this item was initially considered on the Consent Calendar rather than at a public hearing. (00:28:35) Annafisa Phantumabamrung,resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc. (f-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park- She expressed concerns that the community did not receive adequate notice regarding the proposed cell tower. (00:29:48) Christina Tsimerekis, parent of Harbor View student, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc.Subsidiary)for a wireless - telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She thanked the Council for their work in cancelling the contract with T Mobile, however, she also expressed concerns with the Council's due diligence in this matter. She also referenced the apparent lack of proper notice to adjacent residents and the school site_ (00:33:42) Mayor Bohr reiterated the City Council's decision in Closed Session regarding this matter. Debi Windle, parent of Harbor View student, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She thanked the Council for tonight's decision and suggested the City adopt certain provisions to their zoning code to protect students and children from such future cell tower construction. (00:36:46) Tim Branoff, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. He suggested a modification to the City's development application process as to proactively determine potential impacts to school sites- (00:39A8) Margaret Tracy, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc- Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park_ She expressed concerns and made inquiries as to placement of a cell tower near Bolsa View Park_ (00:41:19) Diane Rector, resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications- Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc Subsidiary) for a wireless telecommunication facility Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27, 2009 Page 5 of 6 at Harbour View Park She mentioned how a neighborhood element, such as a cell tower, may negatively affect local property values. (00:41:44) Jerry Rich,resident, spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc_Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park He noted the City's efforts in maintaining a high quality of life for residents and supported tonight`s decision. (00:42:49) Norm Westwell, President, Ocean View School District, thanked Mayor Bohr and Councilmember Carchio for attending a community meeting held on April 23, and spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)-for a wireless telecommunication facili y at Harbour View Park He encouraged the Council to consider widespread public notfication when a matter of this magnitude is to be discussed. (00:44:24) Jodie Arendt spoke in opposition to a site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for a wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. She referenced a personal cancer diagnosis and the potential connection between environmental elements and the negative health risk of exposures. (00:45:53) Deane McDaniel, resident, inquired as to whether the Council will be considering action to remove other existing cell sites in the City. (00:47:24) Noting that there were no further speakers, Mayor Bohr closed public comments. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. (City Council) Reviewed status of site license agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (a T-Mobile USA, Inc. Subsidiary)for wireless telecommunication facility at Harbour View Park. A motion was made by Bohr, second Hardy to direct staff to bring back a Zoning Text Amendment that addresses the permitting and entitlement of cell sites located within 500 feet of school sites to require a Conditional Use Permit and public notice_ The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, and Hansen NOES: None Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 27,2009 Page 6 of 6 ADJOURNMENT-Council adjourned at 6:50 p-m_to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, May 4, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Be ch, California. rx City C rk and..ex-officio Clerlmf the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach,California ATTEST: Ile City Clerk-Cle yor-Chair Ho '. ,ERRED LOCATIONS Key steps in the site selection process FOR NEW SITES Step 1:Determine need through a scientific analysis of the network. TMobileadds new wireless facilities only In order to provide the best possible performance,T-Mobile continually works on its network. when and where they are needed_When When customer demand drives the need for improvements,radio engineers conduct a possible.T-Mobilelocates antennas on thorough analysis of the network using scientific and topographic models_ This may include existing structures,such as: identifying the wireless traffic at individual cell sites, considering the number of dropped and • Water towers or smoke stacks blocked calls, and gathering customer input via surveys and direct feedback. • Existing wireless facilities or Step 2: Identify feasible locations. freestanding structures such as monopoles or lattice structures Once a need for a wireless facility has been determined, potential sites are examined and evaluated on the basis of how well they address the needs of the network, such as filling in • Foisting utility infrastructure such as coverage and capacity gaps. Because wireless signals travel by line-of-sight, large buildings. power or light poles hills, and tall trees can limit signal strength and thus affect where a site may be located. • Buildings and rooftops T-Mobile gives priority to placing new wireless facilities in industrial,commercial, and mixed- • Billboaros use areas when possible. However, as customers increasingly use their wireless phones at home—often as their only phone—it becomes necessary to locate wireless facilities in Commercial signs neighborhoods. Step 3:Acquire the necessary permits and leases. Local zoning and building codes also guide where facilities may.be constructed, what type of site can be proposed, and what it looks like. Many experts participate in this step. �� r • Land use professionals carefully research local zoning requirements to determine where wireless sites l L I are allowed,and under what conditions. (t • Siting and acquisition professionals identify properties that allow for the placement of a facility that is feasible,constructible,and that addresses community concerns.They work to ensure that the site complies with all pertinent local state and federal rect�ment-s_They also negotiate lease agreements with property owners,such as municipal governments,utility companies,or private landowners_ • Land use professionals also work with city or county officials,the community,and landowners.to obtain all required permits to construct the wireless facility. Construction managers ensure that the proposed site can be constructed safely and will meet all municipal building codes and safety standards. Once all the necessary permits have been acquired, T-Mobile constructs the facility. By EARN MORE following this rigorous process for site selection, T-Mobile is able to expand its network to deliver the quality of service that customers rightfully expect, now and in the future. lease visit www t-mobile-lakeacbon com rr additional information about wireless ommunicatrons and links to the mencan Cancer Society.CTiA, FCC nd others :ONTACT US you have questions on she information rovrded inlhrs tact sheet. please contact at „r;:,;,.mobtic con, i'r tl u f 1 T-MOBILE USA I 1_29-20 SE 2,81h Street Bellevue Washington 9100CE, T-Mobile sues Surf City over cell -hone tower dispute!city,cell,tower, m=,ile,phone-___ Page l of 2 t 00`K I i rh ff V A �Ott-( Ofrjj perrafT 3aIJ Monday, June 1, 2009 District Court- 'We/j®�!�� 'We intend to preserve our legal rights to 1 �i/A maintain the highest quality communications network for our customers,"T-Mobile said in City over ce i t phone a statement to the Register- tower dispute Huntington Beach officials denied that the contract was broken. They said T-Mobile can build the cell tower but only if it meets city rules_ Company alleges city broke contract because of rule A portion of the city's charter—referred to as Measure C,—requires residents to vote on protecting parks and any structure to be built in a park or beach costing more than 000_ beaches; city denies the contact was broken. T-Mobile had planned to build a cell phone tower at_Harbour View Park co between $120,000 and $200,000 as the"least By ANNIE BURRiS intrusive means"to fill a gap in the company's wireless services, the lawsuit The Orange County Register said_ Another cell tower planned for Boisa View park is estimated to cost$80,000, HUNTINGTON BEACH—T-Mobile is suing `which falls within Measure C requirements. Huntington Beach in federal court, alleging that city officials broke a contract allowing The company pointed out in its lawsuit that the cell phone company to install tree- the $100,000 figure residents voted for in shaped cell phone towers at two local parks. 1990 is equal to$183,890 in today's dollars, based on a widely used Construction Cost The cell phone company claims the city is Index_ City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said preventing them from providing competitive the dollar amount in Measure C could only cell phone service primarily because of a city be changed if the residents voted for the rule intended to protect parks and beaches, change. according to the suit, filed May 27 in U-S. Adverrsement Print Powered€ y Dynamics http:/fwww-ocregister-comfarticles/city-eel l-tower-2436663-mobile-phone T-Mobile sues Surf City over cell —hone tower dispute ( city,cell,tower,m�tide,phone- __. Page 2 of 2 STER The city has given the company three possible options:change their plans so the tower would cost less than $100,000, move the tower to a new location, or put the cell towers to a public vote. The City Council voted unanimously Jan_ 20 to allow a cell phone tower at Harbour View and Bolsa Yew parks—a contract that was to give the city $5,000 a month for up to 20 years. When the city first began negotiations with T-Mobile for the Harbour View tower,the projected cost of construction was less than $100,000, McGrath said.The building permit for the site said the value of the improvements was$60,000, she said_ However, after public outcry over concerns about the health effects of the cell towers and the public disclosure of the deal ,the council directed staff to renegotiate the contract with T-Mobile and reimburse the company up to$50,000. During those discussions, T-Mobile officials said the Harbour View tower cost more than $120,000_ In May,the City Council rescinded their $50,000 offer and negotiations to redo the contract ended without a new agreement _ Contact the writer: aburris@ocregister_com or 949-553-2905 Advertisement ifeLock. In Idmemy Theft Proteccioti -1 7 Print PovverecI E3v http://w,v,,w.ocregister.com/arti-cles/city-cell-tower-2436663-mobile-phone 9/290009 AN YOU'RE INVITED! Notice of Neighborhood Meeting To improve wireless phone service in your area T-Mobile is proposing to install a communications site at Community United Methodist Church. T-Mobile has designed the site to blend with the surrounding area by proposing to install a tower camouflaged as a palm tree. T-Mobile "would like to invite you to attend a neighborhood meeting with their project representatives to discuss the proposed site. You will have an opportunity to review our plans and photo- simulation depictions of the proposed facility, and ask any questions you might have about it. Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009 Time: 6:00 p.m. t® 7:00 p.m. 'lace: Community United Methodist Church 6662 Heil Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Further information regarding this meeting may be obtained by contacting Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, at (949) 241-0175 or monica_moretta(a7sequoia-ds.com. T-Mobile would like to hear from you and we look forward to seeing you at this meeting. T'v, T.P., Vy C) CT - T 2-cx) 9 165. APN: 146-483-10 DIANNE J 0 LARSON 16631 DALE VISTA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4318 47,+4""'116 1111 11 Hill 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 111 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH ti P,o, sox i gn I R F T Ll R N E R,v I E. I jr, $ Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 0 w 15 2,11.) mailociprom 02bj"i US POSTAQE 165, APN: 146.483-10 DIANNE JO CARBON t 16631 DALE VISTA LN 116 q 15 ()q HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647.4318 ,� �dl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Huxsrr,GroNstacll BEFORE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR You are receiving this Notice of Public Hearing because you own property, are a resident, or conduct business within close proximity of the item checked below. The Zoning Administrator Public Hearing is scheduled for: WHEN: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 TIME: 1:30 PM WHERE: Room B-8, Lower Leve!, City Hall Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach ALL lids REST ED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined below. A copy of the ---�,j application is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for review by-the public_ If you challenge the Zoning Administrator'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 Project Planner at 536-5271'and refer to the application below_ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Zoning Administrator will hear the following items: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, at 1:30 PM in Room B-8, Lower Level, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the Zoning Administrator will hold a public hearing on the following item: Al. CONDITIONAL USE-PERMIT NO.200 0-54T-MQBILE!WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY): Applicant: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. Request:To permit the construction of a 55 ft_ high wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a seven ft_ Six inch he.1i � 4wMF1T�� cct i�% cz, tiG ' cLUn OF a five-TOot ntg� 3lock i _ uitl G� wall trash enclosure. Location: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) Project Planner. Jill Arabe NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item#1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act_ ti v'r tom! z ON FILE: A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department. Rami Talleh, Liaison to the Zoning Administrator 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Distributed Antenna System (DAS) technology is ACT OF 1996 effective Solution in custom environments The Federal Communications Commission A Distributed Antenna System DAS is a technologyoriginallydevelo ed for in- (FCC)is responsible for implementing the y (DAS) p burl' Telecommunications Act of 1996"Under areas—to contain the signal to an interior area that is typically difficult to cover- DA` these rules,' licensed wireless carriers fundamentally different technology than that used for standard wireless facilities- It'- are entitled to make technological and in unique environments, such as airports,malls, stadiums, casinos, and corporate r operational decisions free from state and focal governmental interference" Coverage:Depends on surrounding physical characteristics—same as with a Stan( FCC regulation also requires that these wireless facility" But because DAS nodes are typically the height of a second-story v governments act in a competitively coverage is extremely limited,and the technology requires more antennas and aba neutral and non-discriminatory manner infrastructure.What's more, major roadwork and sidewalk construction may be nee. towards all telecommunications locate a fiber network underground" providers"The result is that while state and local governments can make Capacity:Does not effectively scale for increased capacity" Because there is limitec determinations regarding the placement, the system and each user on a DAS system must share this power, the coverage ar construction and modification of wireless as I tes a " of technol DAS network is dramatically reduced"The more power that must be shared among ce oc�tis. left to each carrier to determine,in weaker the signal and the smaller-the coverage area. accordance th app Ica e .0 noes. Network flexibility Cannot be expanded as easily as standard wireless facilities, bet the limited capacity of a DAS system- When all positions are taken, co-location or e within that system is no longer possible. More nodes or a new system will be require means many more antenna facilities. And network performance may be affected- Network reliability:May be compromised or experience catastrophic failure in the ei public emergency or natural disaster- This is because DAS networks use a single fit to host varying numbers of client uses over a large area- STANDARD WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES VS"DAS aw Standard base station ® a ® m LEARN MORE Y Please visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com DAS base station hub for access to additional information about LEGEND- Homes - Utility poles — Fiber-optic cables e Antennas Nodes wireless communications. DAS typically requires more antenna facilities to match-or come close to, the covert CONTACT US single standard wireless site- It you have questions on the intormation J; provided in this tact sheet.please contact naiexiattair sea.t-mobile con [-MOBILE USA 12920 SE 381h Street - - Roitw.no t,Nachmntnn URfltlF �a ss• W r; Y. 1: ryrrrr`rar0 tHr--rr--rrrrrrr+-r ��`aN a':�-`ran--•rf--frr- •r+/t` rt ti rNrw•'�a�"�.wr+_• ors �:-.rwr`rarr�+ r.-+ ws.m� .i^"'' .. 1 r m rYrrpf--rfrar�rr•r �•rrr•-H• wwr o--wr rfr` nnrsffNM re+++--` rn" v�rr ., yr•�frrrN„yr• •-��„N Hurwa� ��w• r+��"� v+W� Ynanor.-nyan�c+. urr..:r u-1"r`•.'� ��rn yn aAeNrNf•arprr+�rbrr��r �,Mrrrr•+�YawArLON� n nr�" ��n _ Yirriorejsirmr•nv-iM wrrf+��Hi�•-rMHrr pr arr r---- ry .uu�nw fr -r -•rri N��joe �r�lOUMMrw'r NrAjNy r �Ow � w uya�n�Ha t . oyrw"r'n asI atin N ............ - - aH .........HH � '/ I •�v`nM t I F f F e y►_ �. - t tt t �• 1 r ri M` V � > .qA .a { ab ' , l• S' f f ... : i f ft 8; f •M✓ r s •ne a a r it i I t I r a' 1 It mb ,77 I to tl WO.; q_'.;;: 1 {If"f 1 � /!Iti; i / S'. yv�4 N{5. C� SR'�AR•A•X flk� ( 2 { ,. ,•.: a��., • Diu 5�� wa�.'? � Wy i a"`>,,�` i // �I�I..;I I i :i, ' . . - ,.. :• c 3 a.i:': fv: �y }� �tom^ '4�t� ,fa�ty{�y �. toe J / � 1 � , w '• I�f�.S'4^�0a�' ` 5!`.r-"c� �',jai .,✓��" ° et �'; "®`ra'L8 r • is I� 1 EE �I .,, � : L-. li I ,,1 I .�� '.ro.♦ � /" / � a .•� a." vv3, 4i t,,D�P9.....1. r t Y r r 4, ; r pr 3 � ;3x+• ;I F M�,'�1y',`a��f4Dd e�:�a v a ,' .'(� .�. r,� t,� �� 1 4 / y,1 s»')m•\,,.';vti..1,, t i1V M1 !@.� �gta'i el.'.we 7 . Y�-�� `�V ®q? � af �Q�,� �a91V t r3 .. a t . b •e v ':x: l r. 9 �:.; 1 ::. :: " +�..: � I '. :.Y 9. .� pt f%., `DN a,t •. n. 1 V'_ ••%iS' i s�.°pV `. •p,�"S� �1j - ' s 1 t` � i'Y A� �O�g t '� /.^-Fc r�.,p;�b - ''t' a•' Y .p 4�;`. . r� e 1 -; Y �x '. .' ` ;. 1 :. I .� I 1 :: � ,4"yi 9�,4 `,(� y�1� UU.019 I ♦ .0.�.,ti.`e 1..0 '9 e�;�.4+rZ,�' q, Ap , b a ,(' a V" s + _.?., ..L. ) � 1„ � j ,•:�. � i,' 1 ', s n .•I: I ',J ,.:: v V �r �`t`'V Oil J '.,r- . . � r .a � t�'.�.,�fA` , If IF f6 a 1 it 4+'a� rrutY /) ' L) t.�' � f b p I '� rl.� 4„ t!. \� r. [t., ,r' ai• 11,•� Af �.✓ ft t '��F'¢,�t.• ,�+.•m•,•.r, t ,t r A t,n l 1'a� 3 + JJ , i� w ✓ 1� ��,>' 'Op cur • .. _ '^'� 4''L-.4>'1.'�',� 2r, ,,r,w{ I!+r P^r; ':f'r.l i'M1ry l M' r 'te'd;�7.� s r r.�: I t11.y1, �• s,, rli i.. f. �' ��. �,'i � - _. 4�yp5.�r 1 ,•�,�,<ta� � .5k•A fa,i)'F, .< ra.. l'a..�',r��1 ',.'v�Nt 1... qq }.., 2 ;..1 i e.l ? '1'P. �. .a�'•' (�,' ,.., t... .,u ,>:y• ,•x,..r !�,r qa; .. �r � ,Yf�`i+�Y.••,}..,. ,Yd r.,, ,s1 I.„, /q - ( �, I. - h .. .•�!'F,;�d7;•tJe.1 w( i. ,.:p_,;.L. v,u.• q .;r1u .v r,. t" ,,�:�1. '',u'..v Y;rr.lt Yy"d+. t i ;.fo`Ik� I:1 - - ,ft ,. P G ,,. �(y .wj �,b 7t 1'r,c A +':�?F:`� n.:.,,r �.:,"�.,I-,...tll.l,�,t v[ 4.,:.., 'd r• d )', .t o-.;' :i•.' YY. "'N"I r:.Y?I T o,>•r rFCri �: r, :H;4Y4s +�allt ` 1. {YY 1 '. .;... :. `% i - • � � . +M1� ra Y'>. �?:"M�s Fr'�,)+s r ' ry �:� :r,r "� i� � �'i 't � ��eRaT�" � • � � _� ..„ 'Ir 7 L .� �':a K t r ; 1- Y _.;f; 1 i.. I i� I' / l n�y A;,• ,�3': dew'S{ I .v::. r.� tJ r r i.. r I 1 I .. 3I �i 1 `/� ':s �'�. ,- . nl r Y 1 ',' ,. - � ..i.., � ..-. t I :.;; I� i,,:-: .:,,� ,.'°�. _ '�,e>@�•d/` *rt" `k': '�`�`. 1 6,.w o ' ,. O�, 5-; :I s+ r/ :. ':, i„ '.. 9 .:; + !: „c,if .„ ! r.l.s. :.,I L,..., .�:rp9p, •T•:0 ��-v �, ,.I .,A 1 ,; 1. i. 7 11 � Y r .,. ! { {,, ,++ r. { ::1 -.:, �I ',, < - OS'. d/ .t -.�y��g a:-,�� t �,?'ri •.:0 '✓Afn' ,�,. IT / yi t v:� t I °u�. s tr r ti•: -,. i ::; :..:. :J, � ,I-1.:'l .,. , ti! �f :1 O _�7;. a'y, ;j t �� ,� 71 tj,� t.tv e `tf a2,y}�,yC 2�a:r,- ,(;:, r :.: I ;..�,:. '..ivv!"'.�yy�fr it y,a...,: z.,..:; a 1 ,�"`.. �' ,�A:.�t,�B A. e7L •.ate�'td' • '.� _ ly��• e �� t ,•.:i: a !. M1 t k.3Y-: ` .: .,;; .1.., ,i:.r;e .., •� �.'� 4:�C�-.; ,' ,t'... -., 'a_.... �.,��w,� �,� .�q6+ �� e +'�� g -l� ��t�' + � '`�rf a'� �—•e's;Sa�"�, i ,,�. ,� tv ye �.� ��t r � + Z� ":Z� +� ��/ Y r ^, .f r r ', { kl .'� '� -.. '" Y` 4 v v.ofi' ,x�1 � .:-P 0 a:.s ., t •��/�q�a � st !';� . > r r Y h ' `.gib\. �.,•.,) e• +•.r .,e �.4 `D J" "`F,t1 FI •'� ea i � .'`. 1 k '� A I y' 1 L ; ;� �,�]�rJ� ♦ ti ' tl ° A r rs3 1 .� t?y i � y e � ,- . ` \,�A P :lhgN.� iT , r 1 1,•, 14 1 i 2a i A je ,F }S r ,tt 7 NrFel x r G. ,' ,t {�t1 ` § .. r _`t�� G• e , `a'1. tA,. •O F)ll I r \ ]It �5 `� 1 tl 4, 1 5 Y��11 d ,\t6 ,:, ) � + 13 a .' •. At � � 7 y nx)d 1� vt��...' r' 4 .•;r i:. �.. t !f'. �r �¢w`� f �' fi„ l �i ri. tit rsl �9-� •;��t�r�r 4� 1 .t - � ` �t T. � _ t�i.v1��7 4 ��Qrlt�� '7� S ,e.;.. f o-. 1 a t Nr�e"r��, G�:i"}r t�� ,i�' � - •� �' a w:i:. �. �•. e ' '., � .A[V t f v9 tll gas ri z 'r n" �'v,�: �n r_.. F t��'F(;� ��'�. •s Aa,( �: A � . 1 yF'l. J a. �� rI -.f o:rJ rJ J i { \ S� r ��Y.y•' te., .=: a 9 et;, r/ r�, � f ��; sR' e� •!' - - �''�Ft j • ,� 0 a'e t' 1 _. ,�•. '. ,r S ' t�4 14��• rr � 1 a WMT7 �OM W,g ........... .............. ,qy,. ;1! Y IMAN mm"INLI'l 41T�' M V # d 3 � s yI1 v r F' - . i d t. �r rf I 1 3 1.' �' }0'.: I f i - m n4_. -.�1 P :.P;,.,• -! d r r r 9 f� !t Y r'�r i x 1 r °ti�rnY$' Jl, 4 4stc�,rS '�s •Yi d� •Is f•' iq 4 {� �,� �rr II .. 1 '. )1 SJ�k!51•.{ t r .I � Y�.I r Y S �i;• �} t f 1 r 1 PI � �;i ��, .�; yn a' �r � 1 � <.s�7�!•Pdu1S. �t' k S! I t ,��r, E ••'x P.�r Ya,•-1 ,:. � .: -:•:.: 1 r.r...i.��s., .,`7� ...a { , - q.*hyY3e'(� _..o-_i IJ.-� ..........� .g?r I- :r,:Y..� A.. •'-,r. •.. r.. � :1• ....... �s' t u .'. _ L.:4:� �+ rt� s �.. Ia•,..•.+r ,�1r ;r ?sb 7"x�A. ,• t^�.,:, t c. a 4 .P. �s ,' :':� ,rr,.•.,, f. .Is "4." ..1'..r,.68`1.-:�Y�i -.s. t - r . ..t, '.k, r,. :.f"•;r yy o A �ti a ^CL L l r r rv5�;qq I I l 1 t .. Y .; .. e1X• Z h R 1 4 1 ( 1 � .. ..'.r. •- �'. � ! .1 :I.1 9 �Y Y1 ,1...: {`.Y Ir .F9 } Y �f s !} 4 is i} r� r � 4 u I I. rr x`; ! 1...a t r ': •.:..t ,.f_a - - I rl +v t 1..r 1�... ...r. ..S/! ., ...i 5 . 1.L,r.: a :.,.,- .....Jc..(. i.:+.:. .,... ::'..... ., -.r{, A r Y..• .1:..; µ .f 1'J, r+h r.t 4`��ti.�. 2' T�.i': 1 ..� .,. :. .'F:... '. 1.,�':• (.: '€ ' "� A:<i. rY ¢...'FT^ { . t 1,.,r '•1',,,a,'�fr ;�• s•.:jr y :.;n,r t Ih ibY It N t A�" 4�t�i4 T II y,tLa' s i ,!a I� �,: � f7��N`y�,`., ar a (�I� 1 � I J ;4• � r. t" � tgK��ha a w( A v7 W t 1, q tt1 Jxo ::' ! a n f Y ( �m� t n, 1zar,4ar ,:; , ..:. ,.._ ,•�;,' ,� ,, ul, � � ' .'' "6q ,t, a! 4t Mi5 law s ::. •!...., { ::. ,-:._il `1.' r � ,t;B,,.r'y , •' .r .N :. �;� .. { :.1 �'} ( i :}.,'•ry l i ,. u:Y a•Y 4 a r:k. > br. `-�.:, :<. IC:. ,...,.:a 7 f':,;r, r, ... ..� , .. .- ,cY, „a;, c. .r':i... /,i3 �: .i :r:. k r r ,•1 � r ,t fb rr�d� ,. :;4 � .. .;,. 1 ,.,:.,,tr}�n s.,tI ... F.. s,F•• 'T r; , I i,r .a. YA, 1 E e'. ..S4,P ? h= - 1 .},. w:. ,.ry L`; e( :�,; •} s ha: y 1+,.,.. k :: ,4 .� :, r.. _ r .e it 1 � , •t� it 7' i A # 1 .;a. .: .. - ;-e• "+'��((5r�, t7 t ♦.:F{. .�N t,r%r Nt':.. :,��1 l t ty j fl t` et t,t t r. 1 K...� o g C s t•_ '`Jfl'�{�^ :.Se,µµ t ., �; ',: •. d � ( :i .�• 1 -€:.r 2 i y�, '1 t 1 -`, r@i5tr..afl,g`A .}. .;r:43.; d 51'..:` ':E. f .:.ti .;,'.,• ." .,'�.., _ 's �F-� i :'§ t P M" N: � al'N a.4...,�d. ,?A;t >xt �: t :1 .:l,y .• ..�.-. ,�, :� :iai ,.a'. � .•i �.. / 4 } 5 .rt�£f 6�..�;: ry.�;(Ml�c:�' -,^`1. !�. N,Y•> „�. y .,r...r. :,..., . '., ..:., .,1. .; .:.. ,. --.:: .r, .-'_f •.,..;. t-�n15¢}. rr." � r,�!r t .-f=: ' 1 +' °L� ,�"1"'•(e t.a�a•`N Xwy+3`r�t�,;i,�r.,di.. { Iti-::,;71T. F - .. e..t,' 1. ..I w:...r' 1+r- r:. r't ,e ''y, r �{.:.\+'Yfi. �d•� 7t 1,�L{M.; y �. 1 rJ•t ... ,� 1 e .. -,• .-° '. ,.J-a,. . s. J.k: 2 y .,m t r y.. ro -^:FJ: ..r...`? v,r`v"r't 1 l.;�f;4. JA ,� „'. ,... , .:. • A .,- r.. $r:. '�..`tr.; £ :tw r r x i ,tv� '�', -Sra_ of �,t� z. :i`,,ry 9y�''� f. an 7. `�.:: r : '. ..A i�'° �. ., :... •. - pi y p. t 13 .9 }§.a .�:i 1 '. `rt i.r.�F '�"A� P,¢r,5(i"�.?v��I -' j. '..c`�a.:-.. _....,_` .. . 1 - cr.,:., ._.,. .,..->.. � - �y . . - [J ^3 e� fi_ rr .t'. t ✓. � r 3:YFSiFiF ISe �� A+�, .•r v $ i rn;>;7'�,rr n a r i,L.%✓Jr 'J§�l'._:{Mi Krt. 9 J:'.. -:r'a .: :' :...."`" ;; .. F .. _ - -. 't yy� r{ { �- 3!.. t u .."`�� Yt�}!r>.r�Y�f�ir�ri r... :� 1. .z _ .._ .., a •.�`a4• 1 .. • .. 't Yf/:, t'f �!. r r t�E^• ii' uSU,", s. .., • p , d�1'I. ar9T,JtiYJf..` a l) ♦uy A _ 't• .. ..x - ,. .. �,1� r dr d�.mliyZ��1e3t}q(j".V�,�r'� ,n�'� �.::s� . . . � :.�� ' {;. f 1 � � -- t t+d�s n pyr.i Dn.�:`.+ur' }•' ;J ;. _. ! Esl rj, ��. F�jJ , � + .1". 'i ..;i� p „y,. p�:`. y' z`rSJA�r A}3.t> R r•� r; AA� c." °Sx �.r:' }�:' ' � AA� .. -..-, .,1 �r;, 'Y't -ii .:} �„^..'..•r r A .:�li 1 h FdfN.r � .• i •u: la �`.,:3 N tit ::oja �rr Jl,r�2+� � } ,a� �>M ,n IS...- y__ _ s, .C,-`,r ;�= - r r� �"9� y :.r � K z�:t,(t A./: t S k t. 'i4 1 J�: 5• �+:}� AV�+ P ...R•' t^.'' - p"- a "+ �'f , t �5511 ISM .�T� l l.S,s{ vt r,��t -1' , y �4 q M1 Js :..� r G f �{1 'Y�:. ,L%��-r, Ir _ r4 .y. t ✓' 't i 2 $ { .-i. .1. a '.t �t vA. ,, j• A [ SYk A- rod tt i.J F ,w,> K:. �i. !; 7 } t• t 1 f 1, '.� f <Y ti, ! r ifJ J. :f ,.{ ? .# i 1..Y�.y�'. 4`ti 1 �'i - x-1.: ,F 1. 1 r + d�l Y �, t l 4v �a"L., °e,aa �`t.�£;tl. t r� I,•.a, r�,=- .a4 k - t i�i r.,.3 1 ! .e a .z.. -'S 5(. �'�t t 1 tr- S i �, ,Py .,� .:d+•�};' ��. r3 it •r., �'.. A y .! t p 1 5 it. + v' s , v,r a ar ( � v, .1 c"t'Irr` li.r,:,<f45. .;f.. 1°.j#•.. i. '(.:,.�.. •.r :.: .-r.......�' r.. ...q Y,t' .i::! i ..;t, r. S,,fw .A,.' i -, d• X f ! 3f - fit '+ 9 J'• .'4,.8 ;.�. (, Il �f ..(. r,p• !': + .Y.:+Ir t h � Y +'L }j.,!F it T,' r 5 �.p is k{"- 1`Y 'A N.:,9� i .. �' .:.. ':,' � ,. , 1 . �.}-ral ..•..y. J:n.;• 1 Y t r, ,(•,. Y. �X+' .S. vd lr5+' .rF•:.. , rll x:141 �vJ+ ,!`5. -.i.. � L :�: r: 1' 1 r :.a �i ,,ie$+r pk ,� ,+ ?. 1� u•, A .1•`: 1-• Zwir' ,�.1, „pt vt .,' ,.,:. Y r�., �` �"11 r � �:( A tlrt r s a ^. + �., 1- i Ii.;P � t ti` _ e'-,a J a; t t es, �a tt:.:..A NA}�"•. �i ..r�r31, ,t t .;:"41: .t, n .,ra. :y,,�.:�rr:y r .,,,.".rar.w,� { -• \ .- . N.7,"v{,ar: r Aa w %'R%{i ^•,.s"' r ref'w. a 4 >fi 'fit. RCr ?'-: ",ir IIu�i ;eC�;rr.'xs,' '!•�:; ;,Y,-yr:'!."•';`�':;:s=:;��et•.��.;s•:::;,;.,;,; '.f..`ie,'�F 1.�..n:n��:5,� ,. � "� nil:•.yy,, ,y 1. � � .�.r��A � If,;QP'rrr 4Qg�'Ic^d.r. .i52�.,.f its.. f'Y-�,.i .r .,,�:..�• 111 iX'y,: rV` .��'S�t' t' „�. .rS441''l:,a, �g.. +7F,4„\ ""`�k,'4'�:`V•;; tl 0 I r� 1, r h• y .°r� s'k1 �' gal y qpd�xh; ri t.' r',x.,lr1r}al:�;r?!sl:rt^r'::(n;��s��'>�a f'.tr`,7i� ;1�•..,�i' Y.',1� i r� :\,y.P`rli}P''yr1�`;Sreia�rh>i.,�h.J;a ,.:i�,r+,�,, v'ad. '�;t!'�S'H '�„'s,�S,r, t � };;,;1,t6N+!RI:, •.,s,+'P,'�:viSmlt'',r'�,1;'{..�i•� sw,(4,r.�i1�:n'� �a !: Y. .;y,.;�'i°}:;v�•` 4 �.i'L«X15u'.`p+; r\ . q (�:nti.Fli,nl''.r'V _ A V.rx.,.d ...;�.,c.+•E..Ir�''�;r,';...,,+:i#�: ir., tb �,� yti*;,�'+;.; '�., A 1 £fir ••t;'f1�'di^.r'��;':^F+'^" - rld2 fu+� a�:,,,,.;�' +,' ��,>:..x'' "r•..t, ':,'t•r�a�i .,I,t,:t�i, �,- F i i + '� ,��}rro 6">. ' n. ..a 7:.��a 'h. ,�. t.»,' .,,..t n., s?' f w o�w.'ska�� ! I; n tfg.,,rt.'�.,''t,,i'3i:",,;{�t:;;,..;:�.,.,•,rrf>. H. s<, r r!' .,F� 1� r'L Ed".o• :F 7•;'.,t.,t:f FY' '�'. ,ca:..." 'vM r^ ,•+•;doy`' t t iq it o .,+,:1 ,o-r ,.t, 'T�' •1 .n....r�r, � , b,r :7, !�, r1, h 'hr rM.,>> '•i4't'. ',t):. • ,•1J'A r n,/.IA+nhe. .l� ::'�11,.: :hM �`.YE,"�k' l I� 1..x A• w-�411..r�'.;.:::+L,. •'�',i^p „'.r v r'. df:.,, ,h,.,cP' r{.r "7M; G' ,'.vR'°''[:` .Cf;':x>tt.`�,.,oY,'a,,r.k•, •s[�•.y,�.t...,,�',:. i', r,(1 1;t1':• .�. ,r•S,� n V.v: G,:.. Y?` 7. a X....,�i,� r, 11 '•� v,1.a"r„ '��•': '�.;.+h%j7,... 4t ;n.:,t4�. �F ..r. ,.*� n`f.>hi;; `fib s.... (•' �^'t"....t.. {`. :`rrt�e,.•e,k,'U, ,•rF N ;o,, .{'r..M1q%'(;! 'a,✓• ,•.'4^ y�,l,;r;. :rP qrw ,.S• i:+t:^v,�S:, ,r.,.. ,fx A; „4:�%b"r'�r. �{ �, ,:�_..: .H,. _s5�'*„x ?sy r +: ,E L,\" vxY.f;,�.";.n k, h4.!.�^'f;..,.•�:*,�..:,•r ''�,;.i1:A�';adri,,_ ...;it, sh ,y r^,:n} 41�k+.kr.��.;,a...,a^��^' ;Sr7:V�+r�•�urFr2r'rft; `<�. �C�,�r,a,,,,�i,rr: •,a:,1:N.; _ Y'i M1' 'Elm 1'"J"npr,r ) !r h,r ! ,s�,{ .Y),"I^t�• 'y7;rS'-<l,.tr;4'UF 'Y' a li?:'.,'1„' ,a'aY s"r 'tt ,,,''�' Yt i su'1 ar {h In r lu ?+ f ,Vo a:, �fi}.'�s xtw V ' hY'<�7i„r�-'s•., .. III-•�• V fI��.E i, r � ��1 i�•`i'vT; ��nc"s �"yf+;ra��?y�. � +t �,�( I (� f� ��J l'M; r i r ti s ��'Y,�itf��i'��r�^r�+��I � �3 ; �,TTsta•r. �` [� t �' �"t�t�# �ff�rf� 1�Jt \•� rM,y � � �.✓t k ' SJE[� s i"�' r � " �•'�% "'�6,�i1 }1"e� ,sS. sic s (• r, I f �f! V � � l l 74 1I d;�` oitl��irt r t'f�i" d.�r; d #s+\1 * - s. s" ♦ a ' l s ,r.. ' ��•j� `►�F ,'�,�,� �T , { r 'i'. (?: �'.1 Co`li 1.,-:• J ..•s f� .1 r�M1Y�.S�4y,1�11 4 `�r�."!•`}rv�^4}i 7. ! , r :� r � ��f�7P{�r,a!•I rr,,rr t ��i '[ i•,2r t' r t, iv r � •\1�!'!t§�1/r�'•pY��I �f�'4�F t51;'�:�1a4 {.;;ti:�':" ti4rYy t , ; � , rf I r h %L��i•,ryy,`rNrAi'�Kk f5 ryry�a' r` �� r�"yl:lla, ..S• � , x r r ✓ Cr'� ttlld x�`i=> Hx1 P hd�tE 5, I t „rt Ka dPstl 7rt �• s � �,: l r r�Jt � .�. t, r r . M,;u�� '1 r •9,t i r r x s rr i,"i ; r e a': i,, �, sl'� i,'?) d ii, � p, r e�aYXi �,', 8v 4,a4e ',: c r • ! ,, ° .^i, I k�,^� �trr { ?3�,d P � }�` ,a 'r� l ��r•/7' ,a�'a" y�t '}`t f'� r'r r ,S rl�. � i � {�. ,, ,b .. r rye, rl h :,, ,r .t, 'r<l,`,V,. �,,"1 b�jY; F• �u..g4l4'r, t��d� �'�S ,3{• i1l tf i,' a.,y t' t'' f" f'4f �'l s' ke 1 IE' 1 ' �� !:r , 1 �,,,tl A.£r i, 'i ��' 4"t. »qn•'F( h a t,.jE s ?�'�L �''�4 Y$°Al� rA u'i,�. ,a, �,' ,( ,� •'•. - •e:xa'w.a. •>E.. S ^ry•1;), s' rr:.•wM {{,�"•', Yt,Cal �,i`r�;; �' 4 i •' ,a� `�i W yt:','f,d;*r,.'e,.r'•r ak E:, '•� D' )i V 9 A� P" � �'a�4. i 'V 15 i;4 5��:"E.�;):k rn•f•><i'":.`w2fitx' �.y:`J;"$ ly :� � i C" �' . xa. dirk' 4% ;X ':_ ravk'µ ul'^,. '�;5:' ..'dY ai r•;.,.;:.. :4r `E. £' i - I '.( ,.V.�• .."Yi' .,tr. „'"✓,I i'�:'}� `may Rtit F•rk:dAx, ,Y��,.�:,r,,.�;T�l.:;-».•;`\i £ F. .1. '�,vti+. 3ee.,r,�;�+E..`Plh, ,?,�e".,I aY`�s:�Y'u.;'" .d"•P r h, v ;y. '� M1,' zlr•�, �.�.wu:,.r.:q a�,'?x,,§,� y' �y.�a:�,:,., y�., ,rN.�Y,xE1:`�' 'a, t 4 i�,wri#� �';t':Il;r r�k�''''•:i yl"h?4r,rsf r„''fi11�i4:+��1�n,h Y�4U l:fi�ieti .'S:'V3.�xt,;,:,.R�,:n 1t„i„' ,1 r c. "TIN r':S'if,"•1'wn �.�,x�; t":;�,• 5ry:•?.z'�f{lS _sZ,a�• .x.::'S�:Ki2Y:^'.�✓l;r:_!., :�.. .,. '1 1• wi.:r' a, 1. + '?^..t ,ap I„s.o�" �;,',�(,. rs-h, JSyy,arM1� •'�� rv^. '*! „1� '7� 'F;k t�r '�+f V '.1`�`�I'. k 1�itk n.,Y,<• ,•V•M,,:pt\VA".Ati:C,'a .,yy;q\, f r,• U'::N,+:, � :=%11�CT' r. v,4 a+ �k J�,wyy R, ^=X°,�'�'z','',;,,t;M "•+:' e:., 6 •r,•,;y,. �"`•.^Mv+;w.+.C`,f@,r�y,� .r , ,i6 :� t," .y�r„•.�., T^prv^ hsro.mq'�ib.•,'+ls':•,:':i�:zvt:' „r: :, .'•4se L`r':Et 1 �j �' <r r '�):J•�� ':i, s a'. r ', INS4 S'^(e.,-r. t;�;l�tlf„ as0; 't': » "•r+',.t .r*,r, :r s,. +::, zak `. d 5n•,. A�`' .tC, �yr,• H d �v h;• rk• lt' 4 77, s 1'M 'M1 yynn55 '�. n1ti '•d 1� s, r r .r'rosy ,7c etd'r,i �'atP +" i •,'; 41 .a '¢ sr° >,y^`,'" t' �➢�.�„v.•:,i.d�"„ry,,';xt%�1'°h ,ah'{'� 'r ,�. ? L"�., d,.a .'?,' /M1 1, rr' 'r ;r�� y;", I p `Vv „+.,l, i�R•tee ,} .4-�rvi�a "1•.:.i i, z' 4 v,.�,;,. r: t ? n „�' `.i�`� +,h• d t, A� t 4�t;+', .� R:�.. 7+'^ +"r^. ,t. 2F^' „al s t•..4 r i•; )1' '� YY,, ! �A na ♦� '7.' ,S l r !.' �\.1:. .:,f•%,f.4•nr't%•', it,",�:4•.. .r 5{2:� ',)•S �i ,{ t � 1 :.I,r. ^! :'l S)!:`Y• rl`:' ?: ^ `,^i�c,al.,v.'ti. 'fi. i �,' t .e A:e:r � r. h'; '+P o '�f `C `.�.a ,•fir;,t, ,+z>:t. .��i.;'.:i.,':' .�'Y.°:!'. s. 1, ,a, ,•� ':�!" t d} � y .Y �M-.,. ,r'' i:i'% ( i��:�:}�;:'ye:.:r.'sa,�-Sr, rM1 ' '.`r�. ;mVn.�::`.Y:v �4,isC.,S(.^�;• .•:X.,',1,. t.i,,.�a:.� a�i ��ry, �ri, pt� ��..:.;rsrer'fs.,t„j;•a;1=S .,t ��.,, �nrat;a.n�,,..,a ;• x:'•`\•'��, ,�f.:.'•F:"^•. T•�':^ Y � .Cs ,Y`a 1d '�,+ &�i.v�, .rb Aa!' 't„ i,44•�hk'•,1sR r4...„h ,'S�2+G., .xr.,, 9d. .+.-•.......rrw.i---•......... t a 4, .,1,.,5i'1,�,w,r,„»G;45:N,{,+.r•.,!^rsr •1rl :,!./Ati4, w ;,?'t 3r } ••wr r., r,. ar:•k '.a t' 'l.. ' ..e, �.. �,,,.,: a.e:: � ,... +:.;M{t.-.'• ..,':;'.:i,.+�;:,:"i.' y'F. u ,N .,i :l �.v,,,;.n� raG� ..e,R 'a'^"M`^'''^',".r''.��`•f ..Z 7",Y7'�:,t�}• :,1^, Pi'h: <.o .1 aJ'.. c.,,, „Mx....., ,{,.i,»...:.",• , ..,+ .. ..: ..- .. ,.. !,n l,. l ti.,.... .rr::.nt �.... ....a� i •" .k%<i .F rf..tf.•4 iLYirli .Art -..'��• .L" ,:!Rf•`.,+ ,✓� „•n.M1.�!., ...." ( ...:.,x,• ilu..+yr x,.+..V^yA,.. :.r v..l:...., r:.„•i,,.. '. I.M 'f�l,.. wi,.,•�"Y.•,.'1•``' nR rb"'7'.w,w� .•.::T,r+1...^.n r Z��r..•,�.i,ry ..:, `t°t'� r4,:14"�fh" ��xet::"'.�w,' .�K• ��yl'7 .�i. ry �r'r! y"p.".'a -�,�ytydl� ,�� 1.y�i1�r.,.lir,l4••.�.+fi'^j�ur•G •vt ''� .','y`4' '}',' 11.,` ^`� ,••.. .^ •^,»,s, w.•l,i.r.p�l":!*�'f ,:I, rA. �Gr {'r r < ! 9`., .r '>JM'a`""..�••':v... :�v,1�`f„'3S':: ,}• r.r� u'..• q :l•. ,� P ,,Aax •ia, <.5 M +"t •r: S'nq a E.w � c a✓ t Mw, •(. ,.{, ,<.�r .b ?' ,��',.v t'v d •kt. .i�., '�'x .+ ,r;,' �' 'Y'r�;:. 1, :�r";s a ',,,,aA ,}! �}w ('. 1 �, � ,z:e!'#x�bi.:•.• a"U` "Lk�:,ti ..z !. t r,. f., r„ :.L• '.,' ,,� td' it f', p ,,IErnr, k;i:"`i1''•r .F'n, i1 �::' "5 a+.^'P ,ti•''` ,Jh MV' W1'};„a,�'„r. v:i;�}::+ i' .J t.yls, �, _'_u��! S l ';%" :.S�'�r,, +'�t�•' h,9gv s 1 F�+, mr •o-j,.•r o 4 v .r x'•c � �p„�ip' r ..,M1l, v.s' `"Y'm3. n r i��4»iatir`CY,"„ G,✓:; ',"'�'i S, u5 'i; ',w r, r,t s�f �, I;,x 1 a.s,4", � %7. r• f �.1,k�„��';rP.hr Y'c';�'�,j;� k: �%d3•',.,''''}i�s�;atit z; zh. :t;vo-� f. .{ri� ,;s,�,r,� k f Es.: -YI .j''.`! •r:t-,t' ESE.(,, 'S£ a &.•,: '�e v„ . 4,+t i l�b+, 6 l� , � ,t`yr 9�'.- .K ,tl; k.•a. �'1.�r€s''��aa�'" 61 A•`f 4 t•A`ira tk X w '�r 7l 4 ` 'M1kr�' -•1 rx`'�y�ii�•• , yr�S .I SF, I ` alrt9e tw' ,.. f o•� ••§ R,�''s 1, 1 #�'' t .'r t'ti'�'�� t�'h'r��i"�n S,fii i� V � ��¢¢'��`�,�•Yg'lea � ',r" 4• 4 1' 1j„ '{ �M•r �tcj .•n.e...-,r.•.-,.+..+,.r---,,.,+.�,�..,.✓: •.,.,.,w.,.�..,•..,• .,•..•�...-•.-..r✓/3r,�4`J i.S`I{;;r..'' JS .I��r ) .11 '!M'j T Mo b Cep/ PA e C'o i,77 fang y- 28 - O t TU tV. o m It- Ma cy COYI C eryr ,-, ST-�13 0 2009 Huntington Beach // PLANNING DEPT_ -Tarn wri'll'"4 �;Ur company fo to fern-1 ou Of MY OPinio,n your inlensloh of Inslalla i�h of a afls9 u > s ed Ce/I PJene an � e n n a i/OCa/Cw lid a 04rkj'ngi /OI Of a local Church , G" Prox , 840fee6 as Ae Cron/ [/Y -S/ f rQ,r1 IYl rJ h 0a s e Ole have 6e en a TNo Cu5/ omer for MCI �ea r s and we have fo say, in qlf ho n e 5 Iyl f ha 7 Vve, Piave always had 9re4/ recepl on wl"A our CCl/ pAohe 1hroggh fire years of use t ,Als use Gf f�e Ce 0Ne has inc/ucle d 10n5 -614nT CO-1 /0 Z� i s ;n y od s e r✓c�i o h q nab opine'an y S e r e seems /6 �e 'q s`ufficer�� Qirlarar� of ex/s, -7g qr1/ e nha s f o Ser' r�iC e oc/�' Gtrea q5 /ell qs Waq ACYOno/ / he area , , J ` V f5 Ir1 6- 4 � � CSTi0n, 70 /0Caf� Cl6�Cir` el- J y � Sl fe awa 1-0m OP tl/R C e gvrea s in or&er f0 olo id f1I lure problems" 71gnX ing You m ,4A1ancr 7�j"a �r5 55.57/7 lei, 14 v� /G�/2 IGtir��gir1 �q n E L o l -3 /-Jun4t,;�, Aj Bc%�7/4)84 2 3 242 Joy Nishiwaki 16461 Redlands Lane Hunting ton Beach,CA 92647 September 30, 2009 IA Zoning Administrator City of Huntington Beach Ct 0 ZOG9 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. To Whom It May Concern. I am a long-time resident of our city,and I am writing to express my concern about recent discussion to permit T-Mobile to construct a 55 foot high wireless tower across the street from my house. I understand that the decision is being considered to enable better service to T-Mobil cell phone user. However, I do not believe T-Mobil "wants"should be placed higher then the local residents. Consider: That a 55 foot would be significantly visible from all parts of many people's homes which can negatively affect the community's property value. I do not look forward to sitting in my back yard having a barbeque staring at a cellular tower. I also am concerned that the Preschool at Community United Methodist church conducts business at the proposed site and that the faculty and staff were not noticed by T-Mobil regarding the 55 foot tower. They are concerned that although T-Mobil claims that the tower is"safe"that there have not been long term studies and that parent may not want to bring their young children and the future of this community and expose them to the cellular tower. The teacher at the preschool that I spoke to, felt that it would effect enrollment in the Preschool. Also the parents that pay for their children to attend the Preschool were not noticed by T-Mobil. It seems there were short notice to the residents and no notice to the people who work and do business at the preschool_ I have heard that there have been other sites that have been rejected and I hope that the City will consider that there is public outrage toward the building of this site and if people were not appropriately notified that the community will be further upset_ It would seem that the City should reject the request to build a cellular tower that will decrease surrounding property values and upset the attendance of a wonderful Preschool. Sincerely, ishiwaki PJOV. Q Cell Phone Tower Threat?t You haven't discussed the risks of living near a cell phone tower since 20L_._ :;an you update us on any recent research on the risks(if any)of living near a cell tower? Answer (Published 615/2008) I wish I could tell you that we know a lot more about the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) signals from cell phone towers than we did in 2002,but Prim afraid there are still more questions than answers. In fact, in January 2008,the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, issued a report saying that we simply don't know enough about the potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF energy from cell phones themselves, cell towers, television towers,and other components of ou-communications system.The scientists who prepared the report emphasized,in particular,the unknown risks to the health of children,pregnant women, and fetuses as well as of workers whose jobs entail high exposure to RF energy Because so much of cell phone technology is new and evolving, we don't have data on the consequences of 10,20 or 30 years worth of exposure to the RF energy they emit. The report chairman, Frank S. Barnes, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Colorado,was quoted in news reports as saying that it is"pretty clear" that there are no major acute effects from all the various sources of RF exposure due to cell phone use: "People aren't using their phones and dropping dead. So the question is, `What is happening from long term use, in various ways?"' The report called for studies of long-term exposure to all wireless devices including cell phones, wireless personal computers, and cell towers. A report issued in 2006 from the World Health Organization(WHO) found no scientific evidence that RF signals from cell towers cause adverse health effects and made the following points:Up to five times more of the RF signals from FM radio and television(than from cell towers)are absorbed by the body with no known adverse effects on health in the more than 50 years that radio and TV broadcast stations have been operating.Reported cancer clusters surrounding cell phone towers are"often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics"and are therefore"unlikely to have a common cause." What's more, the report noted that there are now so many cell towers that cancer clusters will occur near some merely by chance. And during the past 15 years, no epidemiological studies have found an increased risk of human or animal cancers related to the transmitters. But none of this proves that RF exposure from cell towers is harmless. We'll have to wait and see what further investigation reveals. F Andrew Well, M-D. 3 0 7009 i nt,rt 1uo t each From: http://www_dr%veil.com/dr4/u/QAA400407/Cell-Phone-Tower-Thr at.htftNllG DEPT r November 4, 2009 Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator I am Dianne Larson, a Huntington Beach resident, and I am AGAINST T-Mobile's proposed cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC)_ There are major inconsistencies and what I personally consider to be intentional misrepresentation and falsification of facts presented to the public and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach in T-Mobile's application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No_ 2009-015 for a cell tower at CUMC_ But more importantly, T-Mobile has failed to meet application and HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the permit_ Five areas of concern include: ® the Coverage Objective area, ® Alternative Site locations, W • verification of an actual need,® failure to meet city ordinance requirements, ande failure to fulfill application requirements. Coverage Objective Area I have submitted T-Mobile documents that specify distinctly different Coverage Objective areas for this cell tower. 1. "T-Mobile LA33421A Coverage Objective» (available to the public at CUMC on Sept 24, 2009) is an aerial view with a yellow oval indicating an area- 0 just over 1 mile east to west(from just west of Goldenwest to the west side of Springdale) and d just over 3/ mile north to south (from the north side of College View Elementary School to just north of Warner). 2. "T-Mobile's Alternative Location Map" is another aerial view showing a much smaller Coverage Objective area_ This pdf was emailed to me after I requested to see the Alternate Locations T-Mobile had researched_ • approximately .4 mile east to west • approximately _3 mile north to south • This document specifically identifies College View Elementary School, College View Park, Spring View Middle School, and Irby Park states that the school district and city will not lease space to wireless carriers © states that these locations are "outside of the coverage objective_" 3. "Coverage for LA33421A" "Attachement 6.03" (misspelling copied from T-Mobile document) • This document shows the most intense cell tower coverage level ("In Building") completely blanketing College View Elementary School, College View Park, the Dianne Larson Page 1 AT playground at Spring View Middle School and the northern half of Irby Park which includes the developed playground area S All of these locations were specifically identified as being "outside of the coverage objective"on T Mobile's Alternative Location map. Mid-level cell tower coverage ("in Vehicle") extends north to Edinger Ave where T- Mobile has an existing cell tower site at McDonalds; east of Goldenwest just beyond T- Mobile's existing cell tower at Murdy Park, south almost to Warner, east almost to Springdale • Lowest level cell tower coverage ("Outdoor") extends even further_ Alternative Site Locations have submitted a copy of T-Mobile's "Wireless Permit Application Form" and attachments received by the Huntington Beach Planning Department on April 20, 2009. 4. "6.00 Candidate Sites"(page 7 of 9) of application: 6.02 indicates that no other"leases, lease-options or similar formal or informal agreements"were "attempted" 5. "Site Justification Study for LA33421-A Community UMC" "Attachment 6.07" (paragraph 3) states that"alternative candidates were ruled out due to the lack of interest to lease space. 6. "Project Description" (paragraph 3) • Despite T-Mobile's statement that the "coverage objective is primarily the residential neighborhoods located to the north ,south, east and west of the intersection of Main Street and Palm Avenue," (emphasis mine), • T-Mobile claimed that research of alternative locations included "Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church, and even city parks." 7. "T-Mobile's Alternative Location Map" (discussed in Coverage Objective Area 2.) • This document specifically identifies College View Elementary School, College View Park, Spring View Middle School, and Irby Park and • states that the school district and city will not lease space to wireless carvers if T-Mobile claims that the public schools and parks within 1500 feet of CUMC are "outside of the coverage objective" why did they state that Redeemer Lutheran Church (and pre-sch000 and St. Bona venture Roman Catholic Church (and school), which are over%mile away, were researched as altemative locations? If no other leases or informal agreements were attempted, how did T-Mobile rule out at least six 'alternative candidates... due to the lack of interest to lease space"? The changing Coverage Objective and the Alternative Location issues show major inconsistencies in facts presented to the public and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach in T-Mobile's application_ Dianne Larson Page 2 AT". ,6 } Verification. of Actual Need I have submitted an additional T-Mobile coverage document, an enlargement of a portion of the Thomas Guide map book for the area surrounding the intersection of Heil and Edwards, and a spreadsheet showing results of a simple one-hour cell phone coverage test_ 8. T-Mobile's "LA33421A Predicted Coverage Without the Proposed Site"was available to the public at CUMC on September 24, 2009. • This document shows a portion of T-Mobile's "Coverage Without LA33421A" (Attachment 4.02)which was submitted with their application. • "4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps" (page 5 of 9) states that Attachment 4.02 is to be a "map of existing RF coverage" (so why is the hand-out titled "predicted"?) The hand-out and Attachment 4.02 show coverage in the CUMC area as only strong enough for"Outdoor" use of T-Mobile cell phones and not strong enough ,or"in Vehicle" or"in Building" cell phone usage. • I live within 500 feet of CUMC in an area designated as "Outdoor," and i am able to make, receive and maintain calls without being dropped inside my home. 9 The other T-Mobile cell phone users I have spoken with who reside in this so-called "Outdoor" area also claim adequate "In Building" cell phone coverage inside their homes: o The homes of residents living within 500' of CUMC (on Dale Vista and Fountain) near the southeast perimeter of the smaller Objective Coverage area o Residents living directly west of CUMC on Abbott, the closest residential street southeast of the Heil / Edwards intersection o Residents living over '/ mile away, (south of Chris Carr Park) near the southwestern perimeter of the larger Coverage Objective area. o These areas SHOULD BE DESIGNATED "IN BUILDING' (green) ON T-MOBILE'S COVERAGE MAP!! 9. Using a blow-up of the Thomas Guide map of this area, Debbie Zentil, my neighbor and fellow T-Mobile cell phone user, and I conducted a simple test of"in-Vehicle" cell coverage. On October 17, 2009, a T-Mobile iN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test was conducted by two Huntington Beach residents. • Calls were made on Saturday morning, October 17, 2009, between 10:55 AM and 11-45 AM. Late Saturday morning was chosen because most people would be home and cell phone use would potentially be at its highest in this residential neighborhood- 0 Ten IN-VEHICLE phone calls were made / received between two T-Mobile cell phone users in the Coverage Objective specified by T-Mobile's proposed cell tower site LA33421A at CUMC_ ® Test locations included next to College View Park, next to Spring View Middle School's playground, and next to Irby Park_ (These locations are potentially cell phone Emergency 911 locations_) • The locations of the cars during the test are marked on the Thomas Guide map_ • All calls were made & received inside vehicles which were pulled over to the side of the road and while the engines were running (in case of engine interference)_ • Calls lasted from a few seconds to over two minutes in duration_ Dianne Larson Page 3 ATTACH ME T N 0.5-I -' • All ten IN-VEHICLE cell phone calls were made, received and maintained (call not dropped) without any problems. • The quality of all the calls was excellent. 10.A spreadsheet titled "October 17 2009 T-Mobile IN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test conducted by two Huntington Beach residents"shows the details and results of this test. 11.T-Mobile's "Site Justification Study for LA33421-A Community UMC'° "Attachment 6.07" (paragraph 2) states that the CUMC "facility is needed to correct a hole in network coverage." Residents'at-home, "in-Building"T-Mobile cell phone use, and the simple, one-hour, "In- Vehicle" cell phone test show that T-Mobile's "Coverage Without LA33421A" (Attachment 4.02) coverage reap is incorrect, and therefore invalid, as justification for the cell tower at CUMC. Areas that T-Mobile shows as only having strong enough coverage for"Outdoor"cell phone calls are actually robust enough for"In Building"cell phone usage. At best, T-Mobile's map reflects old, outdated coverage data and does not accurately represent current coverage conditions. T-Mobile did not meet the requirements of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 D1 (Chapter 230 Page 50 of 55) 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities D. Wireless Permit Required. 1. Demonstrate existing gaps in coverage The HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 230.96 131 states that an existing gap in coverage must be demonstrated. The one-hour, "In Vehicle" test and the fact that residents within T-Mobile's targeted area already have "In Building" coverage prove that T-Mobile's claim of"a hole in network coverage" is false. Since T-Mobile failed to "demonstrate existing gaps in coverage," T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the city's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. T-Mobile did not meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit application The topic of the application's Page 7 of 9 is "Candidate Sites". ® 6.07 requires a "technically expansive and detailed explanation supported as required by comprehensive radio frequency data"_ Dianne Larson Page 4 ATTI A[[ i f, • Attachment 6.07 is titled "Site Justification Study for LA33421-A Community UMC". 3. The most technical phrase on that page is "a hole in network coverage"_ • The required technical explanation supported by"comprehensive radio frequencV data" was not included. Since T-Mobile failed to submit the required technical explanation supported by "comprehensive radio frequency data,"T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit application. In closing: ® Inconsistent, inaccurate and missing data is the basis for T-Mobile's application. • T-Mobile failed to meet HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the permit. • T-Mobile failed to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit application. • T-Mobile's claim of a "hole in network coverage" is false. • T Mobile cell phone coverage already exists to make, receive and maintain calls in this area. This cell tower must be stopped. Based on the lack of need for the tower, and that T-Mobile has failed to meet application and city ordinance requirements, I request that the Zoning Administrator DEWY T-Mobile's Conditional Use Permit application. Thank you. Dianne Larson Page 5 E p f 4:•... F a Composite Map T-Mobile document information on a Thomas Guide reap 1 combined and color-coded information from several documents into one to make it easier to understand the relationships_ All the source documents are in the packet" The large BLUE oval represents the Coverage Objective area shown on two handouts I got from the Sep 24, 2009 T-Mobile meeting at CUMC. On Sep 25, 2009, 1 asked the HB Planning Dept about Alternate Locations, and later received a forwarded digital file from T-Mobile_ The smaller PINK oval is the Coverage Objective area from the T-Mobile Alternate Locations file_ The ORANGE rectangle is the location of Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) on Heil Avenue just east of Edwards Street. The PURPLE designates T-Mobile's Alternative Locations: • College View Elementary School • College View Paris ® Spring View Middle School • Irby Park ® Redeemer Lutheran Church (and pre-school) • St_ Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church (and school) The small BLUE radiation symbols show the locations of existing T-Mobile cell towers: McDonalds on Edinger Avenue just east of Edwards Street © Murdy Park by the tennis courts • 24 Hour Fitness parking lot on Warner Avenue just west of Springdale Street Dianne Larson Page 6 urrup4.. ,d";r• dm�*h.yd r.r;r ny.,.L,1: ., j, ,.,,,,,,.y. .,i„ .i Mw WMrµniYilyU:l..^rM wi,�rnM"", ,PMM4',!,r,h!•Mu,w,x,:iM,m�Wa(d� MfW r,1(/ y v,w.,rr n"." ,.a• �tiw �, r r o- r if JI: (x,,"�,,({(„fir, I�R� 7 +}'{, �iv4t /'y •� �� 4rw1• .u1 � ! ,� ', ((� / (,♦ M r'1 �,' "! ��i ,,,i« r,r, •,v«« t,t � i ' f t rf x 1� 1 ;, a n ' ( ` 'I' f .�l�lif.::,'u 'f l•�,(r r, �Al .. .« � �� l5 � ! � ��.'Ni'. �y!� ! ,' .1 �"w'.,L.�„ ,��,.� �� ^t r+.,x r,a �y E r� ",.r,,. ,. .::', wry ,, ,,.y„ ,� ,,,,,,,, ws� �„ ,�`,� •';'''1 �'��`� �� 2 �` 11. I ..�✓ '.y k S L � � �1�/HI'r) ..h 4'�1 Yui P �,.aY (� N,b,, ,µ��, t' ,L,� ..r.'1.,..,,t�}„ r � f Y�:h' �'/�� (,1'r''�•t brw I �,+• ',..�• �.Y.• 1 r r'T+'ri, � Ft ,�: f`�. , �',�.. � �� ',�'� •'�`i: I. ,l.,rT�� : e«..•t i "7 ti °'+' ,.y{� ,.rh' r.. r. :l� ,r,, P"".,.+� G µi "a'.S '�+ 1;,�.�1' � � ' 1,.. t»x �, '"� i a.,;i' 'jt^k''+:I •t..u...> µw fi,c•. ' r , a ate' '.'!`) 1y (° �:,, �y 4.,Y ,'µ^s„• '4'•'',',`�`r�y,��,/ ,:r/`J. ' w,«•, "�...,. y 4'�' '';'�' : r, .��.,,. �I ,�,.trr,-ti::i�: Y'}{ ,�! t,)f;d Y � 'I,'�: r, ,+.J(' •q.,}�•�., "+.!, :1 t a�.rs'.�rl/, 'fin•_,. sr" "w"'" � '}r f e r-"',.T � t !J r. •,.,• �a �' 3 ,,... `�i`' I. yam• :7'r• ,•� , I, r,�, ;'�„ ; ;' �44 ,/ t .,,, K, ^�y. J'ti �..",.� wr: "�� '� i"'1'! �f« �"t"ryf• ,1 � , � �`.0 'S �'� �LJ'Yt,� � .. , ., wY �/ a+' ,1 1 �, �d"7 '(( M ,•. '�'Y '9M"! '�.. Lq "� r +y•yt7.i J ,..�S, �. n i t I �,� •. 4•vr, r"r' v� y„rh1 I"+v (Cy ICI nl �rww..f �1 ,♦rkt,.��, �wyf., �t! ��JI � ,1 �j� 5,� iF' �,,,,�}�� t � " "C tit t '� •✓',v ++�., s.,..°' t t v w'.r •l "r}',, �Ir'• ,.r, ,i`6L'l`y ivk' ., 'r' riu":, ',r�(� i'..:�",,, ,rr .f.�•. y��,i tr �>`I. .�,L'+r �t.• ^'it»�:vYi. „rr o."„ .'v,• .f l S ).tl}lh�fl:, 'M +p..i.11, '4} i, 4'. P•,,h/'i.l�.,.".i; w,� all ot ,,•! I'~ '' "o-' ��,�':..! t, / '/,. r 1 }, , 'a 4 ty p k ` , ,,,,.lC.,' t�' :., ww I.v",' y"w 't,: wig,. »y,. f,F `,a•r; '�.,«; "'"w..,!„ �! 4, .m1„• '` ""� +'v),, !. .. 5 .h:rTr."� a,..,y � r'w (~� n � �. ov , q1„.S. �'.. L I KM t ,L•'Al // "+1/�„ir! l ( '4'' ''.rrr ,O,.r '..,. NI, ) !' ;.r'Jr 11S ,�, 'r :', .:,Fir (' ,.A ') .�„^•+ i '"'("'+' I ��: :I^ ,� I"+r'f, '�.t,t• �13,p, , ...n 2 Y + r i r^� ~',rv; , �:'!�''� � Nr"', ..rr�+• ..w.< �^;y, ,*r^ h� , ��..x' '))• ,.�i:• '..( 'Nt 'w+1N"� W+""r �r"r'": "`TM. ,•h .,r'r• r"'yr ,i p «, ��"`' r"'f� tH" /t�r J.A�{ 1�;:y��L R',"' .� 1 ,".., '�l.,�{a,'• , �,, !r� !'.A� (�"yf,•4 r.�.w ��„ w,rq; � 1 'EMI'' t r'(•'" r+,+' Mri„ k'!4 1 �• S '+r 6 r. �xj;+ ,,n;: tr"' p' , i !Y• ,Pi\Fj,, ens,y d td'�•� �' 1 ,"'_S' (�� i '�G r I 'E SJ.T ,...,' ,,^,'„, "� �",•I'FF.,S}�+"'),'y r'.0'.ty r d I"^ ,�.1.:, 0 r•!•�h,a. .fA+Y�4rJ �.)' .4;1'/` !' �o�, S,�,' ,» I( �M, ,� N r I r' Ca l.i 1,` y.L'I^•i� �f 1 '�� ',ry 4� .,� .1.��!' /il,.'�F�/:I� a�iw.: r hr 1 � Mryw.!. `r/ry« i,,.yvr w Y,.Y � '� I A'4w. r.i�. ••.{.ri�.i., i�;� "!�.L�''M�. ''I��.t�. P 1f' 1� 'R.+..,' �r;,w'. '��niSwr w. rry .., y r y^f. 1,5 .'f.'w'.� .r,.,,;.' ��, ,Fr.L / ,'4 :.s• .'ey, '*M.';1 w ,,�*; , 1'r i,pti 'rjg" ,.,�:"„', p, ( .., . r ){•�'��' t�r,y w' •mow ,"'`'r ;:��t•�• + t 'w+' � ) �I,! t1;I;�.i, (.'� iril,',J' ,S 4 ,' ,. .,.. '>,i;,'\,r,4rli, ,^1"rj,' / '' Ir. '1 r' »"�•,�1,?!,�,h.µ� w .� Y 1 .., ,�..yry. ,r' .� '?f r, r .'i,,, 4,( / ,ty.':;,�: 'ii ,r��', � ' �` ♦:�L', ''�' 1 '`k•' + I� v,.� '^"w'"S !(G 1 �,.•Yw.+, :'�i i• ��l ,r,�� > r'.�'A• ('1',a r i, 'I�, rnw;,'!'SV ,' ••vu� ,� ;M;1 '"h�j ,.: '.r., ^�I'' k '`: '� + �"4'�vyy�; M1 Y'{1 r' � or ,.�. ,t�l�r Y,W�14j yip p;W c��•j,�r �"' '� �'i 1'� t � �'�•,i{f. � ir•'^"'� ,r, v . x� �S �(q4 iI'7.,(�.,�,l�F•S p .S� �1�' �t r'1, v:.(.��:rwr, ;1 w..yr'. , ?:,,R •,' y•, �••1 'n,.��;y:,� �.,'L.' .+ri. ,y'ti' erb% i.�. •��i ,/:11 h»�r1.1{M 11'.1',�.� r•n � lMa�•�•' ,. u�,:lµ..,'..�: 1`;.1�.:'::;'.r '•�J.,� 4;•'• .:Jl�r r ~ �,� ".,^,�,�t i ..prr , h'�l; �,r.tF' f 1'tl�p 'S.a111• 'v�,tr°'� ...�1i14,J'.p x).��'� r,�xr '��1}, /�+".,q �v"A• ,.{f,•!y..:; v ,4/ ; ' .yn+»• 1;�ya2:..4 ' ' �=?�'. �1,�,J• L ,,,l,h:J'?Y�g}. ';� !4}4L,d t��(�(f,%'!4�` 'i;' 1�' .'!'tea � )rN,t/ M! }�, r.r �' �'•t Y '7"K'' ••• ' ;,4�, �, i '�,� i I n,��yr �;Y r,;,f"'? J`(y ' w�a�'P��fy��L��,. .�� •� � i�JbM j��•,.rr•� •l�rw.r, ',.9r+.( nC 11 Y '�Y r .� ��p'�,' �� ra.��l S ,�� ;, 1, �` ,.,,N,.. . '�f1' !1 .�„ ,! M+rf r b M�.l;hr..� '!„Ip•,r,!•,Jr�;; '„ii�1(+u•••;r.,;i •„ jiy;., 6.1rhi' %1 ,�a+r <r,I ,,7.r! ,wi• r mil:':%`t'�:La1 ;ra..,'}, `'P`;4i�� e.ti. Nr', r�T 11 G1n' 1 :+l;t.'k ." L :4.;L.i�L,t, ��; . . �,°r w+"' .i,•.:•I 'S. r,� ...�W' '.�iw}'�'(r.. .�,f:' .1 1': r,i.M �, 'r'¢,•,r,_R,},. !<r... t)r�'y h�'�:,nf•'� ''d,• -�l.wr.L'a,, i "a'; .;�,;I'. '4...�, i, r ,r;y .f ,p bsY hr r.11�1�,,�,i'4",'.�`�• �F^^� "L u "! , 'p,;V ,:1,+;, .�J ,y� „�, ,�',Wf:;, I,.^'t` ,7�• ��)�,��l,tyl�'� .jy,,,,),. tw� `.il',r, '�,^, .�w.,"! :� '• C '�� yt!� 'v! .t' r;r', .� ,d.y' •1l;' '�J,',' h;�V,',rr +Y !.i •�<."r."�iv',a(r✓ !,r, •�' '"qµ• ,.,h. .;I" !.; nt`rv%•r,'•Ol; r>;•,✓'tl L,t„�,;,v»I•.!)t,r., nq. I) , i rl,r:, ( ,l.I'• 'ri '�!r,��(r,(�, +,:r,,..,Ifµµ'r'y l�YWww i f ',!t .!°' ��%�,$, , '}/.., r,{t41;4' !!j`fi' r .1 rx+a.)+ r. (F•'} } "! � ' !, ,•,I,�a n+. 7.Y'.+,'j,lti Pv. 7 h: ^I' '.1)':' "!';r "rit'f''ir%(lYl,.'{lr:�'', ��tr .,.,.. .Gi'tl ',�",�� .t`., �)' 'v. R'•)-..,)�,. :I r" .uhti{,rrbri.rK�e,:.i•:ala"_;.;,{•'I;rti'• o:i!rta,n,.iti' @,t. •�.QQ 7 •.i' t 1 „> A r'' •I i'•. ` �r �4 i. (�t .1 "t M' i l� yam,nuhJ�'i• :' . 'y 'li,k' `!. :�4„�",. „ , .,, .. ,. . .,, ,�'• .. •,. . •fr,*.-'. .._.. „ ....,,,,. ',�'. 'd"e'S; '8 •sr.1'1't ,'•'r�a'^4.�,. �1,r."'�'.I1(T'(. �J _,.. r amMobile'm ? LA33421 A Coverage Objective �3 3.509"Xm ainly designed to improved Residential coverage along the surrounding areas of Edward Street and Heil Avenue in city of Huntington Beach. There are currently high customer complaint in the area due to weak` indoorcoverage. This can only be fixed by, instaTling this proposed so e. Site can also be located at the corner of Heil Ave —and—Edward Street but '-fFe—re was no suitable candidate that will meet a minimum height of 50 . Atti y I. '6,03 Coverage for LA33421 A mIlk * vMobite.% Ar oa Ave Cyr ornel r ar on Av bble to n r k r 6 0 .'. D. �Ilwoo I t uslnes „ C AV 71 L e c S 1. Dunn o I net Or SII® A aq 5 in Or nter A a C vn. � .. � re r y ro s Or Marina VI y'�00 I rd Sy 1�A 3 �E -'ve drl h ve r 1 Y ',:.:,+„G'I L r e Cr JIB Dr ;An21.. Am en-BspA 5 o e r ,�'. r%'it's u uet D lencoe AV( r PI b aor 5 BIG— r sh r a Cir ^I,t;. !i,, ISa dy br ,, r An � s a r I �D ask W �rracy are 8 r 02 63A _0 I 'L ,r C� �I a o o Ito r to k am's of er 1 IG r In D '�i, 5 !r n wo ena o a ®Q o Kr stin Clr a a A Be on D olla Wa o r t1PAo' 6_ M Glensto T oI o W BumCr : , y � [ � Be D -•-I ; _ - Coverage Legend �P 1'�}t t �Icn this rS _ h ee of-the In IV du I q•enu to hom Iris a as ad.Any(other use, < x','; Outdoor-91 d b m t Tnlg Inform on,prapfny of ' _bilQ a"it P t nfl�a tiehen ,`e•Inte y. I`�hpeew�h,{{'I nlprmancn Is etrlcu rohlblted,ThI9 1sP Sidi e n oxlmatea urwlrel¢ ¢'Coveripe or�a.outdoors,.wlh o a chan�e without notice nclude(ocalionla wll�IIMi or W �^—I In V@hlcl��84 dbm ��' j('I��ybFppe erea,Jhe�e r ra. 1Q�,such a'fi:network cha o volume,service out 1 (_.^J Q11no covers e,0 me a do not guerante�Isles\ CIA ty WIN 9 ( `(rr • �h actual servlc; I �d evallablllty,Ind Ing tzg P �� $ 4 tx tiec inlcal limllallon�,s gl net strength,yourpm�nt;tenaln, l cturearweather,land lher C6>rd�oneJ gt rp Y+gq�j ® In Building -76 dbrn .-- i•.�\ Q I ' t�r� I liters_ / j1,F: ,i ;1';tt g'I anAny 10'r nice recelve,and maintain calls. ' �.� \ 1►ffeltl`�p. �—� i -w --. .m...t___ �r ;f, ar man v v T�. 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 City Planner assigned to your project or to the Director of Planning 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 communications facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. Continue to next page> R APR 2 0 Z609 ` Huntington Vach PLANNING DEPT 0fr595/9174 3l30/07 Page 1 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: rug 1.00: Applicant Information 1 01: Project Address: Community United Methodist Church located at 6666 Heil Ave- 1.02: Project Assessors Parcel 146-483-29 Number Omnipoint Communications, Inc. a subsidiary 1-03: Name of Applicant: of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ( T-Mobile) _ (Ms-) Pastor Jan Wiley, Senior Pastor 1.04: Name of Property Owner_ 1.05: Applicant is: _Owner xx Owner's representative Other 1.06: Applicants Address Line is Agent Representative for T-Mobile One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine CA 92618 1.07: Applicant's Address Line 2: 3 imperial Promenade, Santa Ana CA 92707 1.08: Applicant's Address Line 3: 1-09: Applicants Address Line 4: Please-contact 1.10: Applicant's Phone number 714-850.2414 Nloiica:AAoeetta PN No:646.241.0175 1.11: Applicant's Mobile number_ 949.350.5376 Faz No:949.753.7203 monita.moretta o sequoia-ds_com 1.12: Applicant's Fax number: 714_850.6630 Ap64i Representative 1.13 Applicants Email address: Toe-thompson@T-Mobile_com If Applicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here and proceed to 3.01. <Continue to next page> 06-595 1 91 74 3130107 Page 2 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: N6N 2.00: Project Owner Information 201: Disclose the Names, Addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers for all Project Owners(use additional sheets if required and mark as"Attachment 2.01"): Omnipoint Communications, Inc_ a subsidiary 2.02: Project Owner Name(ii.e., carrier or licensee): of T-Mobile USA, Inc_{ T-Mobile) _ 2.03: Address (line 1): 3 Imperial Promenade, Santa Ana CA 92707 2.04: Address (line 2): One Venture, Suite 200 2.05: City: Irvine State: CA Zip: 92618 2.06: Contact Person Name: Monica Moretta 2.07: Contact Persons telephone number/extension: 949.241.0175 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 mm if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as"Attachment 2.09". Initial here MM if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. <Continue to next page> i 06595!9174 3r"07 Page 3 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: mm 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 3.02: Indicate whether the dominant 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 "" Increase the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area Provide new radio frequency coverage in a significant area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity(such as a roaming agreement with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03 If the answer in 4.02 is not"Other' proceed to 5.00. 3.04 Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the"Other"dominant purpose of this project_ Designate this attachment, "Attachment 4.04". Initial here to indicate that Attachment 4.04 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> I 1 i i II t 06-595 i s17a 3130/07 Page 4 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM i 4.00: Radio Frequency Coverage Maps 4.01: Where a 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 7.00. For the coverage maps required here,the following mandatory requirements apply_ i_ 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, if any (if none,so state)_ This map should not depict any RF signal coverage to be provided by the Project Designate this map"Attachment 6.02". initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 6.02 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 6.03". Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 6.03 is attached to this application_ 4.04: Map of RF coverage to be provided by the Project and by other wireless sites on the same network should the Project be approved. Designate this map "Attachment 6.04". Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 6.04 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> W595 1 9174 3/30107 Page 5 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Fiere: mm 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 8.5" by 11" (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 photos and photo simulations. Photos 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. S. All 'before'and after photos and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do not place a smaller'before' photo in a box on the same page as a large'after'photo simulation. The number of site photos, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photos and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination_ The Applicant must submit photos and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photos and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach_ <Continue to next page> 06-595 9174 M0107 Page 6 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM 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 8 is required_ Ail others proceed to 9.00_ 6A2 Has the Applicant or Owner or anyone wonting 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 at 1.01 and 1.02? Yes xx No 6.03_ If the answer to 8.02 is NO, proceed to 8.05_ 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 8.04 Initial here to indicate that Attachment 8.04 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 objectives of the project? xx Yes No 6.06: If the answer to 8.05 is NO, proceed to 9.00. 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 8. 7'_ Initial here mm to indicate that Attachment 8.07 is attached to this application. <Continue to next page> 06-59519174 3/3=7 Page 7 of 9 Applicant Must initial Here: MM 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: 7.10 (1)The site selection for the proposed project,including alternatives-, 7.11 Name: Monica Moretta 7.12 Title: Agent Representative 7.13 Company Affiliation-. sequoia Deployment Services, Inc_ 7.14 Work Address: one venture, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 7.15 Telephone/Ext.: 949.241.0175 7.16 Email Address: monica_moretta(lseauoia-ds_com 7.20 (2)The radio frequency engineering of the proposed project; 7.21 Name: Jose Pena 7.22 Tile: RF Engineer 7.23 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.24 Work Address: 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana, CA 92707 7.25 Telephone/Ext_: 310.279.9925 7.26 Email Address-, Pena, Jose [Jose.Pena®T-Mobile.com) 7-30 (3) Rejection of other candidate sites evaluated, if any; 7.31 Name: Jose Pena 7.32 Title: RF Engineer 7.33 Company Affiliation: T-Mobile 7.34 Work Address: 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA 92707 7.35 Telephone/EA..- 310-279.9925 7.36 Email Address.- Pena- .Tone [.lose_PPnaQT-Mohi 1 P r nml 7.40 (4)Approval of the selection of the proposed site identified in this project. 7.41 Name: Joe Thompson & Duan Dao 7-42 Title: Zoning Manager & District Manager 7.43 Company Affiliation: T-m hi 1, 7.44 Work Address: 9 T=erial Promenade Santa Ana CA 92707 7.45 Telephone/EA-: 714.850.2414 7.46 Email Address: j oe_thompson@T-Mobile_com 7.5 If more than one person istwas 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 7.5'- Initial here mm to indicate that the information above is complete and there is no Attachment 7.5. or initial here to indicate that Attachment 7.5 is attached to this application_ <Continue to next page> 06-595 1 9174 MOW Page 8 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM 8.00: Form Certification 8.01 a The undersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided*hereend complete to the best of the undersigned's knowledge_ Agent Representative Signatur Title Monica Moretta monica.morettaosequoia-da_com Print Name Email Address Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc_ on behave of T-Mobile 949.241.0115 Print Company Name Telephone Number/extension — 19�4 101 Date Slandd <Stop Here. End of Form> 08 595/9174 3r-OM7 Page 9 of 9 Applicant Must Initial Here: MM n � SrrE JUSMCATM SIlAf FOR LA33421-A COMMUKTY UMC SEQUOIA 6666 HeL AVE 'MIM D[r:m,.tu[r SEAvtC[S-tNc HurmNGron BEACH,CA 92647 t APW 146-483-29 9WO_0�V_L Omnipoint Communications, Inc- a subsidiary of- T-Mobile USA, Inc- (T-Mobile) selected the proposed location for a needed wireless facility as it was the best location available for the facility when considering the needs of the network, Land use patterns in the area, willingness of the landlord to enter into a lease for the facility, and the zoning code requirements of the City of Huntington Beach- The facility is needed to correct a hole in network OMMM created by the local demand on the existing network- As the number of users of the network increases the coverage area of existing sites decreases creating areas where it is difficult to make a call or keep a call connected. The area surrounding the proposed site, approximately at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edward Street, suffers from this satiation. intersection and surroundings became the target search area f5ir the facility. The facility will increase.signal strength and the network capacity in and surrounding the neighborhood adjacent to the site to better serve the communications needs of the residents, workers and visitm in the City of Hwatir gton Beach. Radio-fi ecnicy propagation maps shows the existing coverage and the modeled coverage after installation of the facility at the proposed height are attached. Approval of the facility at the proposed height provides the needed coverage for the surrounding neighborhood, providing a high quality signal for both indoor and outdoor users of the network. The proposed site is zoned Residential Lunn► Density (RL) -developed as a church. All adjacent land uses are zoned residential but the facility is located more than 100 ft away from residential devetopnrients. in fact, the ration was selected since is not developed or used for residential purposes. The alternative candidates were ruled out due to the Lade of interest to lease space, and height restrictions that will not satisfy T ARobite's coverage objective_ The current location is best suited for the facility as it offers space for the equipment and antennas, when considering zoning restrictions and design compatibility and offers the best opportunity to screen the installation from public view through the use of screening. All equipment is proposed to be inside a CMU watt and behind a planter that separated the block watt from the front property tine (a roximatety 20 ft This equipment location was selected as the space available create id no altered the functionality/ circulation patterns or character of the existing-cam elopmen�--�? O The proposed facility is an unmanned telecommunications facility and has no habitable or occupied space- The facility vnll operate (transmit and receive calls) 24 hours per day for residents and visitors of Huntington.Beach_ The facility has no "employees" or "customers" per se_ Customer use does not require any access-to-the facility and only periodic maintenance is performed on the facility (approximately one hour per month_) Existing streets, access drives, and circulation patt&ns are adequate to serve the project and will not be impacted by the project_ UA334Z1-A CMVWa-WY UIVk PROJECT ®ESCRIPTIC -OR FIR { t�C' LA33421 A COMMUNITY UMC 3 u� ' S ECRU O IA �6666 HEIL (]AVE APR 2 0 1009 = DEfIO`-wEeaT SfP.V{Lf1_Int_ HUNTmGmN BEAc", CA 72648 APN: 146-483-29 Lp=Ng1tNCon each �EP Omnipoint Communications, Inc- a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, inc- (T-Mobite) proposes to construct, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas in three (3) sectors, two (2) GPS antennas, five (5) BTS telecommunication, one (1) BBU equipment cabinets, coaxial cable runs from the antennas to the BTS,and power and Telco utility connections- In order to completely conceal the wireless facility the panel antennas will be attached to a it =fa L" �i e The fadli is located in an etss e ...Ei...> ..__ _=per tY area surrounded by mature landscaping as depicted in the atta photo simulations_ The equipment cabinets will be located in a lease area inside of a n`e_` '= =':I�tbek vraltfes� n to be painted and textured to match the materials of the existing boil . All utilities runs for the project will be routed underground. This location also provides for easy maintenance access from Heil Avenue Street_ 'Z The coverage objective of the site is primarily the residential neighborhoods located to the north ,south, east and west of the intersection.of Main Street and Palm Avenue. This area suffers a lack of coverage, resulting in poor service for - i e s omers and limited a wireless telecommunications service options for.the residents and visitors to the area. T- Mobile underwent a search for potential site locations that included properties along Hail Avenue and Edwards Street_ T-Mobile research the possibility of a facility in alternative _locations such as; Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Bonaventure Roman Catholic Church, and �-- even city parks. However, both locations were further away from the coverage objective an closer to on-air sites_ Community United Methodist Church is the best location considering that coverage objective for this area- The search was limited to these areas because they provide the only potentialty zone-able site locations in the search area_ The existing landscaping also provided an opportunity to locate the monopalm around existing mature palm trees, and more than 60 ft away from the front property line- The city code preference for disguising the facility and aesthetically integrated into their surroundings determined the site location and design_The properties within other parts of the search area were ruled out do their proximity to residential areas and lease restrictions.I-Mobite was also limited in where the facility could he sited in relationship to other nearby facilities in the area (surrounding facilities are shown on the RF propagation maps included with this application)which limited the ability of the site to be located at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edwards Street. The proposed site is currently developed as a church with a existing mature Landscaping and this is the tatter structure in the area. The surrounding area of subject site location is characterized by mature trees and thus a monopalm is not an uncommonly seen part of the landscape.The property is completely developed and encompasses the necessary infrastructure to serve both the existing and proposed facilities_ The proposed wireless facility is located to approximately 185 feet from the southern property tine and at this location it will not block access into the site and site circulation- Proposed access is adequate in serving the parking needs during maintenance visits. The proposed facility will not impact potential development in the surrounding area_ The proposed project wilt be unoccupied and only require a single maintenance visit per month. The project will make negligible noise that is most often less than the ambient noise level of the area surrounding the equipment_ Wireless facilities are passive in nature and have been located in all zoning districts without impacting property values_ 1 Letter of Atathorizatioll APR 2 0 2009 APPLICATION FOR ZONING/LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS l - each Property Address: 6662-Heil Ave,Huntington Beach,CA EPLANNING EpT Assessor's Parcel Number: 146483-29 I/We,the owner(s)of the above-described property,authorize Ommpoint Communications,Inc., a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA,Inc.,with offices located at 3 MacArthur Place,#1100,Santa Ana,CA 92707, its employees,representatives,agents,and/or consultants,to act as an agent on my/our behalf for the purpose of creating,filing and/or managing any land use and building permit applications,or any other entitlements necessary to construct and operate a wireless communications facility on the above- described property. Me understand that any application may be denied,modified,or approved with conditions,and that such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. I/We further understand that signing of this authorization in no way creates an obligation of any kind- Own s): Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach,a California corporation By: By: Signature Signatur Print Name-DLt/4aFfX4,:1 �t .(/�•�� Print Name: Title: "oi,- r /Tu5Tdof-s Title: Date:: U43U l 2 Qo V Date:: State of Califo a ) County of r /IC)[ ) On /,3Vi before me, , el (Z L1 ��5 S ,Notary Public,personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/ber/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the persou(s)acted, executed the instrument. 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragrapb is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. KELLE7 0_CAOSS COMM, 01661066 z Signature: �xy PuVic -Calitonaa o z Prange Coyntx Comm.Expires Apr-25,20101 Page I May 1,2006 a 2009 APR 2 each f'u �NC_�EP� P To Whom It May Concern, Sequoia Deployment Services, its employees and agents are authorized representatives of T- Mobile,USA,Inc.(T-Mobile), and have been contracted to perform real estate leasing,land-use entitlements and architectural and engineering services for T Mobile's telecommunications facilities. As an authorized representative of T-Mobile,Sequoia Deployment Services may sign,submit, review land-use applications and permits,represent at meetings and hearings,accept conditions of approval,and negotiate leases on T-Mobile's behalf. All final land use documents are subject to T-Mobile's review and approval. Furthermore,all leases are contingent upon T-Mobile's signature- If there are any questions or comments, please contact me immediately_ Sie , 6osep#riompson / Zoning Manager l / Southern California Market T-Mobile USA 3 Imperial Promenade Santa Ana CA, 92707 Desk 714/850-2414 Mobile 949/350-5376 Fax 714/850-6630 tSEQUOIA PLOYMENT SERVICES. INC- DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET To: FROM: City of Huntington Beach Monica Moretta Department Planning Agent Representative Case Planner To be Determined Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. on behave of T-Mobile. COMPANY: DATE: City of Huntington Beach April 20, 2009 SITE IDENTIFIER: ADDITIONAL REFERENCE NUMBER: APN: 146-483-29 T-Mobile LA33421-A Community UMC RE: Wireless Permit Application Attached please find the following items: Quantity Title 1 Check for$ 149 for Planning Fees. 1 One Application for Wireless Permit Application. 1 One Letter of Authorization. 1 One Copy of Agent Authorization. 1 One Project Description. _ 1 One Site Justification. 1 One Set of Pictures of the Site. 1 Set of Propagation Maps including RF Report 3 Sets of Photo Simulations. 3 Sets of Complete Plans. 1 One Set of Plans reduced to 8 16 x 11. NOTES/COMMENTS: The attached items are being submitted to the City of Huntington Beach for an Application for a Wireless Permit Application on behalf of Omnipoint Communication, Inc. a subsidiary of T-Mobite USA, Inc. (T-Mobite). Please contact: Monica Moretta at (949) 241.0175 or monica.morettaC�sequoia-ds.com regarding this application. Thank you, Monica Moretta SEQUOIA D[eeoys[ris S[xnc[s. [.c One Venture,Suite 200 Irvine, CA 9261& _ TELEPHONE. 949.241-0175 ONE VENTURE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949.753.7200 FACSIMILE: 949.753.7203 LA13421-A Ccxnmunity 1JMC-Transmittal Ea Wireless M-rnit.doc ATTACHMENT n-1 0, —,5. i ej, y tulLLt.. .. �. -. - ' ..,... ,:Jir_n�•taum _ .:. 4 .� n°.+ -.-. y.. Y��Y��i t ,R:t IrS)yll tY� �-.,.1_ p +i:C 4J1hHl 7 • t I l �Et r f 1'�E� ,.!tt'}'t1i` • .• : ll Jill • /s;�hu�1 ��tt')! b" � • � y ° DjAC 1) .._I,, - .:� ,r r Ir � w 1 \I `.� +, )� yy{{�� , 6» 1,,� n :' •r it l f L 3j� r . t +' - I:r I r �I 1 ~ r 41�4 ct.+4 r�4�k�N'''ttt� -.: ..-,� i�}rrV^aJ�;i'{` _ ,1 1 �i��'� l y. ., �' Ir � , • Ylil 1 Iz ul Ift3l1,'�r r�y'�1 it.si -- __ r ,..: I . :A;tr'�>?5..�.3: It•1..}1 i,,r S,.. 1 r:( �k r' rrt t tl'1 a -,r7` I :Ii..i._....t.t� / t.:4Il. CT.71•, 1-�r7:•l. ' Y !'.;1,; °'F.. ... 'r ;•.')tr (7 :.;;t '�.. iq:1 tlY t, :� yu`L l�l ) ,..n, t ,.,.,..i Itl l"r:r:i, ,1L. I ��,� Lr ,_.,,� ,., /, .�,r -!!., l :11. �7C.1' ,I I I:.!�V �'9, �•, .Jim;• I_y' t" ..... {, ;t�" .ee n ., .::`. -.• ..E,,.:F.�.(.r r q.. :v 'Ji`, ++. 5 I 'lr .I:; a•`' ''" �. i7;)(I�� 1t •t ..... • .. .. f ;t„ ..-.i. rII =..'- ,.i<.t.:.r l 'rpt9(-).- _ Ir - : "=4y 1 atl. i ) :.rl, I.,. j1 ..rr.,u: ? ieh,�.!LP..tll.: fE nE- h(.. - ... _.., �.e .IR.t/ 44 .,FF ,/. ,..,.,,.1 �t _ t =.,,r,_= tlf� .l�� oo e a . �arrer• p�w',',g ....:..,. ._..,.._. ..... Y, r.,..-.., a:..i.El,�kln.... .-a a r-r!..F I�,...�Ll r 31,.,I .. ., �,. .,_ L I 1 CF`. •r=.,II_ -_ � � �I.a .,.. p_',.:. r i . . r.�.. .,� � :., rY ,.6,, o:•.c .,;,r' :.,..,.. ...•� t .... Y l ,.... d r a,.. +.Y . . .:a _' ,.0 :y...,.r:4 dl t.,. ..... : .. :r. .: I ..I I � .��J i l' S'a' •y�v.1e '9.. •.rf. - ;a, a;. C d = .:,. r .•,t r,.:w+ '1(, „>s=1 �"t.�:: 1- :. Cat .,{r,.: ,f .,: II Lr ,, I !�I, ,r .l'•,J 'I �:+ .�.. -k�#�, t`.:: ... �....... :.ally, w r4 ..t .. ..,7 u :.5 r. Sr.,). � .;.,,..J ...� t } .rl'. I` 1.�, ) o d•. `t k yy,,`` .,.. V ...,.,....1 ,J�::., ,,. tt4.. ,w.� {,/h„ tt-..} ,.: ;.._,.�.•�.o�h'., -...t.. } ,A:e t. <.,S t,b 7 �l.l 'v: ` �li'Wt .Ji- ::y.'.1 .,:,.' •. 1.fin• 4, Y.0 L'i - ....... .._........ ..... - ly .� ., ! 1' �. Y,.p .t:..V:ad, I.S,.,Y �':.@..t{ 9. 1 t r.l• - 1•;I' b1 �" ��•�A.#+y 1, �•G�. Cr.UwR .t�r �(1�:�._,',..21.�k1 ,.�tiLtbim'#41I !i ... ... T .. ,. Jar 4Lc-n -I,.,,a. ...... ::,.,,..,. h ,.�,.: :..:..n _h:r. I.V a .+_t, t, a.� b,:.J�11yY#..., ,: .. .E; E ! r;�:::.rl '�' "''1)• r t y :ur'w�6t;'1N»,r" T :.::_,:..,, - ....: ,>Rx .,r Vi ..t.. Y1795.�:„-^: �.. *! L t .#'i'•{Y.�`\ -- ,-t r'.f, r:a �I-•. '.:r' !. 11 r, .i.....r •:t .� Y� {r-� - , "$2}t�>Itse,irYr, ��u•tr. '61:1i 6'#'A�l�'�1,)�IUJn.�r.n �;'`°.t• -il+ - �� )r �' ,.(„Y.nit�g,t� ;"4€t �: �,�y,/ s: e•,;4 ,� � tir^�. .�i�u: '...... 7 k ':.,.,;. ..,;i•...,_�,'(:. i, �(;llr �+ )r 'P �,...1±N\ 1 .::V � rr -: _Ft?,J, 1IyIt I ':•V.v a� Gn:�'1 �L��✓'�'�,•,,t.1. ..kl..� V `�.:'',•��. 4t _•., .:.:.,..:: i ,,.,. ,, ..!r .r, � d: C: t itn{4 Cr dn, t a J+,�,�.rr`.K a i •:ul. =.I.5 s , . �n#' '.,...r.,....,. :..a A t• 11—.�" .. .. ,-.N': ,•�� _.. •,y E ... -. .L- .1: .(: :a" rar!._ A{ h7�'jj!y:r''� 'i'; I t`'V. ":iP. 11'litl j'-J-�,,:.:. ;._•.... -:f, -....:., .. ,.e,- -:. ,.h ,. I.Y .A: (. G a.>, h`t .r. oc1 a • ii. :r ! .) �`, r �, :•e° h fee 't� t' �I ..rlr•> .r ArE tl� h r l ±� �i• - t:..,_.;,, .,.: ..,t... .� ,. .,, ,. _* _.._,1, �Rj ... .,� .i.:Y.. .... .. . .. :...{I•)=n•d.l (*��ra,t,.. ..,11,., ,.h ,•..:t t ,...%'�. i+')•(•. k: .!r ;a::. .tl ,r. ,.t� '.'..r:r :.:.. ...,. ..:.:,:: '.Fr� :� ,. ..a r. .. .�� .rE,r; G 7 ..:::...+,- .:,F.';:-.. .I. :�k 6r1. .tl"1 i:•�t it ll'S � `Il �, _ I .Il F .m2t . a.11 n+,a y.v p.:. tiVa o4�I!1r°Y .•� 1 „y r, d l m; •.{ o%d -Mill ` �f ....:: IS ,:::.. 4 n.Jig ' -.;.t =,i', r.vyyn Y tl, .>'i:. } :�t� :IF3• 'r' �si� ._.; # �.s. :,:. '�xttt- ,. ... ,.,, .)eta `tiB �.p� . ..;�:. N4 r,.;#) p ,-S1 f„( il"yr. ...E ula, '4tY: �-# . ,16.r'" ,:r ��t' A• 1 -.t:: Ilw / ,a. Y 4�: ,R• a ( "Jill� ,. ..t I�..y�•,I r•' .'1(-1: -. ,,, ... , � {� ; t .:;. �,. t�'.4t,4-' �'`�f�;.�, t ,.{.fir ]:.' MEN' ti.'A#irl9.. F) 0111.,.,,''' 4,4.Amp-..5.,:YiR.')'F 'E', ( , , , } 'l w rvlp7 �I�'r•�rvY , B'a,�t f3 a .,, ,�.e��%/./ � �}p� L.��,r, t r 4 ii � .At 1 i' �� 1 S•�1 , m.,, :c. +ff '1hE -D.w,uS.umurkJ:rtl_ a Y '^��>, �:. _ ry t<_t i E 5P ;�>,aumrW:, J 7 l �� .GL•iYi`# _,._.'.- - t .P�� 'r: -� Jill y�k q R(i`f.l A .,;,.� �11I� '-i•rw� t,,,i �`.I I7V # :li� ,(1H1 1 - �:.., � b'1 Er � c I r:tli� a w :i:# l t;,e-r .r., q - r a.° 4.- n ;• IIII}� ` , .`. Z t ,Y , 1>r� z •i'" :, x .. ;' w v .., ;.A7b S ;°.�-t, � '• w's• r ,�! + � Ilj a ',r .� � ,�,� .� sue. .,: � :_:..,a•- , ,rc.=. .e•...r:r:'..r �1�� I)�) 9 ` r"aw �� rl (:tAr + ��F � ♦ a PPP"' r r�IA r5r ,)ai .I� 1,.�I r� � D � • ` ,r -t-b`t..��"'' qq • �L 1, �� . y � (£a l;l�`&v7� � { r D {rclo ►i � 3:c, .' r • �PI@!�1 `�-'S r, l" I °/�I it++�II�uR �)' G .,� t ° • ,,. - r.', Ax.' �' .q .u} 3 - ' �rAggti �t�•10 1 ,+1 #rra��d,•. piny. � '{_# •. S 4 ^�,. ) a ,q� �•- '. �:. .•� ■ / +� t I t t'1/ Si 1t} ;,, a t, 7,i al E :a 'v: -. . :. ':IYT 5nA + C A�. P� �Iq E `I, �1 III I a I. Im �� pY{Tt •y 1 •• �� t t � � 154r r f t C CAI: t f y�! �II Ar :` ..'#,.1 ,l�'�`"'�I �:t .,, ``�� {I'I•, �1 �= `� ,�''� 1� <„�I��+ ,R,t L _ •. r., ,-'`# .r{, { ,1 I aD 3..".,�, 't l Ir ItI' `)ri�IV It YY .+M9Yi'_° g, = 6 I� e:� _I :s:' .°.+: a .�'�yetiS�Ss+Pt' ) t rtr�Yv 7 �'' k''� -+,, � '"1 ,ri•' la3'iI30U�aIN`�f�I't;a °a., t 1 c r° R ti t�,Yr �• � .\ •Ji,NJJr•:�tl1 tf'.Fq ..t, •P.d9 �.' • � .11, ^a)•�1( 1 T - r(is-:: '� "•n �t�?a tV��r, �: ��ty ,, J �l :� �4"rY :it.v, l .r. ,.P'= � �•r�•r �..1�1�t tl)i� ro m •.`; 1 r >t rp `��''" `' °' ° vI n tiw " � � i'(1 Ir(I+�r) ( �pl lu<••`, • R,fv �. 1 .: r ..Q�.• .,,�t:i. �m )r� 14 t• Y ,I r µ� r �,•q ,� :u:•r r r r t � t 3`r k' t �lY +,::�� JY� ..,� � ��_ (1�� S i l_ ,1 • • till /''i t c •r t t' t t .4 ° ,fir.t i. e. d a = t It t r ^� V '•� � V� ( - 1}YV' ' E ,> f� 'F i• , ,f T9 „t x t i:� I { -�W �r� a't �,.r �7't1 fill 1 '• .:1®7j tt z_ £', - 1 .f :.afi # t ,I( ra a r W�y..m� 'I' , r,,.� i �a p: Y r �ifY:e' �+L.J■. •••., • • • 1 i �Y• t• • ,}��If I1�l°III�I Yj LL1p°'hl l'1�611Vulu J1 i rlLW riL°I#WU :1 4 • s •T ..�i C Ji y° �Jll��.ti.�(U� j o • •r: - S� f. ••• • •• � �7�t9�11�.L ul�br�t L7 �aa t.��ttitrr� r26A;rr •Opt r2� } �t • t e I � t r r . �h5- +�aFt A ' .4" • llpauy y�I i i;1a rt to tIN(, �• �_ y)t, - 1 {c r j,, 1 —__--al; t rn��a_.. t._.:;.r 11�-.�+' au1_:...tA r�')y.]:� ��• —.___._--__ �_ # r: 't-1 ��114vlll�l ' I Coverage • I �j • • . t�� k,# _ :•• Dr p Dr �s of IG1u1�{�t�Y • �K K it 1 .-• I �� >`•:.` -. �� i V1 _:111 IJ ti 1,�iU1 ucY� IAl�!'iY�11 h.� - - -- -- "` _-'c'��\ . + - 4 I 1 � � �ji. ' l it ��of � i' «:: . - , �•' ,WAX _ i y • ' . � ^� � ,� I ,11 li�+B. -��` �.7t�l1 aY Ir�i i'i 4. �+�• �' if`I`,-�.� - iy'� 7� �r15' 4 I )Dyl � ti 1 t v i t � i �.-1. • ' 4y!FCY•�iin i r y •}�t��A IJPJIi E.,IYI`l..ri• I` fN! \�, r � . �*I� • �i : '1'S j i i i, '� �` ,� Aa(rJ 1-(i��P� I ' ;� ' { �� I .� • ",it t.,-, � my i UFIVt, �$I I sr .�, ct � ••� � 0• : • _•r.•:fir J� { _ k � `.U.'B - t� � � � �:! i t'''" lilt�i1�,i �4t �� 1�i •.i"� i- � �� • • R �t_ �'f 1 a • J �l r ,7�� t,,1i� v , I i tl $ 'I 5 .`_`J�� • � • � .`� � �� ,Y_j'9� sl�'��6�la�e'Ikdl"+'�ti1t?�,r+- � Y:fl,i� ,�� K{Ys��.� � .� a �� q�� I ryygY�f ai { 91,(1 y1 f i 7}/ .: 'QP i3 iV ra - ¢ 1 II 151G dt A I{M �� } .-�t j( 64' �.l' � t t+�'P.'1 +�} tt',�� Q Sub }i��A y �i 'Q u � r i d '��' "�. . �• r r t ,' rSl�i'.i I�t,+ I t f`1!Q- 41� n, r t � , Q I ,�� + .,< ai ta•, f •J f - �S 0d�l tw AI,1 u, e..i ti r ry a • I i�1.u.T a v •• }�,.P/' i �~ y f '� # -y� ��1� y 17 q�r �s,fr_s. 'e_y' I — -- •._ _ r \ a r • , ••, � 1 - "; a ��,-�_r�_...�!:':�..��I irk � .. 44 17 rage Legen Outdoor-9ldbm f .. �' 1 -- 1 J :J ,.._...�•. �,`..�.t 1 .•Jymrraummisufass•••fr,u+ _ f�xm t,n�. - 17e?nbt tl +r, = r 1` • • '1 ryJI1 k ,r- 31 , :r.:. F S� II. _. ._ ,- •__ 1,. - n. \ ��tl�I>(�I.;p j I;� �� „�. d F i_ K :i ' ' (, •,. � 1 t P } J A l 1 I _ � � y� LJI�rJ {I all}i I .. ..�.<• r I� I Y �I II jlxJ ,. .. ''}! ' r,.� J�1 f t�. f J JI It 1; 4 •• i r 61 1 Lek � t1 t t IJt Fa J�n1� It :', 4 •` � v rl:If' :;Y; t - II ..1, l �{�.4a d� � I.....J --J• �.I .:ill -:�, a L.: ,¢ t .,,i (�' J�"Y.l pY i r u� Yu�,d . '.,1.. -_.1 vJ�!U�} t el) d•Ilc� :ei: .rY 'or i s j .,:: .:....,:..; r. ..:, ...:;, dA.. r �,,.: I �,.,��r:,; ::;...j •.{ '�a,l,:` (Y�l"Y4 T�tIfS' h C t' r n Eaftl• d �>:,e o .;naa �� "•r+:.: ..,, :....: q � ,;: r :.,.;• r 6� { fi :}a l:.) It I �. ,�1 :.1' r II A ,;:�a _,, �:: I I A � tea: ) WY I. '�d 1� .-,:_ �� ::�. ,: Iasi•. :. ,r,�r .,t_. .„ ....:. ,, ::. i dI:.em .r .I �y a� 1 �-a::. E.I'. ,E, �,A,..,�., � -.r,....- ,.:..,.. 2 ,..: ,..-.?,.., ,,,J..pr R.t �. �trl,nV .J.. ,}, .:tfl. ,,,,.I.,:.. 4tJ ,., .Ji IJr.�.. 41 i I. .•=JS•:� -L ="4 )' q •,. I ...... ..,,..,.. A j,.. .,1 :•>, urt. .1�',I ,.. „, et�oE J6- , :.t1 ..,. S. ::✓el{::.nJ: uLJJ �i- a. i j�.l .ni, -.,.. 'I •.:..._, :.',...._. s:INN.`L� .. I S S c�,...t,. ., ..:•n IL. >rY. �lel �. _ )3 ,.,._ .:..._.,.. �... : . . ,.,. rMt�,J�m�,i ,: ,.�.:.t ,_,..... ,. .. .. �,� ,.,,.' JF.u��j7:i�!��.��t.,...L� .,.eln4�-v`7ua: u :r. :a �t 'i u � -1�� u:.- p ..I-,V[ `aE' .alll.-�iirtw n•' ,. s ......;:,,`: ,:.:. _ �tS�� ..,. ............ ..--:. .. .-,.W ,,.„ ru. 'r':�cJ -.J` a'I ,I'-" - .._ ..1; :!, rV' ,vll• I� as�JJ y.f fo .: l.,,I ...• ,.. 1.: r,r:: h:. , y f .>r rg S.,r. ..:.. l a ,..:, _ _ •,r ,�n 3. Gl�I y�_.l f. 9JI;� ..;,,.. :... :,:,.:, '.w'., ,_•.:F }ea '.:.' y!.dJ,.• $�,. >. i! °'° -" r 't+u r. { .:'.::;: .::. 4 • :.. y,:...1<r ,1• ��,��$D'.' V..�.fir.... I{} �'.:.' - .. d::. ., .. �SL I. :.0\, �1, •..,. .... -�.' :...: i .:,,....- ,� Ilr„�,If -,1 •.4"R,..�l � , I 1. ..,.,y� .. A'. il.. �I':I�i t: .:1.�. fir. f!I li t5• .,... �,:..,. . ::;:':.. ...�1j 'n' l_� �.,'1: Y 1 n. } �'. 1 ... .,-:.- .191.1:. { l n •..U„ •'!`�}: d l:.°, "1�� f. J�1 1. � 1 J�}.:�� ,,:.,,.: •.:........ ::_..:: '.. ., .. z:. .. �{ ':-•::•, -;a':.} y .,:, ..� 1.�1I,,.litJ : - s i'. -r..9 r. �J- JIS •:a- .i �J...r...- `S� .... .,.. ,.. � ..e. .>..... ,p : 11 .';.�.•: V ��_ �" J...,;?ii 1,:, 16 :,AjJ, ;S { �. •^•! II'I ��i .IaJif 9..•;. BS. 1 A r •� �I.b`:`: �v�t'.. ,. ,,;:,, ,., ,Py r ir,, ...�- -.,•. ��i•9. tg1�� .�� M. ::r :•ir _p u.d.1„yj�.G.i.ts'„ :°�, -.«� 11 � 7I t ..J� � r .::.: +. u�'.:,d,A. .dk� P)� �"4j..{'e 13 J,r. j dr � ,1 I l Y.v'�,r. w•�.j�i ��e a4��(�0�� 1. r.1,A�4, ' :,:..a •. .t91-�,`,,,�;;77�V e t. ao: •U -:,u Lw 1. �4':06 S a Ya yt5 b.:.• sz �,��f>,_:rx,hJ r.,l 1 �s; ..J9i�1J e ��D t4YJ%'13 ub •_r� (:... �, ba' �.. isN '- - is �_ y i•Ja 1,� �J�'. t ;;,:' , : , r. ."_ (�x' •; � :t;: '•: ,., r' d ;f�.� ::� 4 r r 'iu' y'4•: o s?r � .,1�: jr r 1 .-:.:; # ::� I. .. s ..... ,?!�'�. 't: 'v^ s,. . '^.'1:a ,. � .,-;r, ,' ap '�'t7:n�� , '4' '^,��f� _ 4_ •�"^C��I Ij� .... ..�.: (pp., .� *,.....-,... `� ��^{ru1 .,:ti�a.Q I_r ,.. .:;'; :�f ''�f#!Sdt>�� :a ,�..() ,}• - ,a+ tDi,., ��ioa, e1 a•O�IA� .�� :..1 1�1 '•f E -_.4 I.- d;.h; R% ll .L'1.. .1 �t�j f �1��r..o'" •ry li �' yr � _ Hz. rs :. ;: m''S! c'� �;,°l'�:� :::; ,,,. .:n. a .., t:.... . r. �}(i• t '�r ,a t„�i� _, ... i'r• ,i �,m 1., ��. ::. ..:,.•:./ R .fa[,,c N, ,. ,.::.,. •xr4 .>f - - r ..:ff I .._, ,_ LIu.49� 1'' ' 1n. f-.; '>J ., :5 ti>.; ,<rr�,X.1, .,I. , f _:.;... ., F f- 4• I .• Ed�i {, �. 1.I .Jk,�'A5t11f'r?Met,� r.i.*.. .','a't5. ....1�P I•�. I •J '1z ,;✓:. „ :.' ! �� ,.:,...,•:..,.l.rtP. : :. s" .j,w ... 1 t ... i 1n rl°� ,-n f�l `. f •. ••.:\e Y n... :f.. Ir' .! r -... :.i '':+1 "] ...� ., �y�.. ,��j,Q,7 :pjl{��'U{•. •I Y� •t,F�,{g�,I_ �t r - ,, _ ICD�ILreaJd� 1f 11� NI alp', t "�"nit J I � r�i � " r .� 'f�� 'k: ��+'E ' Ik�.: • • •, t � !�, � ` / � �� e rF4` ;'y {d�a� �' : 1;" € r,-1 s+ .:'v.t 1S': ^j•4-.k p I !::.fir y y4 low -®• ... 1 i njl/a ��`s� 1. '\ 1 I.�•„ d� 'sr f 7af..1Y�3•k;t;... �� I��•.77.,Gr ;J J t � ¢j a• 11 :• • a" ,��-0 � � �j.l r�f-s� q • _ q ;Ao -0� ��l�� ° 1S N•.,.. • w j � 2,.Q,.. 1 l s • `�l� t�.t�"ilia}i��,eu.. �I}��f�F f f�',�jb{„ N}. II I. f (a � •� �'�a�l• �: •�l.�l�';��+�rNr� r " yx n;. jtJL..�. , r fC Yy"f tYis+" S!16M14 � " 1 J ±. r). D vl a.# r �e. • t r' Ip. �d .fi Cyr( • � : �A r�q. 1 • �+R:.4A��'� _ t �� ~�J to 4 2.:.' (IPJ� � ` ' :'ea !�ra� Sy��a 1 ! �r �i' ''K. w:'r_.�v„ D• 'D � �' !L( � ' I Tr k� l5 ,1 A 6 • W r • r j I ,r City 0 Ij a°�1, 'f ! r , Jr, r �t ' f s �9! �•1 t ci : � - rQ� °u ! rJ .i'' •I rJ� fr„k ::i.." t �� ..1'_ rJ• r t• Y { � ... _ 4a1SF � s r'�1 .:,Je 1+} i R� 1 � :,' ,.vn f <��• •r��■, � iro� s � J f \ ^s. �yr s r 8 r�3?� I•�/ J .::� �� • — i iJ. .r �"-"(qr 1 SI \ Y k1 x j � J:-r J • r .. 1 e\ ,;, t CBI ,� " ..t C } e�.,e • :. .t� r V i • r �f �5 • � f\ I j r t,, r d • 3! • d� � e ID •.r � �•:'� w vtyt '�-( •1R",Yj\. �'' ��"L t ie • • � . ��e'I � +� . � ,..• • 'I��M�N F�� 1 •P��C,%y N{.if;:y,®�J.? °4 ,11 Y ! t 1 F � 16� � J..I Ik,%'�ri`nI♦9l��t��'I IwG�� W��+I`j I Sr�++ � � t •j •�, r f _ ��pI„ � Y i.i _ _•• . �r y..s'np' ti1.�.�€IK,u%f� o. D ,�' 1` � ,iir �>twln� • •- -•- • r � 4�� "fit. �'r$�fy,.,Tc'�i y. � r�+ �t�1��t�r��; �..i�eG'N ro. �`�id`>��fK',ft.�i;& �]= ,.� ;.I �1 s:' •1� - �, • • • •..• ,. •,fi, � -r . .. .m rl y:. g�E a TI.., � �� 1tfi�T.1��11•�� • :o . ,��,�>,,y,r - • i • r •R • �J tir*R1.�iPt,4A� r �c Y • � � So1 E: - • wm u a w p . . `1. L.A33421 A Pre Med Covs °age Mhout the F� Ite 5 � Weak overage on this as r rYbD a (low on In vehicle and Ma rina Dr In Building Coverage) )93A Cav�' rirti.f.5 Existingsites LA13105A 9 r � • LA02495A, and LA02853D ivasaiiaap� c'r antprovide enough rs ,-, `®t Dr �Imazon D coverage hence LA33421 A E h L' N �> Ed nt Dr �It�urrt �a � is bein�rops�.�d�o be t rDr �aOr installed in Community La nis Da' UMC to provide the needed coverage as well as 4 6 a balance covers a with uiO4o5a existing sites. A Ao28530 �I Proposed site location is jrsh I �L 'SBt� r X j jnie1rlc3_L WI$h_� :st1nS v� c �� earth W - U `'°�-' K sites hence required ii ar< coverage objective is i ope IDr _C J AR. r eet III d, w ' 4e wa r� toua,aAI p C 0 Catloor J; Q In'voldolo (L &M In Bulldlno ✓ f: 'T' I- ')liU-G{i! it uj tAfCY r } I `; -s`'� FK LUJ �; --�ti - .. .� __ .S �r '-- �Ei it` _ _; s � - - �.��_t 5��`J1t !� } t_�j. •`^' � �_ :� t j-�' - i` = I �e ( ' t g 4 - _ >I"x _.4 _s _��• "-E ��f - • - _. - - - ___ ` 3 eY1-- Ilk: } t + � ft �V { _.�J�E_ �� _ ✓� -}� -'i--S _ - �j[�{'[�_l 3q _f -y� Cj}alrC- 'at�f 1.3t- L t�T F4 - Li[ 3 - ; tit Fit- 3>_ t �� 1';i� E'i•✓i'S'� -E.�S� - '. _ r _ ��_ --�' � - ��#,� �.�i Wit' }-E' _ - -- ►�•� r_ _ �e��#� -OR #R t - CG - i _ _0 tlu CARLA 1=IP. of BltM SRI E 1i�rY, .._ fit_ DR OP - 1-10 pis (' F 4 1V October 17, 2009 T-Mobile IN-VEHICLE cell phone coverage test conducted by two Huntington Beach residents PHONE TIME MADE / CALL PLACED MIN ;SEC RECEIVED PERSON ADDRESS OR NEAREST INTERSECTION RESULTS 1 10:55 AM MADE DIANNE LARSON 16631 DALE VISTA LN, DALE VISTA/FOUNTAIN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 16641 DALE VISTA LN, DALE VISTA/FOUNTAIN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 2 11:01 AM 1 :52 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6352 SHAYNE DR, SHAYNE/MERCIER EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL RUTH DR/ PATRICIA LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 3 11:04 AM :48 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL 16571 SIMONNE LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON 16331 NORMANDY LN, NORMANDY/RINGO CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 4 11:08 AM 1 :07 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL BONNIE DR/KETTLER LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON OAKMONT LN / EDGEMONT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 5 11:13 AM 1 :16 MADE DIANNE LARSON EDGEMONT DR/ REDLANDS LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 16752 DEBRA CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 6 11:16 AM :53 MADE DIANNE LARSON DEFIANCE TUFTS LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL EDWARDS ST/ FARINELLA DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 7 11:21 AM 2 :06 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6811 BRIDGEWATER DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL GLORIA DR/TORJIAN LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY ` 8 11:26 AM 1 :16 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6502 OAKGROVE CR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY �mA RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL 7244 HEIL AVE EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY .y 9 11:31 AM 1 :58 MADE DEBBIE ZENTIL BRIDGEWATER DR/ HOBART LN EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY L RECEIVED DIANNE LARSON 6511 ABBOTT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY 10 11:39 AM 2 :12 MADE DIANNE LARSON 6361 GLORIA DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY RECEIVED DEBBIE ZENTIL LAKEMONT LN/ EDGEMONT DR EXCELLENT CALL QUALITY f� ' C_ Applicability_ I_ All wireless communication facilities which are erected,located,placed,constructed or ' modified within the City of Huntington Beach shall comply with these regulations provided that: (3568-9/02.3779-1ao7) a. All facilities, for which permits were issued prior to the effective date of this section, shall be exempt from these regulations and guidelines_ (3568-9/02.3779-1ao7) b_ All facilities for which Building and Safety issued building permits prior to the effective date of section 230.96 shall be exempt from these regulations and guidelines,unless and until such time as subparagraph (2) of this section applies_ (3568-9102) c_ Any facility,which is subject to a previously approved and valid conditional use permit,may be modified within the scope of the applicable permit without complying with these regulations and guidelines. Modifications outside the scope of the valid conditional use permit will require submittal of a Wireless Permit application. (3568"9M 3779-10ro7 2. The following uses shall be exempt from the provisions of section 230.96 until pertinent federal regulations are amended or eliminated. See Section 230.80(Antennae)for additional requirements_ (356a-waz 3779-1om7) a_ Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches)or less in diameter and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service,including direct-to-home satellite service for television purposes,as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996,Title 47 of the Code of Federal-Regulations,and any interpretive decisions thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)_ (3568-9/02) b. Any antenna structure that is two meters(78.74 inches)or less in diameter located in C commercial or industrial zones and is designed to transmit or receive radio �a communication by satellite antenna_ (356a-sro2) c. Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches)or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive Multipoint Distribution Service, provided that ((� , no part of the antenna structure extends more than five(5)feet above the principle building on the same lot_ (3se -9to2) d_ Any antenna structure that is designed to receive radio broadcast transmission_ (356a-9/02) e. Any antenna structure used by authorized amateur radio stations licensed by the FCC_ (3568-9/02) D. Wireless Permit Required. No wireless communication facilfty shall be installeedAqywhere in the City without submission of a n e1Permit Application that demonstrates that the antenna is located ' the least obtrusive location feasible so as to eliminate any gap in service an a so me udes the following information: (377s-1otw) I. Demonstrate existing gaps in coverage,and the radius of area from which an antenna may be located to eliminate the gap in coverage_ (3779-10/07) 2_ Compatibility with the surrounding environment or that the facilities are: architecturally integrated into a structure_ (3779-10/07) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 50 of 55 A:kit Old ar .a �� ,�/� _� are Iy y i(�Y ; 1 'I J t [ 1'I' � �,,,,,��®�'`I�•�, �• �� . ' go KIM t MI oil a a� a■r, as r k ►��NINON INNERMr a a� as raa iar aRa a a �aa gloom r a a�a aria ■�r �// �r�� as �,a:�■a ♦��looloom�I�a is III ra ■gar arar ra = -aar - is .: : .: . rta as ara a a � a 1��a ,.■aar �� Saar ■rai � ,�/ �� =�, �,■ai Now oil III in � �� r�i �i�� 1ri ii��► .rr :his son SOMii��o�N�� 'r•�� 1��rrr�111 � �� 1�r .� �..�`■�ii /1�_ ��!*a ars ,,, �, �, ��w�� Niel oil •tltrtlr�11�11�� 'r rII��i .. as �a ® e i�tr� ��,A a�® '• _ ar as i�� as �a 1� � �iy��;� r�� a w®lid ara ��,a ■■�■ �1/� O r h MwvlYy n 7'3'("� vt i a5`xh � Ir."WAR y �y 4 a4' �ti�� i k��"rls�� a� of � ��, � • �� as �� ayfi7r,� , rty , lye as � T r' �� . , ' �r ��r♦�� `Ir�� ■�� /�. ��',a �{�`p�� a . as � as ■/�'� y y f rr 1 12�. a i i r • � • � � IAA':�Ca ��tl, ? nacF w 1�y�� ar i 4 6 1 r 1 r� ffy �1F oil a ■rr - '` �, ,, ,,`;, y � far �1� � as ��tr , ��lty � ��I,rzy�� ,:r ar �/ �.�� ,�,, iftft.alikrjl RyA 1 � e I ylY� yl r F �}C, p� r� r a r4k n1 ti fx n v ,r 1- YIGW t�L�4717 lYl7 i 4 }��^, i�51j� !1 L ,- _ • � as �� +� k r }l�r7r� �yl ti � �� a�t;muc�q a1 Air �}I I S'!/1 c4tVs�t G��i5�j T'N°3f' P y y � • � ��e,� �E:�5n6 r,��, ra■rONION logo jJ10- Circuit GrIvel i C o c s */ c board`s decision, reached under its own rules, is not supported by substantial evidence, then we need 0 not consider the application of the anti-prohibition or anti-discrimination prongs of the statute. Second, local regulations standing alone may offer little insight into whether they violate the substantive requirements of the TCA_ Zoning rules — such as those that allow local authorities to reject an application based on"necessity" — may not suggest on their face that they will lead to discrimination between providers or have the effect of prohibiting wireless services.Thus, in most cases, only when a locality applies the regulation to a particular permit application and reaches a decision —which it supports with substantial evidence — can a court determine whether the TCA has been violated_ The dissent disagrees with this approach, arguing that any zoning regulation —or application of such tr a regulation — based on considerations of community "necessity" by its terms discriminates against I new providers, cannot be squared with the TCA's anti-discrimination provision,47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) 2� (B)(i)(II), and is therefore, 1pso facto, not supported by substantial evidencekYet such an interpretation may thwart congressional intent concerning the independence accorded local zoning authorities under the TCA.As the dissent recognizes, the only direct substantive restriction the Act places on local zoning authorities is the proscription of decisions based on concerns over radio frequency emissions contained in § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). (See discussion of this provision, infra in Section III-F.) Had Congress desired to proscribe zoning decisions based on community necessity — or, for that matter, any other disfavored rationale— we are confident that it could have done so. Yet as the foregoing legal precedents and legislative history demonstrate, Congress instead intended that the traditional subanti.,P nrPrnaatlYes Qf local zoning authorities not be disturbed. Perhaps more fundamentally, the dissent's conflation of the TCA's substantive anti-discriminatio provision, 47 U.S.C_ § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), with its procedural "substantial evidence" requirement D +. threatens to render the 'substantial evidence" provision superfluous. Rather than review a zoning z j. decision for basic evidentiary support, the dissent would require, as a threshold matter, that we CD the decision for discriminatory rationale. But regardless of the rationale employed, zoning decisio r2) T.. must still satisfy the TCA's anti-discrimination provision, id., which prohibits actual discrimination CD similarly situated providers are not treated differently in fact, there is little reason to obviate a zo i CY decision based purely on an impermissible "necessity" rationale. i Having thus delimited the scope of our substantial evidence inquiry, we may now turn to the merits of the question before us. The most authoritative and oft-cited elaboration of the TCA's substantial evidence standard comes from the Second Circuit in Oyster Bay, where the court explained that "substantial evidence" implies"less than a preponderance, but more than a scintilla of evidence_ 'It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 166 F.3d at 494 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed_ 456 (1951)). This formulation has been adopted by every circuit that has had occasion to consider the issue. See, e.g., St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at 830 (7th Cir_2003); United States Cellular Tel. of Greater Tulsa, LLC v. City of Broken Arrow, 340 F_3d 1122, 1133 (10th Cir.2003); Troup County, 296 F.3d at 1218(11th Cir.); Second Generation Props., L_P_ v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 627-28 (1st Cir.2002); 360 Communications Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors, 211 F.3d 79, 83 (4th 0r.2000). Review under this standard is essentially "deferential," such that courts may "neither engage in [their) own fact-finding nor supplant the Town Board's reasonable determinations." Oyster Bay, 166 Fad at 494. In applying this standard to the facts of a given case, the written record must be viewed in http://openj-un-st.org/400/f3d/715/metropcs-inc-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco 11/1/2009 f!� sumnur 2003• 25 A Ue a 4 Zoos Huntington Beach PLANNING DEpT The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Values BY CAROL C. WDONOUGH, PhD The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Farber (1998) explains,perceived risks authorized the Federal Communi- are a function of subjective risk factors cations Commission (FCC) to expand as well as statistical risks; whether the the wireless telephone industry by auc- source of the perception is quantitative tioning off six personal communication or subjective,the effect on property val- services (PCs) licenses per geographic ues may be the same_ area. Because wireless communication In Komis u City ofSanteFe,the Supreme antennae must be mounted on high, Court of New Mexico awarded damages unobstructed locations,the build out of for the perceived decline in property value the PCs industry has led to the need for resulting from a source of stigma, even additional communications towers. when no objective evidence demonstrated Abutters and neighbors of these com- that the perceived nuisance was unsafe, munication towers have often opposed and when market loss was not proven their construction, citing aesthetic and by comparable sales data.The Criscuola health concerns, and alleging a conse- decision established the "fear in the quent decrease in property values.Such marketplace" theory of damages, by al- opposition has primarily targeted tow- cowing fear in the marketplace regarding ers located in residential zones, where transmission lines, rather than actual such towers are generally less harmoni- -evidence of adverse ous with surrounding structures. This health effects from electromagnetic fre- article examines the impact of proxim- quencies (EMF), to affect appraised ity to a wireless tower on residential valuation. The literature (for example, property values. Mundy 1992,Levitt 1995,and Harrison Mundy(1992) and Patchin (1991) re- 1989)includes high-tension wires and"til- port that a nuisance feature, or source ity poles as sources of stigma to a property. of stigma, typically reduces the market Are wireless towers also a source of value of a property. It is the perceived stigma? Because most wireless towers undesirability of a source of stigma that have been constructed recently, time- leads to reduction in property value.As series data for a valid empirical study of Carol C McDonough, PhD, is professor oJeconomics at the University of Massachusetts in Louie. Massachusetts. Thestatements made or vreus expressed by authors in Assessment Journal do not necessarily repre- sent a policT position of the lnrerrrational Association of Assessing Qf/cers- 26•Aw-mral f4 7wal the impact of wireless towers on prop- be classified as a Group 2B human car- erty values are virtually unavailable. cinogen under the International Agency Therefore, the first step is to review re- for Research on Cancer classification search on the impact of electric power scheme_This means the agept is possibly lines and towers on property values,be- carcinogenic to humans_The California cause they may have effects similar to Department of Health's 1999Fact Sheet wireless towers. If it is found that (1) on EMFpoints out that epidemiology proximity to electrical lines reduces resi- studies of childhood leukemia provide dential property values, and (2) the enough evidence to classify EMF as a pos- factors causing reduced valuation near sible human carcinogen_ electric lines also apply to proximity to Numerous studies have examined the wireless towers, and (3) these factors impact of proximity to power lines on property values: Kinnard (1967)reported that proxim- Such opposition ity to a tower line had little negative impact on residential market values in has primarily several Connecticut subdivisions_Higher priced subdivisions showed slightly targeted towers greater negative impact from power line proximity. located In Colwell (1990) found that proximity to power lineswas associated with dimin- residential zones, ished selling prices in two Illinois where such towers subdivisions_ 11 Delaney and Timmons's(1992)sur- ar,e generally less vey of appraisers,84 percent responded that the market value of residential prop- harmonious with erty is negatively affected when located proximate to a high voltage electric power surrounding line; on average, market price is 10.01 percent lower than the price of compa- structures. rable properties. The most frequently cited factors for property value reduction were visual unattractiveness and issues have led to significant concern about of health and safety_ proximity to wireless towers,then it may Kung and Seagle's attitudinal survey be inferred that proximity to a wireless (1992)found that 53 percent of the Ten- tower may reduce residential property nessee homeowners surveyed considered values. transmission lines and towers an eyesore_ Once informed of possible health risks, POWER LINES AND PROPERTY 87 percent felt power lines and towers VALUES: SOME EVIDENCE would adversely affect property values_ The scientific community has conducted Kroll and Priestley (1992) reported numerous studies of the health effects that the perceived impact of transmis- of proximity to power lines_The first epi- sion Imes cluster's into three areas: health and safety, aesthetics, and prop- demioiogical study linking EMF ern 1l values. hev concluded that overhead exposure and cancer incidence was pub- lished in I979_ In June of 1998,a panel transrrnssion lines have the potential to convened by the National Institute of reduce the sales price of single-famih Environmental Health Sciences con- homes by zero to 10 percent_ eluded that low-frequency ENIF should Gimmy's (1994)research on power Sunon"2003-27 lines and California residential property Consider first aesthetic similarities. values found diminutions of between The literature states that the view en- _18 and 54 percent in lot values from joyed from a property may afect its properties abutting power line easements. value—a poor view,such as that of util- Studying residential home prices in ity poles and high-tension wires,detracts Vancouver, Canada, Hamilton and from value-Theaestheticeffectsoftrans- Schwann (1995)reported that properties mission lines and wireless towers are adjacent to 60 kV power lines lost 6.3 similar. Both electric lines and wireless percent of their value due to proximity towers rise above building height in typi- and the visual impact- cal single-family neighborhoods; According to the Cowger, Bottemiller, therefore,they are visible for some dis- CahilI study(1996),the value of Oregon tance- Unless camouflaged, these single-family residential property fell by structures typically do not complement less than 10 percent because of proxim- rural or suburban landscapes. ity to overhead transmission lines. Are health concerns surrounding elec- Gregory and von Winterfeldt (1996) determined that the public perception ...Perceived risks are of health risks associated with proximity to power lines led to a reduction in prop- a function of erty value: post 1979 property valuation studies showed a decline in values of subjective risk 5 to 10 percent. According to Bolton and Sick(1999), factors as well as real estate professionals,(even those per- forming studies for power line Statistical risks; companies)believed that concern about whether the source the adverse health effects of EMF from power lines resulted in a reduction in of the perception is the values of nearby properties.Bolton's earlier study(1994)found that the gen- quantitative or eral public's perception that EMF were harmful drove down the values of adja- subjective, the effect cent property. Jaconetty (2001) concluded that, on on property values a subjective ievel, most people believe may be the same. that the electromagnetic fields gener- ated by high-voltage towers and lines adversely influence real property values, primarily because of health concerns_ uic lines also applicable to wireless tow- ers? SIMILARITIES BETWEEN POWER Technically,radio waves from wireless LINES AND WIRELESS TOWERS antennae differ from the electromag- According to the studies cited above, netic fields produced by power lines. proximity to electric Lines and towers is Although both radio wavesand EMFare associated with a reduction in residen- part of the electromagnetic spectrum, tial property values because of aesthetic electric power in the United States op- and health concerns_In this section,the erates at 60 1-11, while cellular phones similarities between the aesthetic and operate at 860-900 MHz, and PCS health effects of electric lines and wire phones operate at about 2000 MHz. As Moulder (1998) explains, radio waves less towers are examined- - 2!j•Asivismvnt)rnrrn��l are non-ionizing, that is, the energy of EVIDENCE OF CONCERNS ABOUT the particles is too low to break therm- WIRELESS TOWERS cal bonds_ Power lines are nonthermal, _ that is,they produce no significant non- In this section, evidence is presnted about the significant level of concern ionizing radiation_ Fields from power about the aesthetic and health effects lines do not radiate energy into space, of wireless towers_ The evidence is and the fields cease to exist when power grouped into three categories: (1) law- is turned off_ suits regarding wireless tower However,the technical distinction be- construction,(2)organizations and con- tween radio waves emitted by wireless ferences dealing with the harmful effects antennae and low-frequency EMF emit- of wireless towers, and (3) municipal ted by electric lines is not generally moratoria on wireless tower construction and mandatory visual impact studies_ In other cases, Lawsuits regard- courts have ruled Numerous lawsuits have been filed regard- ing the actual or proposed construction for the e wireless of wireless towers_As Foster and Carrel (1999) discuss,case law on the issue is companies, finding somewhat ambiguous.Some courts have ruled for the municipality opposing wire- that community less tower construction. In Franklin v_ Nextel,for instance,the court found that opposition was not a 120 foot wireless tower erected in a resi- dential neighborhood was so Sufficient grounds incongruous and damaging to the neigh- for denying a borhood that it must be dismantled.In Jacksonville,Florida,in 1996,community permit for tower opposition to a 150 foot tower in a resi- dential neighborhood led the wireless Construction. company, InterCel, to take it down_ In other cases, courts have ruled for the wireless companies, finding that community opposition was not sufficient understood. The federal government grounds for denying a permit for tower construction_ For instance, in Westinghouse v.Hampton,the court found has issued guidelines regarding safe Icv- eIs of exposure for both power lines and that the Telecommunications Act pre- wireless antennae,but there is ongoing empts tower regulation based on controversy within the scientific eommu- perceived health concerns and that"aes- nity about whether these government icsaione.._ [arenotj__anadequate guidelines are too lax. Because a final thet reason to deny__ use of___property_" verdict on the safety of both electric Iines OMP-USA, dealing specifically with the and wireless antennae is still moot,many location of towers in residential neigh- people are fearful about living in prox- borhoods. found that "towers cannot imity to either type of structure. As ahcays be compatible with the character Rikon (1996)points out,the fear in mar ketplace argument established by the of the surrounding property. [1jn order to meet_demand__towers have to Criscuola decision regarding EMF has be._-located in__residential_ commei- also been invoked regarding health con vial, and rural areas. terns about cell towers- Sumrm--2003•29 Organizations,Conferences,and Municipal Regulations International Concerns Responding to community concerns Concerns about wireless towers have re- about the negative impact of wireless sulted in the formation of organizations towers,more than 150 municipalities have and the scheduling of conferences to adopted temporary moratoria on wireless voice these concerns_The EMR Alliance tower construction.Although the Tele- argues that electromagnetic radiation communications Act prevents a from wireless antennae is hazardous to municipality from permanently banning life and public health_ The Communi- wireless tower construction,the Act does cation Workers of America and the EMR allow municipalities to establish criteria Alliance jointly published Your Commu- based on aesthetic—but not health—con- nity Guide to Cellular Phone Towers to help sidecations. consumers mobilize against the place- Community concern has also led to ment of wireless transmission facilities municipal enactmentof zoning ordinances that could adversely affect their health, regulating wireless tower construction by safety,property values,or the aesthetics • Requiring that the visual impact of of the community_ wireless towers be disclosed prior to The 20001nternational Conference on construction Cell Tower Siting included testimony . Limiting tower construction to muni- from numerous scientists on the health cipal sites,or encouraging such sites effects of exposure to high frequency EME Several questioned the safety of • Encouraging co-location and the current standards for exposure to radia- use of concealed structures tion from wireless antennae_ In response to community concerns The US Supreme Court, in January about the aesthetics of wireless towers, 2001, denied a writ for certiorari filed so-called stealth towers—in the form of by the Ad Hoc Association of Parties pine and palm trees—have been erected Concerned about the Federal Commu- in more than 200 locations in the United nications Commission Health and Safety States_The issue of the visual impact of Rules(AHA)_Fifty-four petitioners filed wireless towers has also been addressed as co petitioners;similar appeals by the by placing antennas on silos, church Communications Workers of America steeples,tall buildings,and water towers_ and The Cellular Phone Task Force were consolidated with the ARA case_ The CONCLUSION AHA had charged that the FCC's ruling, It has been shown that aesthetic and that adverse health effects cannot be dis- health concerns about electric lines and cussed in reviewing zoning rules or towers lead to a reduction in the valua- permit applications for cell towers, de- tion of nearby residential properties_ nies the public their first amendment There are similar concerns about wire- right to free speech, less towers; these concerns are In Europe, opposition to cell tower widespread and have been expressed in construction has led to lawsuits and the multiple venues.Therefore,proximity to destruction of wireless equipment.In an a wireless tower needs to be considered attempt to quell concerns about the as a negative amenity that may reduce health effects of wireless towers,one Ital- residential propem valuation_However. ian mobile phone operator, OFnnitel, the severity of the aesthetic impact mal launched an Internet site on which be mitigated by screening and conceal- residents can check the amount of elec- ment of the wireless towers. tromagnet►c radiation emitted by nearby cell phone towers and antennas 30•Arse-cmnit Jrntrnat REFERENCES EMF Regulation and Litigation Institute. Albany Law School- 1998. Case Law Deci- Gregory,Robin and Detiof von Winterfe}dt_ sions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996_ The Effects of Electromagnetic 1996 Local Zoning Provisions(Sec. 704)_ Fields from Transmission Lines on Pub- Bolton, David R. 1994. Properties Near . lic Fears and Property Values_Journal of Power Lines and Valuation Issues: Condem- Environmental Management 48:201-214. nation or Inverse Condemnation?Institute on Planning,Zoning,and Eminent Do- Grissom,Terry.1994_Fundamentals of Real main, 1-10. Estate Appraisal., 6th ed_New York, NY: Real Estate Education Company. Bolton, David R., and Kent A. Sick_ (Spring) 1999_Power Lines and Property Hamilton, Stanley W., and Gregory M. Values:The Good,the Bad and the Ugly. Schwann_ (November) 1995_ Do High The Urban Larrryer3L-331-334. Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Af- fect Property Value? Land Economics Colwell, Peter E (Spring) 1990. Power 71:436-444. Lines and Land Value_ The journal of Neal Estate Research,117-127_ Harrison,Henry S.1989_AppraisingResi- dences and Income Properties. New Haven, Cowger,J_R.,Steven C.Bottemiller, and CT. H2 Company. James M.Cahill_ (September/October) 1996.Transmission Line Impact on Rest- den International Conference on Cell Tower tial Property.Right of Way_ Siting—Linking Science and Public Health_ (June 7-8) 2000. Proceedings Delaney, Charles J_, and Douglas Salzburg,Austria:International Confer- Timmons. (Summer) 1992.High Voltage ence on Cell Tower Siting. Power Lines:Do They Affect Residential Property Value? The,Journal of Real Estate Jaconetty,Thomas A_ (May/June) 2001_ Research,315-329. Do You Want Your Children Playing Under Those Things?: The Continuing Denison, D.C_ (March 28) 2001_ Q_ Con troversy About High Voltage Elec tro- Which is the Tower?A-Both,Boston Globe, magnetic Fields, Human Health, and AI,A13_ Real Property Values.Assessmentionrnal, 23---30. Farber, Stephen. 1998_ Undesirable Fa- cilities and Property Values:A Summary Kinnard, William N.,Jr (April) 1967. of Empirical Studies_Ecological Economics Power Lines and Residential Property 24:I-14. Values, TheAppraimlfoumal 269--284_ Federal Communications Commission Kroll,Cynthia A.'and Thomas Priestley. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau_ (July) 1992_ The Effects of Overhead Trans- (ApriI 23) 1996- Fact Sheet #I. Washing- mission Lines on Property Values. Edison ton,DC.FCC- Electric Institute Siting and Environmen- tal Planning Task Force_ Foster, Robert B., and Mitchell A. Car- rel. (Fall) 1999. Towers of Babble:The Kung,Hsiang-te, and Charles F. Seagle. Continuing Struggle Over Wireless Siting (July) 1992- Impact of Power Transmts- Issues Under the Telecommunications sion Lines on Property Values.The Appraisal Act of 1996. The Urban Lawyer,849-862. Journal,413-4)8. Gimmv,Arthur. 1994_ The Potential Impact Levitt,B_Blake.1995-Electmmagnztic Fields - of EMF on Property 1'a1ues. Nevv Orleans: New York:Harcourt Brace and Company. i 009 Thirteenth Pack-Rim Real Estate Society ConLHn�o- BeachPerth, Western Australia 21-24 January 2007 NtNG DEP� Using GIS to Leasure the Impact of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on rouse Prices4n Plurida Draft:December 2006 This is a draft;please do not quote or cite without permission of the authors. Sandy Bona PhD.,h1BS,ANZIV, Visiting Professor&Feng Shui Consultant, University of North Florida PO Box 840027 Florida 32080 USA Ph_ 1 352 317 6488 E-mail-drsandybond@yohoo_com Website_www_buildingchi.con Larry Squires, Research Assistant, Depa77meni of Finance Insurance& Real Estate Warrington College of Business University of Flori&a PO Box 117140, Gainesville FL 32611-7140 I g�- Using GIS to Measure the Impact of Distance to CeR Phone'Powers on House Prices in Florida Keywords:Cellular phone base stations—GIS-health risks—multiple regression analysis— property values—stigma Abstract: The siting of cellular phone transmitting antennas, their base stations and the towers that support them(towers)is a public concern due to fears of potential health hazards from the electromagnetic fields(ENIFs)that these devices emit.Negative media attention to the potential health hazards has only fuelled the perception of uncertainty over the health effects_ The unsightliness of these structures and fear of lowered property values are other regularly voiced concerns about the siting of these towers.However,the extent to which such attitudes are reflected in lower property values affected by tower proximity is controversial_ This paper outlines the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004 to show the effect that tower proximity has on residential property prices. The study involved an analysis of residential property sales transaction data.Both GIS and multiple regression analysis in a hedonic framework were used to determine the effect of actual distance of homes to towers on residential property prices- the results of the research show that prices of properties decreased by just over 2%, on average, after a tower was built_This effect generally reduced with distance from the tower and was almost negligible after about 200 meters(656 feet). 1. Introduction This paper outlines the results of one of the first US-based cell-phone tower studies.The research was carried out in Florida in 2004 to show the effect that distance to a CPBS has on residential property prices. It follows on from several New Zealand (NZ) studies conducted in 2003.1 The first of the earlier NZ studies examined residents'perceptions toward living near CPBSs,white the most recent NZ study adopted GIS to measure the impact that distance to a CPBS has on residential property prices using multiple regression analysis in a hedonic pricing framework.The current study was conducted to determine if US residents respond similarly to those in NZ towards Iiving near CPBSs and hence,whether the results can be generally applied. The paper commences with a brief literature review of the previous NZ studies for the readers' convenience as well as the literature relating to property value effects from other similar structures.The next section describes the research data and methodology used.The results are then discussed.The final section provides a summary and conclusion. t Bond,S_G.and Wang,K.(2005)_"The Impart of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods", The Appraisal Journal,Volume LX"XW,No_3,pp.256-277,Bond,S.G.,Beamish,K(2005). "Cellular Phone Towers- Perceived Impact on Residents and Property Values",Pacific Rim Property Research Journal,vol- 11,no_2,pp_158- 177 and Bond,S.G.and Xue,J.(2005)."Cell Phone Tower Proximity Impacts on House Prices:A New Zealand Case Study",European Re-at Estate Society and International Real Estate Society Conference,June 15-18.Dublin,Ireland_ 2. Literature Review 2.11 Property Value Effects First, an opinion survey by Bond and Beamish (2005) was used to investigate the current perceptions of residents towards living near CPBSs in a case study city of Christchurch, New Zealand and how this proximity might affect property values_Second,a study by Bond and Wang (2005)that analyzed property sales transactions using multiple regression analysis was conducted to help confirm the results of the initial opinion survey. It did this by measuring the impact of proximity to CPBSs on residential property prices in four case study areas. The Bond and Xue (2005)study refined the previous transaction-based study by including a more accurate variable to account for distance to a CPBS_ The City of Christchurch was selected as the case study area for all the NZ studies due to the large amount of media attention this area had received in recent years relating to the siting of CPBSs. Two prominent court cases over the siting of CPBSs were the main cause for this attention- ttention 2 In summary, the Environmental Court ruled in each case that there is no established adverse health effects arising from the emission of radio waves from CPBSs as there is no epidemiological evidence to show this. 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. "These court cases were only the start of the negative publicity surrounding CPBSs in Christchurch_ Dr.Neil Cherry,a prominent and vocal Iocal Professor, served only to fuel the negative attention to CPBSs by regularly publishing the health hazards relating to these structures- This media attention had an impact on the results of the studies,outlined next_ 2.2 The Opinion Survey The Bond and Beamish (2005) opinion survey study included residents in ten suburbs: five case study areas (within 100 feet of a cell phone TOWER) and five control areas (over 0.6 of a mile from a cell phone TOWER). The rive the case study suburbs were matched with five control suburbs that had similar living environments(in socio-economic terms)except that the former are areas where a CPBS is located, while the latter are without a CPBS_ Eighty questionnaires4 were distributed to each of the ten suburbs in Christchurch(i.e.800 surveys were delivered in total). After sending out reminder letters to those residents who had not yet responded, an overall response rate of 46% was achieved. Over three-quarters (78.5%) of the case study respondents were homeowners compared to 94%in the control area The results were mixed with responses from residents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proximity to a CPBS_ Interestingly, in general,those people living in areas further away from CPBSs were much more concemed about issues from proximity to CPBSs than residents who lived near CPBSs. 2 Mclntyw and others vs_Christchurch City Council 119961 NZRMA 289 and Shirley Primary School vs_Telecom Mobile Communications Ltd 11999]NZRMA 66 3For example,Cherry,N.(2000),"tleatth Effects Associated with Mobil Base Stations in Communities_The Need for Health Studies," Environmental Management and Design Division. Lincoln University, June 8_ Available from: httpJ/pages_britishlibrary.net/orangelcbenyonbasestations_btm_ 4 Approved by the University of Auckland Fluman Subjects Ethics Committee(reference 2002/185)_ 2 Over 40%of the control group respondents were worried a lot about future health risks,aesthetics and future property values compared to the case study areas where only 13% of the respondents were worried a lot about these issues. However, in both the case study and control areas, the impact of proximity to CPBSs on future property values is the issue of greatest concern for respondents. If purchasing or renting a property near a CPBS, over a third (381/a) of the control group respondents would reduce price of their property by more than 20%. The perceptions of the case study respondents were again less negative with a third of them saying they would reduce price by only 1-9%,and 24%would reduce price by between 10 and 19%. Reasons for the lack of concern shown by the case study respondents may be due to the CPBS being either not visible or only barely visible from their homes. Another reason may be that the CPBS was far enough away from respondent's property (as was indicated by many respondents, particularly in St Albans West, Upper Riccarton, and Bishopdale) or hidden by trees and consequently it did not affect them much.The results may have been quite different had the CPBS being more visually prominent_ 23 Transaction-based Market Study The Bond and Wang (2005) market transaction-based regression study included 4283 property sales in four suburbs that occurred between 1996 and 2002(approximately 1000 sales per suburb). The sales data that occurred before a CPBS was built were compared to sales data after a CPBS was built to determine any variance in price, after accounting for all the relevant independent variables_ Interestingly, the effect of a CPBS on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 211/6) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in the year 2000,after the negative media publicity given to CPBSs following the two legal cases outlined above.The other two suburbs that indicated a CPBS was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, had towers built in them in 1994, prior to the media publicity. Also, given that the cell phone technology was relatively new to NZ in 1994 (introduced in late 19"there may have been more desire then to live closer to a tower to receive better coverage than in later years when the technology became more common and the potential health hazards from these became more widely publicized. The main limitation affecting_ this study was that there was no accurate proximity measure included in the model, such as GIS coordinates for each property_ Instead, street name was included as an independent variable to help to control for the proximity effects. A study has subsequently been performed using GIS analysis to determine the impact that distance to a CPBS has on residential property prices.The results from this study are outlined next. 2.4 Proximity Impact Study Bond and Xue study conducted in 2004 involved analysis of the residential transaction data using the same hedonic framework as the previous study as well as including the same data but added a further six suburbs to give a total of ten suburbs:five suburbs with CPBSs located in them and five control suburbs without CPBSs_In addition,the geographical (x,y) coordinates that relate to each property's absolute location were included_ A total of 9,514 geo-coded property sales were used (approximately 1000 sales per suburb)_ In terms of the effect that proximity to a CPBS has on price the overall results indicate that this is significant and negative_ Generally,the closer to the CPBS a property is the greater the decrease in price_ The effect of proximity to a CPBS reduces price by IS%,on average_This effect reduces 4 with distance from the CPBS and is negligible after 1000 feet_ 2.5 High Voltage Overhead"Transmission Line Research CPBSs are very similar structures to high voltage overhead transmission limes(IIVOTLs)and their supporting structure, the pylons. Therefore, despite the limited research relating to value effects from CPBS, it is worthwhile reviewing the body of literature on the property values effects from NVOTLs and pylons_ 25.1 New Zealand HVOTL Research The only recently published study in New Zealand on HVOTLs value effects is by Bond and Hopkins (2000). The case study area selected for the research was a low-middle income, predominantly single-family residential district in the northern Wellington suburb of Newlands that is crossed by two I IOKV transmission lines with 85 foot high steel pylons located on private land. The results of the sales analysis,comprising sales from 1989 to 1991 (330 of which were within 1000 feet,or 300 meters,of a HVOTL),indicate the effect of having a'pylon'close to a particular property is statistically significant and has a negative effect of 27% at 33 feet (10 meters)from the pylon, IS% at SO feet (1S meters), decreasing to 51/v at 164 feet (50 meters). This effect diminishes to a negligible amount after 328 feet (100 meters). However, the presence of a 'transmission line' in the case study area has a minimal effect and is not a statistically significant factor in the sales price. 2.5.2 UK HVOTL Research In England, the effect of HVOTLs on the value of residential property remains relatively unexplored due, in part,to the lack of available transaction data for analysis. The most recently published study is by Sims and Dent(2005).6 They compare the results of two parallel UK studies: the first is an analysis of transaction data from a case study in Scotland where sales data are available;the second is a national survey of property appraisers'perceptions(Chartered Surveyors and members of the National Association of Estate Agents) of the presence of distribution equipment in close proximity to residential property. The data set for the Scotland study consisted of 593 single-family houses that sold between 1994 and 1996 near Glasgow_ There is a 275 kV HVOTL running through the centre of the neighborhood in a corridor of land. (Note: This scenario is akin to the US situation where HVOTLs are also situated in easement corridors). In summary, the analysis of prices at varying distances from the HVOTL showed no clear pattern_ The presence of a pylon was found to have a more significant impact on value than the HVOTL and could reduce price by up to 20.7%. All negative impacts appeared to reduce with distance and were negligible at around 820 feet(250 meters). The results from the survey of appraisers and real estate agents indicate they reduce house price by around 5-10% when valuing a property within close proximity to a HVO`rL._ Comparing the 5 Bond,S_G. &Hopkins,J_(2000)_—ne Impact of Transmission Lines on Residential Property Values:Results of a Case Study in a Suburb of Wellington,New Zealand"_Paces Rim Property Research Journal V ol.6,Not,pp_52-60- 6 Sims,S.and Dent.,P.(2005),"High-voltage overhead power lines and property values--A residential study in the MK _Urban Studies_Vo[_42.No_4,pp.665-694_ 5 results from both studies suggests that appraisers and real estate agents underestimate the impact of proximate HVOTLs on value. 2.53 US and Canadian Research There have been a number of HVOTLs studies carried out in the US and Canada_A major review and analysis of the literature by Kroll and Priestley indicated that in about half the studies carried out, HVOTLs had not affected property values and in the rest of the studies there was a loss in property value between 2-10%.7 Kroll and Priestley were generally critical of most valuer type studies because of the small number of properties included and the failure to use econometric techniques,such as multiple regression analysis.They found that the Colwell study was one of the more careful and systematic analysis of residential impacts_$This study was carried out in Illinois and found that the strongest effect of the HVOTLs was within the first 50 feet (15m) but with this dissipating quickly firrther away, disappearing beyond 200 feet(60m). A Canadian study(Des Rosiers, 2002)based on a sample of 507 single-family house sales in the City of Brossard, Greater Montreal that sold between 1991-1996 showed that the severe visual encumbrance due to a direct view of either a pylon or lines exerts a significantly negative impact on property prices of between 5% to well in excess of 20%. The extent of value diminution depended on the degree of set back of the homes with respect to the HVOTL easement_ The smaller the set back the greater the reduction in price(for example, with a setback of 50ft price was reduced by 21%). However, the study also showed that a house located adjacent to a transmission corridor may increase values_The proximity advantages include enlarged visual field and increased privacy_The decrease in value from the visual impact of the HVOTLs and pylons(between,on average,5-10% of mean house value) tends to be cancelled out by the increase in value from proximity to the easement 9 A study by Wolverton and Bottemillerr0 utilized a paired-sale methodology of home sales occurring in 1989-1992 to ascertain any difference in sale price between properties abutting rights- of-way of transmission lines (subjects)in Portland,Oregon; Vancouver, Washington;and Seattle, Washington and those located in the same cities but not abutting transmission line rights-of-way (comparisons)_ Their results did not support a finding of a price effect from abutting an HVTL right-of-way. In their conclusion they wam that the results cannot and should not be generalized outside of the data.They explain that "limits on generalizations are a universal problem for real property sale data because analysis is constrained to properties that sell and sold properties are never a randomly drawn representative sample. Hence, generalizations must rely on the weight of evidence 7 Kroll,C.and Priestley,T.(1992),"Tbe Effects of Overbead Transmission Lines on Property Values:A Review and Analysis of the Literature',Edison EIectric Institute,July. a Colwell.P_ (1990),"Power Lines and Land Value", The Journal of Real Estate Research,American Real Estate Society_Vol_ 5,No. 1,Spring- 9 Des Rosiers, F_ (2002),Power Lines,Visual Encumbrance and House Values:A Microspatial Approach to Impact Measurement,Journal of Real Estate Research,Vot23,No_3,pp_275-301. tO Wolverton,M.L_&Bottemiller,S-C_(2003),"Further analysis of transmission line impact on residential property values', The Appraisal Journal,Vol_71.No_3,pp_244_ 6 4 � No cell tower at new school I exam i ner-grnnews-com Examiner Page I of 2 n- • loso,Local C—rrrctim Mold Ejdffiiner Streaming Radio Get News Updates Real Estate Automotive Employment Services Classifieds Market Place Media Kit Forms News HOME October 22,2009 Search Archives: Go Front Page Tt GMN Photo Galleries FiR.9.9 0 Bulletin Board r ILI Letters Editorials Greg Bean's Cohnnni Obituaries No cell tower at new school Schools sports Health effects reviewed Video Index BY JANE MUEGGIT-F Staff Writer Click hue to. The Millstone Township School District will not pursue the construction of a cell tower on the middle school property. At the Oct- 12 Board of Education meeting,the majority of the board members indicated they are not interested in having a cell tower on the middle school grounds,even if it would generate revenue- Online Obituary Submission The elementary school property on Millstone Road has a cell lower that Monmouth County leases and Featured special various emergency services use.The district's administration received an offer for constructing a cell tower Sectiows at the middle school site along Dawson Road about two years ago. fj :i When the board discussed the issue at its June 23,2009,meeting,President Tom Foley said the district could n1upto$100,000 per year for five years for allowing the construction of a cell tower on the middle school property.At that time,Foley said that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 detenrimed that cell towers do not produce adverse health effects-He also said plenty of other studies had been done on their health effects- Donna Haag,who lives across the street from the school,provided board members with newspaper articles regarding other boards of education facing similar decisions She said the articles contain information that board may not get from the cell lower vendor,such as the potential long-term effects of radiation produced by cell towers and related equipment. Foley addressed community members concerns about the cell EC lower producing radiation at the recent meeting.He said student -1 and teacher cell phone use should be banned if people are concerned about radiation because their heads are at risk for P sure when they use the phones-He also suggested that the district's Operations Committee consider taking down the tower at R n the elementary school. ieX Vice President Margaret Gordon alleged that fear of the unknown He�� .............. ....... is driving the hysteria around ceH towers.She said the district & needs another revenue source and considered the tower due to the tness failed school budgets. bo� Haag agreed with the board's decision to not install a new lower and said she is grateful that the members evaluated all of the facts corgt—tns before coming to their decision Advernse,Index amazort-COM S h 6-acn' ....... —PUNNING D�-PT. -. pr IT3 Huntington Beach PLA NG DEPT {, Blanca Evans, resident of the City of Huntington Beach ("City"), and homeowner materially affected by the Application for Conditional Use Permit by T-Mobile USA ("T-Mobile") and the Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach ("Church") to erect a wireless site within the property of the Church hereby OPPOSE the granting of the permit based on the following: Grounds for Denial of Permit A. The Purpose of T-Mobile's Application is False and Misleading At section 3.02, page 4 of its original Application, T-Mobile asserts that the purpose for their proposed wireless antenna is to "[i]ncrease the existing RF signal level in an existing coverage area". At page 2 of their attachment to the Application, T-Mobile asserts that "[t)he facility is needed to correct a hole in network coverage created by the local demand on the existing network." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA") provides that the City may deny T- Mobile's Application unless T-Mobile shows by substantial evidence that (1) the proposed wireless antenna is needed to close a "significant gap" in service coverage and (2) there are no alternative facilities or site locations. Here, T-Mobile has submitted a false and misleading Application by first asserting that the wireless antenna is needed to "increase the existing coverage" while in another portion of its Application it attempts to assert that there is a "hole" in coverage. There is not one trace of supporting documentation from T-Mobile's customers supporting their inconsistent assertions. On the contrary, I am aware of the statements of at least two T-Mobile's existing customers stating that coverage in the concerned area is very adequate. It should be noted that T- Mobile's Service Contracts do not guarantee full uninterrupted coverage in any area, nor do they guarantee any coverage free of small dead spots! F � B. T-Mobile's Application Must Be Denied on Aesthetic Grounds The City has the authority to consider time, place and manner concerns in this instance. We assert that the proposed wireless site will: 1. Cause all concerned and adjacent homeowners inconvenience, discomfort, trouble, annoyance, and embarrassment as we will more specifically testify to during upcoming City's public hearings; 2. The proposed wireless antenna site will detract from the residential character and appearance of our surrounding neighborhood; 3. The proposed wireless antenna site is not compatible with the character and appearance of our surrounding neighborhood; 4. As submitted by real estate professionals in our area, the proposed wireless antenna site will have a negative impact on the value of our homes, and our future ability to obtain a fair price if we decide to sell and relocate our residence- 5- The City must consider (1) the height of the proposed wireless antenna (55') and its proximity to residential structures; (2) the nature of uses of nearby properties (all residential!); (3) surrounding topography; and (4) surrounding tree coverage and foliage. Based on the foregoing, together with all other documentary and testimonial evidence submitted in this matter, we strongly urge the City to DENY T- Mobile's and the Church's Application for a Conditional Use Permit. Respectfully submitted, klancaEvaAns Supplemental Ground For Denial Of]Permit The City will ignore the responsibility it has under Section 230.96, Section A,of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance if it approves the conditional permit_ In short summary,the City has the responsibility to, and I quote. "._.protect the public safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach_" If you approve this conditional permit, how will you be protecting my quality of life and my neighbors and the lives of approximately 350 residents who signed a petition to stop the construction of this cell tower? The character of my neighborhood will change if the proposed T-Mobile cell tower is built at the Community United Methodist Church. Neighbors are worried about the negative impact of the proposed cell tower;I am worried_ As evidence states: >I will have to disclose that the cell tower is located in close proximity—for me,just on the other side of my back wall. >If my house is less desirable to potential buyers because of its location next to a cell tower, the price goes down. >People who are aware of the international health concerns of living close to a cell tower will not want their young children to be constantly exposed to the cell tower's emissions. >Neighbors with young children are already talking about moving if the cell tower is built. >Now is not a good time to sell a house because home prices are low due to the economy. >I am worried that this cell tower will cause my neighborhood to change in a negative way. I assert that the City's approval of this conditional permit will affect my quality of life in a negative way. Blanca Evans Supplemental Request Public Hearing The public hearing presently set for Wednesday, November 4, 2009, should be continued_ 1, and concerned homeowners and stakeholders, have been informed that T-Mobile has submitted a Supplemental Application and supporting documents, which significantly and materially alters the original Application by changing the location of the proposed site for the wireless antenna and related equipment within the Church's property. We have not been provided a copy of these public documents, which are necessary for us to review and provide informed input during the upcoming public hearings, and related appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council if necessary. We are willing to reimburse the City for any necessary reproductions costs. Arabe, Jill From: GBean37467@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 04,2009 12.19 PM To: Arabe, Jill Subject: PreSchool and CUMC ; Dear Ms. Arabe, Huntingron beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 attend CUMC as a church member and I oppose the cell phone tower that o i e wan s to place on is site. The Advisory Board is not made up of all the members of the church_ There are quite a few people who oppose this decision and they were not included in the discussions or decisions. When the church had a meeting a few weeks ago after the first ZA meeting the members of the board were stunned to hear about how many students they would lose if the tower goes up. My daughter and I attended this meeting and only because we were members of the church were we allowed to attend all the discussions. The loss of this environment of learning and safety for the children of Huntington Beach that has been in business on guiding children for over 30 years will be a great loss for our community_ Below is some information that has been obtained_ Regarding Huntington Beach CUP 2009-015, T-Mobile fails to meet: 241.10 Required Findings A_ For All Conditional Use Permits. 1_ The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood,- The CUMC Pre-school, which rents space from the CUMC church, surveyed parents of the enrolled pre-school students regarding the proposed T-Mobile cell tower. The result of that survey was: 50% of the parents would pull their children out of the pre-school, 15% of the parents were as yet undecided, and 35%would keep their children in the pre-school- If over 50% of the students leave, the pre-school would flounder financially and would probably either close or move to another location_ The children would lose a good learning and development center-, the parents would lose the excellent neighborhood resource-, the pre-school staff would lose their jobs-, and, the church would lose the pre-school income_ The proposed T-Mobile cell tower would "be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity_" DENY this permit for the welfare of our neighborhood! Thank you_ Ginny Bean 15892 Malm Circle Huntington Bch, CA 92647 t `<,T r4 �yr ucr cru� it.3r1 �oL�7c5 r[ tst lL;tQ_111vi1 [tt't'K13t5[-iL5 F'LIL� �1;Fly - - - - - ,s- •Y *:5 '?o=%L y «r` "_;e ......... ,.. 22r lath Sit;Seal Beady c 90f4� Phone: 562 431-8511;.FAX' (S62)598=768i tom lands" rafsal� .carat www_tozrz�axlandappraisals.coan . Novemtzer-2, 2009 Dat1a Eli ake Hatatington 66r-h 203(3I Bfuf >PLfil�1NtNG btpt Huntington,0each, �A 92646. Dear Ms. Drake: rhave been asked to.coosment as to.rn(hati ate the Iocat�on oFa cell thw&w111 have. an residentia{ peoperty values ih`the ainr�iediate borderin g area'-af these taweis: . Over:the.past 20+ years as an appraiser,I have appraised`homes that have had.close prox{rnhy to Moth cell towers and homes bordering power 111nes Based orb this expert -ce it is my opinion_that,there is a negative affect on pro6*values with dose proxiini y to these.tiowe, It is my opinion that these towers could have-a ne�a6e affect on'values by as much as 5°Yo: Respectfully, Tom Garland F `i: �t o E NOV-02-2009 t19-59 56259876E1 96% -�? 1 duty Beachside, Realtors" 19671 Beach Blvd.,#101 Hontington Beach,Califomia 92648 Business V14)969-6100 Fax (714)960-4975 November 3, 2009 U 0 4 7009 Diane Anderson Huntington Beach 6651 Mason Drive pt_ANNING DEPT_ Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Dear Mrs. Anderson: I sincerely appreciate all of the effort put forth by you and your family to defend itself against the proposed installation of the T-Mobile cell tower at the Community United Methodist Church. As experienced Realtors for a combined 31 years in Huntington Beach, my wife and I know firsthand the truth about a Buyer's perception of diminutive features when deciding on which home to buy, and how much to offer. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this cell tower can have any positive impact on that process_ Rather, it simply comes down to how much of a negative impact this type of structure could have on the value of a person's property. Certainly, in a low inventory market the degree of diminished value would likely decrease based on a lack of supply such as we saw in the markets from 1998 - 2005. However,the exact opposite is now occurring for a home's value with detrimental obstacles (i.e., backing to streets and thoroughfares, backing to commercial or industrial use zones, within sight visibility to high voltage power lines/billboards/water towers, etc.) as the supply of homes has increased due to a lack of demand. I feel the biggest problem in this specific situation is the lack of studies and surveys that have been prepared to date based on proximity to cell lowers exclusively. The installation of cell towers in residential neighborhoods (via church bell towers, steeples, and crosses) is a relatively new phenomenon so it would be virtually impossible to assess the diminutive value implications until we have had more time to track continued sales activity during this current market condition, or at the very least a balanced real estate market_ One area of real estate that I can say for sure will be immediately impacted will be on the necessity to fully disclose to perspective Buyers the proposed installation of such cell towers in areas that are in direct proximity to housing_ The installation of this particular cell tower by T-Mobile is a "material fact that may effect the desirability of the home_'' Themfore_ l must disclose this information on all transactions at this time_ I have one Each Office is tndependentty Owned and Operated M home currently in escrow less than 500 feet from the proposed cell tower (located at 16622 Fountain Lane), and I have just furnished the disclosures to the Buyer's Agent and Buyer at the end of last week. They are currently reviewing the disclosures at this time. My bigger concern emanates from the possibility that future "Environmental Zone Disclosure Reports" may be required to disclose the location of ALL cell towers just as they are now required to disclosure the location of fuel storage tanks, remediation projects, ordinance locations, etc. Just imagine how that will look to perspective Buyers when they look on a map "dotted" with all cell tower locations noted as a potential cause for concern? The neighborhoods that have had these cell towers installed will clearly face an uphill challenge in the future if they're competing against neighborhoods where cell towers have not been installed or banned altogether. There is no question, at that point, of whether these cell towers will have a negative impact on the value of a home or neighborhood where they. do exist. It's just unfortunate at this time that most homeowners and consumers aren't aware of these towers until they experience the invasiveness firsthand that this neighborhood is now experiencing. Diane, once again I urge you to continue with your efforts. On behalf of this neighborhood,we all benefit with caring neighbors like yourself. Respectfully, Adam o ell Century 21 B achside AT T 1 tWAHENIT i It 0 rut r ovvers llttp://www.njslom_conViceli-towers-fcc-rtilin�_}lin Abort the Leagri Services Legislation s .: •xo-t�`� `- -- _ - - _ Notices - Calendar Horde Advertise your job openings and equipment for sate-Cock fiere r Search FCC RULING REQUIRING BACKUP POWER FOR CELL TOWERS This w,>r alert you about an FCC ruling requiring backup power for cell towers which may generate activity and litigation for municipalities in the next year regarding(1)cell towers on municipal property,and(2)zoning,permits and other regulations affecting cell towers on private property. The key points are as follows- Order: On October 4 the FCC issued an order reinforcing and clarifying a prior order requiring cep phone(and landfine)phone companies whit one year to install backup power supplies at most sites(and have portable power supplies available for sites without permanent backup power). This is an outgrowth of Hurricane Katrina,a finding that telephone and cell phone companies there did not have adequate backup power supplies to keep the phones operating, and hence that backup power supplies need to be installed at key phone and cell phone locations nationwide.See Mtpl/fxaunfoss.fcc.goyledocs pu>bfidattachmatch /FCC-07-177At.doc In its order,the FCC declined to exempt cell antennas in non-traditional locations,such as the small"distributed antenna"systems popularized by companies such as NextG,which are often located on utility poles,light poles,in the rights of way,or camouflaged in steeples and the Ike. The FCC order does not by its terns preempt state or local laws or leases which prevent backup power instaltations—but as set forth below,cell companies may claim that Federal law preempts in any event,even as to lease terms that prohibit dangerous substances(e.g_—gasoline)from being introduced on the municipal land or budding being leased for a cell antenna. Municipal Sites: As a result,municipalities may shortly see a lot of activity to put generators and battery backup systems at cell tower sites on private and public property,i•tcluding those in the rights of way. This may cause problems for towers in sensitive municipal locations,such as on the roofs of rrnrri*W or school buildings,or on water towers,because the systems typically involve gas,diesel or propane powered generators(with accompanying fuel tanks)or batteries with tots of sulfuric acid. Lease terms often prohibit such dangerous substances or require municipal approval of changes from the initial installation,and ether type of system is heavy which may cause building or structural concerns Cellcompanies may seek lease amendments to allow them to install such backup power systems(in fact the FCC said they should seek such amendments, if leases now preclude such systems). Due to decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,in west coast and adjacent states the cell companies may daim that lease provisions effectively preventing backup power systems violate Section 253 of the Federal Communications Ad_ On the other hand,municipalities may have concerns if they justifiably don't want such systems installed on particular properties,yet the lease does not dearly preclude them. Zoning.Building Codes and the Like: The cell phone companies complained to th,FCC that local zoning laws,budding codes or environmental restrictions may prevent backup power installations- Municipalities should be aware that it this is the case,they may face challenges to such laws not under the FCC order but[order the cell tower zoning provisions of the Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act- These provisions apply to all state and local laws which regulate the"placement,construction or modification of cell towers—i-e_building codes,permits and other local requirements,not just zoning_ They require action by a municipally in"a reasonable time"which here the carriers wig argue is very short, given the FCC directive for backup power installations to be completed within a year_ Carriers will likely argue that local requirements which they cant comply with-prohibit or effectively prohibit-the provision of cell phone service,in violation of the statute. Arid(this is often the hardest part)under the statute,all denials have to"in wrong"and based on"a written record"_ Although these requirements sound simple, the courts have interpreted them in ways that local practices and procedures often may not meet_ Failure to meet them is one of the most common reasons local zoning decisions violate the Federal statute. Most importantly, note that a violation of the statute usually(under court decisions)leads to the permit or zoning approval in question being granted as it was applied for.the courts do not serif the case back to the murnicipafty for it to redo in compliance with the statute. Suggested Actions: Municipalities should examine the leases they have with cell companies,to see 4 backup power supplies(batteries or generators)can be installed without municipal approval,especially as to locations where this would be a concern Municipalities should be prepared to respond promptly to the various types of local approvals (zoning,budding codes, permits,environmental)which may be involved in likely new backup power installations at cell sites, They should make sure they comply with the Federal statute regarding zoning and other local regulations applicable to cell towers. In particular, in a contentious case-municipalities should make sure to involve people with knowledge of the statute and comply with its procedural requirements regarding the form of any denial.what has to be in it and the reed for a written record We have a detailed paper on the Federal cep tower statute If you would like a copy,either email me.or get a copy from our web site—go to V"P-ilwvvw varntrmnaw con/serwceGroups/cableTV/cepularwueless/ John Pestle Vacuum,Riddering,Schmidt S Howlett LLPt�.��1 ADDRESS FOR REGULAR MAIL IJ U '� II Bridgewater Place PO Box 352 Grand Rapids,M01.9an 49501-0352 NOV Q 4 7009 ADDRESS FOR OVERfWGHl DELIVERY UPS _ Bridgewater Place S _ 333 Bridge Street,N W Grand Rapids- Muhvgan 4950-1 AT : pr GEM JT s 'A i of? 1 V3,2009 5:50 P V1 NJ IA-FCC Ruling For Cell Towers http_I/www_njslomcomlcell-towers-fec-ruling.[jtr� phone 616-336-6000 ex 6725 direct 616-336-6725 fax 616-336-7000 ernad pvpestIewarrwrnFaw co- web site www varnumtaw_com Home/ FAQ/ League Seminars&Events/Search/Privacy Statement Register for E-Mail Alerts/Send Us Your Comments&Suggestions New Jersey State League of Municipalities-222 West State Street-Trenton,NJ 08608-(609)695-3481 of l t'i'?fl(14 P-in PkI summer 2003-25 ``- 0 4 Zo Huntington Be 09 ach PLANNING DEPT The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Values BY CAROL C. WDONOUGH, PhD The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Farber (1998) explains, perceived risks authorized the Federal Communi- are a function of subjective risk factors cations Commission (FCC) to expand as well as statistical risks-, whether the the wireless telephone industry by auc- source of the perception is quantitative tioning off six personal communication or subjective, the effect on property val- services (PCS) licenses per geographic ues may be the same. area. Because wireless communication In Komisu City ofSanteFe;the Supreme antennae must be mounted on high, Court of New Mexico awarded damages unobstructed locations,the build out of for the perceived decline in property value the PCS industry has led to the need for resulting from a source of stigma,even additional communications towers. when no objective evidence demonstrated Abutters and neighbors of these com- that the perceived nuisance was unsafe, munication towers have often opposed and when market loss was not proven their construction, citing aesthetic and by comparable sales data_The Criscuola health concerns, and alleging a conse- decision established the "fear in the quent decrease in property values_Such marketplace" theory of damages, by al- opposition has primarily targeted tow- lowing fear in the marketplace regarding ers located in residential zones, where transmission lines, rather than actual such towers are generally less harmoni- -<epiderrtis-to-gi':at evidence of adverse ous with surrounding structures_ This health effects from electromagnetic fre- article examines the impact of proxim- quencies (EMF), to affect appraised ity to a wireless tower on residential valuation_ The literature (for example, property values_ Mundy 1992, Levitt 1995,and Harrison Mundy(1992) and Patchin (199I) re- 1989)includes high-tension wires and util- port that a nuisance feature, or source icy poles as sources of stigma to a property. of stigma, typically reduces the market Are wireless towers also a source of value of a property_ It is the perceived stigma? Because most wireless towers undesirability of a source of stigma that have been constructed recently, time- leads to reduction in property value.As series data for a valid empirical study of Carol C_ McDonough, PhD, o processor of economics at the Unruersity of hassachusetts in Lowell, Massachusetts. The statements made or vows expressed by authors in Assessment ournal do not necessarily repre- sent a polinv position of the International Association of.4sse_mng Officers_ 26-Avwvmn t Journal the impact of wireless towers on prop- be classified as a Group 29 human car- erty values are virtually unavailable_ cinogen under the International Agency Therefore, the first step is to review re- for Research on Cancer classification search on the impact of electric power scheme-This means the agept is possibly lines and towers on property values,be- carcinogenic to humans.The California cause they may have effects similar to Department of Health's 1999 Fact Sheet wireless towers_ If it is found that (1) on EMF points out that epidemiology proximity to electrical lines reduces resi- studies of childhood leukemia provide dential property values, and (2) the enough evidence to classify EMF as a pos- factors causing reduced valuation near sible human carcinogen. electric lines also apply to proximity to Numerous studies have examined the wireless towers, and (3) these factors impact of proximity to power lines on property values: Kinnard(1967)reported that proxim- Such opposition ity to a tower line had little negative impact on residential market values in has primarily several Connecticut subdivisions_Higher priced subdivisions showed slightly targeted towers greater negative impact from power line proximity_ located In Colwell (1990) found that proximity 7 to power lines was associated with dimin- resldential Zones, ished selling prices in two Illinois where such towers subdivisions. In Delaney andTimmons's(1992)cur- are generally less vey of appraisers,84 percent responded that the market value of residential prop- harmonious with erty is negatively affected when located proximate to a high voltage electric power surrounding line; on average, market price is 10.01 percent lower than the price of compa- structures. rable properties. The most frequently cited factors for property value reduction were visual unattractiveness and issues have led to significant concern about of health and safety. Proximity to wireless towers,then it may Kung and Seagle's attitudinal survey be inferred that proximity to a wireless (1992)found that 53 percent of the Tert- tower may reduce residential property nessee homeowners surveyed considered values. transmission tines and towers an eyesore_ Once informed of possible health risks, POWER LINES AND PROPERTY 87 percent felt power lines and towers VALUES: SOME EVIDENCE would adversely affect property values_ The scientific community has conducted Kroll and Priestley (1992) reported that the perceived impact of transmis- sion studies of the health effects lines cluster's into three areas: of proximity to power lines_The first epi- health and safety-, aesthetics, and prop- demiological study linking EMF erlyvalues_They concluded that overhead exposure and cancer incidence was pub- transmission lines have the potential to lished in 1979_In June of 1998,a panel reduce the sales price of single-family convened by the National Institute of homes by zero to 10 percent. Environmental Health Sciences con- cludcd that low-frequency EMF should Gimmv's (1994)research on power jv SvmmP 2003•27 lines and California residential property Consider first aesthetic similarities_ values found diminutions of between The literature states that the view en- 18 and 54 percent in lot values from joyed from a property may affect its properties abutting power line easements. value—a poor view,such as that of util- Studying residential home prices in ity poles and high-tension wires,detracts Vancouver, Canada, Hamilton and from value.The aesthetic effects oftrans- Schwarm (1995) reported that properties mission lines and wireless towers are adjacent to 60 kV power lines lost 6.3 similar. Both electric lines and wireless percent of their value due to proximity towers rise above building height in typi- and the visual impact_ cal single-family neighborhoods; According to the Cowger, Bottemiller, therefore, they are visible for some dis- Cahill study(1996),the value of Oregon tance_ Unless camouflaged, these single-family residential property fell by structures typically do not complement less than 10 percent because of proxim- rural or suburban landscapes. ity to overhead transmission lines_ Are health concerns surrounding elec- Gregory and von Winterfeldt (1996) determined that the public perception .._perceived risks are of health risks associated with proximity to power lines led to a reduction in prop- a function of erty value: post 1979 property valuation y, studies showed a decline in values of subjective risk 5 to 10 percent_ According to Bolton and Sick(1999), factors as well as real estate professionals,(even those per- forming studies for power line statistical risks; companies)believed that concern about Whether the source the adverse health effects of EMF from power lines resulted in a reduction in of the perception is the values of nearby properties_Bolton's earlier study(1994) found that the gen- quantitative or er-al public's perception that EMF were harmful drove down the values of adja- subjective, the effect cent property. Jaconetty (2001) concluded that, on on property values a subjective level, most people believe nay be the same. that the electromagnetic fields gener- ated by high-voltage towers and lines adversely influence real property values, primarily because of health concerns. tric lines also applicable to wireless tow- ers? SIMILARITIES BETWEEN POWER Technically,radio waves from wireless LILIES AND WIRELESS TOWERS antennae differ from the electromag- According to the studies cited above, netic fields produced by power lines. Although both radio waves and EMFare proximity to electric lines and towers is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, associated with a reduction in reside,n- electric power in the united States op- tial property values because of aesthetic erases at 60 Hz, while cellular phones and health concerns. In this section.the operate at 860-900 MHz, and PCS similarities between the aesthetic and P health effects of electric lines and wire phones operate at about 2000 MHz- As Moulder (1998) explains, radio waves less towers are examined_ 28 1.ttrctT u ni Jm�rTu are non-ionizing, that is, the energy of EVIDENCE OF CONCERNS ABOUT the particles is too low to break chemi- WIRELESS TOWERS cal bonds_ Power lines are nonthermal, In this section, evidence is presnted that is,they produce no significant non- about the significant level of concern ionizing radiation_ Fields from power about the aesthetic and health effects lines do not radiate energy into space, of wireless towers. The evidence is and the fields cease to exist when power grouped into three categories: (1) law- is turned off. suits regarding wireless tower However,the technical distinction be construction,(2)organizations and con- tween radio waves emitted by wireless ferences dealing with the harmful effects antennae and low-frequency EMF emit- of wireless towers, and (3) municipal ted by electric lines is not generally moratoria on wireless tower construction and mandatory visual impact studies. In other cases, Lawsuits Numerous lawsuits have been filed regard- courts have ruled ing the actual or proposed construction for the wireless of wireless towers.As Foster and Carrel (1999) discuss, case law on the issue is companies, finding somewhat ambiguous_Some courts have ruled for the municipality opposing wire- that community less tower construction. In Franklin v. Nexiel,for instance,the court found that opposition was not a 120 foot wireless tower erected in a resi- dential neighborhood was so sufficient grounds incongruous and damaging to the neigh- for denying a borhood that it must be dismantled_ In Jacksonville,Florida,in 19%,community permit for tower opposition to a 150 foot tower in a resi- dential neighborhood led the wireless construction. company,InterCel,to take it down_ In other cases, courts have ruled for the wireless companies, finding that community opposition was not sufficient understood. The federal government grounds for denying a permit for tower construction. For instance, in has issued guidelines regarding safe ley- Westinghovseu Hampton,the court found els of exposure for both power lines and that the Telecommunications Act pre wireless antennae,but there is ongoing empts tower regulation based on controversy within the scientific commu- perceived health concerns and that"aes- nity about whether these government theticsalone__. [are not]___anadequate guidelines are too lax. Because a final verdict on the safety of both electric lines reason to deny--- use of..property_" and wireless antennae is still moot,many OMP-USA,dealing specifically with the location of towers in residential neigh- people are fearful about living in prox- borhoods, found that "towers cannot imity to either type of structure- As always be compatible with the character Rikon (1996)point_-,out,the fear in mar ketplace argument established by the of the surrounding property. [I]n order to meet___demand---towers have to C:riscuola decision regarding EMF has be---located m__.residential, commer- alsobeen invoked regarding health con- cerns about cell towers. cial.and rural areas_ JT' IT Summer 2003•29 Organizations,Conferences,and Municipal Regulations International Concerns Responding to community concerns Concerns about wireless towers have re- about the negative impact of wireless sulted in the formation of organizations towers,more than 150 municipalities have and the scheduling of conferences to adopted temporary moratoria on wireless voice these concerns.The EMR Alliance tower construction_Although the Tele- argues that electromagnetic radiation communications Act prevents a from wireless antennae is hazardous to municipality from permanently banning life and public health. The Communi- wireless tower construction,the Act does cation Workers of America and the EMR allow municipalities to establish criteria Alliance jointly published Your Commu- based on aesthetic—but not health—con- nity Guide to CellularPkone Towers to help siderations. consumers mobilize against the place- Community concern has also led to ment of wireless transmission facilities municipal enactmentof zoning ordinances that could adversely affect their health, regulating wireless tower construction by safety,property values,or the aesthetics e Requiring that the visual impact of of the community, wireless towers be disclosed prior to The 20001nternational Conference on construction Cell Tower Siting included testimony ® ].irmtmg tower construction to munr- from numerous scientists on the health cipal sites,or encouraging such sites effects of exposure to high frequency EME Several questioned the safety of " Encouraging co-location and the current standards for exposure to radia- use of concealed structures tion from wireless antennae_ In response to community concerns The US Supreme Court, in January about the aesthetics of wireless towers, 2001, denied a writ for certiorari filed so-called stealth towers—in the form of by the Ad Hoc Association of Parties pine and palm trees—have been erected Concerned about the Federal Commu- in more than 200locations in the United nications Commission Health and Safety States.The issue of the visual impact of Rules (ABA).Fifty-four petitioners filed wireless towers has also been addressed as co petitioners;similar appeals by the by placing antennas on silos, church Communications Workers of America steeples,tall buildings,and water towers_ and The Cellular Phone Task Force were consolidated with the ABA case. The CONCLUSDON AHA had charged that the FCC's ruling, It has been shown that aesthetic and that adverse health effects cannot be dis- health concerns about electric Iir_es and cussed in reviewing zoning rules or towers lead to a reduction in the valua- permit applications for cell towers,de- tion of nearby residential properties, nies the public their first amendment There are similar concerns about wire- right to free speech. less towers; these concerns are In Europe, opposition to cell tower widespread and have been expressed in construction has led to lawsuits and the multiple venues.Therefore,proximity to destruction of wireless equipment.In an a wireless tower needs to be considered attempt to quell concerns about the as a negative amenity that may reduce health effects of wireless towers,one Ital- residential property valuation_However, ian mobile phone operator, Omnitel, the severity of the aesthetic impact maN launched an Internet site on which be mitigated by screening and conceal- residents can check the amount of elec- ment of the wireless towers_ tromagnetic radiation emitted by nearb) cell phone towers and antennas- 'AT Ilt.�t@ J 30•Assesvment j,)urnat REFERENCES EMF Regulation and litigation Institute. Albany Law School_1998_Case Lazo Den Gregory;Robin and Dedofvon Winterfeldt- sions Under the Telecommunications Act of I996 Local Zoning Provisions(Sec_ 704)_ 1996_ The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Transmission Lines on Pub- Bolton, David R. 1994_ Properties Near lic Fears and Property Values_Journal of Power Lines and Valuation Issues_Condem- Environmental Management 48:201-214_ nation or Inverse Condemnation?Institute on Planning,Zoning, and Eminent Do- Grissom,Terry_1994-Fundamentals ofReal main,1-10_ Estate AppraisaL, 6th ed_ New York, NY: Real Estate Education Company. Bolton, David R_, and Kent A_ Sick. (Spring) 1999_Power Lines and Property Hamilton, Stanley W., and Gregory M_ Values:The Good,the Bad and the Ugly. Schwann_ (November) 1995. Do High The Urban L.auryer31:331-334. Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Af- fect Property Value? Land Economics Colwell, Peter F. (Spring) 1990. Power 71:43"44. Lines and Land Value_ Thefournal of Real Estate Research,117-127_ Harrison,Henry 5.1989_AppraisingResi- dences and Income Properties. New Haven, Cowger,J_R.,Steven C.Bottemiller, and CT:H2 Company_ James M.Cahill. (September/October) I996.Transmission Line Impact on Resi- International Conference on Cell Tower dential Property.Right of Way. Siting—Linking Science and Public Health_ (June 7-8) 2000_ Proceedings Delaney, Charles J., and Douglas Salzburg,Austria-International Confer- Timmons-(Summer) 1992_High Voltage ence on Cell Tower Siting. Power Lines:Do They Affect Residential Property Value? Thejournal of Real Estate Jaconetty,Thomas A- (May/June) 2001 Research,315-329_ Do You Want Your Children Playing Under Those Things?:The Continuing Denison, D_C_ (March 28) 2041- Q. Controversy About High Voltage Electro- Which is the Tower?A_Both,Boston Globe, magnetic Fields, Human Health, and Al,AI 3_ Real Property Values.Assessment Journal, 23-30. Farber, Stephen_ 1998. Undesirable Fa- cilities and Property Values:A Summary Kinnard, William N.,Jr. (April) 1967_ of Empirical Studies_Ecological Economics Power Lines and Residential Property 24:1-14_ Values, The Appraisalfaurna 269-284. Federal Communications Commission Kroll, Cynthia A.and Thomas Priestley, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau_ (July) 1992. The Effects of Overhead Trans- (April 23) 1996_ Fact Sheet #L Washing mission Lines on Property Values_ Edison ton,DC--FCC- Electric Institute Siting and Environmen- tal Planning Task Force_ Foster, Robert B_, and Mitchell A_ Car- rel. (Fall) 1999_ Towers of Babble:The Kong, Hsiang-te, and Charles F. Seagle- Continuing Struggle Over Wireless Siting (July) 1992- Impact of Power Transmis- Issues Under the Telecommunications sion Lines on Property Values_T&Appraaal Act of 1996_ The Urban Lawyer,849-862 Journal,413-418. Gimmv,Arthur_ 1994. ThePotentiallmpart Levitt_B_Blake. 1995_ElectromagneticFaelds_ of EAIF on Property Values- New Orleans_ Newhork:Harcourt Brace andCompans. N Oft r Is,siml at 041009 IJD- �3eao L__.r__PLh"r'Z DFPT Ap� lqort- LA-- •f� Q Q 2009 6102 Summerdale Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach November 3, 2009 PLANNING DEPT Planning Administrator City of Huntington Beach Dear Sir; I am a resident of the City of Huntington Beach(6102 Summerdale Drive) and a member of Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach- .1 would like to be heard in the matter of the proposed cellular phone repeater station on the Church's property on Heil Avenue. Unfortunately, I work in El Segundo and am unable to attend the hearing on November 4. Please consider my thoughts in making your decision. The proposed cellular repeater on the Church property will provide a stable source of income for the Church that will enable the strong community outreach program to continue,even as it becomes more difficult to raise funds through the tithes and offerings of the Church members. Some of these outreach programs are the food pantry and shower programs we offer to the homeless and needy of the Huntington Beach community. The church also offers a free after-school program (the COVE)to middle school students. In addition,the church makes facilities available to community organizations such as AA and the Boy and Girl Scouts. These are but a few of the community organizations that Community UMC will be able to continue to support using the income provided by the cellular repeater station. Also,to consider is that the revised plan,utilizing and concealing the cellular equipment in a new bell tower, will be an attractive addition to the Church's campus and will, in no way,detract from the surrounding neighborhood_ Thanks you for your consideration of my thoughts in favor of the application_ Respectfully, William Paton November 2,2009 To Whom it May Concern. As members of Community United Methodist Church for more than twenty years,we have seen many wonderful things this church has done for the surrounding community_ It has opened its doors to those with spiritual,physical,emotional and social needs. CUMC provides groceries for families in need through our Food Closet,Lunches for the Hungry,we participate in Self-Help Interfaith Program to help the homeless get off the streets,we are very active with Huntington Beach Interfaith Council,we provide meeting rooms for groups such as_Alcoholics Anonymous,AA Leaders,Narcotics Anonymous,Overeaters Anonymous,Multiple Scorsese,Daughter's of the American Revolution,Veterans of Foreign Wars,Girl Scouts,Boy Scouts,Cub Scouts,Brownies,Indian Guides,Indian Princesses,and more_ Three years ago we started an After School Drop-in program for Middle School Latch Key kids_ All of these programs and services are provided to our neighbors in the community AT NO CHARGE! Does this sound like a selfish,non-caring congregation? NO,it does not_ We care deeply about our neighbors and because we care,we willingly and lovingly participate in these programs and provide these services to this community. We encourage you to vote'Yes'to the cell tower proposal as the monies gained from the T-Mobile lease will help us to continue to provide these and other programs and services to our neighbors. We live,work and worship here;we are all part of this community_ Part of COMMUNITY United Methodist Church_ Sincerely, Mikey and David Foster i 0 4 26Q9 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --Original Message From: Gave Fisher To:Jan Wiley Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:33 PM Subject: RE: cell tower-need for letters or presence Dear Planning Administator - I have been a member at CUMC for the past 21 years, I have watched the church take care of all people within our community and the county. I was at the original meeting in 2008 and voted for the cell tower then; I am more for it now, I have heard the information for and against. I have been at 2 meetings this year and voted each time for the cell tower_ I would love to come to this meeting; however, I am a state employee and I have to be at work due to the furloughs the next 3 Fridays. Thank you for listening to my letter (I am a T-mobile customer - I look forward to better service). Gaye Fisher 7692 Alhambra Dr. Huntington Beach 92647 s 0 Q 2009 Huntington Beach pLANNiNG DEPT_ � ` I O W ----Original Message From: Charles IR—aol.00i n To:Jftlp y(d-�cuni^hb,prg Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 124 PM Subject:Cell Tower Approval Hearing My Name is Charles Leatherwood, 1 am a member of Community United Methodist Church_ I am unable to appear in person due to having surgery at the time of the hearing_ I do wish to speak in support of the tower approval for two reasons-The first is the need for improved service for T Mobil customers_The second is the benefits to the community the Church will be able to provide with the income from the rental to T Mobil.These monies will help support the Churches day care,after school program, and the homeless outreach.among others- The opposition is based on fear and misinformation.The Tower produces less R F exposure than a cordless phone, baby monitor, or WiF router_ I worked in the Cellular industry for ten years_This has been an ongoing reaction and is based un- proven science or information taken out of context. Chuck t_eatherwood 19602 Elm Ridge Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-374-6151 714-875-1480 (cell) 714-374-6171 (fax) chadeswl@aol_com I LID 0 7' � LHuntingto,j Beach PANNING DEPT o Cl) �---�.! � ,tt.t !/ ads^ :.• �.. •r S ,q 'y, •�• "r3 ' } v� ,s a 1•Y�: !� �, � :.!i9'ti...7;�!�'r�1:f,;'�,�;r..7•..� �`'JltJgllyd:^r�'.a.Wll:'`�;' ;i ' •.LI '�':1t7,,� ';`l,:?�'"J`rY1N711y�)�IIU��Yi?. [ y Y l ' .� ,G,....zi3„':".,,....,.,.:s',,,, .. ...... .......... ........... M...,, ...:.f��;.:�a„»•:i�7u�iM1rP+'?Y'.. ��YYiI"� }� '�ie'. I tl I . i (�-.:•c S t�P a �ccyYY � � S r µ t •,. —'�---- f e _ {■� 2 - J r + i } ° P� r m � aQ ?a , b�9If , .��.� s AP 1 �• kf ^ I« f tit IB `r nv� � •`�h 4 ea` P�f � f14 �: i �'" kA�-s. .� -- � �1, � t-� t� �!' Md xi , k:r n, • fr !j �.d ` �; l� f L c ¢ 'y� i :h� P � K, fi ,•_ ... N 1 1 I' 5• � 3 ,.. -• -- _ ! . < sal � w i � ^ t E � �h • a • _ � _`� a--r _ � r... - ice- ��„n� .�a '� -�,..- •tea-• '�,>,,`,;�` r '` > �sOIL : � � " ' x� m ' vl.s` r n Y .r r�x b^y k Wff i� FI t 7 - ., Ti P t , : r. � aY s xt x•? a . i v I V T ? yA .s r� PETITION TO STOP THE w 10ELL TOWER! 0 "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T•Mobfle cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Hunti n-Beach, CA 926 Print Your Name Residence Street Address &City Signature LAN NG DEPT. >�, n 3 - V,. -7 a�o L 15 a ma,ei el Ce tAr V1 Fri . 15� o4 tLo off. PETI STOP THE - CELL. TO � ----- -- -"----- _ gin built in our back and � � � �' �' Vile the concerned parents neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from be �o^ "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach, CA 9264 ; _ Pint Your Name ,Residence Street Address & Citi 'Signature . -_-- -- PLANNING DEPT CA .� T °( C 7 �o e� PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! t L= tt We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STCP the T-Mobile cell tower from being Wit in our backyard I -j `j United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool!'property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 9 647�'rr,� Print Your Mame Residence St�eet Address City sign at LJAe A �'PL AN INC''r)'F:'RCT" L -C a CA q 3 w H, IZ6q L Oc,, Llo -7--7 . .-a (,\ L 4 cl, Ll:7 PE IT ION TO STOPT ' MOBILE CELL To �:: � ;. "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from beingbuilt in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Hell Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ' Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature PLANNING DEP . L ied 413 C,A q V1 cAn�� rj -w" 5 b� 11 ec� 9a& C, � L�L i n I L-. �u� ' PETITION - L CELL TOWER! -10-- -- "\Ne the concerned ;_@rents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell.Aower from bein .built in our backyard cr "Comr„unity United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property; 6666 Heil,Avenue, Huntington each, CA 9 64 NNING DePT. Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature RcJ\—, �PV�-s( V�- r Z- 6 z/bLLA Lez zma (�o -zo�,s- A�,ro �nia2, aewm c7T - 110 5 7/ / W 46� lST-a rot L A/ C7L/iG'� � Cif / '/0�.1---(11 C' Y7..� 17 Mew \� gg ' STOP '- :.( . #.L CELL TOWER! �� '��' ''We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile 'Yell tower from beingbuilt uilt in our backyard cn Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 9 64 un ing on e acm nFpT Print Your Name _ -- Residence Street Address & City !Signature �GCk� W�I�n i�' ` G � � - I- �>2� �{1 C�i hook. T�►- . � � v 2� 2 Pv cA- a6 -7 ' 4Gc.� r ,• C I Ncw(, C)r, 47 Q �AA-L IT -Y\c� Y,111- C� I l!1 , J 9v�� 4 l� Vv J PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! a C� �d D AlnnQ We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built,in our backyard on Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil-Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 9264 ," Huntington Pr Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature MKti�,Jvr �7 -)7�7 to -�r6j e_ N -7 3 75 a 2- L8 LS ZL11 Avc A v TI "" CN. TO STOP THE ` - . f, , `L CELL TOWER! 7v'e the ;oncerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard a� Comr �u" w United Method ist,Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" proper#y. 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, ,"finnInn Beach ,Int Your Name Residence Street Address & City iSignature I PLANNING D�EPT. 7 I • I I i I I J i 1"�jay PETITION TO STOTHE T=MOBILE CELL TOWER! "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach, CA 92647 Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Si n ture `d� �L ;d6�1 �,. Huntington Beach t1 . 7 •ve a� U ` 4 1 I 7 j x J PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! ''We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T.Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach&Preschool"property,6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach CA 92647 Print Your Name Residence Street Address&Clty Signature 1 �vna I r Lie 0'-- ruAlp- irthnnt beaikca`, 141 51 tOng , i-luntingion t3each .h PETITION TO S THE TwMOBILE CELL TUVV,=K: "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T•Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" pro ert , 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach, CA 92647 Print Your Name Residence Street Address &City Signature tie(Tf- -{ -7 %��, er�i l 7 Uir) CG q � G C6 U �JU9 Huntingcvn 3each PLANNING DEPT. I I µy .V ' r PET. ION TO STOP THE T-M0`, ll 'l'LE CELL TOWER! We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on ''Cornmunity_united Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647." Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature L - _'W� A SEP 30 2009 Fun mg on Beac PLANNING DEP --gel A)i 11;5 H:6 t'-,L-e �1'r v 4(zo '(zf 0 PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOW _ �ff,�� yg� Wal the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on '"Community United_Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, HuntingtLn ti a9-2 6 4 Print-Your. N a m e Residence Street Address & City Signature, 9,;z )q�C- Z)IS LJ 36a -z Ul n /W9 4n 41 7 , 7 IV �Z14 -7 62 Z Cl C7' -2 -7, 1,;o6& en t, PE°TI - N TO STOP THE °T- [-, '.E CELL We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and cn "rnmmunity United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City i natu Z- Z, �0 2009 --J ai^a�osPr - - -7 J rj ?3Q�t-��--- - O` r � e ..y.m f N{ P �1 1�� PETITION TO STOP THE T--MOBILE CELLTOWER! "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and on "l;ommunit United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647." Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City natur - 1 J7N %f�e h� uNe� 9 s� o 2 -Huntington Beach ` ern T2h) �, Cc COUQLANNIAlp t .S,a I � - ��I PETIr "ON TO STOP THE T-MO(,a",.E CELL TOWER! 'VVe the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back yand on "Comrnurity United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" propeily, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, Print Your N�rne Residence Street Address & City Sign pre 1-7 4�7 cA, 7 �39 N5 14 C'.4 fa* ?'7 7' 1J,74)Z MJ �_1 ITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TO WER! o e-We-t --Ic -noerned Parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and on "Cc'mrrunilty United Methodist Church of Huntington Beac h & Preschoor' property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach, CA 92647." Print Your Name Residence Street Address & Cit 7 Si nature C5� `7 L 6 7e7Z F4 COO'\— _6 Lq S 5 7t,0 to,7 A 1 16- 701 A Le- L4 Pf �21 14A 'T Rozz av P TI® - ON TO STOPTHE - O " CELL TOWER! We the�concerneparents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and on "Gommunit United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature --- -- ------ Sip 0 GAS b x�,L L 6 E .2 i. •i �Tfz PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! ''We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and on ''Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647." print Your Nam---e-- Residence Street Address & City Signature f ilk vl� X bv L t �62 L r, 01\ l4e a z PE°Tt' ON TO STOP THE T-M® , .,"" E CELL TOWER! "vVe the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntin ton Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntin ton Beach, CA 92647." 'Print Your Name^ Residence Street Address & Cit Si nature ov -p F-P l use? s o zoo ply tington Beach M m U N E L3, � C 1— Nye PET-ITION- TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our back and on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," Print Your Name Residence. Street Address & City Signature XILr Hunting ton RA.,k "ING -7 N-7 i N C-T C.>1-4 70 - -7 ac'V) n ---L4 _J Lc:�In e 'A r PETI" ' .� tV TO STOP THE T®IVIOE';:-= c CELL TOWER! we the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard �n "Cornrrunity United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington each, CA 92647." =;int Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature ---- 16 4 leer-r--L N - -nx UUvJJ ��1 P�gN�glot) each biz 4,c , 6T M� 1 PETITION TO STOF T11t: -Mobile cell tower from been built in our back and CA 92647," n rt 6(56,5 Heil Avenue, Hunti ton Beach parents and re.�hbors seek t STOP the T r,loci` rope Y Beach & P 10011, We the concerned pare Church f Huntin tor.'' [10011, United Methodist Church Si )n "Corrmu_ Residence Street dress & Dt :)rint 0 2009 146 C e7. Ll 2L L 510A q26 � 37A LA PETI` ON TO STOP THE T-M0Fl` , .E CELL TOWER! -W the concerned—parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on ''Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature SEP 3 0 2009 HUnffnQt,)q @9- 2- ow /3 -2 7 T> PETITION TO STOP THE ` -MOBIL T-MOBILE CELL v We the concerned arents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," - - -- - - - �rint Your Name Residence Street Address & Cit L i nature untir�gu,n Beach PLANNING oj 7 u l C� �"'E Lip • ( �(7� LP7 � ( r ti<J< H . 12C�y� �/lF`�O S✓� 1, a'® �Iq PET10"ON TO STOP THE T-Morr"I"'_ CELL TOWER! We the concerned Parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard or "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647." Si nature Print Your-Name Residence Street Address & City �D evi: V , 3 0 zoos Munringion Beach PLANNING t)ep-r, PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! '-'VVe thel_concerned pa rents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our bac�A�� on 'Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Aven0e' j§Zt CA 92647," Print Your Name ^ ^ Residence Street Address & City SEP 30 zon I Si26ature iuntington Beac$ AM41NG QEl" -I85-7 w. 230 d4 0� 59z i lJ r 6 r— f, -XI 7 v rlz� Cot,V.-� m 0 V%-(, L,-,, H, v q2&Vf it_� 'LL)4 LA v 714- PETI"ION TO STOP THE T-MOVIX CELL TOWERI "W_e the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard c li "Comiii unit y United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647." i�rint Your Name — Residence Street Address & Cif Signature Vj :M .y , a T..x �`I PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! We the concerned parents and neiQhbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647," Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City Signature OK- �u Bea PETI" TO STOP THE T-MO CELL TOWER! ANe the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, -Print Your -Name Residence Street Address & City Signature Z^1 &I Sa n qnnm LHuntington$each __lPLA,,N,N. PETITION TO STOP THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER! "We the concerned parents and neighbors seek to STOP the T-Mobile cell tower from being built in our backyard on "Communy United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach & Preschool" property, 6666 Hell Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA Print Your Name Residence Street Address & City ISignature fie, Che �--fie (�� S 5 �s c • 1h , m y' 4. I� L r d s ' tr,ix fr iY�sraRJ`I11� 5` � t i 4.t - s tf 1 1 � 1 tr r r i ' th ., .. :) � �i V'" � f J ".F� �,t'yl,' � r+�h{'�',Y�x. '"nk 15 �,,P}j":i nial.;�.•. ��'pi l^11111 �,.�..�'�1?I ;:; I :,.:+,'. ': ',°. .,.-.,�. ... '. �.,. .: - � o;1° .r, 1 w s :fly? A'�ae,y`�,`'r'�'f n,"�Y K.�J�fN114i,c1,' '�A t S'"j�'r,•I ` II ' ' 'v; 1. '9' �• � � I r� Ih 1 .x �'J. a ( ,��a rr}rar`y>r!>,. �� I.: '��' 1 J Y ��11 L�S ,�I. M,K r�l ,��ffe. ulfi t (\ ;'.1. -.. _ _ ,✓ 1t;� r Ir��rlt:: .f ,� -":1'�! ,,. y�� d v ' ; { ./,j Y. �1 f!'' WV w ,.-s.�-:" •�," ,� � � �tt s .'1,�' :Ir a 'r'„ .y.�� it al.��rt ,., - .... .., �:. �V •� I ,gym:,, - r `t ! i " r.- (`��,.,.+am+vu'r•-;�'-:.,a::t_�,..,w:m...,.:.:.�. �'^"�'�"�"'*i...,,,._•,,..........w,.s -..r. : � 1 t" i d < Sat r- ? r l'fl "1( ' Tt M } 4 .r ri C•i!$„il+rlr(l+ ppY;. , M1, 1 �111 ,i I s r' 16 e r��\ ,}nl i •�, �4'' .t .J:p� �a� / ^1,yl y( i U I •ylr �rafa4 � r li ,a•wll i ��Xk 1.,,1�e�Y��"I .''�}>�r rlv PR� 4'r rr-�`� "�: yl ,ill ,a... \ °' - �� ,v ,.ds .w r\�a d�'6�+;:�fl..�.a rtV�.:;•°tda^ `�.:r.'•: '.I'_: - .,.,. .,.,�� IR'' _ � 1:.�,',. ., ";t,; �i' I ai; f s ".-. �. "�:�.. s_.. .,._-ti,.. .� ,y�l/ I_ ` y�+"'.��F • �r \1. - 1 1 t i.y�Yl,,,,.\r �^�„y\t'�' r✓`;�•' .. ,��i IG' r• 41 9 low y _ , • • _ r 3 f r• 1 ` t �ti x I� i T�I�rG S� t �yyl y y t .:i i, --.:.. t �rv4\�L�1�•y'>'r<��Edyu..''. • ' 3�T1SH' + t � at 7, ., v; , of 1 a.�F. r" � 6lAL lU'r' _ . ' 1 v3°�5•Mijp�5514„a"k y 1 ..d ! ,' W i'..7 .�; y i;; � ,:• .. "'`, 3.Y/d �brp -' ` n +/ vAt� *_ l/ S :' - - r t. a y � J v Y'<Wi}/a di,.t,r.P•��x t'3 �rL��*: �} sr•4t 4-w � ° .�� If�i.A �� r.lV rrA .r1 laJl;ll.l 1i -r ` F �.t F{it�l.j`N t'I 7 Nd ly fin„ 'a .,.'r , .Y., .Cr -^,.' .- .,r:.� J .,,�, 1 �,_`L .,a yd, 1 # `` ., r r..� ."M�! v'y(K""•eVr'� 4 ..�": ... Z'` ,.,.T � ": �;�� .y,�• - t•" _ 4 9 ..,�., 1 �' S p.`.I..a,,�' Mr A G t J a 4' f xrJ�,� �t1 I t, -.i�, T 't s '., R r4 a '� Y=:•. 'r y, 1 Y;?kt r ... �i!:-• r.,Y a y,.s .,.: z t. r � t•� i",i , 1 � i� a� _ r� '"t'r!iG�Wy7d t�� t ;t. ;��•Y•'�+'t"n+;i:E zt;�" iC,M'k{ Ct# y1, . '�. r �' 3- .+.. # 1� 'Y. r r4-t '� _ -'' tl �a w, -. Q4 x°.,<`!.F P r`��''�• � 6 V �.E r1�,+• p 37 ��t}� �e , ��" � .�.�: �� y4Sltl� ;,��,�rnl r,��.l itI �° �� s'r'` .. rt�'' �I��'r�}�f�j��r�{�h':i:l f r G 5Fl{ ill: Nt # r l terr .r y a L �` �� e F n. - tr _, 1�IIIIIIIIIPIII k , 4. rZ + 'jj` - �.:,a;x" r'4-..yt' .: ;.. �. .. .. •, t x r t:;, 5, n1 i°er ��? a � V, e#::.. S - �:' 1 qu t r 1 I .. � � �=�.,.. � r. 1 y.5•,.p-a tl '�. r � ..a � � � r t r�, ,a x,-. i e st-IA I., 5 { y {,�.. w U�' °5.•,:f 1'f��+ r� -ry � "�� .I t- ti '# a •',.s - �T,' 't:. `' � r '�' tY.•�'t g tl�g�,:gl�� r r['i$ yJ� I F i + 5f. � - 4 1 .I:.o - E✓J` to# ` r fe� a+ .l _ ;;: f+1�e• m a" pI •, �i. r' , .>`!��;� _ ,',?r / -' r, �i•• ,L t'r t d. d /�e �- '�1 I .4•i i'r r Y'� i;V. i .� J1; .�' .•Te�- r u �r t d• t ,a }� �: .rrl'�`4 d t:. � ,r. 9 ,� �' .. ..,#<,`T t „5;i1�, '`1Y;-"v bl 'as: Iy z y e "�, � '...,ya+trft;. 'I'1Ss '..• t *fY. ",.�i'.:� n °Au .�+y.;# �' °r, °✓• � t. •rro Ci •� 5 1 }a + I' I I y r . LL., PW r,r�y� 117: ♦ M° y ^F s 44 -" .�}+., r..Y;:. �t L::.. i t �a t.?' .: t :- 'a....# �':.� rf 'C'.B r� ¢"•�-yy;;.,� - �p� +t'.• �,�° .b '� I., r _; ..:: '' _.,.� S f-...T � "r.,..,_,_ �a r•a• .'rrl F a" ��: �_ ;� .q r ..�. ,/ ,l .,�,a.,v.. � _T .<,`a- - e --��_-�-:-. :_ -r' �� ` r ► t t / ':;� � �r �'� L6l r..., rS-•,�.=' - "', *j� ..M1._,.,.. I"a.;,. ,� ®_ 1 ��ta�,' y'��. .I/„ r- a i + .,,s y / � r #1 I, tea..:,.ti_...:a. � ,�Yaa "• ,....� -_ �,��w #.�31t.`F:��`. �r �a:r:r. ...t=� a .! .�i �' 1�, _,."'1r ,I��1�.� � tr'e j � .t.� S f • — M• 3 �B� - r�� ,Now � "fx+ w.., 1 �tn It�y�1r:: •' "°e:F," �..� •nZ 'i x 7� a' ''' 0.+r:' ` � ..- _;. _..-. - ..� }'- • a'ac�rhMmtifl�.1 '�,•g - -', y` - a.._Ls'Y d - r_..�. 71 wm 4 5 ,i e (`D I " , f 1 , 7 Ir 1 � WOO 41 fftjl 1G (yh, r: i , a � 1 �. p _. ,� `s�rt � l4�'i,y 11 r yl�� (I is-.J I'I I, - •%��. a L� '_.. ,�. � .: �.'.till/'• r1'.C! � � ,. K : '.�,0. - _ I _ • : i v,;.. .. -: - '. .. F: - ',' i .,;r.•,; ., �. gym. , { r � 1 r tr'•5 'j:I }Ir.i.1 f 11- 1 :41� i 3 '1� � qC- ` ,I�r f, mj:at�A(:'°u,i.� ,C 2-sf�3,4 4 4 rV,,G''�'i �F 4r IC• y. i .sa+o 1�yy1 Y! r P,. �t f r•Si r i?7� '�.,. ,�5.N?i[' ... '1 1 �i rL�{v 51- w Y'1; Ii( IX 1�:��'.'= /` :v:.,. a y ((�:!'atii��( 't t., yiup�„N��:l ylt.��r N��..A 01C„ yy 1✓t, f ' C�. : �: "d €rein�.' - � / :�_ - r •� �� .S,•�.��I' _ !f I� ��1 17 I '.' �i ! ry ldib r 1 _r D Id _ T - 1 ._j • fi i j I I t f F I�Yd � 4 fll a I) ! 4 if 1 r � c s 4 I �ik�fr ?,`r I � vj .... .-: 1,:., � ':ji r.� / �F4,4'`'L� •, .a^.,`5}> p e'' V qq 'f 1 Y IY+ 4t n :.`� ,�hsS.vcl"�',f y fj4 1::a✓te_.!*w.+l�i.:e.: /w_,...w,w:» a r 1�I F 1: ._- ti ,: �r.Ygli• M1 1i�Y"1. 1 r _ -_` W �` i• � 7 t r k Y a ' B F � d "......• .. JII•., ..�. .. e '1 .. ,.. ..,. a ., .._.:_. 1. _ ._ .1 ... - .n I..., a •,"•_ _ '...• .,. .; _. '; -_+ .._- � m-..�s. ..e. ,.. '1k i..a,.4•... � „y � - '-_d * C - �, t - -:e n ,, .,Y • d F e �Y p, �� 5��1 1 W �++ '9 �d �J l � ,.. �, .. _ - _ . .•� tom$.a;y,,-Y t i"# �''�r �`,... � � ,� � ;�il r , e u .ry rr- ri Y P v y ,.¢ �'.. PY�r")1 r 4.., a �..,r•-- '/ TJ : 1 -t - a� � - �:: / c I i �'�'� w`w�`a`'+kw1. .s:aL.uif-„•--"--Lwau.. �- t-- .� ^x f":y � °1 -� �_p - 11 k >W�_S: fi °� •"'r I d Lf F�yl I ix li' i :. -. n ,�•F �,-.� P - � - Y..' '''. h�� f Vm 6p1ti>� '� tJ f )v� !q �rf 1 I �' '+ ? -.� X ., -- • '• �' �� e -'/� y � �`1��tl't�� Y7�\„fin:f l tV ': Y Y 1 '`a a s •, kr; '/,,,'i 1�T '�• N q{t`\ ,1 Fit lr r � t •`" I - f � � y„ 4,y 16Yryj 4•°t .yams• Fy1 yd��s 1 . ,a f `4'� 73 w 1 a•,;.'.�,r�,yr.Jrf ,. ... ,. '. ..., _ `,..: �- ,. { - - u" ( ex _7,�„ �� 4P f ?.;.¢�:, ue .mT • S w u �'. -'.. • .p ._ r, e'- 1 G� 1.. 1 / J t.li I IC-f„ _- =.� '�`. e d 1. .. 1 � s.,a„ € •' ,. ; 4 I�,:' t.L f t .,Ib �'- q\i �i pr II� ! t� it 'v 14 s a r - , 1 P a lb'.'• 46 ................ �-o VA .# �_ p,�l.t (u f I I k. t� i '"s ry t �f �\', la '14 I u,(i•�% .. � - _ n3 i l ,t r !ir, �11>�' s ;� `�c..`',�W�. 'c t'fi ;,f F y�J�4�d,,�'�{��✓jut+d t��u � ��y �• :`� .1._. � t,p• .�., •.,, � _. _ - �: �,r.,,,'; ��A��aa,, i,1 M1,�� wr I 1 ,� II _. 5;;� �af�/f:i�'�I"GK��Ir��'pO�l it a y,-xFy�. bl.k+ �j F'FN�'r?!'d �11�o f f' i �� J Wyy,✓""•r�a. ., ,.,, � ., ,;R;..' .- �� iYa{S��`�' ��{L�4 i.�^o�ta,>,u1v: ✓j,�� ' $ _..,_ ;. .'' .' .. iglv`"f��aS,,�� ,W �twyy`j.,� t t,•',� I Q� _ �y ' �>��+ .. "� ;;wr•' M1�tS y��i2�)k.'} „\� R: :cU,ns., .S _ - , ' nr, rf 'a'bll I w as a v ,— e 7 � : E r y � r�K,l�:i r: _ J x r -. e a , . a a k - s .,.. � � 4 ,,. r... .w. i -0w..r•"�'tlF.ry�,.r., x � 4 { _.. !`p, - .y ,, .r ' •' — ..... -':6 r: �ry ,I i e .. d _ J e 3 aA�• Wry ,- a 4u "r F I .. d�- ;i F' 't 5t-. •:Y` `� :�,�+ uR `4� n �.:. � i� { f.r" �'L � !� .. r+�. � ' t ._ t.e•e k i c- R 1� d ti J � i d J ...:' °.::: ,. y,'i :- t^_.a ':. ,'. ''. -�...' :, '• .. .: s r. �. R Sf �J tiY�`il:re r`/Vt�+�'n b �} a �1'� � �2iT, 7?� '^ �J- 61 g., 3. � T � w� �. � t, 1 v,P, :,Ifi fI .+' F�b��'��M 4�"+• Il t'..� � `fl.,l,!I%. ,> , r 1 Ir - d Y n t i II : V4 r R - 6 ,.-.. ,•�h �, ,. �' , J .t ,, � 3 F'1'd�Fn}i Y s _ F � "o x a:. 1 , oa l ? I i 9 ... 1, .. w „#> . a '� �' .ir • r. .. 1 r w <� ` � (sy� f N" �G,.��.rariro' `��,� jr�C�WE�'" �.•' �,% roe - 'w.�"'�v'r a n:t,�-b 1 , 1 _ a • Z..ram '1 s , n j' .`: .,.• , �r �l � ,.e,.v+r a r - 11(y {,I�f'wyir3 ': '� f.• y ...:. > .�d��t "(� �1 I.A,j, ' �. -1 ar-' .. _ ;�✓t avy�yrws 1 I 4 r r - f 9 , p i 47 — -1.— Ar �s •'� F A d 10 r11. �i i Ij WC".Y�NPl1e A y dv. „ i � _ 3 1'-., t �_,.+} I 'a �r�,f -^� -° s� P*^ � 1 N��I��111to•�`r f[ a 1 ytr Y i- >d-. l aspP r -n -X a„D : r ��r�� it �� 1)�1 d� � ®A�Q � n � iA'e tf1a��++J��Jv t � V 3 ✓ 'T-;��A i J 1 a 4 v 8 r�nY � i�t' 'n J rF 4,l,. !� r,J ,.. v$ la 1 J > ;( FJ• r 0 ,• ' V ,r� -„•� ��•sl .i ��',� i!1{rrs4�'"�" }�xr f,rjl�la4 i',R', k!'1 Pv "t :�y d�: t�r�ll (w �'� � �. r {,�� ` - I �f y 1 a { 1 1 9 11 1 I1 t 1_1 �. r . _ s s, 9 ' tG'slll�f a >r f"E�h 34 n1 41 x } rr s s'•� i �{ t r! �� ti 6' r r'r ,vs a ,,,, t ✓ rr � II -T � t, 6 r l r � ( SI a • � -•�' y P 4mvu1P.�� s ' .! 4 - ,M � +�4•A�'I^ �•y, F�( ��f S 5 44r ,I r�j?nL i .t a, : I /`JAL, .;;4 4 f 4 �� ` (,ni��;f�� rn�rl hq r*uR +• !h t r ti rj r } IdD yy ; r� r , 'J: %,J „'10 L� lorY. t .., Y ••� F�� .. r, 4 f, �v{ �.� lt�,t. as r v f ��;� y^ J. �J� .•v+��i91s �(1I I1 ^� J�. ��. �f oGi.,. �.. ,�w/!'. :1r:, - l L>a' I�'��4 u%'i�} tv 9: e`�. ✓,+•. ' � ,.'�� 1��.. .� ��'';-'_s �7.�4%�. Rey►ll�ll0 1.�" � I.1e`�. ^; ,, N t'+dL��.rr.el. ;• ' •, 1 ct #,;� 'K�St.;xa r �+.,��;:�a�• ,. t�`.�,. ;,'tt`�� . ilf��o/ ,/ - -r(� A'� ' j:;; ., N� �� ^V4y:l �t. �..,�.:: , r.�, ,_ V,,7�" �`�� •t.m '�J, i"�i6Y !�1� t �.ri'.,� '��D! `'�" .�1+1, Y•��' �, v �t . 't 1 .q! "'{.iS"1�'` •.it .li .� Y.,: O��r :t - ��•' �VL��\aff 7�/ -x� - �,�i1� d7,' tt..�*.-•• � �P �A r - r fi •,•.:� t.'-. �. h4 ;, I is i �! III; fi,.. 1 w� f 1 t 1 Y r ,.�.kb.: : '•`' ' --' .,;:;L. ., :�; _. :': �. :Y _ ._.. � - ''�1 a"1..1 q,QaM1vM.t o.:, . j LJ >u I pvf :. } I' .�� .�, tf ,.t ,►rN`.` a n'i �� r: �f 6 r��) _ 1 -t:''�y �l.l I rats FY n _�ilH li ± ri �A� \�.. ;`- ` ' ,� � :� • 1a' «�.�., $ _t .,d..,.. ...,Y� -.:''-s. �i ,r'-:�IJ�." a,,, �!'•- �ehl' a �`t`�!-Yr:-,r r 1 I+ en�f ;o. z.Ya. ni ± - / t i e. e a.• � ? R Y. �+'�i.., ^�I�Y p 1, 'Y: 1, t; :'�' !. . i' .� ,. '.\.. -1, ', �di •. .e a a� ,.,,1 .., j a a e.r.�t: SAY'�l�r{"(`,4`,"'..,�;,.., :.. ..w" _ - s ye: �e 5'� rr- �\. _ �5 �. .�r'�.��d-':..:: ,•./ x yy , � Y )�'�r' � kt y ��Q�It .t,.�Jl,�/ ) ""✓"n I r .�� d.„r .. - 61 A Zoo Wo '._ _ ,.• -. 'kid p �� _ �, -� " ,,g wF^""""' .„.A�' �. :. ,,..I��r �� .. �,� �• i't • t '11 y�lYr ,_r:: h .e� ... .,. • w i ,,a:�� _�:... ::-, .�. .. ;:y:. _: ••.v, a 4 ��, ,� "ter, S�,n' 7;ry,.rt� t�,��s .. ,� : ,�;, d _ .. r___ ,. - _ _ - _ j ,f"a 61P•T .SSA 1 G nI IYL.'.':j a..�. yiiy �� 't.x:, " ;: � .�,:. •.. ,.' '�.. - !",l7Ynfy�7p��':'r"k`�ettrF6'l P tri4rp� � 1 � ry� -r yi. 1 e .r,�►. t' d � _ � �Y trs� H, w., Y a tti x^. '1 l 11 ._ V f t A �p� •it w� r-.'' .�.- w' .- �: -� .:� �iX'M Y Qi� ru F T � F%a f a/ y'M a'>- '�"ea'.�• �'�a MK• ��x.,� �' ' �' .. "� 4boL, .o.'. I' 4 ♦� µ. .� ., ... � k � ' V I1.M!rh111pRvaa�..'.•<� M. ;' rl �-•. wwte 77 1 r Fa Y .. ' .... pr �"' �, °� 1,�. � p,<'"� S r,. '' Y• n �� '..' � /Al N '�� l�.a,�y�� _. \� ��' ; 4 .._:lam[ < /1 �t -:, rr\A��, �r�'�.• f�-/�`I �7 a P r . � ®t:^ ♦'v'rY�,v 4. . � �L��I.st�$ ,,��1��:.$ r p !3 '� iF VII qja 11,{�.,Y14, �d`, �rll1 afl/ ,al ��$rl 1, �l�' � a a t•"� � a ,' Y i 1 ` it (� �� , F� �� &t� dj A I ��1�`?i J J" I p%�11 ��7 1` I•j.x e, p (o .! �a A n ATTACHMENT # 11 use 2 T-Mobile i n_&a I Accumulated Customer Complaint aD 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Communit UMC �p ........ ............._.,., .._..........y,, . ,.,.._ Date Year Time lat_decimal lon_decimal Issue phone_model call type recurring _._....,....v-.. -...__ _. 04/11/05 05 16:13:00 °33.709344 -118.007054 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to- obile Y M 04/09/05 0601:32:16 33.710225 -118,003866 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 IMobile-to-Land Y� F04l11/05 05 22:12:04 33.710438 ;-118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Other Network not available N '04/12/05 05 18:07:30 33.71376 -118.006662 Poor Voice Quality SamsungE315 IMobile-to-Mobile 09/23/05 05 20:26:28 =33.7107 -118.010375 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 04/12/05 05� 16:13:11 33.710225 A 118.003866 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y -- 04/11/05 05 12:38:42 i3 33.71332052 118.015963 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y '04/12/05 05 21:15:21 133,710438 118.003866 ;Poor Voice Quality Samsung X105 Network not available N 04/12/05 05 16:10:54 �33.710225 118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Mobile IY 3 _....-.......... '04/11/05 05 21:30:10 133,711535 -118.023838 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 €Mobile-to-Land �Y mmMw mm 104/12/05 105 21:14:27 j33.710438� -118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Samsung X105 Network not available N 106/06/05 05 22:29:31 f33.71331333 -118,0038079 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 08/26/05 05 20:03:44 133.71376 118.006662 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/09/05 a05 16:26:15 133.718653 -118.0087 77 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Network not available Y �04/11/05 05 23:51:01 133.715729 -118.00269 :Poor Voice Quality Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Land (Y g.. ..__.w........ _' 1 6.:2 8:3 6 I33.70929 11 8.012552 Poor Voice Quality HP iPAQ h6315 Pocket PC ;Mobile-to-Land �N 04/09/05 05 304/08/O5 05 00.44:50 133.710225 -118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Land-to-Mobile N 01/25l05 05 16,1523 ;33.710696 118.022536 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �4/TiTO_56_5 4/06/05 05 19:03:06 33 714645 -118.016438 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y w....m..a ...__. 1'3-7--0016:15 €33.71376 -118.006662 'Poor Voice Quality Ericsson T610 IMobile-to-Land Y 04/09l05 05 21:40:52 `33.718684 118.023349 =Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile }Y 04/12/0505 185304 E33.719832 118.019766 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Land Y I-...,..,_...._w__._W........... 105/29/05 05 00:46:36 I33.7188 -118.017672 3Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V180 IMobile-to-Land Y i 04/09/05 05 16:44:30 33.718653 -118.008797 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile N M4/11/05 05 182842 133.719832 -118.019766 Poor Voice Quality Samsung R225 Network not available Y 04l11/05 b05 19:30:20 33.716142 -118,013982 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile Y t.._..._....._.. W- ' -118.023437 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung R225 Network not available Y (04/20/05 05 i05 13;46,288 133.718795 I . ._ 03/17/05 05 10:48:21 j33.72089 -118.014039 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile N I04/12/05 05 _ 15:45:01 33,72399776 -118.027866 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y I 112l02/05 05 1701:48 133.71876388 -117.9969167 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Land Y ;04/10/05 05 12:34:26 133.72272453 118.001034 1 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available N Page 1 of 10 T-Mobile j I_._.,....__�.....__ _ Accumulated Customer Complaint 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Communi UMC 104/11/05 05 19:5708 =33.7209 4415 -118.0 00412 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile 1Y 04/12/05 05 _ 01:26:11 i 33,72358376 -117.998718 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6610 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/08/05 05 01:11:13 133.72197915 "7179-99356F Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 -Mobile-to-LandY ;04/12/05 05 1310:46 33.72286 118.00466 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land IY €11/16/05 .05_ 16:34:44 33.72276176 -118.0122648 Call SetupFailure at least one signal bar Samsun x475 Mobile-to-Mobile Y ( 9 ) 9 iO4/14/05 05 22:26:07 33.72402753 -118.0107682 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) HP iPAQ h6315 Pocket PC Mobile-to-Mobile Y 10/23/05 05 21 22:42 '33.721975 118.000327 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y !01/14/05 i05 15 43 47 33.729054 -118,019384 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V180 Land-to-Mobile Y i02/17/05 s05 16:24:47 E33.72935594 -118.010659 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Land Y ;0 .-4/09/05 05 22:30:05 33.72579235 -118.0022097 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung v205 Mobile-to-Land Y i 6 �05118705 05 202939 33.729945 -118.019532 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y 1 08/06/05 05_ 174007 33.72609456 -118,0098674 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Network not available Y j'T8/,. 08/09/05 05 14:55:01 33.721827 -118.013577 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y 102/13/05 05 15:25:40 33.725174 -118,014926 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y j 4/12/05 05 1052:34 33.72579494 118.0066054 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/12/05 05 1412:38 33.73210874 -118.0 004583 Poor Voice Quality RIM BlackBerry 7100t Network not available IY 07/20/05 05 1501;01 33.729945 -118.019532 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V600 Network not available Y 104/11/05 (05 -, 18713:24 133.72277576 -118.0011514 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04/11/05 05 19:17:48 133.72167794 -117.9958709 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 104/07/05 05 _ 15:42:00 33.72589915 -118,0064801 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y ?10/05/05 05..-__.. 16:19:58 33.731946 -118.014751 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 1Mobile-to-Land Y 10/17/05 05 1_7,08-.1 T 33,72568 774 -118.0080177 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Land-to-Mobile Y 10/29/05 05 12:19:14 33.7346129 -118.0194173 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Ericsson T-610 Mobile-to-Land Y 11/05/05 05 10:50:53 33.73115415 -118.0040748 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 12/15/05 05 16:30:05 33.729945 -118,019532 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 09/18/05 05........ 21:52:34 33J35438 118.016504 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6610 Network not available Y 03/03/05 05 11:38:28 33.729054 -118.019384 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) RIM BlackBerry 7100t Mobile-to-Land Y 104/08/05 05 23: 77:59 33.7257 4494 -118,0069814 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y z04/12/05 05 14:54:25 33.72547974 -118.0010818 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 06/13/05 05 23:09:05 E33.729945 -118.019532 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y 104/08/05 05 20:49:10 33.72540153 -117.9973161 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E315 iMobile-to-Mobile Y ?04/11/05 05 23:50:31 (33.72578535 -118.0007318 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile Y Page 2 of 10 T-Mobile �_ Accumulated Customer Complaint�a 1 _Mile Radius From LA33421 CommunitvUMC ... _ — _ ..�. 04/12/05 =05 21:28:02 133.73140233 118.002048 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 3595 Network not available Y .....a._.a 3 ._. 05/03/05 05 17:17:59----3�33.730005. �-118.00308 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 � Mobile-to-Mobile IY ;10/22/05 05 22:28:03 ,33.729945 -118.019532 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/06/05 05 21:00:14 i33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Mobile N t04%06/05 05 23:03:14 33.715424 -118.012048 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y b�04/09/05 05 010328 33,715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile .Y =04/09/05 05 12:16:03 33.713007 -118.008932 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6610 Mobile-to-Mobile iY ( --4 0 0 /10/05 05 15:29:50 3171415615 -118.019913 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04/11/05 05 17:4419 33.71565 -118.00662 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 3595 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/11/05 05 18:35:47 33. 11545 _ -118.00 4405 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available N 03/31/05 05 22:04;25 33.72334935 -118.0 224097 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/07/05 05 15:47:08 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 04/09/05 05 13:21:54 33.71446292 -118.0127736 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V600 Network not available N 04/09/05 05 23:30:11 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile N ;04/09/05 05 23:52:10 33.715642 -118.014482 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 04/10/05 05 13:24:22 33.72229204 -118,0043024 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land ly 04/12/05 05 00:19:37 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Samsung R225 Network not available �N 04/12/05 05 13:2836 33.715697 -118.007735 Poor Voice Quality Samsung v205 Mobile-to-Land Y _ mm w 157�35 w�33.71897 -118.0 00617 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Samsung X105 Mobile-to-Land Y µ(04/13/05 05 1 33.7 06/03/05 05 22:23;51 ! 1914433 -118.0007125 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 106/19/05 05 00:33:28 {33,733365 -118.014854 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6800 Mobile-to-Land Y 10/12/05 05 18:31:52 '33.715621 -118.019638 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung e335 Network not available Y j 02/07%05 05 18:02:16 33.727731 118.02 2284 Poor Voice Quality Sidekick II Network not available N 03/31/05 05 18:07:03 33.72443753 -118.0205505 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y J04/07/05 05 15:57:05 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available Y �04/09/05 05 14;30:57 ,33.72243528 -118.0029079 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available Y .m �04—/09/05 05 20:3607 33.711518 -118.005834 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y =04/10/00/05 05 16:58:46 33.715635 -118.016569 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Ericsson T-610 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �04/11/05 05 00:08:22 €33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Land Y `04/11/05 05 20:13:57 33,715372 -118.019335 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11/05 05 11:04:20 F33.71551 -118,00661 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/12/05 05 00:41:05 33.715424 -118.012048 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) RIM BlackBerry 7100t Network not available Y Page 3 of 10 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 104/12/05 t05 13:48:33 33.715642 -118.014482 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V180 Network not available Y 10/O8/05 05 16:16:30 33.723149 -118.018371 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Siemens CF62T Network not available Y 04/11/05 05 13:14:42 33,715417 -118,010946 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �04/12/05 05 12:30:20 33.715424 -118.012048 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y i�04/12/05 105 13:43:08 33.71297 -118.013859 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Palm One Treo 600 Network not available N 04/13/05 05 12:13:11 33.715642 -118.014482 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Mobile Y I04/14/05 05 14:55:31 33.715332 118.025262 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �06/04/05 �05 15:56:28 33.728479 -118,027938 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y 06/14/05 005 17:21:26-`�133.715372 -118.019335 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y €07/29/05 05 15:06:28 133,714535 -118.016127 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung R225 Network not available N 103/22/05 05 _ 01:46:01 33.733365 -118.014854 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola T722i Land-to-Mobile Y 104/07/05 105 16:00:14 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 104/09/05 05 19:29:39!33.71545 118.0153 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-land Y 04/10/05 U5 µ�_._-_ 17:1840 33.71897 -118.020617 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11/05 05 00:59:50 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11/05 05 14:54:05 33.718113 118.014897 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V66 Mobile-to-Land N 04/11/05 05 20:47:52 33.710145 -118.010453 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile N �04/12/05 05 22:3529 33.715417 -118,010946 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Mobile Y N/13/05 05 _ 1915066�33.73049846 -118.01 88447 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 3660 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 105/16/05 05mm 16:12:25 i33,715635 -118.016569 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 306/17/05 05 19:50:54 33.715372 -118.019335 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y '10/07/05 105 157 0:46 33.733295 118.006788 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y ';10/14/05 `05 121:05:35 33,72451612 -118.0116352 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung R225 Network not available Y 3 01/22/06 06 00 29:04 133.712185 118.022228 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung x475 Mobile-to-Mobile 1Y ..._.�......_......._.�.._.__._.—3-3 ___ 01l26/06 06 19:53:04 133.7218057_ -118.016589 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V330 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 12/27/06 06 14:28:55 33.719969 -118,019766 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/31/66 06 18:3055 33.72689 -118.014039 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Network not available Y I12/01/06 06 16:25:05 33.725017 -118.025988 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6030 myFaves Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/22/06 06 15:45:22 133.725473 -118.021012 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 107/17/06 06 _ 16:22:46 33.729936 -118.021457 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 111/03/06 06 12:30:46 33.729138 -118.01507 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y �25/06 06 03:43:14 33,735126 F118.017384 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile N Page 4 of 10 T-Mobile 3 _....__._ ... _. ._ Accumulated Customer Complaint Complaint@ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC _... .__..� �06/25/06 06 23:4920 33.727116 -117.99652 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land ly M8/28/06 06 20:39:04 33.731685 -118,010834 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t319 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/01/06 06 15:47:44 i33.729936 -118.021457 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung e635 Mobile-to-Mobile IY 12/15/06 06 16:36:16 33.731434 -118.000372 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola V188 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 04/23/06 06 21:05:08 133.729936 -118.021457 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land Y 05/05/06 06 12:25:04 33,7318939 -118.0141869 Poor Voice Quality Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Land Y 106/15/06 06 20:23:56 33.72615736 -118.0276257 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola L7089 Mobile-to-Land Y L. M/13/06 06 20:25:45 33.72067 -118,013564 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 102/23/06 06 12:00:32 33.7289835 -118.0215562 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 103/31/06 06 14:32:05 33.726899 -118.016001 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Land Y I'll---, _.r.... _... 108/20/06 06 15.2326 33.731946 -118.014751 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 108/22/06 06 18:25:06 33.734932 -118.007554 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/28/06 06 20:36:58 33.731685 -118.010834 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y j09/11/06 06 00:20:18 33,736145 -118.016177 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 09/28/06 06 22:30:01 33.729936 -118,021457 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-M obile&Land Y 101/22/06 06 20:46:07 33.73224445 -118.0236054 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Land Y 03/20/06 06_ 09:44:49 33.7215747 -118.0054821 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04/11/06 06 01:21:59 33.72326176 -118.011764H SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung X495 Network not available Y 102/28/06 06 12:27 29 33.730773 -118.017214 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 _ Mobile-to-Land Y 04/19/06 06 22:09:54 33.721417 -118.00567 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y 104/26/06 06 21:01:50 33,726675 -118.01927 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) RIM BlackBerry 7105t Mobile-to-Land Y 06/03/06 06 F17:36:48 33.733296 -118.016488 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 05/02/06 06 22 33,724546 -118.019421 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land06/18/06 06 56 33,7305173 -118.0025329 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land6 33 33.714564 -118.021724 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y j08/29/06 06 00:53:27 33.733295 -118.006788 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile SDA Network not available Y t 09/26/06 06 22:13:42 33.715392 -118.016027 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Sidekick II Network not available N 09/29/06 06 21:19:19 33.718141 -118.025806 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V360 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 12/23/06 06 15:45:05 33.715635 -118.017358 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 M obi le-to-M obile&Land Y _._�.. 103/08/06 06 01:05:34 33.70852172 -118.0148579 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Other Land-to-Mobile Y 103/17/06 06 18:37:05 33.72200735 -118.0149948 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Mobile Y ?06/29/06 06 _ 14:36.22 i33.724641 -118,000296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry 8700 Network not available Y Page 5 of 10 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 307/06/06 06 17:08:27 33.723149 -118.018371 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-M obile&Land Y 1 07/31/06 06 00:21:52 33.721186 -118.016359 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11/02/06 06 15:59:40 33.715625 -118.018608 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t309 Network not available Y :07/11/06 06 17;27,46 33.724641 -118.000296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) RIM BlackBerry 7105t Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 707/16/06 06 18:53:19 33.715621 -118.019638 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-M obi le&Land Y 07'2T- 06 15:59:54 i33.727875 -117.99731 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11/16/06 06 20:00.'08 s33.724546 -118.019421 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 12/06/06 06 054 33.71545 -118.007405 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 104/12/07 07m 00:24:23 33.714743 -118.021856 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t209 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 09/28/07 607 01:58:03 `33.713162 -118.016173 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land (Y 05l15/07 07 19:52:18 133.71377589 -118.0064978 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 6103 Mobile-to-Mobile N E04/26/07 i07 15:22:45 133,718566 -118.013542 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung X495 Network not available )Y 07/03/07 07 13:42:32 33.716115 -118.027798 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 04/24/0707 18:59:42 33,718785 118.001711 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t209 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ;07/16/07 07 16:44:38 33.716115 -118.027798 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Network not available Y i05/18/07 07 14:31:45 33.72185 -118.000254 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 8290 Mobile-to-Mobile Y €07/17/07 07 16:45:22 33,72286 -118.00466 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile Wing Network not available Y 05/08/07 07 120:43:00 33.72286 -118,00466 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 0$/11/07 07 _ [23:29:48 :45:17 33.722518 -117,99702 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t209 Network not available Y 106/05/07 07 :56:12 '33.72286 -118.00466 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t319 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land02/05/07 07 33.733262 -118.020766 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 05/19/07 07 :43:51 33.720363 -118.015895 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land iY 106/11/07 07 19:58:06 33.720625 118.012065 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V195 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 1/07 07 23:14:19 33,729945 -118.019532 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land 1Y 8/07 07 18:11;48 33.72286 -118.00466 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t319 Network not available _- 10/09/07 07 14:45:36 33.72181 -117.995772 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Network not available N j04/16/07 07 20:29:44 33.725203 -118.020144 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 07/02/07 07 14:10:49 33,731865 -118.016579 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 3220 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 07/31/07 07 15:13:13 33.72993 -118.022013 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/08/07 07 22:46:59 33.725785 -118.005854 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t209 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y '06/20/07 07 13:40:53 33.73004989 -118.0129507 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry 8700 Network not available Y =07/09/07 07 17:38:58 33.728405 118.015038 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land N Page 6 of 10 T-Mobile ,.. .... ..m �. Accumulated Customer Complaint 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC :......._.__.. ...._ _ _... _ .......... 08/11/07 07 14:10:07 33,734665 -118.020274 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t509s Plum Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y i 10/31/07 07 01:52:18 33.729945 -118,019532 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 22/28/ 77 07 15:41:08 33.731815 -118.020618 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry Pearl White Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ,03/19/07 07 10:31:27 33,729945 -118,019532 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 06/18/07 07 63.3010 33.734 665 -118,020274 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t509s Plum M obi le-to-Mobile&Land Y _ 106/27/07 07 20:05:25 33.729936 -118,021457 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile Wing Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 07/23/07 07 18:52:55 33.729945 -118.019532 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Network not available Y °04/09/07 07 14:31:59 33.720256 -118.001397 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 05/11/07 07 13:08:57 33.715424 -118.012048 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&La nd Y 07/20/07 07 19;1937 33.715621 -118.019638 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mob ile&Land Y 102/18/07 07 19:43:10 33.715621 -118.019638 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y iO4/15/07 07 13:26:38 33.730773 -118.017214 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 06/04/07 07 21:18:22 33.715635 -118.017358 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Other Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ?06/17/07 07 00;0734 33.715712 -118.005634 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 07/11/07 07 16:48:04 33.72291 -118.004551 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V330 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 108l17/07 07 20:20:38 33.715668 w -118.010837 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 5300 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11/14/07 07 20:47:38 (33.713997 -117.998876 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/11/07 07 _m 17:36:57 33.728456 -118.024109 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Sidekick Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 04/20/07 07 073710 33.715635 -118.017358 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t209 Network not available Y 06/11/07 07 14:51:00 33.732638 -118.020766 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Land-to-Mobile Y j07/14/07 07 22:34:14 33.715697 117.998385 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t309 Network not available Y i07/24/07 07 18:00:55 33.715621 -118.019638 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 20:53:4333.713029 rn -118.016304 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) - Blackberry Pearl(8100) Network not available Y 09/26/07 07 15:24:03 33.715424 -118.012048 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t509 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11/20/07 07 18:06:01 33.71897 -118.020617 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) MOTOKRZR Network not available Y 04/04/07 07 16:29:35 33,717905 -118.025809 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 04/19/07 07 09:55:10 33.715424 -118,012048 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 5/29/07 07 02:40:48 33.715644 -118.014287 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Trace t519 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y _._._... .._53H !0731/07 07 10;5329 33.715621 -118,019638 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/21/07 07 16:01:20 33.715635 -118.017358 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 11/02/07 07 12*47:22 33.726522 118,024216 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t329 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 09/15/08 08 2132:39 3�3 70879314 118.0092589 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y Page 7 of 10 T-Mobile _ _ Accumulated Customer Complaint 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 CommunityUMC 12/11/OS08 _ 12:5258 33.71027009 118.0054071 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 6133 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 09/12/08 108 00:10:55 133.71838287 -118,0009329 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titanjut Network not available Y 10/13/08 08 23:46:31 133.71994587 -118.004564 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Sidekick(2008) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 112/02/08 108 _ 22:02:58 '33.71977406 -118.0000571 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6030 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 107/09/08 08 22:07:19 133.72166482 -118.0151876 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung Blast Mobile-to-Mobile&Land 1N 112/10/08 08 12:58:47 33.72402337 -117.9958028 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung Beat Network not available Y _.,,_,,,...__,..,,, _...,,,,,,.._...._._._.. 7:-..w ,_�-.,--,_.�,0-16_,-._ _ �07/11/08 08 01:37:27 33.72375016 -118.0257796 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry 8700 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y l 09/10/08 08 2053:46 33.7216232 -118.004772 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Sidekick II Mobile-to-Mobile&Land 1Y 161768/58 08 154809 33.726899 -118.016001 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y r04/02/08 08 21:24:45 33,73103033 -118.0158099 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y }05/25/08 08 19:42:59 33.72062 -118.00451 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 07/15/ 8 -68 _ 1347: 66 33.72 5581— 718.0234 551 Poor Voice Quality Samsung x475 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 111/14/08 O8 19:3028 33.73132775 -118.0241121 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y _ 09/23/08 O8 18:45:09 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) MOTORIZR Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ' _..__......._ 118.0107991 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) T-Mobile Dash Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/21/08 08 20:15:19 33.73213311 ,...,. ._F- _.m.._ 4. _—�m. 12/04/08 08 20:4648 33.72597471 -117.9975405 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 301/21/08 08 12:38:26 33.73104 -118.016178 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y i08/31/08 08 11:18:04 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung T719 Mobile-to-Land Y 10/28/08 08 17:45:59 33.729 11738 -1 88.0240 441 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) MOTORIZR Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 112/16/08 08 19:34:55 33.73436774 -118.0173559 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Pearl 8120 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land }Y �03/25/68 08 23:2251 33.72062 -118.00451 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 5300 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/30/08 08 11:45:09 33.72569566 -118.0209954 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/30/08 08 17:27:36 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land 'Y 11/26/08 08 17:59:30 33.72707802 117,9969211 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile G1 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 102/19/08 08 23:30:59 €33.7180482 -118.0103795 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 09/29/08 108 09:58:49 '33.71557543 -118.0213181 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile Wing Network not available Y 10/15/08 08 W 11:33:43 33.73324974 -118,0067678 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 105/08/08 08 19:5952 33,715399 -118.0136414 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 6133 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 07/08/08 08 15:06:40 33.71934147 -118.0197459 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �08/04/O8 08 � 22 5136 33.71566482 � -118.0094119 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 1� 0/21/08 08 19:14:05 33.71562575 -118.0139185 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titaniu Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 06/28/09 09 _ 13:45:28 33.70934852 -118.0108941 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Network not available Y Page 8 of 10 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 10/20/09 09 21:31:30 33.70865517 -118.0146576 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t229 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 06/11/09 09 17:55:52 33.70934852 -118.0108941 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 06 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/02/09 09 15:52:25 33.71989 -118.0045 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titaniu Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/21/09 09 12:35:53 33.7197 -118.0197459 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t409 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y '_�._ . 104/13/0-0 9 09 18:04:43 33.71989 -118.0045 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Sidekick(2008) Land-to-Mobile Y 0 6/16/09 09 22:39:32 33.71772286 -118.0239239 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&land Y 104/15/09 09 21:25:56 33.71849459 -118.0007877 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Samsung Katalyst T739 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 12/05/09 09 20:07:53 33.72080378 -118.0065991 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile N 05/05/09 09 23:40:28 i33.72987235 -118.0249457 Poor Voice Quality Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/03/09 09 17:12:07 33.72606049 -118.0093932 Poor Voice Quality T-Mobile Shadow Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 04/19/09 09 _ 17: 77:19 33.73148517 -118.0119124 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 06 Network not available Y 01/28/09 09 20:18:08 33.72991517 -118.0194924 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Network not available N ! 5/28/09 09 02:20:17 33.72033086 -118.0165527 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Other Network not available Y 110/04/09 09 13:4253 33.72527379 -118.0211197 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 111/30/09 09 02:01:38 33.7291471 -118.0240941 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8520(Black) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 12/16/09 09 14:52:24 33.72909188 -118.0194923 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung T719 Network not available N '04/22/09 09 23:54:31 33.72725366 -117.9973642 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 05/06/09 09 18:09:00 33.727 -118.0271341 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V360 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N '; _._._ - 04/10/09 09 13:10:50 33.7299061 -118,0214269 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titaniu Mobile-to-Mobile Y 12/02/09 09 11:46:03 33.73543715 -118.0082341 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 12/21/09 09 13:38:49 33.73321193 -118.0067702 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �03/14/09 09 To.0901 33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/12/09 09 23.50:44 33.715 00517 -118,012055 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6133 Network not available Y 04/05/09 09 115:56:21 33,72413517 -118.0283624 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry 8820 Mobile-to-Land Y 05/09/09 09 20:57:32 33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile G1 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 06/26/09 09 _ 13:52:15 33.72785979 -118.0209909 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Gold) Network not available Y 09/28/09 09 18:2452 33.72141482 -118.0 556324 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/05/09 09 15:17:25 33.71535589 -118.0184871 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) T-Mobile Dash Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 110/14/09_09 18:53:29 33.71540517 -118.012055 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/27/09 09 19:59:27 33.71549306 -118.0118437 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 111/09/09 109 I1222:28 33.7276 4482 -118,0068216 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung T339 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 09/13/09 09 14:14:52 33.7214 -118.00296 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile N Page 9 of 10 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint qR 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC '09/29/09 '09 21:47:31 33.70993964 -118.0146927 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Highlight t749 Mobile-to-Land Y ;10/10/09 09 22:30:43 33.71954749 -118.0205875 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile ?Y 11/05/09 09 18:16:08 33.72145236 118.019643 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 Network not available Y iO4/09/09 09 17µ40:50 33.72413517 -118.0283624 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry 8800 M obile-to-Mobile&Land Y 06/12/0909 11:40;08 !33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V195 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/15/09 €09 20:56:16 33,7214 -118.00296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land IN ;08/26/09 09 11:42:04 33.72126816 11 8.003 065 7 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Gold) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10/19/09 09 12:37:55 33.71535589 -118,0184871 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile Dash Network not available N 04l28/0909_ _ 17:48:52 33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V195s Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 108/07/09 09 14:08:26 33,73267785 -118.0207768 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N i08/26/09 09 23:58:37 33.71535589 -118,0184871 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Network not available Y 09/25/09 09 19:39:53 33.71540517 -118.012055 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 (Network not available Y 11/12/09 09 22:22:12 ,33.7214 -118.00296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Katalyst T739 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y i01/15/10 10 13:28:16 33.70981 -118.0064441 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Other Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 101/ 10 12:07:44 33.71910102 -118.029272 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile myTouch Mobile-to-Land Y /08/10 � Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT # 12 JERROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM ®HEALTH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSULTING* 7784 Oak Bay Circle Sacramento,CA 95831 (800) 760-8414—jbushberg@hampc.com T-Mobile Inc. September 11, 2009 Santa Ana Office , Attn: Lena Hoffineyer 1 ` tS 1 14� 1 3 Imperial Promenade Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707-5908 Huntington 8ouch PLANNING D PT. Introduction At your request, I have reviewed the technical specifications and calculated the maximum cumulative radiofrequency, (RF), power density from the proposed T-Mobile(TM)wireless telecommunications site, (referenced as LA33421-A), to be located at 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, California as depicted in attachment one. This proposed TM telecommunication site will consist of a Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless facility. The facility will utilize directional transmit panel antennae configured in three sectors. The antennae are planned to be mounted on a mono-palm with their center at least 50.0 feet above grade directed at 40 (sector A), 130 (sector B), and 240(sector C) degrees true north. The antennas specified are Andrew Inc. model#TMBX-6516-R2M for all sectors. Technical specifications of these antennae are provided in attachment two. The sectorized antennas are designed to transmit with an effective radiated power(ERP)of up to 800 watts per sector within a bandwidth between approximately 1,710 and 2,155 MHz. Calculation Methodology,Results & Recommendations Calculations were made in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (edition 97-01) entitled "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." Several assumptions were made in order to provide the most conservative or "worse case"projections of power densities. Calculations were made assuming that all channels were operating simultaneously at their maximum design effective radiated power. For public exposure at ground level, attenuation(weakening) of the signal that would result from surrounding foliage or buildings was ignored. Buildings can reduce the signal strength by a factor of 10 (i.e., 10 dB) or more depending upon the construction material. The ground or other surfaces were considered to be perfect reflectors (which they are not) and the RF energy was assumed to overlap and interact constructively at all locations (which they would not)thereby resulting in the calculation of the maximum potential I exposure. In fact, the accumulations of all these very conservative assumptions will significantly overestimate the actual exposures that would typically be expected from such a facility. However, this method is a prudent approach that errs on the side of safety. The maximum public RF exposure from this TM facility was calculated to be less than 1.1 µW/cm' (i.e., —0.1 %of the public safety standard at 1,850 MHz). Exposure details are shown in appendix A. A sign conforming to with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol and content, and other markings as appropriate, should be placed close to the antennas with appropriate contact information in order to alert maintenance or other workers approaching the antenna to the presence of RF transmissions and to take precautions to avoid exposures in excess of FCC limits. RF Safety Standards The two most widely recognized standards for protection against RF field exposure are those published by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI) C95.1 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and measurement(NCRP) report#86. The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide expert analysis of a variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all forms. The scientific analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory community both nationally and internationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health regulations currently in existence can trace their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the NCRP. All RF exposure standards are frequency-specific, in recognition of the differential absorption of RF energy as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are associated with those frequencies that are most readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption occurs at approximately 80 MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous occupational exposure at this frequency is 1,000 uW/cm2. This compares to 5,000 uW/cm2 at the most restrictive of the PCS frequencies(-1,800 MHz)that are absorbed much less efficiently than exposures in the VHF TV band. The traditional NCRP philosophy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the general population compared to occupationally exposed individuals,prompted a two-tiered safety standard by which levels of allowable exposure were substantially reduced for"uncontrolled " (e.g., public) and continuous exposures. This measure was taken to account for the fact that workers in an industrial environment are typically exposed no more than eight hours a day while members of the general population in proximity to a source of RF radiation may be exposed continuously. This additional protection factor also provides a greater margin of safety for children, the infirmed, aged, or others who might be more sensitive to RF exposure. After several years of evaluating the national and international scientific and biomedical literature, the members of the NCRP scientific committee selected 931 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on which to base their recommendations.The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous public exposure at PCS frequencies to 1,000 uW/cm2. 2 The 1992 ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28)under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled "IEEE Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" (IEEE C95.1-1991), was issued in April 1992 and subsequently adopted by ANSI. A revision of this standard (C95.1-2005)was completed in October 2005 by SCC 39 the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. Their recommendations are similar to the NCRP recommendation for the maximum permissible exposure(MPE)to the public PCS frequencies (950 uW/cm2 for continuous exposure at 1,900 MHz)and incorporates the convention of providing for a greater margin of safety for public as compared with occupational exposure. Higher whole body exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time-weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned limits. On August 9, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) established a RF exposure standard that is a hybrid of the current ANSI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible exposure values used to assess environmental exposures are those of the NCRP (i.e.,maximum public continuous exposure at PCS frequencies of 1,000 uW/cm' ). The FCC issued these standards in order to address its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." In as far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), the FCC utilized their rulemaking procedure to consider which standards should be adopted. The FCC received thousands of pages of comments over a three-year review period from a variety of sources including the public, academia, federal health and safety agencies (e.g., EPA & FDA)and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the recommendations by the federal health agencies because of their special responsibility for protecting the public health and safety. In fact,the maximum permissible exposure (MPE)values in the FCC standard are those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates various elements of the 1992 ANSI and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widely accepted and technically supportable. There are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by other national and international organizations and governments, most of which are similar to the current ANSUIEEE or NCRP standard, figure one. The FCC standards "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation" (Report and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSUIEEE definitions for controlled and uncontrolled environments. In order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled environment, RF exposures must be occupationally related(e.g., PCS company RF technicians) and they must be aware of and have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other environmental areas are considered uncontrolled (e.g., public) for which the stricter(i.e., lower) environmental exposure limits apply. All carriers were required to be in compliance with the new FCC RF exposure standards for new telecommunications facilities by October 15, 1997. These standards applied retroactively for existing telecommunications facilities on September 1, 2000. The task for the physical,biological, and medical scientists that evaluate health implications of the RF data base has been to identify those RF field conditions that can produce harmful biological effects. No panel of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept, and negatives are not susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is the presumption of safety when RF-field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful effect. 3 Summary & Conclusions This proposed TM facility, as specified above will be in full compliance with FCC RF public safety standards. PCS and cellular transmitters, by design and operation, are low-power devices. Even under maximal exposure conditions in which all the channels from all antennas are operating at full power, the maximum RF exposure will not be in excess of 0.1% of the public safety standard at any publically accessible location. This maximum exposure is more than 1,000 times lower than the FCC public exposure standards for these frequencies. A chart of the electromagnetic spectrum and a comparison of RF power densities from various common sources is presented in figures two and three respectively in order to place exposures from PCS and cellular telecommunications systems in perspective. It is important to realize that the FCC maximum allowable exposures are not set at a threshold between safety and known hazard but rather at 50 times below a level that the majority of the scientific community believes may pose a health risk to human populations. Thus, the previously mentioned maximum exposure from the site represents a "safety margin" from this threshold of potentially adverse health effects of more than 50,000 times. Given the low levels of radiofrequency fields that would be generated from this facility, and given the evidence on biological effects in a large data base, there is no scientific basis to conclude that harmful effects will attend the utilization of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. This conclusion is supported by a large numbers of scientists that have participated in standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that RF radiation exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably harmful effects on humans. These findings are based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health and safety of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and my analysis of the technical specification as provided by TM. The opinions expressed herein are based on my professional judgement and are not intended to necessarily represent the views of any other organization or institution. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM Diplomate,American Board of Medical Physics (DABMP) Diplomate,American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine(DABSNM) Enclosures: Figures 1-3; Attachments 1, 2; Appendix A, and Statement of Experience. 4 "w aw` �ww 'ww�t<;;:,�,i.''.ti'c:�ar® -6";'s'r;rw i�r��`"`•.,n�:mwn,.wwm�®s.m.s�ww-w�d.anwna�Arw.wwas w��-wxa-=.'e'w!"�wu�daw�a`w�®'w�..>a» aat�" a' aaawaw.daa�,ar.a�wc w'm'aw,wwwp•wwa'■swcw ,ew;pwww'Awwwrw-w,�kww,a■w aa.w, d rt;, www`w,Mw W� X »,Rw - rt , . 7� , 0$u , n N „s n, ;,am, St 1 : x . ........ 1 ,',y•' s:- ,\,,;WMv°em Ca t , %d37 ,yy in WR K511 a \ 3, �s J s�: ':i, tw ,-n hs.,.M Rv.1 �s a � v: MEN a � le. FC vNEI a` :NJ:,.k`d di Y ..e,,t, `Aw k`1, .aa ��: `.�°�ti-`@`t:.:• \� 1/ 3,y' ^, ,�:?„ r,.� �"+ :°�*'a-aa°s,':;,:'\,�,. \ �,,,�r. „• �\� ��., So fit' � �\•.., \,.. \. Z �.. "fir, .>•�..,:y,:,t:•a�°.:�:�.:', \�\\`:•;', \...••;`` \ , sa LL TE <R 3. ,nYg..� t,�r;,2,, e O�\x,?�'��;. ;.a�� tea\ ..;sex\y v�::;�;;.;•:. '� � v, $ r S� `•.�' �.\\ a,`x>, ..fin,, s a,' y\. \ MI m g' :° oa. T x y MEN ®® , � •:i�S.• •-�,,,y ',oar, 'r�':?:��",' ,�\�:�:' .:;i%,:� rv;x,,;z�� ,r.,•, ..FF`3S!:y;, r W s C „0 4167 � *International Commission on Nob;Ionizing Radiation P.rntectioi€(ICNII )Pnblic;Safety Exposure StandardICNXRP stands"rd 1. recommended by the orld Heaith:Organization(�VHQ).',Members,:of,th `" e ICNIRPzSeientific Committee were from; , Australia Fin,land'�� France.., � ��Germany -Hungary "-,Italy , Sweden 3apan �United. mgderit °'United States w�ww.wdwaw. ' a, awe aaawww.w aa��wwa��.........E V HAMPC 2008 All Rights Reserved ®� Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Ionizing Electromagnetic --� Radiation (NI/EMR) i Radiation Wireless I PCS — 1,900 MHz � Power Line Communication J Cellular— 900 MHZ � 60 Hertz services Visible Television light Medical ltvDa Ultra- diagnosis 13 a �)�) violet and Microwaves Radio Toaster lamp therapy d> Electric and Ultra- 4— X-rays -� Cosmic Magnetic Radio & TV waves Infra-red violet EEamm!a Rays Fields rays Energy (ev) 10-11 10-11 10.11 10-111 to-, 10'" 10'1 10-1, 10"1 10-4 10-1 10-1 -1 1 10 10, 103 to, 105 10, 101 10, to, loll loll The Electromagnetic Spectrum Figure 2 (0 HAMPC 2008 All Rights Reserved - r<n wnws'wa,wn ws aw mn w , , �4 wAwow0 1,� nm'drmn'm'ra rffrnawn -.r - , .Y.t.. n'rr'snanwi;e'a`mr aermwn erer er arnrrn-a n ra era rsnw rr.n r,aa awn wnxa'a.a nan ic 'OS,U w S- `: Ic -r& frdM"""` r,t„ 0 y ' "tad ' u � v �' �>r - r z , st""MR, .:,,�ma,:s�F ,, �, <—IN « n S"i ,•„tee:;; :;°�.' .,,,., , a ^a F, �... 5 f, �[ .�i y; , , J•a ss R., f t, Fa 0 r psi - � 'I ePAD q� v t a� 4"�.. - -s`-'� �.5. .a ,M JW ,N a; , ,.; F'1tX ' t►Ul:,: a, : ' tat FCS . ::°.:;,:.:'.;,::::° e�' d ' ;:" �. T is I � jai 1? ari ' p " ' 0Lfll'* In sure,I' : ansmi ion Y,. ei fcarn , "k .m rawu.awm.r+�nraawww waes a+xwrarawaaww a��wea,ar-�„q wam a.wewr'a'sr rtd d'aawm--qs rptr-��rapi�,�e e�k'a��a�+m'�irs Wb," p "�wmti'�'�.ra'a e;.G.wpmeairamaa aamwa............ a mw'��;w�ae ar`a�w�-wnw�aw`wm ara ma wara , CO HAMPC'2008 All Rights Reserved ' ss: Attachment 1 Site Specifications T . .Mobile•A ® stick together' ® ® ® ® ® ]—UP PLACE.SUITE. 1,00 SANTA AAA,G 92T) PLANS PREPARED BY: NOV09.OTB NovAcom Rp ON,26D IxxIDNA G 92852 SITE NUMBER: LA33421A CITY: HUNTINGTON BEACH CONSULTING GROUP! x(961,a�_aRa c B9Ta.Ral CONSULTING GROUP: rn SITE NAME: COMMUNITY UMC COUNTY: ORANGE 111 SITE TYPE: RAWLAND IfCHURCH TOWER JURISDICTION: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH sE UOIA NO. PATE. DESCRIPTION: BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: SHEET INDEX: VICINITY MAP: 0 12/51/oe Sox zD NJc RITE ADDRESS CHFFT NLMR[R: DESCRIPTION: ilk'� A�1 wI N '1'X' �i 1 01/28/091NTERNAL REVISIO KH S 6666 HEL AVENUE f fury' H+, 5"£� i51 •EE 2 02/05/09 100fe ZD KH HUNTNCTON EACH.CA 9261) T-1 TITLE SHEEP L 3 Z ": 1 �A "^. f TOPOGRAPHIC SUR+EY .l �` REDESIGN TO ii JT' •,'7 1101, ] Io/02/09 CHURCH TOWER �` PROPERTY OWNER A-1 SITE PLAN S ``. ^"`+✓11 =,i @s S ^•+' •• COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF HUNTINGTON BEACHLAYOUTS :..a.; ° ••,•;'•'� 6666 HEL AVENUE A-2 EQUIPMENT AREA LAYOUT!ANTENNA x, HUNTINGTOn BEACH CA 925AT A-5 ELEVA110N5 ,Ax 3 S V�' ,AS APPLICANT A-4 ELEVATIONS :I 1 MOBLE USA :. ]MACARTHUR PLACE,SUITE 1100 .` •+�•• .* 1 _3ry . { sANrA ANe CA 92)m �' v ` REPRESENini vE KELIEY CROSS - SEOUOA CONSTRUCTON MANAGER KENWONTH BUDD , 20N NC MANAGER JOE THOMPSON - T MOB LE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER DUAN GAO - T-MOB UE ,%� vROJECT MANAGER MON LA MOPRERA - SE OUOA _ I Y.. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: - i?r< _ p n',`f'-•`' i€T ONO THE PROJECT ENTALS. I'r L' 'y�~ ,mj;°'„ tt ` y� r?'.'i..a y� ;Nt�' ( 1 07/2B/09 OC/OA CHECK NJC THE N7T FON OF(5)STS AND(1)BBU T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT CARNETS WITHIN J 'W+ A CMU WALL ENCLOSURE AND INSTALLATION OF(6)PANEL ANTENNAS AT 54-0 17 & � I S y C SITE INFORMATION: AL TO TOP OF PANEL ANTENNAS WHO(1)CARS ANTENNA MOUNTED ON A ` PROPOSED 59-0 4-LEGGED CHURCH TOWER POWER AND TELCO FROM EXISTING PC WER AND TELCO SOURCES. ',,:,,. +•°�;;e. -,f_v rR BII DING:IML Aew: °°;g; v::,` COMMUNITY UMC OCCUPANCY C—DIFICATDN EQUIPMENT-B/MONOPALM-D A LA33421A TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B ZON NG RL-RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ' f Yn d I �S 6666 HEIL AVENUE :) " TOTAL PROPOSED i MOBLE LEASE AREA 696 50 R ' ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 14 6-1E]-Z9 r',' C S ,;, y., F : HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 DISCLAIMER AZMUTHS SHOWN ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO ....._, %,R�r1r+w § - ., SEAU i' CHANGE. m.,w Ae .• r.c-+.-vh n. _� ••.x ___T i. . _...._, ow re� CONSULTING TEAM: APPROVALS: ANTENNA SCHEDULE NING/PERMITTING: ARFHR CT IReI &ENGINEERING, THE i0LLOW1NC PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND SEQUOIA DEVELOPMENT SERNCES,INC. NWACOM AUTHORIZE THE COMPACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSGIUCTI DESCRIBED ONE VENTURE,SURE 200 1051 POMONA RD..UNIT 250 BIIILGINC DEPARTMENT D ANY CHANGES WHO MODIFICATIONREI.ALL CONSTRUM'ITION DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO S LOCAL WAY THE MFOSE. SECTOR AZIMUTtCENTERLINE N OF ANTENNA MODEL,� k OF COAX DIAMETER COA2LENGTH —NE,G 92818 CORONA,G 92882 ANTENNAS COAX LINES SAC CONTACT:KELLY CROSS PHONE(951)A)9-BOBS V6' 2 TKII -BS1a- M 15/6'ONING CONTACT:M-CIk MORETTA FAX:(951)506-8A05 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATEAHONE:(9x9)2A1-01)5 B 2 - - 9/e' COPYRIGHT NOTICE: FAX:(9A9))55-T2D] Bxx a ETAkYLANDLORD G 2 ......file- 5/e• 1„L mFOaMAna.m.lN.Fely OR rui M'KFR_CF0 SUKsEY: A&E MGR - CEs Se OF u�oeni.v 1351 POMONA RD..UNIT 250 _ CORONA,G 92682 FOPS - DIRECTIONS FROM T-MOBILE SANTA AVA OFFlCE: RE.D LOS SHEET TITLE cNa PHONE:(951)BO6-8565 TAKE 55 SOUTH TO 405 NORTH EXR BEACH BLYD,SOUTH,TURN RIGM pEGION:LDS ANCElES!ORANGE COVNTES(2008) FAX:(951)808-0A05 DEVELOP. MGR ON HEIL AVENUE,PROCEED PAST GOLDENWEST STPEET,THEN TURN LEFT PAGE:a AT COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AT 6666 HIOL AVENUE GIRD 0:G-> CONST. INSP. TITLE SHEET RF ENGINEER APPLICABLE CODES UTILITY CONTACTS ZONING MGR CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 200]CAAJPORNN BUILDING CODE SHEET NUMBER: 2OO7 CALFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE O COM PANY:MPANY:VERI20H SAC REP. / ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 CONTACT:TED CONTACT:TBO 1 2008I.B.C. PHONE:1BD PHONE 1BD POWER 2.7 C EC(2005 H.E.C.) TELCO CITY/COUNTY OROINANCES 1.ALL ■ 0 T IPMEN TG_ M RO E APP0— Mobile AR[suwE T ro RF.S BYi-OOBLE, g ■ ■" smucruRPa.ND RF uan(ma.LnanoNs aF POWER b TE BY UTILITY I.VJUnES ME SVYIECF TO ePPROIAI m UnIITT COMPNI4S —� HEIL AVENUE — — ikc�in9�M W BYYNIS P Ea of stick together' ZONING ANALYSIS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES — J YeramxuR PvC, ....Ilan �_v7� PROPOSED T-MOBILE LEASE AREAS z`WrA��'PnoT A OPOSSD T-EM. II'-0' N: RL RESIOERM1LL LOW OfNSIR' REb Oh OT S� �E�fMEM PPoPOYD T-MOBIIE]S'-0'a 10'-0' J5o 9.F. PLANS PREPARED BY: RL EsloE2m Law DFINsIn REs DrsrRlm SECTOR'A' W RL RESIOEM:N LOW DENSRY RES 2STRICT PPoPOSED i-YOBLE JS'-OSIO'-O' Em"'WEMT_E AREA NOV.8,014 FSIOENTPL LOW DENST• RES O4TRICT fWN,MEM_E ARG(S.A' 9.n Oa� PROPOSE.r- U,CHURCX TgYEt Jb SF NovAcom J sXRue,P vRm wAu A N LEASE— ExaosuRE ro BE e."REP AVD REMOVED TOTAL PROPOSED t-40BIlE IE SE ARFA�Jae SF. ......... - —� Jet PWONR R0,"UNR 3J0 •, _ PHoxE:(cbq ,n nwGrn�(Paq eoe-ew5 (�zMUBS 'I��E I , E�yJy,�yb — WWw,navocomonine.nel (E GPA95�/ DO n'HNX MJ � " �_a. 4 IPROPOSFD LOGnW \ "xiP" CONSULTING CRGUPI C e�aypR ,FOR THE RELOOATEO PROPOSED T-MWItE U.C. MU WALL R: IUOM!POLE COAx COXWrt OLRINO LINE OF F%SnxG ROOF ONERHNN,TYP (4210'RVH) (E) EE, S E U O IA PRDPDsm r-uOBILE POWER e:1— ROUnRG ON TO PROPOSEDEG MO T- BILE LF/S IR6n(3206') NO, GATE,o[A(DESGRIPTION; BY; d 2 PROPOSE.T-u091E f PROPCaEO T-YO91E e'-0' J� `� PROPOSED T-uOdtE e'-o'V.0.cOAx TIo-J.a oRE ACCESS-Ol H.NI 0 12 JI OB 90x ZD NJC \ x-ExC `ML TFYPoPAIO / / 2 PROPOSED e'-0'NGX CYU ',; EYERGEN4Y 4ENEPArOR P,WNING A DUSH ENCEOSURE w/CORR I `• 1 01/28/09 INTERNAL REV50 KH 1 �(�auILDINo� uX�TE.Mi�oawTcH fNejDeDunl1. I i P!?. T-MoenE I ""'I e'-o'S11E Aafs I 2 02/05/09 100x ZD KH PROPOSED i-Y081E hLECCFD I (�SSJ.2'PNAI TREE EASEMENT _ i roWER LusE PRu 1tJ _�_—_ /—(E)P—NG—� — REDESIGN TO R FIR ss.) III '/ (E)ex'-0'RGR CHVRCX j L b,a.} i TO_ro BE R[40NE0 L__ _____________ ___�______�___.-_ —— -_.—_—�——s _________ _J CHURCH TOW IIF ——— — / vo I E)*V.7 Avn ` RUM TREE. ET^ .. (I]CONCRETE WAII(W'AY,TYP Rc'e i I ..v -OENCE• / 62I SECTOR'B' l-(E)Gass PRO ift•,TREE. �' 20o 0aO %4 A?JEE's i S_ (E)PPRIOxc� I — t 01/28/09 0C/OA CHECK NJC SITE INFORMATION: j COMMUNITY UMC 1 nPN: I LA33421A MNN SMTCHOFAR AND —, 145-483-29 6666 HEIL AVENUE :LLCO MPOE,PROPOSED I• ZONE: RL HUNTINGTON REACH,CA 916n1 MOBILE POWER!TELCO USE: CHURCH POC _J g uSE.RFSW." SEAL: LINE OF D.—ROOF OVERHANG.TYPOA SECTOR'C' COPYRIGHT NOTICE: 240E ✓ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION A,I.,,,vai..<w 5.13 °«wsrfosoa� - / \ oFi.M.exESNO 64W 0 , — .`.. - - ( GHEE?TITLE;nO N SITE PLAN LMubwui� Inn,,.aJ.:. A Ins..as n APn;Ine.as.la A u..aJ..:a F—A m:+<a.Aas.zD A n «c.RaSsl <s-as a PI IONt RI. '1(•Nt:kl. PN'<t'N('.wL P %4ItNf,kL n 0ll.:N:. /.GN'M1 I�. SHEET NUMBER: .....NESItIlN:Z" uSE:HESIUEN^E I USE:NESIOENf.E a!'NE51UENCf USL: ESIVENf.E t.SE.RES'UtnCE RLSIOfNOL A-1 SITE PLAN WV\' T Mobile■' '' cmRPNDrt LounDNs PRE^PPImNIWrz^ND.AE ' 'suBim ro APPRavU Br r-uoelu.amuRVPAi PND ■ ■ ' �?':` RF naNma.Launoru aF Powm�TF]EnaXE ----'-- y,- _ „ y• �TK �/AE 4USlER 10 PSPxw/L SY UttM stick together' b + PROP09m T-YO■tE AHIFNHV Ai 51'-0•A0.L ro TOP OF AVTENNS BENRID iRP WIQ.YEHT.0) I\ •4 I F J WCMMUR PLV>C.SVRE 1100 ANRIINA4 PER SECTOR(])SEROIb TR. SN?A NN G ex)0] PROPOSED T-MDBIIE fm CONCE.NOrt PNNTmro PLANS PREPARED BY:BL N0V09,0I9 WFCX(Eaux.SIUOW i N.N P" ,1 /y\`'NOyAcd( 1 PROPO4m T-YOSM1L A-LEOOm — fiKL ,/j 1 ' ^ei�Iv.wo.�• u.eieln•a•p.. vW Rw TOWFA.rm,ER LPOS ro BE E�aJ•-e•xla PUN ; 'o HIFD EREEx _ (ty y_x•NaN PICA 'a'�N0ro" vl PouDW Cp101N u,uXrt xw F ROPE.ED T-.T-YO■LP ro - a PROPOSED `eex TOAEP PNOXD(e4t)epe-eBAT mORlirte.n)el CONSULTING GROUP' \\� ��u YP ro PaoPosmIlk 1 p Z III I SEU. O1A ^ 'e$ (L�PNN RREE ADlILENT TO _J v[rvr iPc,surtE x�.qy¢ w g PROPosm EONPNEM 6 8 WWWggq g8 (�auRa Drww CROPo4m i-YoenE t0'JY.T-e'Nax N0. DATE. A•DESCRIPTION:�BY: Y EOVIPMEXf ENCLOSURE IEXnIRm 1 POOPOSm T-YCELf MDEMS //ID.PNNIFD t0 WTCN(b SNtdNO, O 12/37/OB 907G ZD NJC ODOP,w EC CHAN up^HO sECIM1rc LD YET. 1 01/28/09 INTERNAL REV1510 KH �_ / —UR Nan<YU FRA4N p 02/05/09 IDOX ZD KH pl¢BSWK((iE[NRm NM PNYIm b % YETi1 GTE9E)BVupw /CaR0. REDESIGN TO 3 10/02/OB CHURCH TOWER RA �S y ScuE SOUTH ELEVATION PRIOPOSm T-40■lL OP9 AHIENW 11 _____ _ ---_-------_ GAIG / _ �\ f 1 01/2B/09 OC/OA CHECK NJC \\`• \II I I II I\ II III SITE INFORMATION: RDPoSm,-YDBIE MREaut^T COMMUNITY U M C SN'-0'AO,L ro fW OT.ITFIRAT //\ BEHIND NIP CONCENkLM.(x)NIIF11W8 PER sEcroR W>sEROm TR. LA33421A A__ TREE H 666fi MEIL AVENUE O.—ENT —E TT-poBl.1 PPSDJM UNTINGTON BEACH,GA 9x6JT WTOI(E)Bl]a.3NCW y SEAL: 1 I' (E)aPNr 1 E 3 ggg \ I yy$I P-.—r U._. �E)TREE^aucPHr ro PROPOSm �\ III �o.M mm^aYotNr ro T q auIPYFrrt.Ru � \ wsm EDwwFHT rREA iviR�E°iEmp1m a"E PUS (F)FREE M PNOPNG U.,BEYOND $6„ COPYRIGHT NOTICE; "J PROPRI T^RY MATION (E)CHURCH BUIIDIHO nFOpYAnON coxinlvEo iN ixlJN owSPEEx PPOWPFo SHEET TITLE: O xOVAccYEccs EB sn cnrp6cxENEO Na+ �r ELEVATIONS P.—T-YOBILE 1o•w'.r-e'wax NU EDUIPYENr [N0.ASWIF TENIURm^NO INHIED TD WIIN 6 BNmNO,M/1'MIOE CORK M YET.MXE99 ODOR @ NN CNNN UNK SEQIReRY LIDF9 p b pk SHEET NUMBER: Q3 ro Cw1X PIgPOSm 0'-0•HIGN CYU RPASR tN0.aSUPE TD ED ANO Ci g �� CCC Gp6p6p P.—m— BlnlLlrq.w WM.MR. SCA E: WEST ELEVATION ® 3/1e=r—o 2 Attachment 2 Antenna Specifications TMBX-6516-R2M Decibel' -4�ANDREW. DualPoll Panel Antenna Base Station Antennas NOW- teh feed,,system C t4 th 'AR 2-1 ........... ELECTRICAL, Frequency Range(MHz): 1710-2155 Characteristic Impedance(Ohms): 50 Azimuth BW(Deg): 65±6 Elevation BW(Deg): 7.2±1.1 Gain(dBi) 17.5±0.7 J Polarization: ±45° Front-to-Back Ratio(dB) Copol, 180'±30': >25 >25 >25 >24 >24 >24 8 4- Total Power, 180o±30o: >24 >24 >24 >24 >24 >22 RE Upper Sidelobe(dB) Main Beam to+20*: >18 >18 >17 >17 >15 >12 VSWR I Return Loss(dB): 1.35:1 16.5 Port-to-Port Isolation(d[3): >30 Electrical Tilt Range(Deg)*: 0-10 Electrical Downtilt Accuracy(Deg): ±0.6 Cross-pol(dB) AIR 3 dB Beamwidth: >15 >15 >15 >15 >15 >14 Intermodulation Products(dBc) 3rd Order,2 x 20 Watts: 155 Max.Input Power(Watts): 250 Lightning Protection: DC Ground fit :PERFORMANCE TRWCKING Gain Variation(dB)(between UL and DL frequency pair): 1.3 Electrical Tilt Accuracy(Deg) (between UL and DL frequncy pair within 0.5'): <0.5 Azimuth HPBW(Deg)(between UL and DL frequncy pair): 9 MECHANICAL. Net Weight(kg lbs): 5-1 /11.2 Dimensions—LxWxD: 1499 x 168 x 84 mm with actuator) 59 x 6-6 x 3.3 inch Max.Wind Area(ml/ftl): 0.11 /1.2 Max.Wind Load(N/lbf): 298.0/67.0 Max.Wind Speed(km/h/mph): 241 /150 Hardware Material: Hot Dip Galvanized Connector Type: 7-16 DIN, Female(2) Color: Off White *Specifications may vary Standard Mounting Hardware: TM602030A when using Oo or I'electrical tilt. Andrew Corporation Fax:214.688-0089 3/9/2007 2601 Telecom Parkway Toll Free Tel 1.800.676.5342 Page 1 of 3 Richardson,Texas U.S.A.755082-3521 Fax:1.800.229-4706 dbtech(o)andrew.com Tel:214.631.0310 www-andrew.com Information correct at date of issue but may be subject to change without notice. T X®6516®R2M Decibel' NDREW DualPol°Panel Antenna Base Station Antennas AZ I MM RN . a 30 35t1 1C7 ksC7 35t?- 20 4 3 �» � _T z 20 �s 234 7 - -'�90 2 t� ' <' y 260 W `j€ 2€} 37fJ y < 250 5`. r "> i1 w ry < 144 V 15� 18 170 10, 2W 190< 1 1710 1 1732 MHz,Tilt: 2' 1732 MHz,Tilt:2° ast 34v_a ;._10 70 3rs aa,- s., 32 " 43 "[ CO . 7s 2 e 7C3 280 x' 00 t � „ - -100 20^ 2 Ala` 26(l, 1ae,s 1 2 '. i 220' �1.40 2 - - -140 i' 2KJ Frf,`,- 1€y+ 1880 MHz,Tilt: 20 1880 MHz,Tilt: 2' Note:Scale 5 dB per division. Andrew Corporation Fax:214.688-0089 3/9/2007 2601 Telecom Parkway Toll Free Tel:1.800.676.5342 Page 2 of 3 Richardson,Texas U.S.A.755082-3521 Fax: 1.800.229.4706 dbtech andrew.com Tel:214-631.0310 www.andrew.com Information correct at date of issue but may be subject to change without notice. TMBX-6516-R2M Decibel' AN®REW. DualPol°Panel Antenna Base Station Antennas AZIMUTH PATTERN ELEVAT16N PATTERN' 1020 ago a: 1fl., , 30. 40 3tt�,r �53 3'7t6. N zkoi 70 JIM 74 Al i. :t1fl 250'- 24i9` g x 120 Zd4# -v t20 /130 102 ,«.," ;: ,. . 1 eo 150 2151w_.a_._, 190 1 i7tP 13 1S1S 9 1960 MHz,Tilt: 2' 1960 MHz,Tilt:2° fr 10 350 Q io 0 slci no �..y �. 1. 60 gg t yq VOL-, g/ .ry�� IOD t " r� I ✓a6 e rid 250°� 2 ;. 120 2€ ' 12€1 i3i1 2315 w....,., 130 . _.+yam,'•_ a #- r 200 tEbD.. - i7G" "1 2t „13 2132 MHz,Tilt: 20 2132 MHz,Tilt:2° Note:Scale 5 d8 per division. Andrew Corporation Fax:214.688-0089 3/9/2007 2601 Telecom Parkway Toll Free Tel: 1.800.676.5342 Page 3 of 3 Richardson,Texas U.S.A.755082-3521 Fax: 1.800229-4706 dbtech@andrew.com Tel:214.631.0310 www-andrew.com Information correct at date of issue but may be subject to change without notice. Appendix A Andrew Model # 'TMPX-6516-R2M Exposure Calculation 6.0 ft AGL Antenna RF Center 50.0 ft ERP 800 Watts (PCS) RF Exposure Levels AGL= 6 feet Antenna Center 50.0 feet AGL 0.00120 0.00100 0.00080 r 0.00060 �' 3 r� rr 0.00040 0.00020 0,00000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Distance to base of antenna in feet Appendix A Max gain ARL (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (VV): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dirt Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm 2 FCC STD 0 90.000 -21.7 -37.2 1341.12 152.4369 0.00003 0.00283 1 88.698 -21 -36.5 1341.47 179.0977 0.00003 0.00333 2 87.397 -20.8 -36.3 1342.50 187.5383 0.00003 0.00348 3 86.100 -20.5 -36 1344.23 200.9509 0.00004 0.00372 4 84.806 -20.5 -36 1346.65 200.9509 0.00004 0.00370 5 83.517 -20.7 -36.2 1349.75 191.9066 0.00004 0.00352 6 82.235 -21.3 -36.8 1353.53 167.1437 0.00003 0.00305 7 80.961 -23.3 -38.8 1357.99 105.4605 0.00002 0.00191 8 79.695 -24.5 -40 1363.11 80.0000 0.00001 0.00144 9 78.440 -24.5 -40 1368.89 80.0000 0.00001 0.00143 10 77.196 -24.5 -40 1375.32 80.0000 0.00001 0.00141 11 75.964 -24.5 -40 1382.39 80.0000 0.00001 0.00140 12 74.745 -24.5 -40 1390.10 80.0000 0.00001 0.00138 13 73.540 -24.5 -40 1398.43 80.0000 0.00001 0.00137 14 72.350 -24.5 -40 1407.37 80.0000 0.00001 0.00135 15 71.175 -23.3 -38.8 1416.91 105.4605 0.00002 0.00176 16 70.017 -21.9 -37.4 1427.04 145.5761 0.00002 0.00239 17 68.875 -19.2 -34.7 1437.74 271.0753 0.00004 0.00438 18 67.751 -18.2 -33.7 1449.00 3412636 0.00005 0.00543 19 66.644 -17.4 -32.9 1460.82 410.2891 0.00006 0.00642 20 65.556 -16.7 -32.2 1473.16 482.0477 0.00007 0.00742 21 64.486 -16.2 -31.7 1486.04 540.8664 0.00008 0.00818 22 63.435 -16.1 -31.6 1499.42 553.4648 0.00008 0,00822 23 62.403 -16.1 -31.6 1513.29 553.4648 0.00008 0.00807 24 61.390 -16.4 -31.9 1527.65 516.5234 0.00007 0.00739 25 60.396 -17 -32.5 1542.48 449.8731 0.00006 0.00632 26 59.421 -18 -33.5 1557.76 357.3469 0.00005 0.00492 27 58.465 -19.5 -35 1573.49 252.9822 0.00003 0.00341 28 57.529 -20.7 -36.2 1589.64 191.9066 0.00003 0.00254 29 56.611 -21.7 -37.2 1606.21 152.4369 0.00002 0.00197 30 55.713 -21.4 -36.9 1623.19 163.3390 0.00002 0.00207 31 54.834 -19.7 -35.2 1640.55 241.5961 0.00003 0.00300 32 53.973 -18.3 -33.8 1658.29 333.4955 0.00004 0.00405 33 53.130 -18.3 -33.81 1676.40 333.4955 0.00004 0.00396 34 52.306 -17.7 -33.2 1694.86 382.9041 0.00004 0.00445 35 51.499 -17.3 -32.8 1713.67 419.8460 0.00005 0.00478 36 50.711 -18 -33.5 1732.81 357.3469 0.00004 0.00398 Apdx.A Pagel TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL 44 (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (W): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 IMF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dirt Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm2 FCC STD 37 49.939 -20.4 -35.9 175227 205.6317 0.00002 0.00224 38 49.185 -20.4 -35.9 1772.04 205.6317 0.00002 0.00219 39 48.447 -24.2 -39.7 1792.11 85.7215 0.00001 0.00089 40 47.726 -22.5 -38 1812.47 126.7915 0.00001 0.00129 41 47.021 -22.5 -38 1833.11 126.7915 0.00001 0.00126 42 46.332 -16A -31.6 1854.03 553.4648 0.00005 0.00538 43 45.659 -11.8 -27.3 1875.20 1489.6697 0.00014 0.01415 44 45.000 -11.8 -27.3 1896.63 1489.6697 0.00014 0.01384 45 44.356 -8.6 -24.1 1918.30 3112.3612 0.00028 0.02826 46 43.727 -6.2 -21.7 1940.21 5408.6638 0.00048 0.04800 47 43.112 -6.2 -21.7 1962.35 5408.6638 0.00047 0.04693 48 42.510 -4.3 -19.8 1984.71 8377.0284 0.00071 0.07105 49 41.923 -3.1 -18.6 2007.29 11043.0741 0.00092 0.09157 50 41.348 -3.1 -18.6 2030.07 11043.0741 0.00090 0.08952 51 40.786 -2.3 -17.8 2053.05 13276.6953 0.00105 0.10524 52 40.236 -2.3 -17.8 2076.22 13276.6953 0.00103 0.10290 53 39.699 -1.9 -17.4 2099.58 14557.6069 0.00110 0.11033 54 39.174 -1.9 -17.4 2123.12 14557.6069 0.00108 0.10790 55 38.660 -1.9 -17.4 2146.84 14557.6069 0.00106 0.10553 56 38.157 -1.9 -17.4 2170.72 14557.6069 0.00103 0.10322 57 37.666 -2.5 -18 2194.77 12679.1455 0.00088 0.08794 58 37.185 -2.5 -18 2218.98 12679.1455 0.00086 0.08603 59 36.714 -3.7 -19.2 2243.34 9618.1155 0.00064 0.06385 60 36.254 -3.7 -19.2 2267.84 9618.1155 0.00062 0.06248 61 35.803 -5.5 -21 2292.49 6354.6259 0.00040 0.04040 62 35.362 -5.5 -21 2317.28 6354.6259 0.00040 0.03954 63 34.931 -8.6 -24.1 2342.21 3112.3612 0.00019 0.01895 64 34.509 -8.6 -24.1 2367.26 3112.3612 0.00019 0.01856 65 34.095 -8.6 -24.1 2392.44 3112.3612 0.00018 0.01817 66 33.690 -13.9 -29.4 2417.74 918.5229 0.00005 0.00525 67 33.294 -13.9 -29.4 2443.16 918.5229 0.00005 0.00514 68 32.905 -24.5 -40 2468.69 80.0000 0.00000 0.00044 69 32.525 -24.5 -40 2494.34 80.0000 0.00000 0.00043 70 32.152 -24.5 -40 2520.09 80.0000 0.00000 0.00042 71 31.787 -19 -34.5 2545.95 283.8507 0.00001 0.00146 72 31.430 -19 -34.5 2571.91 283.8507 0.00001 0.00143 73 31.079 -19 -34.5 2597.96 283.8507 0.00001 0.00141 74 30.735 -13.3 -28.8 2624.11 1054.60541 0.000051 0.00512 75 30.399 -13.3 -28.8 2650.36 1054.6054 0.000051 0.00502 76 30.069 -13.3 -28.8 2676.69 1054.6054 0.000051 0.00492 77 29.745 -11.3 -26.8 2703.11 1671.4369 0.000081 0.00764 Apdx.A Page 2 TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL 44 (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (W): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dirt Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm 2 FCC STD 78 29.427 -11.3 -26.8 2729.62 1671.4369 0.00007 0.00749 79 29.116 -11.3 -26.8 2756.21 1671.4369 0.00007 0.00735 80 28.811 -11.3 -26.8 2782.88 1671.4369 0.00007 0.00721 81 28.511 -11.3 -26.8 2809.62 1671.4369 0.00007 0.00707 82 28.217 -11.3 -26.8 2836.44 1671.4369 0.00007 0.00694 83 27.929 -13.2 -28.7 2863.34 1079.1703 0.00004 0.00440 84 27.646 -13.2 -28.7 2890.30 1079.1703 0.00004 0.00432 85 27.368 -13.2 -28.7 2917.34 1079.1703 0.00004 0.00424 86 27.096 -13.2 -28.7 2944.44 1079.1703 0.00004 0.00416 87 26.828 -18.5 -34 2971.60 318.4857 0.00001 0.00120 88 26.565 -18.5 -34 2998.84 318.4857 0.00001 0.00118 89 26.307 -18.5 -34 3026.13 318.4857 0.00001 0.00116 90 26.053 -18.5 -34 3053.48 318.4857 0.00001 0.00114 91 25.805 -24.5 -40 3080.89 80.0000 0.00000 0.00028 92 25.560 -24.5 -40 3108.36 80.0000 0.00000 0.00028 93 25.320 -24.5 -40 3135.89 80.0000 0.00000 0.00027 94 25.084 -24.5 -40 3163.47 80.0000 0.00000 0.00027 95 24.852 -14.8 -30.3 3191.10 746.6034 0.00002 0.00245 96 24.624 -14.8 -30.3 3218.78 746.6034 0.00002 0.00241 97 24.399 -14.8 -30.3 3246.51 746.6034 0.00002 0.00237 98 24.179 -14.8 -30.3 3274.30 746.6034 0.00002 0.00233 99 23.962 -9.9 -25.4 3302.13 2307.2252 0.00007 0.00707 100 23.749 -9.9 -25.4 3330.00 2307.2252 0.00007 0.00695 101 23.540 -9.9 -25.4 3357.92 2307.2252 0.00007 0.00684 102 23.334 -9.9 -25.4 3385.89 2307.2252 0.00007 0.00672 103 23.131 -9.9 -25.4 3413.90 2307.2252 0.00007 0.00661 104 22.932 -7.8 -23.3 3441.95 3741.8811 0.00011 0.01055 105 22.736 -7.8 -23.3 3470.04 3741.8811 0.00010 0.01038 106 22.543 -7.8 -23.3 3498.17 3741.8811 0.00010 0.01022 107 22.353 -7.8 -23.3 3526.34 3741.8811 0.00010 0.01005 108 22.166 -7.8 -23.3 3554.55 3741.8811 0.00010 0.00989 109 21.982 -7.2 -22.7 3582.79 4296.2544 0.00011 0.01118 110 21.801 -7.2 -22.7 3611.08 4296.2544 0.00011 0.01101 111 21.623 -7.2 -22.7 3639.39 4296.2544 0.00011 0.01084 112 21.448 -7.2 -22.7 3667.75 4296.2544 0.00011 0.01067 113 21.275 -7.2 -22.7 3696.13 4296.2544 0.00011 0.01051 114 21.105 -7.2 -22.7 3724.55 4296.2544 0.00010 0.01035 115 20.937 -8.4 -23.9 3753.00 3259.0422 0.00008 0.00773 116 20.772 -8.4 -23.9 3781.49 3259.0422 0.00008 0.00761 117 20.610 -8.4 -23.9 3810.00 3259.0422 0.00008 0.00750 118 20.450 -8.4 -23.9 3838.54 3259.0422 0.00007 0.00739 Apdx.A Page 3 TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL 44 (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (VV): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm 2 FCC STD 119 20.292 -8.4 -23.9 3867.12 3259.0422 0.00007 0.00728 120 20.136 -8.4 -23.9 3895.72 3259.0422 0.00007 0.00717 121 19.983 -12.2 -27.7 3924.35 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00295 122 19.832 -12.2 -27.7 3953.01 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00290 123 19.683 -12.2 -27.7 3981.70 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00286 124 19.537 -12.2 -27.7 4010.41 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00282 125 19.392 -12.2 -27.7 4039.15 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00278 126 19.250 -12.2 -27.7 4067.91 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00274 127 19.109 -12.2 -27.7 4096.70 1358.5949 0.00003 0.00270 128 18.970 -20.3 -35.8 4125.51 210.4214 0.00000 0.00041 129 18.834 -20.3 -35.8 4154.35 210.4214 0.00000 0.00041 130 18.699 -20.3 -35.8 4183.21 210.4214 0.00000 0.00040 131 18.566 -20.3 -35.8 4212.09 210.4214 0.00000 0.00040 132 18.435 -20.3 -35.8 4240.99 210.4214 0.00000 0.00039 133 18.306 -20.3 -35.8 4269.92 210.4214 0.00000 0.00039 134 18.178 -20.3 -35.8 4298.87 210.4214 0.00000 0.00038 135 18.052 -20.3 -35.8 4327.84 210.4214 0.00000 0.00038 136 17.928 -11.4 -26.9 4356.83 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00287 137 17.805 -11.4 -26.9 4385.84 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00284 138 17.684 -11.4 -26.9 4414.87 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00280 139 17.565 -11.4 -26.9 4443.92 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00276 140 17.447 -11.4 -26.9 4472.99 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00273 141 17.331 -11.4 -26.9 4502.07 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00269 142 17.216 -11.4 -26.9 4531.18 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00266 143 17.103 -11.4 -26.9 4560.30 1633.3904 0.00003 0.00262 144 16.991 -5.6 -21.1 4589.44 6209.9769 0.00010 0.00985 145 16.880 -5.6 -21.1 4618.60 6209.9769 0.00010 0.00973 146 16.771 -5.6 -21.1 4647.78 6209.9769 0.00010 0.00960 147 16.663 -5.6 -21.1 4676.97 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00948 148 16.557 -5.6 -21.1 4706.18 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00937 149 16.452 -5.6 -21.1 4735.40 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00925 150 16.348 -5.6 -21.1 4764.64 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00914 151 16.246 -5.6 -21.1 4793.89 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00903 152 16.144 -5.6 -21.1 4823.17 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00892 153 16.044 -5.6 -21.1 4852.45 6209.9769 0.00009 0.00881 154 15.945 -2.6 -18.1 4881.75 12390.5330 0.00017 0.01737 155 15.848 -2.6 -18.1 4911.06 12390.5330 0.00017 0.01716 156 15.751 -2.6 -18.1 4940.39 12390.5330 0.00017 0.01696 157 15.656 -2.6 -18.1 4969.74 12390.5330 0.00017 0.01676 158 15.562 -2.6 -18.1 4999.09 12390.5330 0.00017 0.01656 159 1 15.468 -2.6 -18.1 5028.46 12390.5330 0.00016 0.01637 Apdx. A Page 4 TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL 44 (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (VV): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP Level Precent of Ant base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm z FCC STD 160 15.376 -2.6 -18.1 5057.84 12390.5330 0.00016 0,01618 161 15.285 -2.6 -18.1 5087.24 12390.5330 0.00016 0.01600 162 15.195 -2.6 -18.1 5116.65 12390.5330 0.00016 0.01581 163 15.106 -2.6 -18.1 5146.07 12390.5330 0.00016 0.01563 164 15.018 -2.6 -18.1 5175.50 12390.5330 0.00015 0.01545 165 14.931 -1.2 -16.7 5204.95 17103.6967 0.00021 0.02109 166 14.845 -1.2 -16.7 5234.40 17103.6967 0.00021 0.02086 167 14.760 -1.2 -16.7 5263.87 17103.6967 0.00021 0.02062 168 14.676 -1.2 -16.7 5293.35 17103.6967 0.00020 0.02039 169 14.593 -1.2 -16.7 5322.84 17103.6967 0.00020 0.02017 170 14.511 -1.2 -16.7 5352.34 17103.6967 0.00020 0.01995 171 14.430 -1.2 -16.7 5381.86 17103.6967 0.00020 0.01973 172 14.349 -1.2 -16.7 5411.38 17103.6967 0.00020 0.01951 173 14.270 -1.2 -16.7 5440.91 17103.6967 0.00019 0.01930 174 14.191 -1.2 -16.7 5470.46 17103.6967 0.00019 0.01909 175 14.113 -1.2 -16.7 5500.01 17103.6967 0.00019 0.01889 176 14.036 -1.2 -16.7 5529.58 17103.6967 0.00019 0.01869 177 13.960 -1.3 -16.8 5559.15 16714.3690 0.00018 0.01807 178 13.885 -1.3 -16.8 5588.74 16714.3690 0.00018 0.01788 179 13.810 -1.3 -16.8 5618.33 16714.3690 0.00018 0.01769 180 13.736 -1.3 -16.8 5647.94 16714.3690 0.00018 0.01751 181 13.663 -1.3 -16.8 5677.55 16714.3690 0.00017 0.01732 182 13.591 -1.3 -16.8 5707:17 16714.3690 0.00017 0.01714 183 13.519 -1.3 -16.8 5736.80 16714.3690 0.00017 0.01697 184 13.449 -1.3 -16.8 5766.44 16714.3690 0.00017 0.01679 185 13.379 -1.3 -16.8 5796.09 16714.3690 0.00017 0.01662 186 13.309 -1.3 -16.8 5825.75 16714.3690 0.00016 0.01645 187 13.241 -1.3 -16.8 5855.41 16714.3690 0.00016 0.01629 188 13.173 -1.3 -16.8 5885.09 16714.3690 0.00016 0.01612 189 13.105 -1.3 -16.8 5914.77 16714.3690 0.00016 0.01596 190 13.039 -1.3 -16.8 5944.46 16714.3690 0.00016 0.01580 191 12.973 -3.4 -18.9 5974.16 10305.9964 0.00010 0.00965 201 12.348 -3.4 -18.9 6271.55 10305.9964 0.00009 0.00875 211 11.779 -11 -26.5 6569.62 1790.9769 0.00001 0.00139 221 11.260 -11 -26.5 6868.29 1790.9769 0.00001 0.00127 231 10.784 -10.7 -26.2 7167.47 1919.0663 0.00001 0.00125 241 10.347 -10.7 -26.2 7467.10 1919.0663 0.00001 0.00115 251 9.943 0.7 -14.8 7767.14 26490.4897 0.00015 0.01467 261 9.569 0.7 -14.8 8067.531 26490.48971 0.000141 0.01360 271 9.222 0.7 -14.8 8368.251 26490.48971 0.000131 0.01264 281 1 8.899 5.8 -9.7 8669.241 85721.54441 0.000381 0.03811 Apdx.A Page 5 TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mW/cm 2 Max ERP (W): 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dirt Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm 2 FCC STD 291 8.598 5.8 -9.7 8970.50 85721.5444 0.00036 0.03559 301 8.317 5.8 -9.7 9271.98 85721.5444 0.00033 0.03331 311 8.053 5.8 -9.7 9573.68 85721.5444 0.00031 0.03125 321 7.805 9.3 -6.2 9875.57 191906.6335 0.00066 0.06574 331 7.572 9.3 -6.2 10177.63 191906.6335 0.00062 0.06190 341 7.352 9.3 -6.2 10479.85 191906.6335 0.00058 0.05838 351 7.145 9.3 -6.2 10782.21 191906.6335 0.00055 0.05515 361 6.949 11.7 -3.8 11084.71 333495.5068 0.00091 0.09068 371 6.764 11.7 -3.8 11387.33 333495.5068 0.00086 0.08593 381 6.588 11.7 -3.8 11690.06 333495.5068 0.00082 0.08153 391 6.421 11.7 -3.8 11992.90 333495.5068 0.00077 0.07747 401 6.262 11.7 -3.8 12295.84 333495.5068 0.00074 0.07370 411 6.111 11.7 -3.8 12598.86 333495.5068 0.00070 0.07019 421 5.966 13.4 -2.1 12901.97 493276.0015 0.00099 0.09900 431 5.829 13.4 -2.1 13205.16 493276.0015 0.00095 0.09451 441 5.698 13.4 -2.1 13508.42 493276.0015 0.00090 0.09031 451 5.572 13.4 -2.1 13811.75 493276.0015 0.00086 0.08639 461 5.452 13.4 -2.1 14115.14 493276.0015 0.00083 0.08272 471 5.337 13.4 -2.1 14418.59 493276.0015 0.00079 0.07927 481 5.227 13.4 -2.1 14722.09 493276.0015 0.00076 0.07604 491 5.121 13.4 -2.1 15025.65 493276.0015 0.00073 0.07300 501 5.019 13.4 -2.1 15329.26 493276.0015 0.00070 0.07013 511 4.921 14.6 -0.9 15632.91 650264.4129 0.00089 0.08890 521 4.827 14.6 -0.9 15936.61 650264.4129 0.00086 0.08554 531 4.737 14.6 -0.9 16240.35 650264.4129 0.00082 0.08237 541 4.650 14.6 -0.9 16544.13 650264.4129 0.00079 0.07937 551 4.566 14.6 -0.9 16847.94 650264,4129 0.00077 0.07654 561 4.485 14.6 -0.9 17151.79 650264.4129 0.00074 0.07385 571 4.406 14.6 -0.9 17455.68 650264.4129 0.00071 0.07130 581 4.331 14.6 -0.9 17759.59 650264.4129 0.00069 0.06888 591 4.258 14.6 -0.9 18063.53 650264.4129 0.00067 0.06658 601 4.187 14.6 -0.9 18367.51 650264.4129 0.00064 0.06440 611 4.119 14.6 -0.9 18671.51 650264.4129 0.00062 0.06232 621 4.053 14.6 -0.9 18975.53 650264.4129 0.00060 0.06034 631 3.989 15.3 -0.2 19279.58 763994.0688 0.00069 0.06867 641 3.927 15.3 -0.2 19583.65 763994.0688 0.00067 0.06655 651 3.867 15.3 -0.2 19887.75 763994.0688 0.00065 0.06453 661 3.808 15.3 -0.2 20191.87 763994.0688 0.00063 0.06261 671 3.752 15.3 -0.2 20496.00 763994.0688 0.00061 0.06076 681 3.697 15.3 -0.2 20800.16 763994.0688 0.00059 0.05900 691 3.643 15.3 -0.2 21104.34 763994.0688 0.00057 0.05731 Apdx.A Page 6 TMBX-6516-R2M Max gain ARL 44 (dBd): 15.5 Max exposure: 0.00110331 mWlcm 2 Max ERP (tM: 800 Ant type: TMBX-6516-R2M Feet from site: 53 RF Exposure Level Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP Level Precent of Ant. base angle gain max ERP in cm in mW mW/cm Z FCC STD 701 3.592 15.3 -0.2 21408.53 763994.0688 0.00056 0.05569 711 3.541 15.3 -0.2 21712.74 763994.0688 0.00054 0.05414 721 3.492 15.3 -0.2 22016.96 763994.0688 0.00053 0.05266 731 3.445 15.3 -0.2 22321.21 763994.0688 0.00051 0.05123 741 3.398 15.3 -0.2 22625.46 763994.0688 0.00050 0.04986 751 3.353 15.3 -0.2 22929.73 763994.0688 0.00049 0.04855 761 3.309 15.3 -0.2 23234.02 763994,0688 0.00047 0.04728 771 3.266 15.3 -0.2 23538.32 763994.0688 0.00046 0.04607 781 3.225 15.3 -0.2 23842.63 763994.0688 0.00045 0.04490 791 3.184 15.3 -0.2 24146.95 763994.0688 0.00044 0.04378 801 3.144 15.3 -0.2 24451.29 763994.0688 0.00043 0.04269 811 3.105 15.3 -0.2 24755.63 763994.0688 0.00042 0.04165 821 3.068 15.3 -0.2 25059.99 763994.0688 0.00041 0.04064 831 3.031 15.3 -0.2 25364.36 763994.0688 0.00040 0.03967 841 2.995 15.5 0 25668.74 800000.0000 0.00041 0.04057 851 2.960 15.5 0 25973.13 800000.0000 0.00040 0.03962 861 2.925 15.5 0 26277.53 800000.0000 0.00039 0.03871 871 2.892 15.5 0 26581.93 800000.0000 0.00038 0.03783 881 2.859 15.5 0 26886.35 800000.0000 0.00037 0.03697 891 2.827 15.5 0 27190.77 800000.0000 0.00036 0.03615 901 2.796 15.5 0 27495.21 800000.0000 0.00035 0.03535 911 2.765 15.5 0 27799.65 800000.0000 0.00035 0.03458 921 2.735 15.5 0 28104.10 800000.0000 0.00034 0.03384 931 2.706 15.5 0 28408.55 800000.0000 0.00033 0.03312 941 2.677 15.5 0 28713.02 800000.0000 0.00032 0.03242 951 2.649 15.5 0 29017.49 800000.0000 0.00032 0.03174 961 2.621 15.5 0 29321.97 800000.0000 0.00031 0.03109 971 2.595 15.5 0 29626.45 800000.0000 0.00030 0.03045 981 2.568 15.5 0 29930.94 800000.0000 0.00030 0.02983 991 2.542 15.5 0 30235.44 800000.0000 0.00029 0.02924 1001 2.517 15.5 0 30539.94 800000.0000 0.00029 0.02866 1011 2.492 15.5 0 30844.45 800000.0000 0.00028 0.02809 1021 2.468 15.5 0 31148.961 800000.00001 0.000281 0.02755 1031 2.444 15.5 01 31453.481 800000.00001 0.000271 0.02702 Apdx.A Page 7 TMBX-6516-R2M STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE Jerrold Talmadge Bushberg,Ph.D.,DABMP,DABSNM (800) 760-8414 jushberg@hampc.com Dr.Jerrold Bushberg has performed health and safety analysis for RF&ELF transmissions systems since 1978 and is an expert in both health physics and medical physics. The scientific discipline of Health Physics is devoted to radiation protection, which, among other things, involves providing analysis of radiation exposure conditions, biological effects research, regulations and standards as well as recommendations regarding the use and safety of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. In addition, Dr. Bushberg has extensive experience and lectures on several related topics including medical physics, radiation protection, (ionizing and non-ionizing), radiation biology, the science of risk assessment and effective risk communication in the public sector. Dr.Bushberg's doctoral dissertation at Purdue University was on various aspects of the biological effects of microwave radiation. He has maintained a strong professional involvement in this subject and has served as consultant or appeared as an expert witness on this subject to a wide variety of organizations/institutions including, local governments, school districts, city planning departments, telecommunications companies,the California Public Utilities Commission,national news organizations, and the U.S. Congress. In addition, his consultation services have included detailed computer based modeling of RF exposures as well as on-site safety inspections and RF & ELF environmental field measurements of numerous transmission facilities in order to determine their compliance with FCC and other safety regulations.The consultation services provided by Dr.Bushberg are based on his professional judgement as an independent scientist,however they are not intended to necessarily represent the views of any other organization. Dr. Bushberg is a member of the main scientific body of International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) which reviews and evaluates the scientific literature on the biological effects of non- ionizing electromagnetic radiation and establishes exposure standards. He also serves on the ICES Risk Assessment Working Group that is responsible for evaluating and characterizing the risks of non- ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Dr.Bushberg was appointed and is serving as a member of the main scientific council of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement's (NCRP). He is also a Scientific Vice-President of the NCRP, a member of the NCRP Board of Directors and chairs its committee on Radiation Protection in Medicine. In addition, Dr. Bushberg is a member of NCRP's scientific advisory committee on Non-ionizing Radiation Safety. The NCRP is the nation's preeminent scientific radiation protection organization, chartered by Congress to evaluate and provide expert consultation on a wide variety of radiological health issues. The current FCC RF exposure safety standards are based in large part on the recommendations of the NCRP. Dr. Bushberg was elected to the International Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)which has as its primary area of responsibility the examination and interpreting the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy and presenting its findings in an authoritative and professional manner. Dr. Bushberg is also a member of a six person U.S. expert delegation to the international scientific community on Scientific and Technical Issues for Mobile Communication Systems established by the Federal Communications Commission. Dr. Bushberg is a full member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, the Health Physics Society and the Radiation Research Society. Dr. Bushberg received both a Masters of Science and Ph.D. from the Department of Bionucleonics at Purdue University. Dr. Bushberg is certified by several national professional boards with specific sub-specialty certification in radiation protection and medical physics. Prior to coming to California, Dr. Bushberg was on the faculty of Yale University School of Medicine. ATTACHMENT # 13 1 Overview Radio,frequency Safely and FCC Compliance Issues For Wireless Telecommunications Systems Outline I. Overview of RF Exposure Standards,Terminology and FCC Regulatory Policy Zoning A&dnistrator Hearing 11. Setting Human Health&Safety Standards for RF Exposure T-Mobile project LA33421A Huntington Beach, CA III. RF Exposures from Proposed T-Mobile site at Lindero Middle School,Agora Hills,CA. September 30, 2009 IV. The Weight Evidence on RF Health Effects V. Where To Get Additional Information Part I TERMINOLOGY main, ➢EMR:Electromagnetic Radiation:X-ray&Gamma Rays(Ionizing Radiation)and Ultraviolet,Visible, Overview of RF Exposure Standards, Infrared,&RF(Non-Ionizing Radiation) Terminology and FCC Regulatory Policy_ ➢RF:"Radio Frequencies":Examples E _ , Include TV,DTV,CB,AM/FM €RJ }911= Radio,Wireless PCS&Cellular Communications,Microwaves,RADAR -�J ➢EMF:"Electr®agnetic Fields"&ELF: "Extremely Low Frequencies":(Typically refers to50-60Hz Power Line Frequencies) ti NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION RF Exposure Standards PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS Mimi i Z 1 ➢FCC(USA)RF Exposure(August 199'n ➢Nation's most prestigious independent scientific Regulations based on NCRP&IEEE : radiation protection organization ➢Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE) LL ➢Founded in 1929 and Currently Operates Under a ANSI Standard C95.1(1991&2006) 1964 Congressional Charter to"provide expert assessment and recommendations on radiation health ➢National Council Radiation Protection and issues in the public interest" Measurements(NCRP)Report85(1986) ➢OSHA,DOD and ACGIH Standards are derivative of the ➢Headquarters in WDC Area(Bethesda) US standards above. ➢100 Scientific council members(—20 scientific disciplines);5 Scientific Vice-Presidents and Board of ➢International Commission on Nan-Ionizing Directors Radiation Protection(ICNIRP)Published in the Health Ph sicsJournal I '' ➢Members elected by the council based en widely Y recognized expertise intheir_scientille.field_ (VoLme 74,Nwnber d,1998&VoLmie 97,&m�ber 3.2 009) .� n En� V `% ice �l �l7 A_ J Page I PLAN #s DEPT NATIONAL COUNCIL ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS FCC Regulatory Policy NCRP ➢FCC has a responsibility to establish RF Safety standards in ...SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 53... order to satisfy its responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)and the 1996 ➢Rep ort:"Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Telecommunications Act Radio£requency Electromagnetic Fields" ➢FCC relies on expert organizations&agencies for guidance on ➢NC RP Committee studied the world'sliterature on RF health/safety issues.Guidelines endorsed by US Government biological effects health/safety agencies:FDA,EPA,NIOSH,OSHA ➢Introduced thetwo tier(occupational&general ➢Current FCC Standards were the result of—2 years Review and public)Protection standard Public Comment Period. ➢17 Members of SC 53 ✓ThowsodsofPagesof Comments from all a tors:(Public,Gov%Acaden®, —S University Faculty NCRP,ANSUIEEE,Indusiry) EPA,FDA,USA,VA ➢Maximum Permissible Exposure(MPE)Defined for —5 Federal University Employees( ) Occupational(Controlled)and Public(Uncontrolled) —4 Others(con sultants&staff) Environments Federal Interagency Agency Working Group(RF Safety Surveillance) V Public Exposure Limit =' it v= i ➢Environmental Protection Agency:(EPA) ➢Assumes continuous exposure 24/7/365 ➢Food and Drug Administration:(FDA) ➢Established to be protective of the general ➢National Institute of Occupational Health&Safety population including children and the (NIOSH) infirmed ➢Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) ➢Exposure Limit Incorporates a Safety ➢Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Factor 50 x's below the RF exposure level that is believed to be potentially hazardous ➢This Group meets/teleconference 6 times per year Where Does the Evidence of Biological Part II Effects of RF Energy Come From? A lin-MMIMMI'MMEEMM=IS M RMEME a i N of Studies Types of Scientific Evidence Setting Human Health >In Vitro(e.g.,DNA,gene 476 expression,cell proliferation) 0 & Safety Standards for ►In Vivo(e.g.,typical tox. 005 assay&Lang term bioassay) RE Exposure ON dEpidemiology(mostly cancer) 263 Human Provocation(e.g.,sleep, g3 memory,EEG) Total 1637 s—:2oaswnon.mb... Page 2 Biological Basis for the Setting Human Health &Safety Standards RF Exposure Standards A Broad Spectrum of Effects were Considered ,, r --a H - �` �'r�".��,a a�t_�i�� s� O<._�,N _t_.,. "sue: `,��M „- s 3- NCRP Report 86Chap ter lleadings ➢ Seeking Scientific Consensus of the LOAEL "Bio logic alEffectsaidExposure Criteria forRadnfrequencyElectromagneticHems" (LowestObsesvableAdvem Effect Lev el) >MeChanffimsol'Imteraction >EffiectsonCatdiwascular ➢ Effects Must Be Established >hSacromolecularard cellular Fwution , s.. Effects >Inbractionwith the Blood- ➢ Adverse Health Effect vs. >ChromosomalaidMutagemc Brain Barrier Effects >Inbractionwilh the Nervow Biological Effects >carchmgenesis system >Effects onRep roductioq >Thermoregulatory Responses ➢ A Broad Range of Growth and Develop meod inHw=aBe+,W Expertise is Required '' >Effects anHematupdetic and >MedicalAPPications hmmme systems >Exposure Criteriaand ➢ National&International Scientifically Derived >EffectsonErdocrhr Systems Ratiowk Standards Represent the Consensus of Experts in the Field.... "Weight of the Evidence Approach" 382pagesaod approxMrelerences Scientific Consensus Approach to Comparison Of Establishing Safety Standards RF Safety Standards K a I I ➢Has the Benefit of review by nianysciengge fie disclplinex and pointy of view Exlsusare Standards(1'CS ri,l',9301±1Ez ➢Does not overreact to a single study. No Single Study(positive or negative)Can Provide All the Answersrt- ➢Rationale for the Standard are Documented and have the benefit of scientl rc peer review ,. s _ ➢Can Be Coyt>par ed to similar Standards TYoaldrvide. Biological Basis for the RF Exposure Standards Part III & 111 a € ➢Standard based on Reproducible Threshold for Potential Harm: behavioral disruption in animals(Rodents&Primates)4 W/kg (whole-body)associated with a—10 C increase in core temp. RF F.xposureS from Proposed •Non-thermal effects were considered but the effect were found either not established and/or non-hazardous T-Mobile PCS site at 6666 Heil Avenue, • 10x Safety Factor(0.4 W/kg)Occupational(Controlled) Huntington Beach,California •50 x Safety Factor(0.08 W/kg)General Public Uncontrolled).This is equal to 1mW/cm2 atT-Mobile Frequencies --Basis for IEEE,NCRP,FCC,ICNIRP exposure limits Page 3 The Magnitude of RF Energy RF Energy Exposure From Proposed Deposition Depends Upon T-Mobile PCS site Site LZM 9 11'1"�`l R",1 11-1111 MNIMILIM 0 rll-`900011 >Input Power to the Antenna (Very Low Power<30 Watts) >Input Power to the Antenna >Antenna type,dimensions and gain(Directional Antenna) >Antenna type,dimensions and gain >Distance from the Antenna(Significant distance from Source of >Distance from the Antenna Antenna Transmissions and Public Exposure) >Elevation of Antenna relative to Public Exposure >Elevation of Antenna relative to Public Exposure(Antenna >Frequency mounted higher than Public Exposure) >Presence of other RF Sources >Frequency(PC S Frequencies Deposit the vast maj ority of their >-Orientation relative to the Field energy on the Surface of the Body) >Physical Dimensions and Composition of the Absorber >Presence of other RF S ources(Measurements indicated existing RF exposure islow) >Direction of Propagation >Orientation relative to the Field >Physical Dimensions and Composition of the Absorber RF Energy Exposure From Proposed T-Mobile PCs site: Directional Electromagnetic Energy Transmissions Elevation and Directionality Antennae MEN The light energy is directed Vt Mj..*d 311 -V outto—rdsthehorizon T ]eudd$ie edema 50 fwt W. re al e very little light energy is Directed to-ardsthe ground Lower than: h1iinBeam Lighthouse at Night Gmwd '1101 ep rovide 3 Sabre 22 of 120 degrees coverage(360 total) The Effect of Distance Proposed Site Inverse Square Law Public RF Exposure Max in—101%,111P.MMIM If 0-50 ft.AOL ERT1100 Vim 4' XF Pat- Page 4 Adaptive Power Control & Proposed Site Public Exposure Cell Phone RF Output .�i: .�w,-<,•,,•'-„'��s�.3,.v� ��i��sz*a�.I M WMINUx ,.,. ��.� -WO 1.3�s-`,aka., # Cell Phone RF Output C ell Phone RF Output ➢Maximum Potential Exposure—0.1%of the FCC public Maximum . um safety standard...a very low level of RF energy and no (1,000 x's)Lower doubt an overestimate of actual exp osure, ➢By way of perspective one could theoretically place 1,000 identical facilities at the same site,and still meet the FCC " safety standard for continuous public exposure. Distance From ➢When one considersthe 50 fold safety factor built into the $ Cell Site(Antenna) } a public safety standard,this maximum potential exposure is 50,000 x's below thethreshold of potentially adverse health Far ', Near effects ➢These exposure prediction modelsarevery conservative, a� Cell Site mall Actual exp osure can be more than 11F 100 x's lower. Weak Signal Strength From Cell Site 0 Strong l ypical kxpostire f'm' h'r,�i js,Rad'v' y " F'eque Part IV �— � Y 3% zoo � 300, �-- z5i The Weight Evidence on RF Health Effects 10 .R�.dm Oxra �-D:rr: �ska�an�i;,•.; CAN SCIENCE GUARANTEE TERMINOLOGY SOMETHING IS SAFE? MEMOIR— MMMEEN,1191i all Endless Potential Variables and Permutations ➢Thermal Effects:RF energy deposition that results in an increase core temperature ➢Athermal Effects:RF energy deposition that in Biological System Bioloe-lEudpoim Exposure Conditions which an increase in core temperature is prevented Variables Variables Variables by thermoregulatory mechanisms >Cdb >DNA Mutations >Fregrency ➢Nan-thermal Effects:RF energy deposition that is >Pre1i "ies ➢ urde cal ➢Modulation too low to result in an increase in core > >Neuralimlo >Av or PeakFiell >Endocrimbgic al g temperature,even in theabsence of >In uanological >Cardovascular >Exposure Duration thermoregulatory mechanisms Status >D`el"p�� ➢Exposure Profile > Physiological gic >Behavioral Status >0mobgy Page 5 CAN SCIENCE GUARANTEE CAN SCIENCE GUARANTEE SOMETHING IS SAFE? SOMETHING IS SAFE? 011;'IMIEW i"UNI 111IM-1199 MEMO III >No...The best science can offer is the presumption of safety >Science is a very powerful and established tool because: -Itis not feasible to test every kind of exposure condition >However,science is not infallible and... withmery type ofbiological system(even ifyou could identify all of them) >It is impossible to prove the negative -PresuWtion is based on thebestscientific tools and methods at our disposal today...butbetteroneswill >Nonetheless it is the best tool we have for establishing Ate undoubtedly be available in the future. health andsafely ofenvironmental agents ➢Science can identify what RF exposure conditions that do give rise to a demonstrable harmful effects,and from this information,reduction factors are applied in a safety standard to keep human exposures far below theselevels. , Electromagnetic fields and public health Electromagnetic Fields and Public health W Na sheet N504 Base stati on s and wireless technologies b 2000 W-OffAWAIMMERMT WIN 11IM-1111111111 ISummary Statem ent&Conclusion "To date,all expert review on the health effects of >"From all evidence accumulated so far,no adverse short-or long- empavmre to RFJIeMv haw reached the sane conchuion: term health effects have been shown to occurfrom the RF signals There haw been no advenv health consequences produced by base stations." e4tabLishedfirom axpavxw to RF rields at levels below >"Considering the very low exposure levels and research results the hwirmadonal guldeflnes on expavure IL-W&published collected to date,there is no convincing scientific evidence that the by the International Conwdision on Non-lonizWg weak RF signals from basestations and wireless networks cause Radiation Protection(ICNIP.P,19 9 S). adverse health effects." 2009 ICNIRP STATEMENT ON THE"GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC,MAGNETIC,AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS(UP T0300 GE[z)" =IIIIIIIII got CA Fj 11111 "Therefore,ICNIRP reconfirms the QUESTIONS ? 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz—3 00 GHz until further notice. Page 6 ATTACHMENT # 14 TARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949-833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 November 30, 2009 Ms. Monica Moretta i l s Sequoia Development Services, Inc. r One Venture, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 Hurltinc.°c.l-t Beach PU�,AN!�,IU DENT RE: Proposed T-Mobile WTF (LA33421 A)Located at the Community United Methodist Church(UMC)- 6666 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Dear Ms. Moretta: At your request and authorization, Tarantello &Associates has prepared an affidavit which will attempt to address potential concerns of negative property value implications caused by the installation of a wireless antennae tower commonly known as the Community UMC located at 6666 Heil Avenue,Huntington Beach,CA. The affidavit along with this letter contains our professional opinion regarding likely property value impacts, a listing of all documents reviewed along with photo simulations and antenna specifications, a summary of similar wireless antennae studies and analysis previously conducted by our firm. Although we have not conducted a specific statistical study of the UMC proposal, we are confident that our previous reports and analysis of other installations throughout the region are reflective of the conditions also present in this case. Concern over the potential impact on real estate values in the immediate area of the proposed antennae is certainly understandable. But notwithstanding the location and desirability of the neighborhood and community, every neighborhood is almost entirely dominated by, and not immune to, the macro and micro economic influences that determine property values and economic trends. For over 25 years, our firm has been involved in a vast array of valuation questions as they pertain to property value impacts in the Southern California region. We have analyzed the potential impacts of jails and prisons for both the County of Orange and the California Department of Corrections. The U.S. Department of the Navy engaged our services to evaluate the possible impact on property values below a proposed shift in flight path to an existing naval air facility. Numerous lenders, investors and developers have requested that we opine on possible value impacts stemming from damage caused by earthquakes, view obstructions, water or sewer line extensions and many other influences perceived to have the potential to cause value diminution. In the last ten years, or so, our value impact analyses have been more concentrated in the wireless communications industry as wireless providers have expanded their network coverage in response to the explosive growth in the use of cellular phones. While each assignment is unique as to location and circumstance, we have learned a TARANTELL O & ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 great deal about the general conditions affecting the regional real estate market and the manner in which these conditions commonly apply to the valuation of property. Hence, while the potential causation may differ, all our results appear to be very highly correlated. This has been particularly true in the case of cellular phone installations. Although our firm has been involved in the value analysis of numerous wireless antennae installations, we have never found any statistically observable property value impacts through our own research. In a comprehensive statistical study involving installations in the City of Thousand Oaks, we compiled sales price data within the same market area where similarly designed wireless installations had already taken place. This approach allowed us to draw conclusions on the potential value impact of the proposed site.This particular study detailed single-family residential sales data for seven existing wireless antennae locations, currently on air, and within close proximity to the proposed new antenna site. We compared the rate of change in the median price per square foot of single-family homes within one half mile of the antenna to the same index of median price change outside the half mile radius. We included every recorded single-family sale beginning one year prior to the date of installation through the date of our study. Hundreds of sales were used in the analysis lending a high degree of statistical significance to our results. The findings of the study were conclusive.Not a single example was found to support the test hypothesis that property values decline after the installation of a wireless antenna. Moreover, although the study was not designed to study or suggest that wireless antennae created value to the homeowners,we nonetheless found that homes located within proximity to some sites actually experienced somewhat greater price appreciation. Most importantly,our research showed that property values located near and far from the antenna sites behaved in exactly the same manner and in a manner consistent with the general real estate market. While it is impossible to know for certain why this result was observed,the overwhelming implication is that proximity to a cellular antenna site is not only relatively insignificant on the eyes of a homebuyer,but that is possible that cellular reception is considered to be a community asset,if not a necessity. In addition to the Thousand Oaks study,we have also reviewed,analyzed and opined to property value impacts in numerous communities. In each and every case,we have never found a single example of measurable value diminution. In communities as disparate as Pomona and Newport Beach,the results have been consistently benign. In real estate economic terms,we strongly suspect that the reason for this phenomenon lies in the strength of the regional growth in population,employment and regional product. Taken in concert,these factors grossly overshadow small changes in neighborhood infrastructure or modest physical changes to the neighborhood, particularly in the eyes of a new prospective owner who may never have seen the neighborhood prior to any changes. Finally, despite a thorough review of the current literature and substantial experience conducting primary research regarding property value impacts caused by wireless installations in 'I"I�iRANTE Ir.I�O ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 communities as diverse as Newport Beach, Beverly Hills, Dana Point and Rolling Hills Estates, we find no evidence or empirical foundation of any statistical significance supporting negative impacts. I have included in this submittal of my affidavit dated November 30, 2009, a list of the documents I have reviewed to reach these conclusions. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project and look forward to any questions you may have. Sincerely, Dr. . Tarantello President TARANTELLO & ASSOCIATES AFFIDAVIT OF ROCKY TARANTELLO I, Rocky Tarantello, PhD, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a principal at Tarantello &Associates located at 3520 Cadillac Avenue, Suite M, Costa Mesa, California 92626. 2. I am also a retired professor of Real Estate and Land Economics at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California and also served as Principal and Chief Economist of Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC), one of the first real estate consulting fines of its type and which continues to be one of the most recognized commercial real estate research,valuation, and consulting firms in the nation.RERC has provided real estate research,publications, market studies,property valuations, investment criteria,and trends analysis for over 70 years. 3. 1 have prepared numerous studies assessing the property value implications (PVI) of wireless telecommunications facilities(WTFs),and I am a recognized expert in the field. My resume is attached. 4. Based on my experience conducting PVI studies,WTFs rarely, if ever have any measurable impact on property values. The Huntington Beach community is a very desirable location which exhibits a high quality of life to its inhabitants and is also closely tied to the homes, commercial resources and jobs located in close proximity. The proximate residential neighborhoods and existing commercial center are all part of the Huntington Beach life style.It is entirely reasonable to expect that exceptional wireless service is desired and expected as a community asset.More importantly,we reaffirm our ongoing position that modern cellular technology provides a valuable resource with minimal physical presence and virtually no negative property impacts. More specifically,the physical character of the proposed antenna system is completely hidden and far less intrusive and carefully disguised compared to most wireless installations." 5. I have reviewed the plans and photosims for the proposed WTF T-Mobile site located within the proposed Community UMC church tower at 6666 Heil Avenue. I have also read and reviewed the Executive Summary prepared by the Huntington Beach Office of the Zoning Administrator dated November 4, 2009. It is my expert opinion;this installation will not have any measurable impact on property values in the adjacent neighborhoods or the surrounding community. I HEREBY ATTEST TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,UNDERSTANDING AND BELIEF THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW. Da ed Rocky Tarantello, PhD TARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714,427.0876 DR. R. TARANTELLO, CRE EDUCATION: Doctor of Business Administration - Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, 1976; University of Southern California Master of Business Administration - Financial Management and Business Economics, 1971;University of Southern California Bachelor of Science- Real Estate and Finance, 1970 California State University-Los Angeles PROFESSIONAL The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,(Fellow of the AFFILIATIONS: Royal Institute FRICS) Counselors of Real Estate, CRE#909 Lambda Alpha Land Economics Honorary Society National and California Association of Realtors American Real Estate Society BUSINESS President, Tarantello &Associates,a California based real estate EXPERIENCE: investment, finance and transactional service company specializing in real estate research, investment, development feasibility, transactional consulting, finance, capital markets, bankruptcy and litigation support services. Since 1978, has participated as a partner, principal or consultant in hundreds of projects throughout the United States. Owned, managed and developed single-family residential developments, multi-family rental projects, shopping centers, office buildings and health care facilities. As a real estate debt and bankruptcy reorganization specialist, has participated in several of the largest debt restructures in California, as well as projects in New York and Tennessee. A leading expert in real estate capital markets and interest rates having participated in debt and equity real estate transactions in excess of several billion dollars. ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 BUSINESS Served as Principal and Chief Economist for Real Estate Research EXPERIENCE: Corporation(RERC) from 2001 until 2005. Has served as a charter member of the board of directors of one of the largest non-profit rental housing providers in the nation, Southern California Housing Development Corporation and also as the senior Vice President for the congressionally funded National Housing Development Corporation. TEACHING Associate Professor of Clinical Real Estate and Urban Land EXPERIENCE: Economics; University of Southern California, 1979 to 2000. Assistant Professor of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics; University of Southern California, 1976 to 1979. Assistant Professor of Real Estate, Finance, and Urban Land Development; California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 1971 to 1976. HONORS, J.C. Felts Creative Counseling Award, 1997 DISTINCTIONS Lambda Alpha,National Honorary Land Economics Society, AND AWARDS: 1998 and 1997 President, Orange County Chapter University of Southern California "Outstanding Faculty Member," 1978-1979 Beta Gamma Sigma,National Honorary Fraternity Wittenberg Fellowship for Doctoral Studies, 1976 Wall Street Journal Achievement Award, 1971 ARBITRATIONS: Marina Cove, Ltd. and City of Redondo Beach, Rent Arbitration, Redondo Beach, California, September, 1997. Jimsair Aviation Services, Inc. and San Diego Unified Port District, Rent Arbitration, San Diego, California, June, 1994. Bazaar del Mundo and California State Department of Parks and Recreation, Rent Arbitration, San Diego, California,California,December, 1992. TARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,Ca6fontia 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONIES: Global Naps Realty, Inc. v. Falcon Investment Group, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 245254, February 2002 Laurel Homes Associates-I1 v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. 225236, March 29, 1999. Santa Paula Rent Control Commission, Santa Paula, California, "Fair and Just Investment Returns,"Mobile Home Park Rent, April 21, 1997. Rancho Mirage Associates (Debtor), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, July, 1995. Commonwealth Equity Trust (Debtor), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 93-26727-GI 1, July, 1994. Armstrong Garden Centers, Inc. v. P/A Chino Town Center Investors, et. al., San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. RCV 058108,July, 1994. Jimsair Aviation Services, Inc. and San Diego Unified Port District, Rent Arbitration, San Diego, California, June, 1994. Law Office of Ginsburg&Hlywa v. David Liscom, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 705 191, February, 1994. Sequoia Management (Debtor), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. SA 93-18024 JW,January, 1994. Allen, et al., v. Lake Cadena, et al., San Bernardino Superior Court,November, 1993. Hanover Anaheim Properties (Debtor), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. SA 92-13697 JR,November, 1992. Moreno Industrial Development (Debtor), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case No. SB 91-15098 DN,November, 1992. Okura & Co. vs. The Careau Group et.al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 90-0542 (SVW),November 1990. TARANTELLO & ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,Califomia 92626 Phone:949.8332650-Fax:714.427.0876 EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONIES: (Cont'd) Karcher vs_ Kavanaugh, Adele., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. C-586004, June 1990. Santa Paula Rent Control Board, Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance, February 13, 1989. UWC-Canoga Ltd. vs. Irvel, Inc., L.A. Superior Court,Case No. C-433052,May, 1988. Burkes, et. al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 396755, February 1988. Beverly Hills Savings vs. The Financial Center, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Case No. LA 86- 24591 -LF,December, 1987. Lloyds of London vs. Ansell, U.S. District Court, Case No. CV-85 4356 KN, November,1987. Kilroy vs. Kilroy, L.A. Superior Court, Case No. D141-898, December, 1986. Olive Davis, et al, vs. City of Newport Beach, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 32- 95-85, July, 1986. Juan Segundo Jr., et al vs. City of Rancho Mirage and C/W Kapp vs. City of Cathedral City, Federal District Court, Case Nos. CV 82-4338 AAH and CV 84-3678,June-July 1985. Oceanside City Council, Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance - October 22, 1985. San Jose City Council,Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance-May 28, 1985. City of Orange City Council, Commercial Development Potential-February 19, 1985. San Jose Rent Stabilization Board, The Economic Impact of Rent Control on Investor Returns - September 24-25, 1984. President's Commission on Housing-presentation on October 28, 1981. Los Angeles County Rent Control Advisory Board, Fair and Just Return in Rent Controlled Units-April 9, 1980. TARANTELLO & ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONIES: (Cont'd) Los Angeles City Council,Rent Control -July 25, 1978. California Assembly, Committee on Housing and Community Development-May 3, 1978. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs - January 17, 1978. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: Books: Real Estate Issues in the Health Care Industry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. Tarantello, Rocky A.; Findlay III,Chapman M; and Messner, Stephen D. Real Estate Portfolio Analysis. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books published by D.C. Health and Company, 1983. A Multi-Period Real Estate Investment Simulation Model: A Financial Management Rate of Return(FMRR) Approach, with M. C. Findlay and S. D. Messner, Center for Real Estate and Urban Land Studies,University of Connecticut, 1981. The Future of the Real Estate Industry, Center for Futures Research, University of Southern California, 1974. Refereed Journal Articles: "Real Estate Experts: Some Further Observations," Real Estate Issues, Vol. 24, Number 3, Fall 1999. "Affordable Housing Through Non-Profit/Private-Public Partnerships," with Sen. John Seymour Real Estate Issues, Vol. 23,Number 3, Fall 1998. "Expert v. Advocate: The Ethical Dilemma of Expert Testimony," Real Estate Issues, Fall/Winter 1994. i'ARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714,427.0876 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: (Con't) Refereed Journal Articles: (Con't) "Determining the Appropriate Interest Rate in Mortgage Loan Cram-Downs," with Jess Bressi, Real Estate Issues, Vol. 18,Number 2, Fall/Winter 1993. "Determining the Appropriate Discount Rate for Calculating The Present Value of Deferred Plan Payments: Historical Experience and Theoretical Underpinnings," with Jess Bressi, California Bankruptcy Journal, Summer, 1989. "The Inflation Dependency of Leveraged Investment," Real Estate Issues, Vol. 10,Number 2, Fall/Winter 1985. "FMRR: A Programmable Calculator Implementation," with G.Tenzer, The Real Estate Appraiser and Analyst, 1981. "Risk Analysis in Real Estate, Part I: Is There Even an Old IRR Literature under Risk," with M. C. Findlay and S. Messner, The Real Estate Appraiser and Analyst,July-August, 1979. "An MBA Program in Real Estate With a Financial Emphasis," with M. C. Findlay, Journal of Financial Education, Vol.6, (pp. 17-18), 1977. "Real Estate Education at U.S.C.", Journal of Financial Education, January, 1978. Abstract: "A CAPM View of VRMs", with R. V. Eastin and M.C. Findlay, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,November, 1976. "California Real Estate: It`s the Morning After", USC Business, Winter/Spring 1991. "Continuation of Single Digit Rates Likely", Building Orange County,June/July, 1986. "Mortgage Lending: Buying the Assumptions", Building Orange County, June/July 1985. "1985 Outlook for Real Estate and the Economy", Building Orange County, December/January 1985. "Post Election Interest Rates: What to Expect", Building Orange County, October/November 1984. T RANTELLa® & ASSOCIATES3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949,833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: (Con't) Refereed Journal Articles: (Con't) "Presidential Elections and Housing Economics", Building Orange County, March/April 1984. "The Plight of the Thrifts",Executive Magazine,Vol. 8,No. 2,February 1982. "The Plight of the Thrift Industry", A.B. Laffer Associates,August 17, 1981. "Free Market System Solution to Housing Problem",BIA/Orange County; October 1980. "Rent Control and the Housing Crisis in Southern California", Parts I and II, with M. C. Findlay, Real Estate Illustrated, Vol. I,Nos. 9 and 10, March 1980. "Why Firms Leave Los Angeles", Local Governments' Decisions and the Local Tax Base, The Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, October, 1979. "Faulty Vision: The Economic Shortsightedness of Rent Control", California Real Estate, December 1978. "Los Angeles Housing Costs, Economics and Public Policy", Southern California Business February, 1978. DBA Dissertation, Variable-Rate vs. Fixed-Rate Mortgage Instruments: A Theoretic Approach,March 1976. PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: Guest Speaker, Global Alternative Investment Management Conference, "State of the Real Estate Industry," Palm Beach, Florida, January 27,2003. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2003 Real Estate Forecast," Irvine, California, January 8, 2003. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2003 Economic Forecast," San Diego, California, December 6, 2002. TARA//NTELL® & ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,Califomia 92626 Phone:949.933.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Con't) Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors National Convention, "2003 Commercial/ Industrial Forecast,"New Orleans, Louisiana,November 8, 2002. Guest Speaker, InvestCredit Bank AG, "Real Estate Investment, Finance and Project Development,"Prague, Czech Republic,June 27,2002. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, Orange County Annual Conference, "The State of the Economy,"Anaheim, California,June 4,2002. Guest Speaker, University of California, Irvine, Graduate School of Management, "2002 Real Estate Conference,"Irvine, California, May 7, 2002. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2002 Real Estate Forecast," Newport Beach, California, January 9, 2002. Guest Speaker,Institute for Real Estate Management, "2002 Economic Forecast," San Diego, California,December 7, 2001. Guest Speaker, Young President's Organization, "Real Estate Capital Markets and Investment Strategy,"Beverly Hills, California,November 14, 2001. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors National Convention, "2002 Commercial/ Industrial Forecast,"Chicago,Illinois,November 2,2001. Guest Speaker, University of California, Irvine/NAIOP, "Current Trends in Real Estate Investment,"Irvine,California,October 30,2001. Guest Speaker, San Diego Union Tribune Annual Investment Conference, "Real Estate Market Outlook," San Diego, California,May 12, 2001. Guest Interview,KABC Radio, "Real Estate Today," San Diego, California, May 12, 2001 Guest Speaker, California State University, Fullerton, "Economic Forecast," Fullerton, California, February, 20, 2001. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2001 Economic Forecast," Irvine, California, January 11, 2001. TASSOCIATES (A��RANTELLO �c ASSO CIS a i i E S 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Con't) Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "Real Estate Market Forecast," San Diego, California, December 5, 2000. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management,"Investment Market Trends," Anaheim, California, June 1, 2000. Guest Speaker, California State University, Fullerton, "Affordable Housing," Fullerton, California, March, 29, 2000. Guest Speaker, Commercial Investment Real Estate Management "Real Estate Capital Markets and Investment,"Los Angeles, California,January 19, 2000. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "Economic Forecast," Irvine, California,January 19, 2000. Guest Speaker, Ohio State University and the Ohio State Appraisal Institute, "U.S. Affordable Housing Programs,"Columbus,Ohio, December 10, 1999. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2000 Real Estate Forecast," San Diego, California,December 3, 1999. Guest Speaker,National Association of Realtors/Counselors of Real Estate, "Joint Economic Forecast," Orlando, Florida,November 12, 1999. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "2000 Real Estate Forecast," Lake Buena Vista, Florida,November 11, 1999. Guest Speaker,Bank Austria Creditanstalt,"Real Estate Project Finance, Risk Analysis and Investment,"Prague, Czech Republic, June 24, 1999. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "1999 Real Estate Forecast," San Diego, California, December 4, 1998. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors, "1999 Global Economic Forecast," Anaheim, California,November b, 1998. Guest Speaker, Counselors of Real Estate, "1999 Real Estate Forecast," Newport Beach, California,November 3, 1998. TARAlliTE LLO fit ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Con't) Guest Speaker, National Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives (NACORE), "Commercial Rental Markets and Negotiating Tactics," Costa Mesa, California, February 17, 1998. Guest Interview, "Real Estate Today," KFMB Radio, CBS Affiliate, San Diego, California, January 10, 1998. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "1998 Economic Forecast," San Diego, California,December 5, 1997. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors, "1998 Economic Forecast," New Orleans, Louisiana,November 14, 1997. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "1998 Real Estate and Economic Forecast,"New Orleans, Louisiana,November 13, 1997. Guest Speaker, Employee Relocation Location Council, "U.S. Housing Markets and the Economy,"Dallas,Texas,May 16, 1997. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors, "1997 Commercial Property Forecast,"San Francisco, California,November 15, 1996. Guest Speaker, Real Estate Owned Managers Association of California, "California Real Estate Market Update,"Palm Springs, California, March 11, 1996. Guest Speaker, Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute, "1996 Industrial Property Market Forecast,"Orange County, California, March 6, 1996. Guest Interview, Real Estate Today, KFMB Radio, CBS Affiliate, San Diego, California, December 2, 1995. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "1996 California Real Estate Forecast," San Diego,California,December 1, 1995. Guest Speaker, Lambda Alpha Land Economics Society, "Curriculum Building in Real Estate Education," Long Beach, California,June 21, 1995. TARANTELLO & ASSOCIATES3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone.949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.087E PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Con't) Guest Speaker, Apartment Association of Orange County, "Residential Investment Property Forecast,"Anaheim, California, May 18, 1995. Guest Speaker, Institute for Canadian Real Estate Investment Managers, "American Real Estate Investments and Real Estate Investment Trusts," Toronto, Canada, February 16-17, 1995. Guest Speaker, University of Southern California Health Care Symposium, "The Health Care Facilities Audit," Los Angeles, California, Febniary 9, 1995. Guest Speaker, Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute, "1995 Industrial Property Forecast," Orange County, California, January 31, 1995. Guest Interview, The Morning Show, KFMB TV, CBS Affiliate, San Diego, California, January 4, 1995. Guest Speaker, Counselors of Real Estate, "1995 Economic Forecast," Anaheim, California, November 4, 1994. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors, "Regional Trends and Their Effects on Commercial Real Estate,"Anaheim,California,November 4, 1994. Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, "1994 California Real Estate Forecast," San Diego, California,December 3, 1993. Guest Speaker, American Society of Real Estate Counselors, "1994 Real Estate Forecast," Miami,Florida,November 12, 1993. Guest Speaker, Vista, California Economic Development Council, "1993 Regional Economic Overview," Vista, California, April 24, 1993. Guest Speaker, American Society of Real Estate Counselors, "1993 Real Estate Forecast," Honolulu, Hawaii,November 13, 1992. Guest Speaker, University of Judaism Moriah Society, "The California Real Estate Market," Beverly Hills, California,November 4, 1992. TARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone_949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) Guest Speaker, The Appraisal Institute, "1993 Real Estate Forecast," Orange County, California, October 21, 1992. Guest Speaker, Medical Group Management Association, "Analyzing Health Care Facility Costs," San Diego, California, June 15, 1992 Guest Speaker, Cushman & Wakefield Western Region, "1992 Real Estate Forecast," Los Angeles,California,March 5, 1992 Guest Speaker, Institute of Real Estate Management, "State and Regional Economic Forecast," Orange County, California,February 12, 1992. Guest Speaker, Commercial Industrial Real Estate Investment Council CIREIC, "1992 Real Estate Forecast," Newport Beach, California,November 19, 1991. Guest Speaker, National Association of Realtors, "Case Study in Real Estate Consulting," Las Vegas,Nevada,November 5, 1991. Guest Speaker,Real Estate Investment Association of California, "Opportunities for the 90's," Buena Park, California, July 23, 1991. Guest Speaker, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, "Real Estate Counseling," Newport Beach, California,May 16, 1991. Guest Speaker, Building Industry Association, "California Real Estate Investment Forecast, " Los Angeles, California, May 14, 1991,Anaheim, California, May 16, 1991. Guest Speaker, USC Commerce Associates, "Southern California Market Forecast," Los Angeles,California,April 24, 1991. Guest Speaker, Orange County Apartment Association, "Residential Income Property Economics," Anaheim,California,March 21, 1991. Guest Speaker, Commercial, Industrial Development Association, "The Orange County Real Estate Market," Irvine, California, February 21, 1991. Guest Speaker, Harvard College Alumni Association, "Real Estate Forum," Los Angeles, California, February 6, 1991. "TARAN'TELL® tic ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.8332650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) Guest Speaker, Century City Chamber of Comrnerce, "California Real Estate Forecast," Los Angeles,California,December 11, 1990. Guest Speaker, Building Owners and Managers Association, "The Los Angeles Office Market," Los Angeles, California, January 17, 1990. Guest Speaker, California Community College Association, "Outlook for California Real Estate," Irvine, California,May 5, 1989. Guest Speaker, International Council of Shopping Centers, "An Economic Look into the 1990's,"Anaheim, California, February 24, 1989. Guest Speaker, California Society of CPA's, "California Market Overview," Newport Beach, California, October 19, 1988. Guest Speaker, Wharton Alumni Association, "California Office Trends," Beverly Hills, California,June 14, 1988. Guest Speaker, American Institute of Architects, "The Orange County Slow Growth Initiative," Irvine, California,May 19, 1988. Guest Speaker, National Association of Industrial and Office Parks," Orange County Office and Industrial Trends",Newport Beach, California,February 5, 1987. Guest Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, "Real Estate Development Strategies," Palo Alto, California, January 26, 1987. Guest Lecturer, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, "Ground Lease Provisions for Indian Allottees," Palm Springs, California, April 16, 1986. Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago, "Real Estate Research and The Development Process," Chicago, Illinois,November 15, 1985. Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, "The Business of Real Estate Consulting," Chicago, Illinois, April 25, 1985. Guest Speaker,Union Oil Corporation, "The Impact of Real Estate Economics on Timing and Location Choice," Rancho Santa Fe, California, September 17, 1984. TARANTELLO ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,Califomia 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 PROFESSIONAL, AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) Guest Speaker, Touche Ross & Co., "Real Estate Economics," Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17, 1982. Guest Speaker, County Planning Commissioners Conference, "SB 200 and the Peripheral Canal,"Newport Beach,California, March 18, 1981. TARANT'ELL® ASSOCIATES 3520 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,Califomia 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr. R.Tarantello Dr. Tarantello is a well known national speaker and has spoken both nationally and internationally on such topics as the national economy, real estate market conditions, investment markets, capital markets and industry trends. He has over 30 years of extensive experience in real estate development, investment, market research, commercial/industrial acquisitions, and litigation counseling throughout the United States. Dr. Tarantello is President of Tarantello & Associates, a Costa Mesa, California based real estate investment, finance and transactional service company specializing in real estate research, investment, development feasibility, transactional consulting, finance, capital markets, damage and lost profit analysis, complex valuations, bankruptcy plan feasibility, debt restructuring and interest rate determinations. Dr. Tarantello joined Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) as a principal and chief economist in 2001 as served in this position until August 2005. He has served as a charter member of the board of directors of one of the largest non-profit rental housing providers in the United States, Southern California Housing Development Corporation and as Vice President of Acquisitions for National Housing Development Corporation. Dr.Tarantello has been a Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics at the University of Southern California from 1976 to 2000. He received his Doctor of Business Administration and Master of Business Administration degrees from U.S.C. and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from California State University at Los Angeles. Professional credentials include the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS), Fellow of the Royal Institute,London, England; and the CRE designation of the Counselors of Real Estate,Lambda Alpha National Honorary Land Economics Society, and the National and California Associations of Realtors. Dr_Tarantello received the prestigious James Felt award from the Counselors of Real Estate in 1997 for his pro bono contributions to numerous non profit affordable housing projects. 3/07 TARANTEILO & ASSOCIATES 3320 Cadillac Avenue,Suite M,Costa Mesa,California 92626 Phone:949.833.2650-Fax:714.427.0876 Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Installation Consulting Projects 1. Comprehensive Property Value Impact Report—Thousand Oaks, California 2. Summary Report of Property Values Impact—Rolling Hills Estates, California 3. Consulting Assignments — Our Lady of Mt Carmel Church,Newport Beach, California (church tower) City of Newport Beach, California Turtle Rock, California(23 sites) 4. Site Reviews: • 22081 Hidalgo, Mission Viejo, California • 3121 Yorba Linda Blvd., Fullerton, California 9 Seneca Rd. W of Rincon, Apple Valley, California • SW Corner Dale Evans Pkwy,Apple Valley, California • First Baptist Church, 1250 Erbes Rd.,Thousand Oaks, California • 1051 N. Westlake Blvd.,Thousand Oaks,California • Oak Knoll Ave./Alpine St.,Pasadena, California • 209 W. Pearl Ave., Pomona, California ® 460 South Sierra Madre Blvd., Pasadena, California • 1885 N. Lake Ave.,Alta Dena, California • 7223 Church St., East Highland,California • 6330 San Vicente Blvd.,Los Angeles, California 0 SCE Mesa Walnut,Hacienda Heights, California T a •Mobile- ® stick together' Mob I* le PUMBPRDP.REDeY: �N13VIICOrtI SITE NUMBER: LA33421A CITY: HUNTINGTON BEACH CONBULiW06POVP; m SITE NAME: COMMUNITY UMC COUNTY: ORANGE SITE TYPE: RAWLAND / CHURCH TOWER JURISDICTION: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH sE uoi� 1x , No 7,773, oAm—AroestavnoN; PROJECT SUMMARY; SHEETINDEX: VICINITY MAP: - D Iz/3 VDe 90P ZD BNu �' ". 1 01/18/09 INTERNAL REv510 ' S1IE�129E5S. SHEETE[+QK P=IP11oN ..! .. •'€c.�M. - .`.aaT,,,,,x4 RED NAL a.sFN. 'a «. - nvN6rN01DNA0P Gn,cA 916A] i-1 iIIE,NECT 1 C:•t.+@�6 I -"-"' i Z^ OZ/OS/OD WJL ZD L5_1 TOPOCRAPnC SVRVEY '�'- .. 5 "# {N,' F' iGN i0 PIL PrRr,OWNER, 'q' s - 'P I 1,*L: v•} J 10/02/09 CNURCN iOWCR CON- tY U 110 ACT 0 ISI CNURCN 01 HUMMGTOu BFAEN -1 Srt[PVx ,Y" � Ib66 ICI. COUIRNENI MCA UYOU1 NVu•1N010N 8-1,CA1-1A-S Ltf/ATAx9 Ap�ICAyi ELVAT.NS i AA.AT1 I oxE,9c«E—I 4A.,A A«A•CA 91>01 CMwp;Aw MM A. .'�' +A^ N. _ ROPSCSCMATM 'FILET C-5 SCO Oeu "' • N IRUCON MANAGER%EvwORiN Bu00 - - 1LE }3 'xNh... "Pi'� ?T- x 3<.-. 'A. q ,x' r. _ ACT,: iN0MP50N - 1-ucerl - '"r"p ?r - 0 SI 'sa•! oR0[[N 4A14C[R D�UulC MM00 - 1_ t o .»� .' ,+xvru r J n [a. I: RRERA - SCOUOIA .wwI:15 r. PaOnn P s R1P1 oN. �' •' M,r;:.,wR -'c.::�A� .Nrtrq ety lnE Peo,:[cl[NTULS. E •t •, -.wa 9iv i'F' '� •"'" ""Y ` i f .1 ZB 09 OC/OA MC W51A 1—01(51 BIs ANo D)BBU t_MOBIIE EOUIPN[NI U&xI5 WRn1N •� 'E v 7 _ r.� 4 <. / / tPEcrc we A CNU WALL CMCLO'URE,AND MSIALI 7-OF PONC NEvw AATN O5 A E 1 D ...n '"•!�»' t�»• ,. f,w•,»» • y{ •�.sx•A. 611E INPORPATbN: • AD IMMARf A 1'A+';1+R'iA=v-�y' •.rr.. P .,,, > P OPD'E W6 cl .—. Al D TE TDP r PMEI AND ,{- M 67.w+ENN,s (1 cP .r� A-IfcccD cnugw* ' TEL_o SL1uRU5 AND,rlco sn«D R D R COMMUNITY UMC ^W1cAlrox EO rPNEN1-II/UO—N- flI g,..l=- .•F`s„2` .Y .._ I''"".WN °rLP or cowsiqucnD» c '" + r,r,.',•.a.9;: M, s., _ r '-••.. LA33421A zory oelE,USE AR a;-so RnExrV1 Low DENsmt,, 11.[ a'+,;h ',t s• L nrAl n'15ED 1-V { 69L6 NAIL AVENUE - A55[SSORS LARCEL rvvND[P 618-A8Z-29 raa+.',i,1,'••• � + ryvp 3 M.y • V' un v { �i _ HUNAMOTON BPA ,CA WNi • 1 A2'uuTNS E.—ARE rOR:NrDRwT1ONu Pvgv04[M OML.Ar4)ME SUB1F[I i0 ».F»' '•�'� .: w•xr, ',' M.e, � EAk e �- CONSULTING TEAM: _ APPROVALS: ANTENNA SCHEDULE _ cPC_/]ON(yr:/?�.ITi Nf. A$[C1 T rRMyR2Z NLFR NG' IFE rD :xC—1105 FIRET'—MD ACCCPI I.-C DOCUUCMI AND _ it000u EVCIOPv[M S[Rv1CF8,INC. NWAC u AsrtnORIZE IIIE COMRACIOR TO PROCEM w1M NE CONSTRUEION DFSCRBEo ---- O f vLNiVR[,fU1TE 1OL ;,,,POW 9 RO P 15J NCRC'N'.ALl COxSTPUCigOu DOCu4[NIS ARC oSIybA[[T 10 RENEM B1 YCN oLIL SECTOR AZIMUTH CENIERLINE /OF 0 Or CORONA,G iBSi UN Bv1LCIND DCPARiVFUI♦ AM CrAv GCS N OD11KAtI0N3 nCY 1 s[ ANTE NNAS ANTENNA MODEL M COAX LINES COAX Oi4MRCOAX LENGin I�wNG c0 TAC1ELy cgD59oRCnA PnONC(95r00T—BS Ar (qsl)E PRINT NAME SGNPTURE p� r,A%N(99)41 1)55'1203� LF - i �s -]N 15/ eo.... NOTICELANDLORD [PP1ClAcr nFUFInc111r rnl NIMr.A1W Idv;Pp[DN nAs D iUhLEY, A&E MGR olauN N4MProw CLSus Rgructrnw:B�ACCN PDuOw qD,vN FOPS CCRCNr,U 92852 t 15C -- oaCttKxS 1R04 1-uOBPF tu11A Aw OrrOF: BXEfi 11RE,xw �cvf'95T)MOB 8505 1MC 55 SOU1N 10 A NOgiN ruff BGCx&M UM.TURN I`— IECOON III AACCLES A.—E COUNTIE5(20D5) Inv (95r)SDM-BIDS DEVELOP MGR N NWi1 Av Uf. •nOt[CD PAS COLMNwEA'S1REI,TAN T1"LEI LC.021 C NVN LN11C0 vinoDRi Ln11RCN 1 666I nCM AVCxu[, q10 E G-1 coNsl,wSP --__ TITLE SHEET RE ENGINEER APPLICABLE CODES UTILITY CONTACTS ZONING MGR - UMEORHM ADM1NIStP,A1NE COOC I Cl UUFO—HNC coot SAE REP tu0]GL:r NN rCsuNKN C00[ laffy Sf,C C4v avr vCxi10N I 9NEET NUMBED: AvIT CLI.11-r u C Wm CODE NraA IOr *10BD OoNECTiboDD T-1 POWER 3L0>CCC 11C05 NE.C) vN0«11 i0 v Ott/COUNIr oaprM«CEB TELGO _ r T . .Mobile., lro,ra:mivNONEE�,N[ ou1:oN4scv HEIL AVENUE .E� 1 n stick together' ERTIES ZONING ANALYSIS OFADJOININGPROP `t _ REsofNr.1 ww ENs:n `,` s:rzr0ccisi Nuuu+lr° PROPOSED T-MOBILE LE45E AREAS o�„M,8CIXNm _ _°., . SECTOR'A' ssE PUNePaLPAafoeY. � EaMI'mnt,° [RN:nar°R a a'RRa uw's°.�° 0°� Boy La '° A .1-v om cU sN:°es 7�@� — — ;-1.•-- '^—•i-- — --•NCn — — — .,wxo wy,`eoe°,» :�isr)m ..o, — r [ + ,.. �(n awss--� wN w—�J"° f'• - I � ,v ri rt0 - � .°w°c ICI+'xIM _ i*i fpRix[00[ COH9Ulr910 GROUP;°T ReOrof[O t-YOfM1E uc t+[ I -d1 Ov[rHxc r-•� cON fuf°put — SEQUOIA r N°foaa,o.'o`sio i uaPiU U![++UR(.19;1 �/ ([)fJ,!•r,1N t,LL. _U —` NI ru Yflvrw e [ w '°• —� --_J� I N0. D.frE.��OEeGRIP11ON Bv: 001E!' '� x0er1 I r s°°i1°f,cG°[ss U!U[xC �•\ vc-cSrrE.°1✓'v.0 B�Nvaaw I) I]/]t/oB go%ID NIC I I wOv�OfEO!'-o•xcx cNc � W�«ax> [Nf+„a v.R.:NG 3 N[� WRf,u[aNR[Oc • I I oqu/09 NiERNµ RN6-Y 1 i—ID euwNe—� ,A— IA D zD .' ON t0 -. a-of sr) '• I I I I� � G ID/Dz/D9 cnuDESI REacN rowER RN ———- - vn-„ I � 1 SECTOR'B' - x H1 —(C)P.Rfwc� — f 1 /2B/09 OC/On CNECN NJC �v 1.T ^r� I BIiE WPOaM.TiON• COMMUNITY UMC 3 _ APN: LA33421A i I kq cww s.:rG.cw.wc — 146-483-29 a I , NoeaE Row1e -C.pc Y l ZONE: Rl Ebfl NElI AVfN11E C._. USE: CHURCH 8 Nr„� 1 NuunxnroN LEACN,we,sR, 1 [IN[°[ff:nlW.p[rnfRr.,xG ttIf!--I I SECTOR'C' 240 COPYapN NOML: °� { " Nftl'LGr nPwsS cmror�unR:�lI�M Per Frure,WP�PE ei[Nt } '• � � .. ...,i.± N exffT TrtEE:wv ......... f'mOn --—————————----------� •...� SITE PLAN FEIT..M...: Ir Ir.,r.r r I„c rr 1::1:•1 ri.,.. I.,.I.11.::, sNl.�r�e11Ii.,N,.. v..,..er.:r.w. u.i . t..-.1 —I—I Rf,n�_ A-1 SITE PLAN eEE ..PROPOSED TWOBILE LEASE AREAS „i.(Rvs cxl toGy^u DS[D »o n o T Mobile [n uus[uRtA ,+vnv+r'":w o�cw«tn[s:5ici'v°e"T<c°t t-uosLt cxuRcn,arcR t5.,[ ,a rrr"r�m:u n unli."ciawwts. DwrNDR txttDT R[N GN stick together' Drof[D,.NDett[CGS[,PG•,SL,.s DWroS[o6 Dr'MOS[TSgr rx'W"`C SECTOR'A' NOVACOM ,oN a 1� rorosm- [>s-D•no•-o• rRoro[o R.[seomxe,n srns[ura=-t 1 ^� eo x.. � C 4r >0.0•Y[O c CT4lf w5U 1 v `P"'M✓'R+S[R[° — _ fEl iRE[f%-`�v / rROroT[D T_NDS.[ x CONEULTINOOPOUPcam A I I, &C N., 5`E,'t[xD, SEUOIA '°� ctr��„, ;,T�.;.::�t+„�5e,:w`^�.�'`,,r�:•;' /';,...:.>,.,..,r,` a�a,,;•^ D.°JP T J>5 �;;n�';' w`gmoP c+os:u.,N Nsa 0rDEscavnou: _._s55 ; + O 0. i ,:icnni vo cr t2/]I/°0 90)[LD n.G RDaDS�°S TAx,Ceµ[— rROMSW[O[ ctn[°M'�.. 1 [n [ux, 01/20/OP NTERNAL REVIy0 J' ,k--------F.V--___---I, �._—_--_i`.•�-______-F 'rrAon'nT noicc,a±` z 02/05/Ds loon zo Itn / SECTOR'B' i =d / r -- ,"----- ----- / auwcn To SECTOR'C L., 120°� — "—S - �'rooars`�.:K„«. ] ro/p2/os 24O u)u s.mx[0e1srno:In,t PV __--- —[RtTu[—ut }u a a[—n[ orscox Las rR[—,Rt rut a 5"t" ANTENNA LAYOUT ,` - (q roR,lox a C04Pn[w«rn -Its s„Rux w RCu«x,rvr i'r1�CS[ �(O NLLx ,oar xD ONO D1/2B/D9 OL/DA CNECN NJC WE INFOR■AM)N, I 1 111 PUN11"Tr ISS 1 D+c[I f[l t„R tr P P,N v I('�� N I •�1°wof,tn,R[•)f wliruv",sn[n _ PUNie Po0loxvDi^I[I!-c• v.-1 '�(I,`— �xTotncc�w¢[ ,I rowscnlgxx� COMMUNITY UMC LA33421A NVN GN 1 .wc ."Nn,L uJ _ �'�1•�,,.1,1� � '� � [1 I' I M[aT0 BFIONNG S![Ri e 1 1 wP�iamR""` L n I ... .' �•(LI'xD P,PxwD'6,RIIM� _ COPYp1GM NOTICW 1°vNPSnR,RGI _ [ixC°r[SiSpxt R°D[wERwuW PPCPPIE,:F�II I(�P„.[iGl, ' �in1G iM'lIP-� °EO/`"�"�tt[W�xi'Wp MM Rfluv■FwwOtW➢ x _ IN![JrRti51°NPRS[x P[.N telpl PNnRR:M1+rn°xerRn, ENLARGED SITE PLAN • � 6[Nxx,I,NnLvco — owt[ro „S.,xD wD N N &ANTENNA LAYOUT ^x Q-A _ � SNEETNuxOIR://�� DEMOLITION PLAN 3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN satL 1 /`4'[Z NOES. T . .Mobile, efirk together* v, F,40V1qitd_M I... J C'11 EQU01A 40. b I-Im (n 0 909 zo 117 KH*�;m W0m 10-zo K. [imam i lial G,70 MR 10/02/09 ...... �TF I SOUTH ELEVATION .aoaosm TU DC/On 1n11K m COMMUNITY UMC LA33421A i J� ViRM �7_ ELEVATIONS e Milan.. sGEE A-3 2 WEST ELEVATION ----------- --- -------__ T - -Mobile stick together* 15 pArp 4. NOVIP91=0171 6 -0ON5UL6ROUP: SEQUOIA To NO.-T7M !- DE3CR1pr..,7,7 , x zu jc .,./O�NTERRCVI510 KI zu TO �R Lm nL�T i NORTH ELEVATION .. .. R1 ...... 111, Y7 COMMUNITY UMC LA33421A —(Q T1 1 1-11 TI 7 IP1111111, 1111111AT11', 57- ELEVATIONS (,IN()} -1 W A 'T. ll, saE 2 A®4 EAST ELEVATION LOCATION Microsoft*Virtual Earth- PROPOSED ; a r t le all . ®bill. ar c°'rt 3 1 ��;�i""��,� ,��$"�' i f,1, ft,"x e. ' `"` •�"f' ` h.r 3r rg�t .s� r` �.v, �.., f" ��rra -?� � -� �i 2Rs .. 2 ✓s �'' e ,� frfitq' } t lcl� ��s1 6"t` rr 4 �rx "r itl,. PROPOSED t TOW ER LOCATION � View from the Northwest to the Southeast EXISTING J •.f �`� '`� X r'" +ter. PROPOSED r , EQUIPMENT +n" k'• ; a LOCATION ma`s City Comments:'Proposed tower will be painted green to match existing church tower.FRP material on proposed tower is designed to match stucco of existing church.` Completed October 27,2009 Leq, 3 3 Z 1 P► APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN /+ 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services emu' 1741 Tustin Ave.19A Community UMV '� Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Monica Morette _ Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 bluewater-clesign.nct 6666 Heil Avenue Irvine.CA92618 michell4bluewater-design.net Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p949,241-0175 Blue Water p714.473.2942 D F S 1 6 N If 949.631.2316 VIEWI 1 Photo simuwdon accuracy Is bascd on wormadon pzoded to Blue water pesign try the appucanL r r T r ■Mobile ` LOCATION Microsoft•Virtual Earth' PROPOSED C }x a S E -� pA _ .srf°i^ s`ar .M;_`:`..g•�"r". ��,.a5lf, a &na• s�•`�4��» §'.:""a�f�yy »P` ,:�F i�ta,� �aa'n�'It"r:�F��F:a,t�;'a'' ,y,„�, t, T � '$u' 'f. au<:-. "'fl•%�r„ .��t �._ �,a �x�.c= �;..�''"'Ls �"'S' �. '-�' ',,,5rs +��- sr."� c �: :<"�';u"�r mkt 4 �. i' '*= e ^' M � =' >� a'` '� e i. dv, L. - .,o - t, 'e.,at. �'j:�' m 4 art m n Y 3s r zG' t ,_^,r' x �✓ .r/r i"* �;, 'x't�t�' kt., � j r, .,pst �,�,�' I .a��`E �� i a PROPOSED- r ;�- View from the Southeast to the Northwest q TOWER EXISTING s � ° LOCATION `tx� a 6w i-.---__•.._. _..�,r.,• f, 'g t �. °.K..z �v " ��,4y j 'x � ,ttj i4 t' � ��..2a` 3' � - F.. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION City Comments:'Proposed tower will be painted green to match existing church tower.FRP material on proposed tower is designed to match stucco of existing church" Completed October 27,2009 L,A 3 3 4 21 A APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN Community 2 1 3 MacArthur Sequoia Deployment Services ^_„�;; .i4 y 1741 Tustin Ave.19A Place Suite 1100 Monica Moretta Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 cwatcr-clesign.net (j666 Hell Avenue biuIrvine,CA micheilea@biuewater-design.net Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p949,241-0175 Blue Water p714.473.2942 of SIGN f 949.631.2316 VIEW2 Photo;lmuiadon acaaacy Is based on information pna,Ided to Biue Water Design by the appllmn[ r �i''�n '"`� ",�, ,q�S4wt�,�Ja-•'�"9'ae .a y �+ �yy �. X t} %Vl' S�._. �, N�vf-� a..w-.• ✓.R. ,S i�'.: ��.t4 �� F !Y .F 5 1! "'1 J (7. f -,)4��. t'All {� 'M{4 �e 9�'�l C"' M '.J rIrZS�rTrN'. mRyw! S �'iA � o � e a. � �+ ••• -� a x t x � r � � ..,r p ��_. y 4 E y sii,.. � '��`- y._�a1'-�' - � a "T m �i • t' a t �$! { f? t k� raj�� F . b *•i .�F-}'sA i+ r i'� �y sd ��t� a � � 1 f, 'T✓��' � r aa��V. M Zy �d "ArsX5.111, 7 �✓a.? .� ,i' ,.. `px J ,i� y.. �' ... ,F j ': � i•�f 't' F-.3� ` %, ,� � ��Y:.�J t �g I � 3"�� s� Zv i ��,.`.. p - - � ��`�4. iuv ;..�....,...... �.... '',.ai�,..'�.' �'{� '�rrwa.�� xk..�,:b'�.i' � k ��,��.y .k^a�k✓�.,E �y�t�'�f,��.,�' f�£ _,'*��+.w,» �� "'�'.`y,"^ w,�'?'"�� `'}ru. 'b�a`+�,',` . �• t��; tr �`� a .1.,«.ar{ �.��, }N" h�` �,�,,.+,,,�..: r .a "` ��` �,�� " -'��''�,a st'� d-:� �� ',war:;+3 .:,, `�" 'x,:n�k'�:�� , �,,.....4 ¢i% � A '"_✓i13.a' �,r .xg x�.,,; .:.., '£S` ,t aln.°t�,`w .�.., `s�tte+�t^ruiy� 'S�e r� �1( �,�s�r `��w�ia e � I -.__- LOCATION �MicrosofY Virtual Earth"' PROPOSED T . .Mobile - .� �„ r, *,1,'. *7-�' �n �' s., a 7 ��. "•r,� e uv; t ,. .y I `�'7NtG'?t a , } ' � n^Cyr 8 a I.s PROPOSED TOWER LOCATIONh- �68 r szy �s x, ,� �l � - � p �� r •"� --��xe "�' s��k" § a- a>,,,, ate,' � •* t�" fi a '+'rv' >y. � fi �', EXISTING View from the South to the North � � { e City Comments:'Proposed tower will be painted green to match existing church tower,FRP material on proposed tower Is designed to match stucco of existing church' Completed October 27,2009 L /� APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN �° T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services a,i ,, a a 1741 Tustin Ave. 19A Community UMC 3 MacArthur Place Suite 1100 Monica Morelia Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 t Itt�L��'$Sa�sff blucwater-oIcsign.net 6666 Nell Avenue Irvine,CA92618 Blue W michelloobluewater-design.net ue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 p 949.241-0175 ate p 714.473.2942 D F. S I C.,N IF 949.631.2316 VIEW 4 Photo simulation accuracy is based on INormaoon pm lded to Blue Water Design Mire applicant LOCATION- Microsoft*Virtual I PROPOSED T . .Mobile - 5 q % i�WX X x, T TOWER O""ER View from the West to ft East LOCATION EXISTING _07 �k.I...... k City Co menu;'Pmposed tower will be painted green h tower.FRP material on proposed tower Is designed to match stucco of"Isting church' Completed October 27,2009 APPLICANT CONTACT BLUE WATER DESIGN L/111% 3 3 4 2 1 A T-Mobile Sequoia Deployment Services 1741 Tustin Ave.19A Costa Mesa.CA 92627 Community UMC 3 MwArthur Place Suits 1100 Monica Moretta Santa Ana,CA 92707 1 Venture,Suite 200 blueWater-design.net 6666 Heil Avenue Irvine,CA 92618 bluewaler-design.net p 949,241-0175 Blue W 1 mater "'a tle�" p 714.4712942 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 D E S I G N f 949.631.2316 Vff I E W 5 Photo simulation accuracy is based on inrormatton provided to Blue Witte Design by the aPI)hCarrL °dr � AGENDA HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8—Lower Level-Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009, 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Ricky Ramos STAFF MEMBERS: Jill Arabe,Andrew Gonzales, Kimberly De Coite(recording secretary) MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: Anyone wishing to speak on an item not on the agenda may do so. No action can be taken by the Zoning Administrator on items not on the agenda. SCHEDULED ITEMS: 1. PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015(T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY—CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 28,2009 MEETING) APPLICANT: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. REQUEST: To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree"monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one(1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 ft. 6 in. high blockwall. The request includes the relocation of a 5 ft. high block wall trash enclosure. LOCATION: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647(south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Jill Arabe STAFF RECOMMENDS: Approval based upon suggested findings and conditions of approval AGENDA (Continued) 2. PETITION DOCUMENT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.2009-0041 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-020/VARIANCE NO. 2009-004(LARSON RESIDENCE) APPLICANT: Jay Earl,Jay Earl Design REQUEST: CDP:To permit the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling and the construction of an approximately 6,508 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 1,131 sq.ft. attached garage; CUP:To permit an ap'proximately 701 sq_ft. 3`d story deck; VAR:To permit the 3 floor deck railing at a 1 ft. 9 in. setback from the exterior of the west elevation and 0 ft. setback from the exterior of the east elevation in lieu of a minimum 5 ft. required. This request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. LOCATION: 3761 Nimble Circle, 92649(terminus of Nimble Circle— Trinidad Island) PROJECT PLANNER: Andrew Gonzales STAFF RECOMMENDS: Approval with modifications of the Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit based upon suggested findings and conditions of approval Denial of the Variance based upon suggested findings for denial Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator is final'unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the action and grounds by which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Four Dollars($1,534.00)if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand and Two Dollars($2,002.00)if the appeal is riled by any other party. The appeal shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten(10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action or ten(10)working days for a coastal development permit. HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Zoning Administrator FROM: Jill Arabe,Assistant Planner DATE: November 4,2009 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015(T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY) LOCATION: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647(south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) Applicant: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc., One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 Property Owner: Duane Hurtado,Community United Methodist Church of Huntington Beach, 18700 Beach Blvd., Suite 260, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: To permit the construction of a 55 ft high wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 ft 6 in. high blockwall.- The request includes the relocation of a 5 ftt high block wall trash enclosure. Environmental Status: This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1,California Environmental Quality Act. Zone: RL—FP2 (Residential Low Density—Floodplain 2) General Plan: P (RL)—Church Existing Use: Church/preschool RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project based upon the following findings: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, involving no expansion of the existing church use. Item No_ 1 - 11/04/09 3 097a1104 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-015 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility disguised as a bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1)GPS antenna, including completely stealth associated equipment will not 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 facility will replace an existing 52 ft. high bell tower with a new bell tower structure. The structure will be setback more than 125 ft. from the adjacent residences located to the south, east, and west of the site. The design of the tower will disguise the associated antennas from public view. The project will not generate noise, traffic, or demand for additional parking above that which already exists on-the subject site. As a condition of approval, the wireless communication equipment will be underground. The proposed height wi{I enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the wireless communications facility and support structure will be designed as a bell tower to blend into the surrounding environment including the existing church located on site. The project involves the replacement of a belt tower with a tower of similar height and at an identical location onsite. The bell within the tower will be operational. The antennas will not be visible from public view as they will be concealed within the tower structure. All associated equipment, as conditioned, will be underground-to further eliminate visual impacts of the wireless communications facility along Heil Avenue and on the property. 3. The proposed conditional use permit will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Wireless communication facilities are permitted to exceed the maximum height of 35 ft of the base zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal-LU 2. Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan(as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). B. Utility Element Policy U 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication and electrical systems are provided. Item No. 1 - 11/04/09 4 09za1104 Policy U 5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed facility will enhance wireless communications in the community by improving signal transmission and reception in the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed completely stealth facility is designed as a bell tower and will replace the existing bell tower onsite. The location of associated equipment will be underground so as to eliminate any visual impacts to surrounding uses. As conditioned, the project will have minimal visual impacts because the wireless communications equipment will be underground and the new bell tower will match the previous. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-015: 1. The photo simulations dated October 27, 2009 and site plans and elevations dated October 28, 2009, shall be the conceptually approved design. 2. All associated equipment to the wireless communications facility shall be underground. 3. The existing trash enclosure shall not be relocated and the existing block wall enclosure shall not be removed. 4. 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?CategorvlD=19} or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.or�ondex.cfm?fuseaction=quidelines)_ 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. Item No. 1- 11/04/09 5 09za1104 HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Gonzales,Associate Planner DATE: November 4, 2009 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2009-0041 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-0201 VARIANCE NO. 2009-004(LARSON RESIDENCE) LOCATION: 3761 Nimble Circle, 92649 (terminus of Nimble Circle—Trinidad Island) Applicant: Jay Earl, Jay Earl Design, 16541 Marina Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Property Owner: Lory and Sharon Larson,3761 Nimble Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Request: CDP: To permit the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling and the construction of an approximately 6,508 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 1,131 sq. ft. attached garage; CUP: To permit an approximately 701 sq. ft. 3"d story deck;VAR:To permit the 3`d floor deck railing at a 1 ft. 9 in. setback from the exterior of the west elevation and 0 ft. setback from the exterior of the east elevation in lieu of a minimum 5 ft. required. This request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/ privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height,and floor plan layout. Environmental Status: This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Section 15303, Class 3, California Environmental Quality Act. Zone: RL—CZ(Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone Overlay) General Plan: RL—7(Residential Low Density—Maximum 7 dwelling units per acre) Existing Use: Single Family Residence RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Coastal Development Permit and the Conditional Use Permit and denial of the Variance based upon the following findings: item No.2—11/04/09 6 09za1104 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is located within an urbanized residential zone and involves the construction of a new single family dwelling_ SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2009-004: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 2009-2004 for the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling and the construction of an approximately 6,508 sq.ft single-family dwelling with a 1,131 sq. ft. attached garage conforms 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 1.1.1 to encourage development within, contiguous to or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it. The proposed construction will occur on a developed site, contiguous to existing residential developments. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code_ The project, as conditioned, complies with the maximum site coverage, maximum building height, minimum yard setbacks and minimum onsite parking. 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 residence will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all the necessary services and infrastructure available, including water, sewer, and roadways. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act_ The proposed residence will not impede public access or impact public views to coastal resources. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-020: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-020 to permit an approximately 701 sq. ft S4 story deck will not 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 location and orientation of the proposed 3`d floor deck will not impact privacy because the deck will be primarily orientated toward the street and harbor. The sides of the deck will be shielded by the 2nd floor roof which will prevent direct views onto adjacent residences. To further protect privacy the deck will be setback more than 25 ft. from the nearest adjacent residence. 2. The 3`d story deck will be integrated into the two-story design of the residence which will be compatible with other two-story, single-family homes in the vicinity. The deck will be centrally located on top of the residence and screened from adjoining homes by a hipped roof. The deck will not provide additional mass and bulk to the residence as it will be open Item No.2—11/04/09 7 09za1104 to the sky and provided with perimeter railing that allows for the transmission of light and visibility through the structure. 3. The proposed 3`d floor deck will 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 project complies with the maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum building setbacks. Rooftop decks above the second story are allowed in the base zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed deck,as conditioned,will be setback at a minimum of 5 ft.from the second-story fao"ade. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7(Low Density Residential-7 units per acre)on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: Land Use Element Policy-LU 9.2.9b: Use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development; Policy-LU 9.2.1d: Maintenance of privacy on abutting residences_ The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, including maximum site coverage, maximum building height, minimum setbacks, and minimum on-site parking_ The proposed rooftop deck above the second story will be oriented toward the public right-of-ways with a substantial setback from the building's northerly and southerly exterior elevation, thus minimizing impacts to privacy on adjoining properties. The proposed deck will be architecturally integrated into the design of the house. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-VARIANCE NO. 2009-004: 1. The granting of Variance No_ 2009-004 to permit a 1 ft_ 9 in. setback from the exterior of the west elevation and 0 ft. setback from the exterior of the east elevation in lieu of a minimum 5 ft. required will constitute a grant of special privilege because the design of the project contains ample options to comply within the minimum requirements of the HBZSO. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, or location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property is similar in shape and size to other properties in the vicinity and does not contain any features dissimilar from other waterfront lots. The 3`d floor deck has adequate options to comply with the minimum 5 ft. setback from the building exterior, and therefore no special circumstances exist to grant deviations from the third story design criteria. Item No.2—11/04/09 8 09za1104 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2009-004/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-020: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 30, 2009, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. On the site plan (Sheet No. 1), depict the areas of landscape and hardscape within the required 15 ft. front yard setback area. In addition, identify on the development matrix the total area and percentage of landscaping within the area. b. Modify the 3`d floor plan (Sheet No. 4) to depict the 3`d floor deck railing at a 5 ft_ setback from the outermost exterior of the east and west elevation of the building. 2. 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?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.orgfindex.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. Item No.2—11/04109 9 09za1104 ATTACHMENT # 15 5 M obil LA33421A RF DATA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY---------' -- T-Mobite site LA33421A is being proposed at Community UMC church located at 6662 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 to provide wireless service to the neighborhood immediately surrounding the project. Based on the data collected from Radio Frequency (RF) propagation studies and drive test data T-Mobile needs to improve the coverage for the surrounding residential neighborhood around Edward Street and Heil Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. T-Mobile uses a prediction too[ known as Asset to predict signal level and to determine the extent of any coverage gap. Current propagation plots indicate the need for a site at Community UMC Church. T-Mobile confirmed the modeling data by performing a drive test. This process involves using a mobile phone with engineering software to collect real time data from the field. This is done by making phone calls to measure actual signal strength from existing sites and mapping the data to determine the coverage gap. This test is also capable of measuring competitive network signal strength to compare coverage from different providers. T-Mobile signal level collected in the area of the proposed site at the Community UMC church has an average of two bars of signal level. At this signal level call will drop when inside of a house or building. The prediction plot and drive test map are provided in the attached RF Technical Report. The RF propagation studies and drive test data are superior to generalized coverage maps commonly referred to as PCC maps. The PCC maps are easy to understand and provide general information regarding service areas but do not necessary address gaps in coverage as RF prediction plots and drive test data would. RF maps are more detailed in depicting predicted signal levels and identifying coverage gaps at a given location based on the function of the Asset RF modeling too[. Additionally drive test data using the proper equipment is superior to modeling in that it measures and records actual signal levels from the field. T-Mobile is constantly monitoring the neighboring sites and considered the option of modifying them to close the gap in coverage. Due to the high density of land uses in the target coverage area, the neighboring sites can only cover a radius of 0.25 miles and can't provide full bar signal level to the residential properties in the intended coverage area. The proposed site at the Community UMC church is necessary to improve the signal level from two bars to full bars to enable customers to effectively make a call both indoors and outdoors. The facility is needed to allow T-Mobile to provide good quality service to its customers and address the 4000+ dropped calls and 300 complaints in the subject area. TIO Zmobile, a ca ifs P ,^ The FCC license required T-Mobile to build a wireless network that will provide the best network performance to customers as possible. Also, the FCC license required T- Mobile to put up a wireless network in accordance with the Federal Communication Commission requirements and under the compliance of Federal, State and local mandates laws. The goals of the network performance are to provide best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop-free connections. Also, the site will operate below the radio frequency emission limits set forth by the Federal Communication Commission. T-Mobile is proposing a site installation located at 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 with an effort to adhere all the requirements set by FCC, Federal, State and local mandates. 'n 0 M(c), le ri a 1�ro--, a Site S D e LA33421 A Site Name : Community UMC Site Address: 6666 Heil Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 T16 iJ� �^{ }' Cie e j€['�)�{E � �w-»�--a The following guidelines were used to determine the best candidate for site LA3342 1 A: 1 . Site Visit — Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on location, structure height, topography, lease area, etc. 2. Propagation Analysis — T-Mobile USA uses a prediction tool, known as Asset, to project the expected coverage of the new cell site. 3. Drive Test Data — T-Mobile USA uses real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. �_ '�'� i, _� �, 1�� I f d f� � 3�` t�",' ,h ��j i;� �� {�7 �� "��:� ��,'t,a' �� i tl •�� i t�i� �i` � '��. "'�i Rom, rip ! 1_'o i�� `� �� I� ��) � I i ��i� N ��.� �'� �� —`�� '� '� , — :1t�"`-,-'� r� -L'g�'u"' •� „ice �j8�-� .� � �, �.�r �,� .ot-. F"-' � •N' � Wyk filr s *.a�� ,w �;�ky.�,Ia;�;t ♦�,, '[ .-e �°i ...� � i � °�� c �Ic� s+ sr. �' $ A. "....„..�:. l`�.�] 1 . - = grill I .i i �• lu; ��r �? i I '��I I i� ��1 �� I'1 �� I �� t i p G'r l � i i�. f I i�� i i i i��I r .�I •�I��_.i� i i 1 i I� I ! ( I i � i i i i t i I � i 1 •�1 — h w " _0 Drive Test Data is the real-time data collected from the field to determine the need of an additional site. r>�rr� � � b Dr �, Legend T;R d i'a �CCaSaI c, C in-CEr� ow flo�nl�e Dr 2j to Dr Marl Marina V kW } looker • •- r i ❑ b n i °t&;i ' j D Outdoor -91 dr�l A02003A s b m LA1- 05A e r Ave_ .Er ~'��E_^pr: i�$fri'•w. �#,FED? 1_., rn �) 1-� ��'fuTM In Vehicle -35 db Dr Lorge+ it luespl ca Proposed Site D ' �v Am �_ Bbaqu�t Dr— Indoor/In building LA33421 A f:. ;; -� {�-Airb��' , i� rr'E I `,..r`c�`�" g i _ _tarr 4 ram. r rasa it d _ .� i�BrlwateDr `.Atha .•== �� -�Danu . W n este r El3. { w =l *rBd �I j Carla _I J I d P I.�+` ;" �, LA42495A � 4� '-,Areas with Low In-door E- Coverage. ctaeJ0. a' c cp rs r'n r' 11 1 c m a Bell o a t Rook-Dr C ecc a rttli r - r w r �Athen L Site location for LA33421 was based on this drive test data which shows weak Indoor Coverage 0 but has good Outdoor Coverage 7 on the area above. `I°-Mobile needs to provide Indoor Coverage 0 in this area by installing site LA33421A at Community UMC church. IT. 0 bi l lao .. 'LA93105A -9 WJ, These are the LT.M.: areas which T- ON=a za z: Bel ' linger rMobile needs to improve the a Y ar -E f i t Dr �I c coverage. These Cr r v ues Dr areas currently has 1 90% Outdoor antecita Dr s3 L ton ood,D ,.:� " � rc Coverage (Grey ❑) —P� Dr _ _ _ �—� le-fight Cir i Bouquet.Dr k0� Jm—tI 0° afaye _Dr, T`'ij'# Flaying the site z rlightCir ,J-C}.K LA33421�► installed in Cir i CAI m o a ' Cir; communitycommunity'. at community nl�ht f Q , Ca inch UMC, the coverage v ; ,..� uli n Cir - Defiance Dr Jer cir F ; in these areas will ssie�r �� p � � I _ ' � �-� m o ff '; I I j -1— Suniight Dr iiY1�8rOVe from a rove i e Bn ewater r - ' '.a Outdoor Converge (Grey � ) to I n- r C r Gurn m Dr�, -- � i Bonnie Dr` - _ — ��- door Coverage op i Z r' l7r .' i p Dr �q p I i I� L rii (Green D ). ? 1N Proposed osed Site B _ ber i ri Cir LA33421 A Grandal nlyn D Annette 0r1 �— m arc'r ,Kendrick it ri d Dry Sylvia Dr Carla Cir ayl Dr, Farineria Dr� Lydia F d Ci L�Shields Dr .� °-�° w QtC=4CC�' -f i" : � � f eh • unn im ro (D �" i to A _ Dr ;� _ Legend: _ r„ - I t t}5 = _ _ =Ct;¢� .fO Carri�Dr m C erA ros Dr Loker D � Signal Level Marina Vrk a ° i „ -, ^_ Bree�la Or C 1 O -40 to-70 dbm `-•- rr § a an r t � _ . A02493A �, 3105A O -71 to-78 dbm LA1; + �� °ds ..: ..; ;,: : - -a��=0 = �Dd- O -79 to-85 dbm -� O -86 to-94 dbm ,Drr, tie E3 Idri ve0 -95 to-109 dbm ottwirid Dr �" 9luesails Dr LFa Cir Volga D 0) try— L-A4_378A `� _�): � l.l� Q `�° C� } •_ ?fir- y�c +� et D Am f z )o_n�Glencoe Av 1 r far ss�? .. �� Q =t�. ffianftirar c .- { -- ego '��RAobale needs to can FI r - W .� * " . ] Ru h r p r r c wl --- r`a t _ improve coverage nett r G al - a w p w. ��, in this area. F *- -I' a :3 Z { ti^ LA0Z,'oA c i t } r L c pT-f This can be done h�e ( I� d:-I 3.9 G t� bar6sk csr r � d r w r by installing site lk yj t* _ LA33421 A at e .n Le ' _ n in Community UMC n a - � c "°' k br CI�QArCII w c o r m Betio D m 1 ;3- (-�� Rook Dr r C E r ve - r -r =I tttiE D j I I I AHolla nstorlC� ID__v�+ i"W ? 'r rn� v e {n 't- ,• LQ I OEM ' Ylobhe E�_ u o � � Legend: LLA02093A LA13105A �0� ,, Competitive 1•Mobile Com etitive Standing L I�t�V�nt�N Disadvantage Competitive Q 0 iiL-A33�21A �f� p r� & has better O 0 U� coverage in this LA02a95A area. JfLTUU J U T-Mobile needs to o improve coverage COMMr to be more competitive with p AT&T 0 � Q O LA02585 U_ J n `� Wiz. ❑ 777 k t ll is . '. � lo[ ��c W ° SIC GIIOU Copa� Mc� C �rccr� gc a Legend: CCO0 4 T-Mobile Competitive wtAnding n � LL]AO�2O93'A' D� LA13105A �I I� Ad`antaIn �J DlsadvantaY _ L•A023 conipetltive I . C O 0 t 0 =ALA334V1A L VERIZON has better coverage in U LJ ° C this area. � LA02495A � D ' T-Mobile needs to improve coverage L�A02853D o to be more competitive with C Verizon C C � LA42585A 0 0 0 ' Z, FLU p C t,a + o To tIn . + o ,e r ent r Dr Marina Vim y m k D a Or 0 Accumulated Customer LA02093A LA0311 03A Complaint for from 2005 " F7T EdirgerAve rUastle Ljr - to Present= 302 Cn 4 J oftwind Dr 7 luesails Dr L rge Cir C. � � r ,00 r u uet L} Am Drop Counts from 10/09- t morn r - 12/09 = 4258 Calls Cir r- r LA33--I' . Mars Dr r i it u h r nette it �, , Bra ' r � Cr r . of LA0293A Cl 'trophy m war"r ve LA0.2 53D in Ave rh nD c a m a Belo � 1 Cod r ve •,%Chen r "' r � w � na 5 = uka i, ¢ lenston CD � W J m $ �r'� � o L -1 _ !C 4 bi , LA S `-21- ProdaWd.00 'ara a aufl h a Pry} c,l d ee l n r ' •��.�-<.�K� � AIt� t��r � .� :E 1J sir gat Lr r 4w : p }+ y qr z �� -' Weak coverage on this �`�xVt' LJ;r nyr Y' F AO LLB aarea (low on In vehicle and =' �;ri=ssr � bs it sir ... �. r.9rar�� In Building Coverage) CAV r (� Existing sites LA13105 , �rS Ur LA02495A, and LA02353D :1 ae Or cant provide enough i i�t � � ' coverage hence LA33421A • �, ' C?s �"lm, c R �Ii ,`�� L is being proposed to be - Ed9e,#iqnt Dr ! TW >� r � installed in Community 8r P rrxhV mar 'r - $i cefb r u r r �ter U C to provide the needed tC t Dr { 9 A coverage as well as a Brad Of 16. it ' s- balance coverage with r ( .D le Qr : -G� r LAd2495A = ` _.w_. existing SINS. �' ►dab : c: - `d A Proposed site location Is trAtYM39 — p symmetrical with existing Qed Lj. At K sites hence required -' B1rf � �' coverage objective is k i?+P vri[S416 s meet s .x r=Ki del� In Veldole JYIa4 ,Cr, E G In 6ulldinp 2' rt 13TO Mobile f ��,c Dr v _+ Ajibipp � � Prediction plot shows J 'Ca �rir, z- r. � Car, �,Ur r, that the current �� Grdsn Dr Marina �, proposed sites will � . meet the desired r coverage objective. -_ du IlaDr r r $r This also shows a x- r rrr C� 3... t Lbf 1t_I}il�amn L F �- - balance coverage with M oenzcnrCrr�' �. existing sites. &r srr t DT 11t� rllbr,P Dr D"_Ob t s - � Q� LA33421A Community Orr �:�it3 If � �� '� the best Shields lr 024f)5A " . n. option for this site° l 2B53�J $T Paul Or tsttc L�r . ME 6r a15 �k+ KA � [ t�s r .`- c1t Id Dr J Coverage lepend ttttffat tyUoor In vehlole a., _ In BU11,11no To Q °Mobfl o Proposed site location for LA33421 A was chosen based on the coverage requirements aimed to better serve the customer and provide the best quality service. ATTACHMENT # 16 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015 (T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility) so* 80 Applicant/ Appellant: Monica Moretta e e e 0000 k 0 eve(,,)Location: 6666 Heil Avenue ; March 15, 2010 `' ' ®see Request ® Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015: ® (original request) To permit the construction of a 55 foot high wireless facility as a stealth designed palm tree with 12 panel antennas and one (1 ) GPS antenna including associated above-ground equipment screened by a blockwall 1 6 E p� a. '. o o 0 0 0 0 $ � x 2 see ®®®00 Action 0000 . t, s Zoning Administrator conditionally approved a re-design of the project on November 4, 2009: ® 55 ft. high completely stealth designed church bell tower ® 6 panel antennas and 1 GPS antenna ® Completely underground all associated ancillary equipment Soso Action (c®nt9 ) ® Planning Commission denied the re-designed project on January 26, 2010, based on testimony, submitted maps and information, finding that: ® No significant gap in coverage exists ® Detrimental to property values and general welfare of community ® Negative aesthetic impact and incompatible use 3 000 0000 •0000 0000 Appeal of PC denial 000 0 : oaat aa ;c ® Filed by the applicant on behalf of T-Mobile ® Reasons include: ® Denial was based on environmental/health effects which is preempted by federal law • Substantial lack of wireless coverage in vicinity demonstrated by coverage maps and drive test data ®®m®a ®000 00a0=' Project Analysis aaa< ® Wireless coverage gap demonstrated in coverage maps with objective to close gap and increase RF signal level ® Most feasible location within coverage gap ® Completely stealth wireless facility designed as bell tower replicates existing bell tower ® No detrimental impacts to general welfare of community related to aesthetics, noise, traffic, lighting, odor, or property values 4 000 0000 00000 0000 00000 Recommendation 0 Staff is recommending approval of the project based on the following findings: , ® Project complies with HBZSO requirements and General Plan goals and policies 0 Wireless communications facility will enhance signal transmission and eliminate a gap in coverage ® Completely stealth design of church bell tower conceals wireless antennas with underground equipment and will satisfy coverage objective 00®® 6800 0000 Recommendation (c nt'd) 00 rI u 0 Project is aesthetically compatible and will not generate adverse impacts of noise, traffic, lighting ® Not detrimental to general welfare of community or property values 5 000 0000 ®®ffi ® 0000 00':_ f)U'_ END OF PRESENTATION 6 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND BUILDING SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of CUP 09-015 (T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: , March 15, 2010 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached F] Not Applicable 0 Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached El Not Applicable M Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached El Not Applicable M Attached El Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Not Applicable (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached El Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Not Applicable (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Attached El Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Attached Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable El Attached El Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable El EXPLANATION FOR IVIISSING',ATTACHIVIENT&-` REVIEWED' RETURNED FORWARDED -Administrative Staff -Assistant City Administrator (initial) -City Administrator (Initial) -City Clerk -EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: , RCA Author: SH:HF:JA CITIZEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 09-015 T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4224 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: Thomas Point Description: Mayor Green and City Council Members, I am a resident of H.B.for 34 years and a close neighbor to Community United Methodist Church on Heil Avenue. I agree with the planning commission's action of January 26th to deny; the construction of a 55 foot wireless cell tower on this property. I do not want it practically in my residential backyard! This tower does not belong in our neighborhood for obvious reasons. Please VETO this proposed tower next Monday evening.. Thank you, Thomas Point Expected Close Date: 03/10/2010 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 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK March 9, 2010 Members of the City Council 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA Re: proposed T-Mobile cell tower @ Heil/Fountain Huntington Beach CA Dear Council Members : T-Mobile' s application for a conditional use permit for the purpose referenced above Should be denied for the following reasons: Under the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance #241 . 10 A. 1 . , it is "detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity" and "to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. " 1 . I previously submitted a letter from Seal Beach appraiser Tom Garland stating that cell towers reduce prop- erty values by at least 50 . My legal practice entails the sale of real property. Cell towers affect property values negatively and must be disclosed because prospective buyers do not want them. The reasons include not only health reasons but the following: (a) Aesthetic concerns (clutter, blockage, ugliness) . Municipalities may regulate towers according to aesthetic concerns according to a recent (2009) 9th circuit appellate case, Sprint vs . City of Palos Verdes Estates; (b) Quality of life issues, such as (1) the presence of maintenance crews and activities during evenings and week- ends and (2) noise--some residents report a continual hum near these towers; and (c) Safety issues, such as the fire during maintenance that caused a Wellesley, Mass . cell tower to catch fire and collapse on Jan. 23, 2009 . These towers are also vulnerable to earthquakes and high winds which could cause the six antennas or even the entire tower to fall . If any part of the proposed tower fell, it could fall on the pre-school . 2 . In MetroPCS vs. City and County of San Francisco (2005) , the 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the burden of proof is on the wireless carrier to establish (a) a significant gap" in coverage and (b) that the proposed facility is the "least intrusive means" of filling the gap. Based upon the evidence submitted at the Planning Commission hearing, T-Mobile has not met this standard. There may be a small gap but not a significant gap and certainly placing a cell tower next to a pre-school in a residential area is not the "least intrusive means" of accomplishing the objective. 3 . In addition, it is not clear that T-Mobile' s evidence of "gap" coverage is current . It appears to include data collected prior to the installation of its most recent tower. For these reasons, T-Mobile' s application for a use permit to install a cell tower in the neighborhood near Heil between Golden West and Edwards should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Dana Drake Attorney at Law 714-969-1901 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4240 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: Debbie Zentil Description: To Whom It May Concern: I currently have, and have had for approximately the last five years (most likely closer to ten years), a T-Mobile cell phone. One of the reasons I continue year after year with T-Mobile is that I never have a problem with reception, anywhere. Inside my home, outside my home, in my car, etcetera. On the rare occasion when I do have a dropped call whoever I am speaking with always calls back and lets me know that their phone always drops calls. 1, along with another neighbor who also uses T-Mobile, conducted our own test of the area T-Mobile represented had a problem with dropped calls. We went to at least 20 locations (most likely closer to 30) on their chart and did not have a single incident of a dropped call. At the last T-Mobile meeting their representatives advised that they had complaints of a specific number of dropped calls per day. When I asked the question of how did they know if the call had been dropped at the T-Mobile end or the other provider's end they did not answer my question whatsoever. I believe that without proof that there is a reception/drop-call problem as a result of T- Mobile reception that this cell phone tower is unwarranted. The residents have, repeatedly, provided proof that there is no problem; how can proof outweigh mere representations with no back-up evidence? This applicant has not demonstrated clear and convincing evidence of good faith efforts to demonstrate that the location is essential to meet demands in the geographic service area. Debbie Zentil Legal Assistant Phone: (714) 293-1216 Facsimile: (714) 847-5619 Expected Close Date: 03/10/2010 Click here to access the request INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Sun`City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4246 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: Richard & Blanca Evans Description: March 9, 2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We, Richard and Blanca Evans, are AGAINST the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at Community United Methodist Church (CUMC) which is near the intersection of Heil Avenue and Edwards Street and right behind our home! We have lived in our home for 30 years and have been voting residents of Huntington Beach since 1980. We have developed many long-term friendships with our neighbors during these years and we have grown to trust your decisions for the betterment of our City, always believing that when making your decisions you always put first the responsibility you have to "protect the public safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach(Section 230.96, Section A, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance). We love our neighborhood, our neighbors and our home, which is OUR LIFE- INVESTMENT. Now, the value of our investment is being threatened as evidence submitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 26, 2010 indicates. As submitted by real estate professionals in our area and appraisers as well, the proposed wireless antenna site will have a negative impact on the value of our homes and our future ability to obtain a fair price if we decide to sell and relocate our residence. We would need to disclose the cell tower. The proposed wireless site will also cause inconvenience, discomfort, trouble, and annoyance as the T-Mobile maintenance service schedule is 24 hours, 7 days a week. The proposed tower height is 55 ft. The noise of service, the flood lights at nite will surely turn into a public nuisance issue. We know this is will be true as a speaker attested to this at the January 26th meeting in connection to the T-Mobile cell tower located behind 24-Hour Fitness (Springdale and Warner.) Will you be protecting our quality of life if you approve the construction of this cell tower??? True evidence submitted to the Planning Commission CLEARLY proves that there is NO SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE in the proposed area. There is one cell site within 1/2 of mile of the proposed location (in front of McDonalds on Edinger, between Edwards and Goldenwest); there is one at Murdy Park(Goldenwest between Heil and Warner), and one at 24-Hour Fitness (Springdale and Warner). As evidence also indicates, T-Mobile has submitted a false and misleading Application by first asserting that the wireless antenna is needed to "increase the existing coverage" while in another portion of its Application it attempts to assert that there is a "hole" in coverage. There is not one trace of supporting documentation from T-Mobile's customers supporting their inconsistent assertions. On the contrary, we are aware of the statements of T-Mobile's existing customers stating that coverage in the concerned area is very adequate. It should. be noted that T-Mobile's Se rvice Contracts do not guarantee full uninterrupted coverage in any area, nor do they guarantee any coverage free of small dead spots. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that the City may deny T-Mobile's Application Unless T-Mobile shows by substantial evidence the 1)the proposed wireless antenna is needed to close a "significant gap" in service coverage and 2)there are no alternative facilities or site locations. As suggested in our packets submitted to the Planning Commission and considered at the meeting of January 26, 2010, by one of the Commissioners, an independent study should be conducted to see if there is indeed a "significant gap" and no alternative facilities or site locations. The proposed 55 ft. bell tower will still be an eyesore to the communities surrounding the church. This proposed wireless antenna site is not compatible with the residential character and appearance of our surrounding neighborhood. We urge you to agree and support the decision made by the Planning Commission at the January 26, 2010, meeting to deny the proposed conditional use permit submitted by T- Mobile. Sincerely, Richard and Blanca Evans Expected Close Date: 03/11/2010 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. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4273 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: John Anderson Description: Dear City Council Members I am emailing all of you in regards to the proposed cell tower located at 6666 Heil Avenue. and on behalf of 350 plus residents of Huntington Beach. I am totally against this cell tower because it does not belong in a residential neighborhood and could jeopardize my property values. A 55 foot tower is the last thing anyone would expect to see sprouting up in a large neighborhood of homes. It will be extremely imposing and totally dominate the landscape because it does not fit the neighborhood. I also object to the alleged need for this tower in the first place. T-Mobile service is fine according to those who use it in my neighborhood. There is no significant gap in their coverage. Even T-Mobile's own data proves that. We also have 2 T-Mobile cell towers 1/2 mile away and another just 1 mile away. Please do not overturn the courageous decision of the Planning Commission.to deny T- Mobile's request. I respectfully ask that the City Council reject the T-Mobile cell tower. Thank You, John Anderson Expected Close Date: 03/12/2010 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. �—�C).J Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:41 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4293 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: Michele Keith-Tharp Description: I want you to know that I have had T-Mobil service for the past 10 years. It did not start out as a good experience trying to use the cell phone in and around my residence in Huntington Beach. I had absolutely no service in my home on Kendrick Circle and I'd have to find the perfect "spot" in my backyard to carry on any conversation- none that were reliable. Dropped calls were the normal. All that changed 3-4 years ago. T-Mobil has perfect coverage in this area, all the time. I have been able to carry on lenghty conversations in my home where 4 years ago it was impossible. Their coverage has improved everywhere in Huntington Beach. Additional cell phone towers are totally unnecessary in this area. My address is less than a mile from where the proposed cell tower will be. I have hands free cell phone connectivity in my car and am on the cell phone on a daily basis in this neighborhood. Specifically I will call my husband just as I am a few minutes away from home which is often enough on Heil between Goldenwest Street and Edwards! Please do NOT add additional cell towers in this neighborhood. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY!!!! Michele Keith-Tharp Kendrick Circle Huntington Beach Expected Close Date: 03/15/2010 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. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com) Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:42 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#4294 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: Ginny Bean Description: Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen. I am opposed to the cell phone tower being placed at CUMC. Granted this cell phone tower is being placed on private property but homeowners surround this property. I have been a homeowner in HB since 1977, and I have watched all our property values decrease over the past 18 months. The placement of this cell phone tower will have an adverse effect on surrounding homeowners and will affect the value of the homes far into the future. This placement of the tower will also have a negative impact on the CUMC preschool that has been there for over 30 years. A survey was conducted of parents whose children attend the school; at least 50-60% of the parents said they would not re-enroll their children in this school once the tower is constructed. This will have an adverse economic impact not only on the church and school, but also the teachers that have taught there for most of their careers. The average teacher at CUMC preschool has been there for over 25 years. With the small amount of monthly lease payments CUMC will receive this will not compensate for the approximate loss of income from 50-60% of the students now registered, which will mean loss of jobs and income. With TMobile having two cell phone towers within less than 1 mile away I think the placement of this tower is not warranted. They have not shown proof of dropped coverage or cell phone service in this area. I hope that my appeal to you regarding this matter does not fall on deaf ears. I originally wrote to each of you last fall expressing my concern for the placement of this cell phone tower. I did not hear back from any of you except Joe Carchio who responded to my email. I would have hoped that I got a response that my email was received and my concerns were being considered. Sincerely, Ginny Bean 714-897-0273 Expected Close Date: 03/15/2010 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. -":0 FROM RECORD FOR COU 3L EET CITY CLERK OFFICE :'BAN!FLY ,CITY CLERK ' z MY ---v✓_,,, -_„t,'"mot, s.l i.�y �,.,;« , j ro r .x , v^ s , v a N ✓'Sf: n 3� ;s!t` , " I ' / v / a s ,,•. "" n�nt��a " Sic � � 1 d .r ,, ., ;j '�;.:..,,ER g i C/r Y o f Ri4m r/NG ro N ae:,4 C,y, CA[ /F. 3 .12 .2010 To : The Hono ro ble Ci v Council Laa�ieS � Oenflewen. l This /after° �s an oCapea / fo f he Cif CounoY to consrder the relocal/on of Me proposed/ loca¢lon of fhe r-Mohile Cell • phone an henna As a 46 year resI'deny, in thi's nei Aborhood we ha re se en an over- whelm/nf amount of chahy C 5 in our Cif It/o w alai S..Me Cc/l Ph on e has ctian,Ied our l/f es, 4s /-he Ci tV 174 5,qrawn and become a vgsl- mebropo/'°s . To y, A/I W4 A 5 ®f /if c ,,j®u�.1 4nd o/d, no W use Cell- Phones . Thery have become a necessary fool . /rr Amer,qencles, bps/ne5s 'S as we// as our personal fifes . Sher, hate, over° foie !feetr°s and fhroL4 k fechnolo foanc[ Itia[ Cell-Phones rcjgir -e- above•,iround lransrnlWers as well as rece/very e As one ®f your constlhuents, in ourne * borhood., we are concerned aboal fhe drawbacks , such as vur property valme s , IA41 lAe proposed /ocallon and placerneni of Q Cell - Phone an�enn a mi�A� cause . I would lr'ke /o f uriherr sad khq� we are now and have beenjf or man�c c,/ear� d Ver,� sa1lsf l" c customers of 7'-*Iobi1e . We have neeer experienced operational ,Prot/eras t ti f he 'r self>�/'e s as the ,/" lj PUB E �iTY C:LE�K S ,BAN L_FU C► We arc ®;i hopes Aa�4to a co n s lVer., 14 /a vor of the re si cn �s, and re- consider rclocallon of Ae. proposeo( location h anol4er slle, eloser �® the ex isbnf Inolm s�rral Area near GolAard Sl-. He 11 Avc a WA icA is approxI'm a/c 3/4. ems, lc Easier of Ae proposeW /oca1ion . rh4 n )10 of or 11"o a r rlm' e and C'onsiolerallon vr. Y. AMp `(P& l 2 Fo tin 14 in 4ane lion a in ion Beach, 926 714 - 642- U4Z 1 J F i }i S 1 v .s —� t •,u�3�� raj Ii1� .4 'Ei t yt � l .t. � i9P l 9 l�^ •� P G i— i 'I l� 4'r :•�P — ( � .E{r ,.• ;•, I k �;I � �1, d�•a E ,.i� r; � �� • •' — � �f I; i i• • i I �� u� f ail�� _ y� �.' � `''�•��•4�� ' ��•;�• • � — ��t�s "UA�W �•> _ .t� �_>� y �?' ,( :•�f C 1'� �• fj h 9 j•7�,. �� ' I ' ' .1 ➢�l� C s� �•t� i I }i 'tV ��I [, , I t i�i t• ��.i I+•� t' � I • �N. I � i•ti , i i1 u l .• �f� '��V�t i, .E � !•�'•" � N'(•� �•o ,f ��•�� s• �•i��— Q1 i' E p° �' �ii1 t p1�•11 iriir M � i• ,•{1!{ ,• ' �I' � i{• — l 4 �_ � A •�,•. — ,�I•t' t �'I ,• `% .1 d•�: ^.•1� .i� ,� p l � ; u g �•> •, • i ti _�, • •,P 4 -� '� c F� ! � � � � y �� " ,�!I' � • I�, rya —,. �i � �,� �� , ��Y �•��•r� � 1 �i •:� ;•t I d � j •i 1 !' Y A (•s' • ;•� '•i� �t1 � t•!� "� t•' "�� t r•,' 'i I _ i '•1'. .;�-,r— (fit �t�• �� s '•'',;`'�� y� i ' N :: �9�) (�'t�� 9�,-'d�� t •'r��C I t�P y�4�1. �� 'f ", '•'� k • _ �:��' �i f �t• '� .I' •A i� •� C � �1�) iiu �•;�•i;'_ � r l :�� i�• blilnm T MO, T k _ ^Sa } � i4� Y sS.ce ;€31t U '4lsEi the 'Pr C �dk F[ �fll7 } . _ --------------- UY Dunn Dr Si * et or =h' overage on this SaCla�vn i CA h'3�Rb r � ; �r^ €ester-+�� a �p®w ®n In vehicle and -Cross l3r Marina,. � , rvD� �ir�c Gir .� ; a.,s r � „ �3r r an BuildingCoverage) :#vv asaa .E. ,, Existing sites LA13105A, Cast c3 Dr — '"�' LA024 p 95 and LA028 30 (� � ��,,� a � o .�.,:x � 9 n `AL-Y _ F° _ ivails�fltr g C'v an$ Q°®viCfle enough D(6 e4 Dr coverage hence LA33421 A Edgaihont Dr is bean v°® o be M<46 t r Dr � � h Dr installed 0n Community .. , ,Cif Jr _ G�q �i t.. ,_`,,.� � ° a Di1 UIf4m0.� to provide the needed s fSr - x. Lnis co a c ar coverage as well as a D le Dr QQ} v.. .. m = balance coverage \A/�tQ� .< �UL��JlI -p.L.r�"-` .3 existing sites. 4-1 ates Cain ,e dD �roposed site location is n k�Sit4 i t — Ing, Cod qt {i s n�r�eiQ°9ca� �Ii �X � {3f[i9k � - — is ~ -, w > - sites hence required LL A Q q i{tl" _.--- e e coverage objective is at Dr 3'S" gg5 g „^- ro . - :x L'" fa Y4r1 Dr eet Lry 00 vora0s topond { Cutloar ZO, In VOMole Ui Q In Bulidinp t �� - � :i;r.1,�:, � r. i• of C, 'a� .,,:.� .. :t.¢. i .. ,�� s;1,.1'f2• f 6 '�,a�� ... JA too —A Q�:. If, R1NIG" \ , r ''��,�.�,y+!?,?+.-;,t:.er�,ti�srotog•.�MrN,My"�1tu};, ,'+va+�2ck�;vAr.�apr+�".; .. ..;i" �?+fd.•+ !i yrr� �'�.�w�a'7SJ'�hn�?`i:...'�:SpY .uc4rs"ChStN» ak: .?x;l•'4t>,a><,i.,it+�GwJe?a'. ,:,•,�,t, :ee:-"rx*,^•Rw.' Kk?+u.rsybk'.i ,ciaa,;ywwlniw'u-�sf•te ^"�.a`H+'x ..d , �',�� k �m✓htA.s y £ -If h > '� � .c„-,s Wiz,•, `�` . _ �, � . • tq y. ', ..�.,s t 3yy��.' KA FY DUCK WOODSTO CI N RYA 31' �/q[dp•• I}$� �,r i{ fps , �- _ ':��;`;��'•;...-t:.ri� f i 4...9.�.�,xP.b..¢R Y y'. MA t..D ,: '•z-" '" F��. ,,�s r r `t "q',i "s^'cat.�: k: j- `ae. •, i � l a,,4. '.. .,t. •.A v ,,k:( :,\ '�:`� �.1 its '.R�'+w � ,•-.'.Fib'F y x: .;i;.;' ., - :9 f,., .. "'^^ctuFh'Ix!lib�hdSY,rrrs'sa°wrr'�ryy'�haa¢s+;rd^.�•v^n�?oau*�awi'�, 9�+i'nY+irnu�,n rr.mrS+�N,oN.:rx�:su�sJydox,m.+t,a„kvtasx�:zrrw.x^.o;ra'„�t�t��.Mv+t..wrrz�' -P-7+'Nar+uats:.ura�f�, �t+,�Yr I . -,D�• fT'g{'� LAND , yK- } U �1� `' .. a .d � 1 �}1 ..� ) g. y,�. .`�(r �,.�I: �i�" t Wx �'�'yb � e`•�,.�{:r ��r� v ,Ltt l.� .s,.� �S•F �-:... q A+,,Ix� � /��t�q�l. 6,(. ems• 'F�.'i� il•.�*4�Sq +��:F�.tY�^/J'h�'�,'�'. �7 .�a� { # .a S-!. •Y 4'�'�mom A a/ ". 1. #"... R f F �& 'W h ,k� v.J*...• X., ra my fsR1�• �.J"-•�- �"��.t�:}�..�i$Q�.��i+-''��; '�',• h P. - "k� ,► �� ': .. i i� " '•'! e yy 1"\'\ IS .( , :�'- ';�' �_Ci:\•�iJs �V v '�i�� "_., .- _�F. �et�.pot Ear;.,: *d pill � • '\,`r.-,),. - - {y ant ,a'\,J• »� „1?,! .'., „ S.4 ^'M A •�v. a Y, KE . R:. �: ,•gym .;�o-"` �, L�:' rt^xi;�" n"": 'ac:.,.F•�4=w"t e, : - +'� Y .r'd,;�, . �: �... - �z` r 'r,,..� ;�,d.,i.w�t:,,=,a,..�_ �`' tR�' .', 5�1'�} x x _,.�i {�• E T :�. 1 .Rr'.� .d' :X.i t:;,.- ,'".t-p';r% �� t ��dt� t # d.�t `t •X ,. i ` �� . :PTtr,rticii+rt}!n+Cr;r«, ae,� ,�` i dlN vn,.^m.hK:+rc•.uwr't1"'�.'SM` 7:!rcbm;l+ �t ft•* epwrrmR'• -s+wnu'+,�+�.w.�.ao,c.a,s...rrt..u.va:.,c:H aM?ti+r,'µ z.•.warty..,y�..:..,+ial�.,fa:-.w.;..+:w:e.7a:*...:u;.if�, ., Mtn.1'h��!^M�!"3�`M.+ ta✓„�.,,L..:>:.t,.n,;,+,�;•wv,r,.w:w.µ«.:�,.,,,cr.....+�.k�.H'-''`:'e.✓,t ^,:s'aYi"r.• V ..x.,. Y� {,/ d ¢'} �: ,a } y n"'f C _\ 9 r"'r 3 f vgep � 9" .:1..' .�.:, C �;� t. -§:brim .�,f•.; K -ojmv: _ ..S ` .. , h� TmMob *lle ' s SUPPORTING DATA : 5 YEARS of CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS WITHIN a 2-MILE AREA of CUMC 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Feb 20 118 49 55 3 BEFORE MicDonald's Cell rower 29 46 2 AFTER 9VItDortald's Cell Tower 2/20/2008 FINAL INSPECTION : T-IVlob6le CELL TOWER 1/2 Mile NORTH @ McDonaid's Hover many complaints were INSIDE the M0001 SMALLER Coverage Objective area? :p __ _ �•_ � ~ram: '� { b� - - n �lyh""•�~:Y. �� ,/'j1' .'.'-°�• -..16„v1u'�i�M1'��°��b R" .._.4 " � ,'•'4ay,_. ��`�,..m s.. ,wl� 00,077.7 im �r_ Flu � Atnj, � ! ��i -_ Edith _ If .Y • _ _.__ .. _..•-• _. - _. 3, FIE to 13 ; �.. Fl ppn Ave' '. r ; : W .� *• 4.: tb Silo gC�Ovter. tnow ub �. 7F - �ai'1� ; '�+� 'd �. Gib 4 "rk ; { •`�'. - 1 I .� �eae ;�•j � r '- '_ _... .�� S F>til'[tr�.-�``�1�4lIi 7 irk -vw I � Ave... , w 1--mobile coverage tzooq� rage i of z . \1 * it 11 :Eli A e-- RtH (- Hun- fie.. T&6de- 4,&r, sm'� 'A(.5 � Joe _rh ftT,5, (Z. A Ct Check if T-Mobile coverage is right for you with Personal Coverage Check Street e.X,Broadway and VV 1143th SVCet City State Zip 92647 160iM clear TC IDS uv� Voice Coverage I Data coverage Prepa'd and He,/Pay coverage crap> Learn more about T-Mobile'S-exoanded ccveface> I'A Signal Strength w BES -St U Rd Best Good Fair None "';=Ru Zoom In d1 T PAT I SS0 rea 5 7; 22 22 rn Wt&fM W Ab Zbom Sto ck Out Please zoom in to see street level coverage details for the areas where you live,work,and play. Print Map Legend X Address Location T-Mobile HotSpot i�'--J Display .a- T-Mobile Roaming Coverage Roaming HotSpot (Additional charges apply) Find a T-Mobile HctSoof> A MAP INFORMATION: Maps predict and approximate our anticipated wireless coverage area outdoors,which varies from location to location. Maps may include locations with limited or no coverage. and do not guarantee '5 service availability Even within coverage areas.factors--inciuding network changes traffic voiume, service h4://coverage.t-mobile.com/default.aspx 9/29/2009 i-moose uoverage rage i of 2, Check if T-Mobile coverage is right for you with Personal Coverage Check Street heil and edwards intersection ex:Rioadway and VV 1418fil Stye l. City huntington bea, State CA Zip 92647 S-0( haor)AS clear Voice Coverage Data Coverage L M ( (e 11, (5 P Prepaid and FlexPay coverage map> T L IS Learn more about T-Mobile's expanded coverage> Signal Strength Best wood Fair None 16—:1 Zoom M In E Zoom Out Please zoom in to see street level coverage details for the areas where you live,work,and play. (L- Print Map Legend X Address Location 0 T-Mobile HotSpot r- Display etlp T-Mobile Roaming Coverage * Roaming HotSpot (Additional charges apply) Find a T-Mobile HotSpot> MAP INFORMATION: (irtaj-,predict Rt-,d appl- GUr anticipated wireless covl�raqe 5;'ea ouldoo.rs V%,rij&Val'ieS troth JoGaiIC)n to location lvlapsrnay inci;ioe ocatiorls mth ilrrlited o! cio not c no coeia voe ?r;r, 3oarantoe service ava!iabiNy. Even within,coverage areas fa(Jors http://coverage.t-mobile.eomJdefault.aspx 3/13/2010 T-MOBILE HAS NOT SHOWN A "SIGNIFICANT PP IN SERVICE The fact that T® obile calls may not (at all times and in every location ) be made and received indoors does not mean that T- oile has a 'significant gap' in service as that term has been defined by federal appellate courts, including the Ninth circuit court of Appeals (See MetroPCS vs. . city and county of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th circ.2 ) It is inherently the nature of wirelesstechnoloy that building materials block and attenuate signals, and adding an antenna facility will not change this fundamental law of physics. F A' t 1 'e* ••1 *aWtl-� -'M r . ., _ ,;tit ... •.. ��,....r`3 -.1� ; - ,y+.c:.;a.if i'� �., ,-.� �lk��n�x ��o.r+. y�py/t�i �� ?,F �.k.- -tF.,� a.+7_ �r _- _ �t�Y '... �T,t.'�' .'."<a w•t:�� _-.._ �c33�d Y r I: ��'�: t. u;� � .FYt r ,7, `pyt�, '� I. y of try fli.Sal� a,;/F,„,.. ,,:- i ,.,v a'sn"*. -•*i_tr'."a.�l... �_� ��° � ,gf ,.a� a t'•Yt_. - "': t3 ��_ � r,. 1�-+��. .. �_ �t'4. •t;1+r?:��, } y�1.t qp1 "x� '��' ' '�M '� _ time. ..� Yh. .:. �J'�'�, �,•.��tis�ai,�,„ '- t�+ay�,t'iifl i�f� «'!�'" ,�.�`. - w, a"•=o( ��.}' ;�_{ '" �> � 4:7;(�I�a.,+'! r < ;�' .. ,. �% i''s�Lt� '" -s. ,�. ..fir'.r "3{�.,,"'" �-'�•r„N :4Yi -, t�"iFr: T � w �'...-.� t2 ,.. �..,r� 1. -.: -t �&'r to sµ: P t. � °x�" �� t• ;fi •6'f•� t �'�. ,- .'�' ��. - s<, � a'rt; � •aka, � �iar� ��- _ F"� �It�*as 5�.,�, ��.� t, �} 4 ° �r �C; }(�-., (�. •. ,. a.;�R...�rC'.::3}7.Y M�a , e i.; ��:: ' :y r Yq rre.'d,,. .F�i�x ,)� K+f� � ��: #- -T'`H J AT7 '�'::. Y.. ;, it {. •-_. ��, �+�rK�.,.scS ia4.r�� ,.. . ,,. 1 t5,� 2 tR''�_v„-.. ";. ,` .�'� '.'fit. 'i. =, a f.�i,t., - k � t a 'i�i,. � x: - �!•. �, irk i, 4�,��a'!,«-�; �,,, a��_. °�;�'w. } �s�. m , .st. ;,' rry-,,f..fix• _. j' � ° r .3' � �r. y v .r.,y _ Y� 3yt ^'t�'�4�'�.. .r �'`>-'- ,� 'I� rr <.fi' '!R� "III` } _"•'°3 \��' �- ,!}; .� irj�'.. 'i4T - `` � �•, •�` �-„�J.Ga' �i � �'� .,�lir. 'r, �:�',�"r � "�C��1� met �,s, '�. �t�Ei �� 1_.k-"i6;�t •' rt�'-'�� i� y tt►s�,w• «_t�'"kfi `�,�, _ ; g t v � E�°"=;`;� -r � 'p �I� G{"' w'( 'r '� k�;� t`�� ,s.- '' +€ - *q��Mtt4y'c � � :� #s� '` %� $: r ��- rk•�: �!� �,A r �� ro �` �n �: t v I ' �j..�^ ��, t; ,+'S ✓ .,rt A �',q,� ✓ ..•„� i� _ .,,�,- (��`F=+'.. :�, ypq�' ,,�,y. .:ti wyJl �. b ,fin. t' L W u f t* k D Dimrict,khoolDlAtr to Objcoulklel a i '! "r a r, t..t,��r y�h 1; ,,, r �.i- ., ! �' - .�,w` .,�'4aea ��w..yf k" i�;k A �:�.'3,�, �"L� �15 .t F•� '� i ° � .. �- ,��,.•1''rS _C-__ ° •' ._, -`�''rt1 �#� y` �.'C �y�'„{rr',�," .� 3�t+- �,- �^ �3�, ��. ,� ' �,' ..' ,�� • �. •�° : „ . ,� � - � _ 4 ��'�kl��il t�'U'a�+M�ita��in 't�n��it�h�'�'�1'��°�� a,�� ,: .. ;, -SY,., .., <... :44 � ;� 1� g".., r• t V,� , , E;�1 • � '�t c�"` _�} �' #:�'#"r{ f 'j�,h't ,� ,{.._ «. �.} `•' ,"r'}r ,� „� ,.'2, 6' i ��f -^"tt k'x,' 'c•• ,ems b „� `� � �; i� ;?,Is ��. � ;'� s � t ,>� ' �,:.....i. i-., !a, �S � a�z4; �9 „ � � t� ag .i�;t ✓�."' .,�,i° ,.F t��'`�, � f �a a ±""*: �*` ✓;e; _, __�t�lrtl;�l ,xlt' x�, �� Ic., �, �"'� ��:r^ �� 4 .� .�, dy. ':"I,� �• l` - tt ''P � t b% M W' A,'Ph.:,. rye�. „Y 1.�"+ � k"� - , v c r { Jj at 1• C:. w,�i � .t, � ��"4,�rti'"t�. !E,e ;,y �...'Rr vi� - w' {, � A®'�� 1 .rS H '• � -� �'l 3E+ .t'a e, 'j ..,;.:j 2' ,. ,��.#• .� ,?itY yat ,ii�" :«��. e - 4 . 4 Wlj"it4�' a S,t,, r ,.�;, 1—,.� c, h• `�' ,5 •ay� �<C� Y#' ,•Y. `+ir'. �_ k am ' - } '. .� giL•pk_, a„ „'y�v;.�g �.F�".r.�,.+i,,p yh si• a., ';„t,µ�.-�_ry�«..i�-�.,.. .'°_ 4m� t_. � t x � F. a r, a �., •"7 ahi� ,p ,r;.: ��,.�� }�,,, RECEIVED FROM—e_r _,,. ._. AS PUBLIC RECORD ;. .; . OF CITY CLERIC 0 � e MOAN L FLYNN,CITY�:�; �1 w• _ T-Mobile y Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC _ Date Year Time lat decimal Ion decimal issue_Type phone model call_type recurring 04.11,05 05 16'13 00 33.709344 118.007054 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile Y Ile 04,09:05 105 _ 01 32 16 33.710225 -11&003866 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y n �04-1-v05-�05 22 1Z04 33,710438 -118,003866 Poor Voice Quality Other Network not available N 04112f05 ;OS 18.07 30 33.71376 -118.006662 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 09%23,05 1 OS _ 20'26 28 33.7107 -118.010375 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 04,12,05 05 16 13 11 33,710225 -118.003866 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 'o4r11 05 05 12.38:42 33.71332052 -118.015963 Dropped Call(In conversation.connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y 041 2/05 105 21 1521 33,710438 -118,003866 Poor Voice Quality Samsung X105 Network not available N i0402105 05 161054 33.710225 -118.003866 Poor Voice Quality MotorolaV600 Mobile-to-Mobile Y :04'1 1/05 105 21,30.10 33,711535 -118.023838 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Moblie-to-Land Y i 04 12!05, 05 21.14:27 33.710438 -118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Samsung X105 Network not available N 06,06/05 05 222931 33.71331333 -11&0038079 Dropped Call(In conversation.connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y f08.26/05 05 , 20:03,44 33,71376 -118.006662 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/09/OS OS 1626 15 33,718653 -118.008797 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Network not available Y C6 1 ir05 05 23:51 01 33.715729 -118.00269 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Land Y IF- 104/09/05 05 16 28:36 33.70929 -118.012552 Poor Voice Quality HP IPAQ h6315 Pocket PC Mobile-to-land N 04/08/05 05 00:44 50 33.710225 118.003866 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Land-to-Mobile N r6i—ii 15 05 a 16,15.23 33.710696 -118.022536 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 104/06/05 05 19:03:06 33.714645 -118.016438 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04 11;OS 05 00:16 15 33.71376 118.006662 Poor Voice Quality Ericsson T610 Mobile-to-Land Y 104/09.!05 05 21:40:52 33.718684 -118.023349 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Moblle-to-Mobile Y !04/12;05 05 18'.53:04 33.719832 -118.019766 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Land Y 05/29%05 05 0046.36 33.7188 -118.017672 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V 180 Mobile to Land Y t(34/09i05 05 16,44.30 33.718653 -118.008797 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile N iO4i11 05 OS 18'.28:42 33.719832 -118.019766 Poor Voice Quality Samsung R225 Network not available Y i0a/11/OS OS 19 30 20 33.716142 118.013982 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04'20/0 05 1346.28 33,718795 -11&023437 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung R225 Network not available Y �0317/05 05 10,4821 33,72099 -118.014039 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Moble N (04/i 2 05 05 15:45 01 33,72399776 -11&027866 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y 12;02/05 05 17:01:48 33.71876388 -117.9969167 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Land Y ;04/10/09 OS 12 34.26 33J2272453 -118.001034 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available N �i Pageja 10 ,;": ON; T-Mobile _ Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 6-1 1,05 05 19 57 08 33.72096415 -118.000412 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04:12;05 05 01 26:11 33.72358376 -117.998718 Cali Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6610 Mobile-to-Mobile Y (04i08.05 05 01 1113 33.72197915 -117.9993568 Poor Voice Quality SamsungE715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04;12'0)5 105 13.10 46 33.72286 -118.00466 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y r1 t i16 05 105 1634 44 33.72276176 -11&0122648 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Samsung x475 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04t14%05 OS 22 26 07 33.72402753 118.0107682 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) HP iPAQ h6315 Pocket PC Mobile-to-Mobile Y 10,23/05 05 21 22,42 33,721975 -118-000327 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y i01/14/05 05 15 43 47 33.729054 -118.019384 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V180 Land-to-Moblie Y �O2,17 5 05 05 - 16:24 47 33.72935594 -118.010659 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Land Y :.`0409,05 05 - 22 30 05 33.72579235 -118.0022097 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung v205 Mobile-to-Land Y (j05/18-05 05 20 29:39 33.729945 -118.019532 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y 081;06/05 05 17:40 07 33,72609456 -118.0098674 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung E315 Network not available Y 08/09/05 05 . 14-55 01 33.721827 -118.013577 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y 02/13/05 05 15:25 40 33.725174 -118-014926 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Moblie Y 1 04,12/05 05 - 1052 34 33.72579494 -118.0066054 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E 105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y r04,"12/05 05 14.12:38 33.73210874 1-118.0004583 Poor Voice Quality RIM BlackBerry 7100t Network not available Y 7,,20!05 05 15:01 01 33.729945 -118.019532 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V600 Network not available Y 04'11105 05 18 1324 33.72277576 -118.0011514 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04!11/05 05 - 19 1748 33,72167794 -117.9958709 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Moblle Y 04!07/05 05 15 42 00 33 72589915 -118.0064801 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Network not available Y 1 --- 10;05/05 O5 16 1958 33 731946 -118.014751 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1.5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land Y 10:17/05 105 17 08:13 33 72568074 -118.0080177 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Land-to-Mobile Y i 10/29/O5 Jos 12 19 14 33.7346129 -118.0194173 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1.5 Bars) Ericsson T-610 Mobile-to-Land Y 11�05/05 105 10.5053 33 73115415 -118.0040748 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile Y !1215/05 05 16 30:05 33,729945 -118.019532 SIBNo Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 8;0 I39"15 05 21.52:34 33.735438 -118,016504 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6610 Network not available Y 03/03%O5 05 11 38:28 33.729054 -118.019384 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) RIM BiackBerry 7100t Mobile-to-Land Y 04/08/055 '05 — 2337 59 33.72579494 -118.0069814 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y 0412/05 105 14 5425 33,72547974 -118.0010818 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile ly 06'13/05 05 23.09 05 33.729945 -118.019532 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V600 Moblle-to-Land Y ,04,08,05 105 120.49 10 33,72540153 -117.9973161 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 6,1i i T05 105 23,50.31 33.72578535 -118.0007318 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola VISO Mobile-to-Mobile Y Page 2 of 10 T-Mobile _ Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 0412 05 1 21 2802 33.73140233 -118.002048 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 3595 Network not available Y 05:03/05 05 17.17:59 33.730005 -118.00308 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 110/22%05 05 22 28 03 133.729945 -118.019532 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Moblle Y C4:06%OS 05 21 00 14 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Mobile N 04,,06%05 05 2303 14 133,715424 -118.012048 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/09/05 05 01,0328 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04r09.05 05 12:16.03 33.713007 -118.008932 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6610 Mobile-to-Moblle IY 04/10,05 05 15:29 50 33.71415615 -118.019913 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Moblle N 04:11'05 05 17:44 19 33.71565 -11&00662 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 3595 Mobile-to-Mobile Y iO4/11/05 05 18 35.47 33.71545 -118.007405 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available N 03/31/05 05 22 04 25 33.72334935 -118.0024097 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 104/07,05 05 15:47.08 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 04/09/05 05 1321 54 33.71446292 -118.0127736 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V600 Network not available N 04%09105 05 23.30 11 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04109/05 05 23:52 10 33.715642 -118.014482 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 04/10/05 05 13:24 22 33.72229204 -118,0043024 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y 10412%05 05 00.1937 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Samsung R225 Network not available N r04+12/05 05 1328.36 33.715697 -118.007735 Poor Voice Quality Samsung v205 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/13/05 05 11.57:35 33,71897 -118.020617 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Samsung X105 Mobile-to-Land Y 06/03r05 05 22 23:51 33.71914433 -118.0007125 S/e No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y 106 19j05 05 00:33 28 33.733365 -118-014854 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6800 Mobile-to-Lend Y 10 12/05 05 1831 52 33.715621 -118.019638 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung e335 Network not available Y 02'07:05 05 1802 16 33.727731 -118.026284 Poor Voice Quality Sidekick li Network not available N 63,31105 05 18 07 03 33 72443753 -118.0205505 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile Y !04107/05 JOS 15 57 05 33,715635 -118,016569 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available Y 04 09105 i05 14,3057 33.72243528 -118.0029079 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Network not available Y 041/09�05 105 20,3607 33 711518 -118-005834 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 0,1 10:05 J`O.5 16 5846 33 715635 -118,016569 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Ericsson T-610 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04;11/05 f 05 — 00 08:22 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Land Y O4/10105 05 20 13:57 33.715372 -118.019335 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11/05 05 11:04 20 33.71551 -118.00661 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Motorola C650 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04%12/OS OS 00:41:05 33,715424 -118.012048 Cali Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) RIM BlackBerry 7100t Network not available Y Page f 10 _�., ., t no" T-Mobile � Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 04!12/05 05 _. 13:48:33 33.715642 1.118,014482 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V180 Network not available Y 10/08!O5 05 16:16:30 33 723149 •118.018371 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Siemens CF62T Network not available Y 04111/05 05 13 14:42 33.715417 -118.010946 Cali Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V600 Mobile-lo-Mobile Y 04,112105 05 12:30 20 33.715424 -118.012048 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Land Y I_.----- %04!12/05 05 13 43 08 33.71297 -118.013859 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Palm One Treo 600 Network not available N r041�3/05 05 12.13 11 33,715642 -118.014482 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Siemens CF62T Mobile-to-Moblle Y io4!ia-05 05 14 55 3t t33.715332 -118.025262 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Moblle Y 06.iO4i05 05 15:56.28 33.728479 -118.027938 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y �06/14/05 05 17:21 26 133.715372 -118.019335 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V300 Network not available Y i07/2940 6S - 15:06.28 33.714535 •118.016127 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung R225 Network not available N ;0122/05 05 01 46.01 33.733365 •118.014854 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola T7221 Land-to-Mobile Y 104/07/05 05 16:00 14 33.715635 -118.016569 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 05 19 29:39 33.71545 -118.0153 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y �04!09/OS L_- 04/10;05 05 17 1840 33.71897 -118.020617 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11%OS 05 00 59:50 33.715642 -118.014482 Poor Voice Quality Motorola V600 Mobile-to-Land Y 04/11 i05 05 14:54,05 33.718113 -118.014897 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V66 Moblie-to-Lend N 0411/05 05 20AT52 33.710145 -118.010453 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V180 Mobile-to-Mobile N FFOa/t2/OS 05 22'35.29 33.715417 -118.010946 Poor Voice Quality Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 04/13!05 05 19 15,06 33.73049846 -118.0188447 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection Is lost) Nokia 3660 Mobile-to-Mobile Y �05116,05 05 16 12.25 33.715635 -118.016569 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Moblle Y 90-j-i-65— 05 19 50 54 33.715372 -118.019335 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y 110/07/05 05 15 1046 33.733295 -118.006788 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6010 Network not available Y Z310/14/05 05 21 0535 33,72451612 -118.0116352 S!B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung R225 Network not available Y 1 L---- ------ 01/22/06 06 0029,04 33.712185 -118.022228 SIBNo Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung x475 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 01!26/06 06 19.53:04 33.721805 -118.016589 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola V330 Mobile-to-Mobile Y t 2i27!06 06 14 2855 33.719969 -118,019766 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 0311 06 06 18 30 55 33.72089 -118.014039 SiB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Network not available Y L_ 12!01!06 06 16.25.05 i33.725017 -118.025988 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6030 myFaves Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y ;03122!06 06 15 45 22 33.725473 -118.021012 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y ,001/17/06 06 16.2246 33 729936 -118-021457 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11'03!06 06 12,30.46 33,729138 -118.01507 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Moblie-to-Moblie&Land Y 0-V25/06 06 0343 14 33.735126 -118.017384 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile N Page 4 of 10 _ %06 06 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 CommunityUMC �0625 23 49:20 33.727116 -117.99652 S/B No Signal(No signal bars.within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y '0828r06 106 20 3904 33,731685 .118,010834 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t319 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 10,,01 r06 06 15 47 44 33 729936 -118.021457 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung e635 Mobile-to-Mobiie Y 12,15,06 06 16:36 16 33.731434 -118.000372 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola V188 Mobile-to-M obi le&Land Y 04'23r06 06 21:05 08 33.729936 118.021457 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land Y 6S:6Sr06 06 1225,04 33.7318939 -118.0141869 Poor Voice Quality Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Land Y �06115r06 06 2023 56 33.72615736 -118.0276257 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola L7089 Mobile-to-Land Y 09!�3r06 06 20.25 45 33.72067 -118.013564 SIBNo Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 10223/06 06 12-00:32 33.7289835 -118.0215562 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1.5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y !'03r31r06 06 14 32.05 33.726899 -118.016001 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Land Y j08120r06 06 15.23.26 33.731946 -118.014751 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RA2R V3 Network not available Y 0822/06 06 18,2506 33.734932 -118.007554 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 0828106 06 20 36 58 33,731685 -118.010834 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung E315 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 09%1 1 r06 06 00.20:18 33.736145 -118.016177 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 09/28/06 06 2230.01 33.729936 -118-021457 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 6 i iii 06 06 20:46.07 33.73224445 -118.0236054 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Land Y '03120/06 06 09,44.49 33.7215747 -118.0054821 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile N .04 l iO6 01 21:59 33.72326176 -118,0117648 S!B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung X495 Network not available Y 02`28%06 06 1227 29 33.730773 -118,017214 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 Moblle-to-Land Y 04r19r06 06 22 09 54 33.721417 -118.00567 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Land Y 0426i06 06 21:01.50 33.726675 -118.01927 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) RIM BlackBerry 7105t Mobile-to-Land Y 06r03/06 06 17:36:48 33.733296 -118.016488 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 05!02,06 06 22:14.22 33.724546 -118.019421 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-land Y ii 06 1&06 06 19:17 56 33.7305173 -118.0025329 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung t309 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ;08r09r06 06 0029 33 133,714564 -118.021724 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 0829!06 06 0053,27 33.733295 -118.006788 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile SDA Network not available Y 109/26!06 06 - 22:13 42 33.715392 -118,016027 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Sidekick it Network not available N i 09 29/06 06 21.19 19 33.718141 -118.025806 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V360 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 12 23%05 06 154505 33.715635 .118.017358 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y i �03/08'06 06 01.05 34 33.70852172 -118.0148579 Drop ped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Other Land-to-Mobile Y 03r17106 06 18:37 05 33.72200735 -118.0149948 Poor Voice Quality Samsung E715 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 08i29/06 06 14:36:22 33.724641 -118.000296 Dropped Call In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry 9700 Network not available IY Page 5 of 10 ;.< T-Mobile _ Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 07.06'06 i06 -i-7-68TT 33.723149 -118.018371 S,B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile•to-Mobile&Land Y i 0 7!31'06 06^ 0021 52 33.721186 -118.016359 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6010 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11102 06 106 15.59 40 33.715625 -118-018608 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t309 Network not available Y 107:11/06 '06 17:27 46 33.724641 -118.000296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) RIM BlackBerry 7105t Mobile-to-MobileBLand Y 0;!16/06 06 18,53:19 33.715621 118.019638 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung E315 Mobi{e-to-MobileBLand Y 107/25/06 06 15 59 54 33.727875 -117.99731 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t809 Mobile-to-MobileBLand Y 111,6/06 06 20.00 08 33.724546 118.019421 SIBNo Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-MobileBLand Y j12/06/06 06 2340.54 33.71545 -118.007405 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-MobileBLand Y i 04/12/07 07 00:24 23 33.714743 -118.021856 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t209 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 0928/07 07 01:58.03 33.713162 -118-016173 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-MobileBLand I Y 05/15'07 07 19:52,18 33.71377589 -118.0064978 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 6103 Mobile-to-Mobile N 04/26/07 07 1 15:22.45 33.718566 -118,013542 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung X495 Network not available Y 07r03/07 07 13:42 32 33.716115 •118.027798 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land N 'I04/24/07 07 , 18 59:42 33.718785 -118.001711 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t209 Mobile•to-Mobile&Land Y i 0716%07 07 _ 1644 38 33.716115 -118.027798 SIB No Signet(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Network not available Y A/18/07 07 14:31 45 33,72185 -118,000254 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 8290 Mobile-to-Moblie Y �07n 7/07 07 16A5:22 33.72286 -118,00466 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Moblle Wing Network not available Y '05'08!07 07 20 43 00 33.72286 -118.00466 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y M/11/07 07 — 11 45,17 33.722518 -117.99702 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t209 Network not available Y j06'05/07 07 17 56 12 33.72286 -118.00466 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t319 Mobile•to-Moblle&Land Y 102'05/07 107 23 2948 33.733262 -118.020766 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung 1309 Mobile-to-Mobile Y OS'19%07 07 18.43:51 33.720363 -118.015895 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile to-MobileBLand Y 106/11/07 07 19 58 06 133720625 -118.012065 S/B No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola V195 Moblle-to-MobileBLand Y 107/01/07 07 23 14 19 33,729945 118.019532 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1.5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Mobile to-MobileBLand Y i07'18/07 07 18,11 48 33.72286 118.00466 S./B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t319 Network not available Y 10/09/07 07 14 45 36 33.72181 -117.995772 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Network not available N iO4,'16'07 07 20 29:44 33.725203 -118.020144 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1.5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 107/02/07 07 14:10.49 33.731865 -118.016579 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 3220 Mobile-to-MobileBLand Y 07/31/07 07 15.13 13 33,72993 -118.022013 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y :10/08/07 07 22:46,59 33.725785 •118.005854 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t209 Mobile-to-MoblleBLand Y 06.'20/07 07 13:40 53 33.73004989 -118.0129507 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1.5 Bars) BlackBerry 8700 Network not available Y 07/OOr07 07 17:38758 133.728405 •118,015038 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Land N Page 6 of 10 _ T-Mobile _!_ Accumulated Customer Complaint 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 CommunityUMC 08'11!07 �07 14:10:07 33.734665 -118.020274 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung t509s Plum Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 10'31!07 07 . 01 52:18 33.729945 -118,019532 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) M obile-to-Mobile&Land N 12/28/07 07 15:41:08 33.731815 -118.020618 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry Pearl White Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 03/19/07 07 10.31:27 33.729945 -118.019532 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y C.. 166/18/07 07 03:30 10 33.734665 -118.020274 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t509s Plum Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 106/27/07 07 20:0515 33.729936 -118.021457 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile Wing M obile-to-Mobile&Land Y i-__ O'/23/07 07 18:52:55 33.729945 -118.019532 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile MDA Network not available Y VO4/09/07 07 14:31:59 33.720256 -118.001397 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y �05/11/07 07 - 13.08:57 33.715424 -118.012048 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y I07/20/07 07 , 19:19:37 33.715621 -118,019638 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 102/18/07 07 19:43:10 33,715621 -118.019638 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 04/15/07 07 13:26:38 33.730773 -118.017214 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 06/04/07 07 21:18:22 33.715635 -118.017358 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Other Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 06/17/07 07 00.07:34 33.715712 -118.005634 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung t309 Moblle-to-Mobile&Land Y !(07!11/07 07 16:48:04 33,72291 -118.004551 Dropped Call(In convembon,connection is lost) Motorola V330 M oblle-to-Mobile&Land Y f(.08/17/07 07 20:20:38 33.715668 -118.010837 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection Is lost) Nokia 5300 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 111/14/07 07 - 20.47.38 33.713997 -117.998876 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y �0311107 07 17:36 57 33.728456 -118.024109 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Sidekick Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 1 OQ!20'07 07 0037,10 33.715635 -118.017358 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1.5 Bars) Samsung t209 Network not available Y L06rt 1;07 07 14:51 00 33.732638 -118.020766 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8700) Land-to-Moblle Y :0714r07 07 22 34 14 33.715697 -117.998385 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t309 Network not available Y '07/24/07 07 18:00:55 33.715621 -118,019638 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung E105 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y }__ 109!02%07 07 t 20.53:43 33,713029 -118.016304 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Network not available Y 09/26!07 07 15:24:03 33,715424 -118.012048 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t509 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y �1120/07 07 18 06:01 33.71897 -118.020617 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) MOTOKRZR Network not available Y rr j04104/07 07 16.29:35 33.717905 -118.025809 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 1 04,19107 07 0955 10 33.715424 -118.012048 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 05/29/07 07 02:40:48 33,715644 -118.014287 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Trace t519 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y i05/31/07 07 - 10:53:29 33.715621 -118.019638 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t619 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y �108121/07 07 16 01:20 33.715635 -118.017358 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y t 111/02/07 07 12:47:22 33.726522 -118.024216 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung 029 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 109/15/08 08 21:32.39 33.70879314 -118.0092589 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y Page 7 of 10 T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC 112/11/08 08 12.52:58 33.71027009 -118.0054071 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Nokia 6133 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y !- — V�-- g ( ) arty Curve 8320 09 12 08 108 00 10 55 33,71838287 -118.0009329 SIB No Coverage Outside of 1-5 Bars BlackBerry (Titaniu Network not available Y t0'13'08 'OT 8 23 46,31 33 71994587 -118.004564 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Sidekick(2008) Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 12/02-08 108 r 22.0258 33.71977406 -118-00D0571 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6030 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 0 i/09 08 08 22 07,19 33,72166482 •118.0151876 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung Blast Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 1 12/10/08 108 12.58 47 33.72402337 -117.9958028 SIB No Signal(No signal bars.within 1-5 Bars) Samsung Beat Network not available Y '07/11/08 08 01.37.27 33.72375016 -118.0257796 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry 8700 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y j09'10/08 08 20,53 46 33.7216232 -118.004772 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Sidekick ll Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y `01108/08 08 15 48:09 33.726899 -118.016001 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y �04/02/08 08 21:24.45 33,73103033 -118.0158099 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 05 Moblle-to-Mobile&Land Y OS/25/O8 08 19:42:59 33.72062 -118.00451 Poor Voice Quality Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y t i 07/15/08 08 13 47 46 33.725581 -118.0234651 Poor Voice Quality Samsung x475 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11!14/08 108 1930.28 33,73132775 -118.0241121 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y 09/23/08 OS 18.45:09 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) MOTORIZR Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 10/21/08 08 20:15:19 33.73213311 -118.0107991 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) T-Mobile Dash Moblle-to-Mobiie&Land Y 12104/08 08 20:46.48 33.72597471 -117.9975405 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola RAZR V3 Network not available Y !01/21/08 08 , 12.38:26 33 73104 -118.016178 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y i08-31/08 08 11:18:04 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung T719 Mobile-to-Land Y t0i28/08 08 17 45:59 33.72911738 -118.0240941 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) MOTORIZR Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N �i2/16/08 08 19-34:55 33.73436774 -118.0173559 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection Is lost) BlackBerry Pearl 8120 Mobile-to-Mobiie&Land Y i _ �03/25/08 OS 23:22:51 33.72062 118.00451 Cali Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Nokia 5300 Moblle to-Moblle&Land Y TO136108 08 11:45:09 33.72569566 -118.0209954 Dropped Cail(In conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola V300 Mobile-to-Mobiie&Land Y i 10/30/08 08 17:27 36 33.72062 -118.00451 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) T-Mobile MDA Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 11/26/08 08 17 59:30 33.72707802 -117.9969211 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile G1 Mobi le-to-Mobile&Land Y 19i08 O8 23:30,59 33.7180482 -118.0103795 SIB Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 02/ 09/29,08 08 09:58 49 33.71557543 -118.0213181 Dropped Cail(in conversation,connection Is lost) T-Mobile Wing Network not available Y 10/15/08 08 - 11,33,43 33.73324974 -118.0067678 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung X495 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 'OS/08 08 08 19 59:52 33.715399 -118.0136414 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Nokia 6133 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 07i08/OS 08 15 06 40 33.71934147 -118.0197459 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 Mobile-to-Mobile Y F08/O4r08 OS 22 51 36 33.71566482 -118.0094119 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 3 ' 10/2 t 08 08 19,14 05 33.71562575 -118.0139185 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titaniu Mobile-to-Moblie&Land Y i06/28`09 09 13:45 28 33,70934852 -118.0108941 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 05 Network not available Y Page 8 of 10 • s _ T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC _ s i r10/20/09 09 21:31:30 33.70865517 -118.0146576 1 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Samsung t229 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N _ a 06711/09 09 17:55 52 33,70934952 -118,0108941 SIB No Signal(No signal bars.within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 06 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ® '0302/09 09 15:52.25 33,71989 -118.0045 Dropped Call(in conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Tltaniu Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ® 108/21/09 09 12.35:53 33.7197 -118.0197459 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t409 Mobile to-Mobile&Land Y {t04ii 3/09 09 18 04 43 33.71989 118.0045 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Sidekick(2008) Land-to-Mobile Y ®{06r16'09 09 22:39:32 33.71772286 -118.0239239 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y o �Q4/15/09 09 2125.56 33,71849459 -118.0007877 1 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Samsung Katalyst T739 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y e �O12;05%09 09 20:07 53 33.72080378 -118.0065991 Drop ped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile N 5%05/09 09 23.40:28 33.72987235 -118.0249457 Poor Voice Quality Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y a 103/03.09 09 17 12.07 33,72606049 -118.0093932 Poor Voice Quality T-Mobile Shadow Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 04%14'09 09 17:27:19 33.73149517 -118.0119124 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola RAZR V3 06 Network not available Y 01/28/09 09 20:18:08 33.72991517 -118.0194924 SIB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Motorola Magenta RAZR Network not available N ® P128'09 09 02:20:17 33.72033086 -118,0165527 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Other Network not available Y G 10/04/09 09 13:42.53 33.72527379 -118.0211197 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&land N i 11,,30109 09 02.01:38 33.7291471 -118.0240941 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8520(Black) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y m�12116/09 09 • 14:52:24 33.72909188 -118.0194923 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung T719 Network not available N d 04;22/09 09 - 23:54:31 33.72725366 -117.9973642 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung t629 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 05!06/09 09 18:09:00 33.727 .118.0271341 jCall Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) Motorola V360 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 04/10/09 09 13:10:50 33.7299061 -118.0214269 Call Setup Failure(at least one signal bar) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Titantu Mobile-to-Mobile Y ® i 2102109 09 11:46.03 33.73543715 -119.0082341 Dropped Cali(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Moblle-to-Mobile&Land Y e 12,21/09 09 13:38:49 33.73321193 -118.0067702 Call Setup Failure(at least one signet bar) Motorola RAZR V3 Mobile-to-Mobile Y 103/14/09 09 20:09.01 33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Blackberry Pearl(8100) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ®r08/12/09 09 23:50:44 33.71540517 -118.012055 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6133 Network not available Y r04i05109 09 15:56:21 33.72413517 -118.0283624 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) BlackBerry,8820 Moblle-to-Land Y ®+05/09/09 09 20:57:32 33.71540517 -118,012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) T-Mobile G1 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y ® 106/26/09 09 13:52:15 33.72785979 -118.0209909 Call Setup Failure,(at least one signal bar) Blackberry Curve 8320(Gold) Network not available Y a 09/28/09 09 18:24 52 33.72141482 -118.0056324 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 10 i 10/05/09 09 15.1725 33.71535589 .118.0184971 Call Setup Failure,(at least one signal bar) T-Mobile Dash Moblle-to-Mobile&Land N 0 14/09 09 18:5329 33.71540517 -118.012055 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y @ 10l27/09 09 19:59:27 33.71549306 -118.0118437 S!B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Motorola W490 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y v 11/09/09 109 12:22:28 33.72764482 -118.0068216 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Samsung T339 Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y Z r09/13/09 09 14:14:52 33.7214 -118.00296 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile N Page q of 10 _„ T-Mobile Accumulated Customer Complaint @ 1 Mile Radius From LA33421 Community UMC a 109r24'09 09 , 21:47:31 33,70993964 -118,0146927 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Highlight t749 Moblle-to-Land Y o 10%10/09 09 22:30:43 33.71954749 -118.0205875 SB No Coverage(Outside of 1-5 Bars) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile Y ® i t 1/OSr09 09 18,16:08 33.72145236 -118.019643 SIB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 Network not available Y ® '04/09/09 09 17 40:50 33.72413517 -118.0283624 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) BlackBerry 8800 M obile-to-Moblle&Land Y r-I �06/12/09 09 11.40:08 33.71540517 -118.012055 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Motorola V195 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y r08/15/09 09 20 56:16 33.7214 -118.00296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola W490 M obi le-to-Mobiie&Land N �08/26.09 09 11:42:04 33.72126816 -118.0030657 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) BlackBerry Curve 8320(Gold) Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 110/19/09 09 12 37.55 33.71535589 -118,0184871 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) T-Mobile Dash Network not available N i 04/28'09 09 17:48:52 33,71540517 -118.012055 Droppeq,Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Motorola V195s Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y 08/07/09 09 140826 33.73267785 -118.0207768 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection Is lost) Blackberry Curve 8900 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land N 08409 09 23:58 37 33.71535589 -118.0184871 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 6101 Network not available Y 09/25109 09 19:39 53 33.71540517 -118,012055 S/B No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Nokia 5310 Network not available Y !11,'12/09 09 22.22 12 33.7214 -118.00296 Dropped Call(In conversation,connection is lost) Samsung Katalyst T739 Mobile-to-Mobile&Land Y e 101!15110 i 10 13 28 16 33.70981 -118.0064441 SB No Signal(No signal bars,within 1-5 Bars) Other Mobile-to-Moblle&Land Y 33.71910102 118.029272 S/B Coverage(Outside of 1.5 Bars) T-Mobile myTouch Mobile-to-Land Y 01 08r10 12:07.44 r Page 10 of 10 Customer Complaints by Location - 2005 PIP 85 Lb -�. , is 1 Mile Radius g { ' lif Vir.gtu4. • -1 r Psi. • • $� . ram'--� ..•' +q�-A" • * 1/2 Mile Radius :. t `•'3 •ter • • tfe^as-raj ti .. ,cw;rr'F,� ." !.�Y3 �F1:i' zy •;„' 7 11pG't+iws @_ T-Mobile Cell • sera:-�`�� _s ...�.`� • • •' . • • .- �: m t Towersle __.�.. t14xr___ plwdala0�?IOGocgle�-�Twtx: °�.�+ Customer Complaints by Location - 2006 34 _ t,,ap.. �*use H,I�rkf .t`.ht w3wxy C; a Apr, a .;a *g ew. ice.• jR � � � ��.....�,�� ,. La - - �_Isa cats" _ o - BU-a',8 A*V _ Mfti Ate! 1 Mile Radius 06 - i• �� s MtFaskf�7f4vc• � � � � jai j • =d w. rFrg±�+ nvYi Ir �� ... � ,.FPS � �., ✓� _ 'r. S1u'x`st_ � resn �.7• •�� ..E _1at» 99 112 Mile Radius - ._.... ., " . ' A • i1:a�rr+ a� r � ��;_ - ;_�. 9R - r'.', _ _ - _'- aiAa-t�1ik R -=€trk!&1 - ir.�►,'Ss�:at�: �B ,Watt — �r^t� T-Mobile Cell _ .Jta�-uit4avq - .m � �•• 'ta�z4�{Asus- t"lu:rrllisC.. „ . _. ...._ �.. 1 Towers _ I •»�. -. .. _ so.w,c4` n a t, Oe Customer Complaints by Location - 2007 39 ikisa t�A4M .. __ ..._....... �s t ,&'akv _ rVxffilX4'at -„t. 1 Mile Radius2 i _ t _ sP iik;. ....... - .yf��: • �r•• 4ciam We 'r(�rr- r.a _ i °w y�S31�:K.1�'J3- • • AYE _ LI#[3 Ake",, HG✓„ • �_E. Ffafi �91 ki*, 'S��!ri Le+t)1, _; _ Upt, .�.,_ .._. � `• - _ i��ru�i3 Zdet3iEY 1l2 Mile Radius ;. • - �� rrA�=;ram, � �k' �a ..+LAB ��'�'� • t �/iy��j� • �t ' • 7 • • 1sEmet T-Mobile Cell �lrrc�irrdt_ +« • {. . 3u.Y n Towers 4d it, +dW3am1000"it�-l^1o� �fa� Customer Complaints by Location - 2008 25 t h �� _?:�, { clap a*ure H�t3fkl f�mlF4� fi1ss► 1 Mile Radius ��' up"iNO,*. fw CdflrimAY.� - ro '. 7s + `� ",'a'��:�.c'h -•.„ �` 'tart V34: i#r�-t'rem�y •.`�. m 8h s btoo 1/2 Mile Radius <mn _ tEta^r�re�an _ r.1�{+rt "Y`tra�c�Pire,�.` _. . T-Mobile Celt $ m " Towers Uarrc- . tlG Customer Complaints by Location - 2009 0-cuo Amu MUD AWO y t we Mile Radius �[�Q Capp P,�, 5 .-v �rr--e�:�s- _ u, .:yap ._ K,�.f, �F►�zs 1/2 Mile Radius h -.. fi _._ . ,V. .. E A — Aror` ! 1 �,�. � �T� titxa•Ia.3i'u 7 -P p �_�, :lU Mail iit tr�a So � T-Mobile Cell Towers .n ._ fr_ 1. k CUSTOMER CALLS BY LOCATION 140 � 3 120 ��.k`` �� + `rw�•�K1�`�"3V YT s€� � 3i'�' �� }� d Uda �kisl�a` �"•$� ��"k �, 'K �t a j a w 100 q 4 �� r,a'3 F 's Customer Calls - 1 m.ife radius rA Actual°Calls - 1 M':ile Radius �4 �Actu'al�Custome'r Calls - 1/2'rri'I,e ra"d!i'us � }q rIC Kozo `+s• ?�' , > �s,� r �s. s�, �i `� y- 20 �x v L " '�: F, � ��yet s�" §� �`.�� V ��;:�"� '*'�+,�' . {• �.,; 2005 2006 2007 200& 2009 I 2005 • 2007 2008 • CustomerLocation by 1 mile radius 118 I • 32 I Actual Customer Calls by Location 1 Mile Radius 85 I 40 Actual Customer Calls by Location 1/2 mile radius 14 1 Mile Radius 1 Mile Radius 1/2 Mile Radius Date Lat Long Call Type Locations Calls Locations 1/2 Mile Radius 6/11/2009 33.70934852 -118.0108941 iMobile to Mobile&Land 1 1 Mile Radius Multiple calls from the same location 6/28/2009 33.70934852 -118.0108941,Network Not Available 1 1 Mile Radius [Calls with in a 1/2 radius 8/26/20091 33.71535589 -118.0184861 INetwork Not Available 2 1 Mile Radius 10/5/2009 33.71535589 -118.0184871 IMobile to Mobile&Land 2 1 Mile Radius 10/19/2009 33.71535589 -118.0184871 Network Not Available 2 1 Mile Radius 3/14/2009 33.71540517 1 -118.012055 iMobile to Mobile&Land 3 1 Mile Radius 4/28/2009 33.71540517' -118.012055(Mobile to Mobile&Land 3 1 Mile Radius 5/9/2009 33.71540517 -118.012055 IMobile to Mobile&Land 3 1 Mile Radius - 6/12/2009' 33.71540517 -118.012055 Mobile to Mobile&Land 3 1 Mile Radius 8/12/2009 33.71540517, -118.012055 Network Not Available 3 1 Mile Radius 9/25/2009 33.71540517 -118.012055 INetwork Not Available 3 1 Mile Radius 10/14/2009 33.71540517 -118.012055 IMobile to Mobile&Land 3 1 Mile Radius 3/2/2009 33.71989000 j-118.00450000 IMobile to Mobile&Land 4 1 1 1/2 Mile Radius 4/13/2009 33.71989000 1-118.00450000 ILand to Mobile 4 1 1/2 Mile Radius 8/15/20091 33.72140000 -118.00296000 IMobile to Mobile&Land 5 1 Mile Radius 9/13/2009 33.72140000 -118.00296000 IMobile to Mobile 5 1 Mile Radius 11/12/2009 33.72140000 -118.00296000;Mobile to Mobile&Land 5 1 Mile Radius 4/5/2009 33.72413517 -118.0283624!Mobile to Mobile 6 1 Mile Radius 4/9/2009 33.724135111 -118.0283624 iMobile to Mobile&Land 6 1 Mile Radius 1/28/2009 33.729915171 -118.0194924INetwork Not Available 7 1 Mile Radius 4/19/2009 33.73148517 -118.0119124'Network Not Available 7 1 Mile Radius 10/20/2009 33.70865517 -118.0146576'Mobile to Mobile&Land 8 1 Mile Radius 9/29/2009 33.70993964 -118.0146927,Mobile to Mobile&Land 9 1 Mile Radius 10/27/2009 33.71549306 j 118.0118437 IMobile to Mobile&Land 10 12 1/2 Mile Radius 6/16/2009 33.71772286 -118.0239239 Mobile to Mobile&Land 11 1 Mile Radius 4/15/20091 33.71849459 -118.0007877,Mobile to Mobile&Land 12 1 Mile Radius R 33.71954749 -118.0205875 Mobile to Mobile 13 1 Mile Radius 33.7197 -118.0197459 Mobile to Mobile&Land 14 1 Mile Radius 33.72033086 -118.0165527 Network Not Available 15 3 1/2 Mile Radius 33,72080378 -118.0065991 Mobile to Mobile 16 4 1/2 Mile Radius 33.72126816 -118.0030657 Mobile to Mobile&Land 17 1 Mile Radius 9/28/20091 33.72141482 -118.0056324 Mobile to Mobile&Land 18 1 Mile Radius 11/5/2009 33.72145236 -118.019643 Network Not Available 19 1 Mile Radius 10/4/2009 33.72527329 -118.0211197 Mobile to Mobile&Land 20 1 Mile Radius 3/3/2009 33.72606049 j -118.0093932 IMobile to Mobile&Land 21 5 1/2 Mile Radius 5/6/2009 33.727 -118.0271341 Mobile to Mobile&Land 22 1 Mile Radius 4/22/2009 33.72725366 -117.9973642 Mobile to Mobile&Land 23 1 Mile Radius 11/9/20091 33.72764482 -118.0068216 Mobile to Mobile&Land 24 1 Mile Radius 6/26/2009 33.72785979 -118.0209909,Network Not Available 25 1 Mile Radius 12/16/2009 33.72909188 -118.0194923!Network Not Available 26 1 Mile Radius 11/30/2009 33.7291471 -118.0240941 Mobile to Mobile&Land 27 1 Mile Radius 5/5/2009 33.72987235 -118.0249457 Mobile to Mobile&Land 28 1 Mile Radius 4/10/2009 33.7299061 -118.0214269 Mobile to Mobile 29 1 Mile Radius 8/7/2009 33.73267785 -118.0207768 Mobile to Mobile&Land 30 1 Mile Radius 12/21/20091 33.73321193 -118.0067702 Mobile to Mobile 31 1 Mile Radius 12/2/20091 33.73543715 -118.0082341 Mobile to Mobile&Land 32 1 Mile Radius 1 Mile Radius Date Lat Long Call Type Locations �06-2�0 - W THOM" 11 mj - t-�I��,Wb-45 E - Wpm W-T �-!F-MIR" -m h-RI65,11---... m,,%/jY M WO720b2 118(6,* ' mvi mrmg Loft, 0 -m om"t 1/8/2008 33.726899 -118.016001 Network Not Available 2 1/21/2008 33.73104 -118.016178 Mobile to Mobile&Land 3 2/19/2008. 33.7180482 -118.0103795 Mobile to Mobile 4 4/2/2008 33.73103033 -118.0158099 Mobile to Mobile&Land 5 5/28/2008 33.715399 -118.0136414 Mobile to Mobile&Land 6 7/8/2008 33.71934147 -118.0197459 Mobile to Mobile 7 7/9/2008 33.72166482 -118.0151876 Mobile to Mobile&Land 8 7/11/2008 33.72375016 -118.0257796 Mobile to Mobile&Land 9 7/15/2008 33.725581 -118.0234651 Mobile to Mobile&Land 10 8/4/2008 33.71566482 -118.0094119 Mobile to Mobile&Land 11 9/10/2008 33.7216232 -118.004772 Mobile to Mobile&Land 12 9/12/2008. 33.71838287 -118.0009329 Network Not Available 13 9/15/2008 33.70879314 -118.0092589 Mobile to Mobile&Land 14 9/29/2008 33.71557543 -118.0213181 Network Not Available 15 10/13/2008 33.71994587 -118.004564 Mobile to Mobile&Land 16 10/15/2008 33.73324974 -118.0067678 Mobile to Mobile&Land 17 10/21/2008 33.71562575 -118.0139185 Mobile to Mobile&Land 18 10/21/2008 33.73213311 -118.0107991 Mobile to Mobile&Land 19 10/28/2008 33.72911738 -118.0240941 Mobile to Mobile&Land 20 10/30/2008 33.72569566 -118.0209954 Mobile to Mobile&Land 21 11/14/2008 33.73132775 -118.0241121 Network Not Available 22 11/26/2008 33.72707802 -117.9969211 Mobile to Mobile&Land 23 12/2/2008 33.71977406 -118.0000571 Mobile to Mobile 24 12/4/2008 33.72597471 -117.9975405 Network Not Available 25 12/10/2008 33.72402337 -117.9958028.Network Not Available 26 12/11/2008 33.71027009 -118.00540711 Mobile to Mobile&Land 27 12/16/2008 33.73436774 -118.01735591 Mobile to Mobile&Land 28 I Mile Radius Date Lat Long Call Type Locations -Vv (Ij94o_�1r -a tD�l'oc lion 0m,N1,15 off"RE-14- 3 715424SPER."N1-113 G-RQ4.8 - ORla ( m5.1 U M504 RM r?A0M W7517-15615 VETO g��CRrlfm", ON 61 WON- W1,17;F10 IN OR"' OMAR/ BMW Im- 1111IMMIMMM, W!"WS-01je' ff ffg4_"I bfe W WK ftl 0 AjYjjI# M W-3 F7 WM i-t 00465 MWO"PRXI NWRAMWPLO 5,1t ml, . 118 k "T011`19&'Wm-r J64- SO I tp§ YdQ7 5,Vk MIR PTI -------a ,_, 3372994506= �50 00,W- U I Oil 8e LCnffllp X 2/5/2007 33.733262 -118.020766 Mobile to Mobile 8 3/11/2007 33.728456 -118.024109 Mobile to Mobile&Land 9 4/4/2007 33.717905 -118.025809 Mobile to Mobile&Land 10 4/9/2007 33.720256 -118.001397 Mobile to Mobile&Land 11 4/12/2007 33.714743 -118.021856 Mobile to Mobile 12 4/15/2007 33.730773 -118.017214 Mobile to Mobile&Land 13 4/16/2007 33.725203 -118.020144 Network Not Available 14 4/24/2007 33.718785 -118.001711 Mobile to Mobile&Land 15 4/26/2007 33.718566 -118.013542 Network Not Available 16 5/11/2007 33.722518 -118.99702 Network Not Available 17 5/15/2007 33.71377589 -118.0064978 Mobile to Mobile 18 5/18/2007 33.72185 -118.000254 Mobile to Mobile 19 5/19/2007 33.720363 -118.015895 Mobile to Mobile&Land 20 5/29/2007 33.715644 -118.014287 Mobile to Mobile&Land 21 6/11/2007 33.720625 -118.012065 Mobile to Mobile&Land 22 6/11/2007. 33.732638 -118.020766 Land to Mobile 23 6/17/2007 33.715712 -118.005634 Mobile to Mobile&Land 24 6/20/2007 33.73004989 -118.0129507 Network Not Available 25 6/27/2007 33.729936 -118.021457 Mobile to Mobile&Land 26 7/2/2007 33.731865 -118.016579 Mobile to Mobile&Land 27 7/9/2007 33.728405 -118.015038 Mobile to Land 28 7/11/2007 33.72291 -118.004551 Mobile to Mobile&Land 29 7/14/2007 33.715697 -118.998385 Network Not Available 30 7/31/2007 33.72993 -118.022013 Mobile to Mobile&Land 31 8/17/2007 33.715668 -118.010837 Mobile to Mobile&Land 32 9/2/2007 33.713029 -118.016304 Network Not Available 33 9/28/2007 33.713162 -118,016173 Mobile to Mobile&Land 34 10/8/2007 33.725785 -118.005854 Mobile to Mobile&Land 35 10/9/2007 33.72181 -118.995772 Network Not Available 36 11/2/2007 33.726522 -118.024216 Mobile to Mobile&Land 37 11/14/2007 33.713997 -118,998876 Mobile to Mobile&Land 38 11/20/2007 33.71897 -118.0206171 Network Not Available 39 12/28/2007 33.731815 -118.0206181 Mobile to Mobile&Land 40 1 Mile Radius Date Lat Long Call Type Locations "a,n QOtOSSAII '3ff 0 1) 3�37,ZS)936W:7 m IW3 -.k and 71281�2QQ6 i' &N A 6 W�Wl Fj AL WW� ON 52A W, R Wmmm BOWT WI -I 9-3 %jiffl- 1/22/20061 33.712185 -118.022228 Mobile to Mobile 5 1/22/2006 33.73224445 -118.236054 Mobile to Land 61 1/26/2006 33.721805 -118.016589 Mobile to Mobile 7 2/23/2006 33.7289835 -118.0215562 Mobile to Mobile 8 2/28/2006 33.730773 -118.017214 Mobile to Land 9 3/8/2006 33.70852172 -118.0148579 Land to Mobile 10 3/17/2006 33.72200735 -118.0149948 Mobile to Mobile 11 3/20/2006 33.7215747 -118.0054821 Mobile to Mobile 12 3/22/2006 33.725473 -118.021012 Network Not Available 13 3/31/2006 33.72089 -118.014039 Network Not Available - 14 3/31/2006 33.726899 -118.016001 Mobile to Land 15 4/11/2006 33.72326176 -118.0117648 Network Not Available - 16 4/19/2006 33.721417 -118.00567 Mobile to Land 17 4/25/2006 33.735126 -118.017384 Mobile to Mobile 18 4/26/2006 33.726675 -118.01927 Mobile to Land 19 5/5/2006 33.7318939 -118.0141869 Mobile to Land 20 6/3/20061 33.733296 -118.016488 Mobile to Mobile&Land 21 6/15/2006 33.72615736 -118.0276257 Mobile to Land 22 6/18/2006 33.7305173 -118.0025329 Mobile to Mobile&Land 23 6/25/2006 33.727116 -117.99652 Mobile to Mobile&Land 24 7/6/2006 33.723149 -118.018371 Mobile to Mobile&Land 25 7/16/2006 33.715621 -118.019638 Mobile to Mobile&Land 26 7/25/20061 33.727875 -117.99731 Mobile to Mobile&Land 27 7/31/2006 33.721186 -118.016359 Mobile to Mobile&Land 28 8/9/2006 33.714564 -118.021724 Mobile to Mobile&Land 29 8/20/2006 33.731946 -118.014751 Network Not Available 30 8/22/2006 33.734932 -118.007554 Mobile to Mobile&Land 31 8/29/2006 33.733295 -118.006788 Network Not Available 32 9/11/2006 33.736145 -118.016177 Mobile to Mobile 33 9/13/2006 33.72067 -118.013564 Network Not Available 34 9/26/2006 33.715392 -118.016027 Network Not Available 35 9/29/2006 33.718141 -118.025806 Mobile to Mobile 36 11/2/2006 33.715625 -118.018608 Network Not Available 37 11/3/2006 33.729138 -118.01507 Mobile to Mobile&Land 38 12/1/2006 33.725017 -118.025988 Mobile to Mobile&Land 39 12/6/2006 33.71545 -118.007405 Mobile to Mobile&Land 40 12/15/2006 33.731434 -118.000372 Mobile to Mobile&Land 41 12/23/2006 33.715635 -118.017358 Mobile to Mobile&Land 421 12/27/20061 33.7199691 -118.197661 Mobile to Mobile&Land 1 431 1 Mile Radius Date Lat Long Call Type Locations 4/8%2005; 33 P p-y138 OU386'6,Land<toxNlobil,e M.ultipi cabs Toro"tt5e(same loca Corr, Sd. 71Q235;]m.,LM.r„.suviw ,t�.a-, r ��*yw -urs�N.nwta.., N. 'Srfr•np:t��4�" w_ =.tmi,..n m r�, _J9k 33:7102Z5 4/ 1-1'8`003866 �' ' M _._ '�Mobile',�to�L<and. 1 , w12 2005 33710225,"8003866 Mobile to Mobiles 1 =�4f 12%2005 33 7,�102'25 ��18�Q0386y6,';Nfo�Sile 1Vlolii "� _ 1� ' 4%1:1%2005' 33'710438 1�Y8 OQ3$66;Network Not Ay_ail"able91"MISIN 1.47 F33�710438 Wz#, $TQ03866,N'Rt o krN t Av lable'. �. ._ ate,. _ 3,_ 4 12�`,2Q05' . 33.710,438. 118;003866 Network Not,Ayailable „,�,;_-_, 2--}LL l,3;'A/,.w,..:., �3 17" 118k0(3fi662;Mobile„t#1Lanc#4 11 2005` 4%1F2%20.OS' ,337i376, 18QOt662 IVlolile;.to(Vlob"ile3° TIM- 8f26% QfJS; 33°71376 I1"8006662!Mbileta € 4l10/2005, 1.33 7�1 372% 1�KO!7„3,35 Mokiile to Lance y_ 4' 6%14%2005' 3 71.5372 118 019335.`Network,:N7 able; 4 T . r ri' '��"r,�.v +r 1� 2005 NO 3�7�1537? 1�18019 35NetworkNoAvailable _. . l�le 2005' 39�;71541.�7 �11.8:�Q10946,;�Miibile to N1obi1'�,�,,;,, 5 ._ _•i-r.._. �,,-erg.�..M ....,.�-.._ w - 4 > 4.6'2005 w . 33'715424. 1 8 OT2048,(vlobile to;land k' " k- ,.,....-.—.y ...•....,. 4 �'- i.T,*". -"q+tlA,p::s' r4F.` .L I.�4/m12%2 05' a3t-MIN424'F IVlo ile to Land, 6 �4%12/r2U05. j3371544° `118?01248 NetworkNot" vai(able 4k/292005`W,-A'15635 T-Q1�6569 Network Not Ayai ab_I � u `Y n ,��tarx4'i<�.x114,60A, ?f' r- ,g ��33 715535 1{1{8r01»569'I etwork,I ot0Availaa 7 „4/�7/2005! 3 715`635, 118,0165a69,,Netw6,,k4NQt Ava�la6le , _ If „ �`� _"' ' �33�73.5b35 ti118�01�'6569,Mabr_►�to Mobile,.. `�a 'Y� �' � 7`' ; :�..�/�'�=..l...v.,. i '_..:..0°:�.. W�1`8 Q16569' �: ;,' 4 10,�20U5• 33 715635` ;1 �,Mobiletct�Mo�ile �5%16%2005' 33u715�635` ��18�016569'JVlobile toMobile ;:,,�t .,� �7 � �' �i� 4/6/r2U05��33�7�15642 r 1=1801�4�82 IVlo�hile�to ��abil-` 8 �: ��4/9%z2 05,�33�71564,2` 1}1?8�014�482 NetworkMN�,o�t Avaitatile" '` 4J1]�%2005 3315;642 ]1L8 014482 IVlolile to ndr 8,« __.__ , ._,.._._,.. ,_.._ ..,.�._._.._.__._. __...a...gin._.....� � :.,< .,�. _ . U%1I1y/-If AW33Y 71 4/12l2Q0 ; 33 715642 ,.•-11$Q1i4482,,N'etworR Not A aif ble= .8 12 2 '�._. „,. 18'Q182 Networ�kNoAvafable` 8 .. •�,.!- !,005' ., �3*715642x %,0053371564L18U,I�44;82 Nltiiteto Mobil 8 4 13 20 .._...,.... _. _.: _, .,._.... :4f94053;$7�8553;1118t00»77 INI'obii",e toMobiie °" gig`` , ,�4/;9%2U05;a_,3;�33.718653 �Y8 0087�97;Nefwgr,•k�NotAyailable 9" « 41r3�20 5;' "337]p$97<M21`18020617'Nt biPeto$Eand` '� i 10. ,.;4�11�5�2005'� 33.719832• .=118.019766 rNetwork'Not Available n 11' "'4�1�-2�2�05 33!7r1r3832,�1*18''OT97�fi6,;Mobile,�t''Lailel,` �`, .� � = 1�1,�,'' �v1�14/2Q05 33w72�9054 1:18�0193$4':ncl�to��IVlobiler ��' iF2� ik'tsrass..'_awa 3%3/..'^2005; a ;972954�'`318OT9384;'Mobiletond` �, ��r w ..�_». _,. �_. �_ »..- . �3..�.,.Q,..�._• �, � i -TM4�uvx ax'�^;'G." �'m':-ts•r-im ssrry S/18/2005;.MIX 3�729945' 1�18:01�9533�NetinrorkdNotva�la,ble_��, '�� ' .1�3 ;,_ .; , 85 6%1.3"/,20Q5� 33729945 ti118 014532 fvlobiie toland 1'3 ,7/,20/,20Q5 33729945118019532;tVetworkNotAuailable , _ 3 U3 7?9445 �:118 019532.,Mobile,to�Mobile y •1ffi*� 13%15a/,<20U5 33729945 118°019532«Net_workNotdkAvalabfe 13 3%22%2UQ5' 33733a65' =118 01�4854 LandtoMobi}e _.a. .,,y.K —r—a -g^,d,nv. , 6/19 y2005 .,,;,:3`733365 -118:05 4854:!Molailes_toLand. ga 4/6/2005 33.714645 -118.016438 Mobile to Land 15 4/7/2005 33.72589915 -118.00648 Network Not Available 16 4/8/2005 33.72197915 -117.999357 Mobile to Land 17 4/8/2005 33.72540153 -117.997316 Mobile to Mobile 18 4/8/2005 33.72579494 -118.006981 Mobile to Land 19 4/9/2005 33.70929 -118.012552 Mobile to Land 20 4/9/2005 33.711518 -118.005834 Mobile to Land 21 4/9/2005 33.713007 -118.008932 Mobile to Mobile 22 4/9/2005 33.71446292 -118.012774 Network Not Available 23 4/9/2005 33.71545 -118.0153 Mobile to Land 24 4/9/2005 33.718684 -118.023349 Mobile to Mobile 25 4/9/2005 33.72243528 -118.002908 Network Not Available 26 4/9/2005 33.72579235 -118.00221 Mobile to Land 27 4/10/2005 33.71415615 -118.019913 Mobile to Mobile 28 4/10/2005 33.72229204 -118.004302 Mobile to Land 29 4/10/2005 33.72272453 -118.001034 Network Not Available 30 4/11/2005 33.709344 -118.007054 Mobile to Mobile 31 4/11/2005 33.710145 -118.010453 Mobile to Mobile 32 4/11/2005 33.711535 -118.023838 Mobile to Land 33 4/11/2005 33.71332052 -118.015963 Mobile to Land 34 4/11/2005 33.71545 -118.07405 Network Not Available 35 4/11/2005 33.71551 -118.00661 Mobile to Mobile 36 4/11/2005 33.71565 -118.00662 Mobile to Mobile 37 4/11/2005 33.715729 -118.00269 Mobile to Land 38 4/11/2005 33.716142 -118.013982 Mobile to Mobile 39 4/11/2005 33.718113 -118.014897 Mobile to Land 40 4/11/2005 33.7209615 -118.000412 Mobile to Mobile 41 4/11/2005 33.72167794 -117.995871 Mobile to Mobile 42 4/11/2005 33.72277576 -118.001151 Mobile to Mobile 43 4/11/2005 33.72578535 -118.000732 Mobile to Mobile 44 4/12/2005 33.71297 -118.013859 Network Not Available 45 4/12/2005 33.715697 -118.007735 Mobile to Land 46 4/12/2005 33.72286 -118.00466 Mobile to Land 47 4/12/2005 33.72358376 -117.998718 Mobile to Mobile 48 4/12/2005 33.72399776 -118.027866 Network Not Available 49 4/12/2005 33.72547974 -118.001082 Mobile to Mobile 50 4/12/2005 33.72579494 -118.006605 Mobile to Mobile 51 4/12/2005 33.73140233 -118.002048 Network Not Available 52 4/12/2005 33.73210874 -118.000458 Network Not Available 53 4/13/2005 33.73049846 -118.018845 Mobile to Mobile 54 4/14/2005 33.715332 -118.0252621 Mobile to Mobile 55 4/14/2005 33.72402753 -118.010768 Mobile to Mobile 56 1/25/2005 33.710696 -118.022536 Mobile to Mobile 57 2/7/2005 33.727731 -118.026284 Network Not Available 58 2/13/2005 33.725174 -118.014926 Mobile to Mobile 59 2/17/2005 33.72935594 -118.010659 Mobile to Land 60 3/17/2005 33.720089 -118.014039 Mobile to Mobile 61 3/31/2005 33.72334935 -118.00241 Mobile to Mobile 62 3/31/2005 33.72443753 -118.020551 Mobile to Mobile 63 4/20/2005 33.718795 -118.023437 Network Not Available 64 5/3/2005 33.730005 -118.00308 Mobile to Mobile 65 5/29/2005 33.7188 -118.0176721 Mobile to Land 66 6/3/2005 33.71914433 -118.000713 Network Not Available 67 6/4/2005 33.728479 -118.027938 Mobile to Land 68 6/6/2005 33.71331333 -118.003808 Mobile to Mobile 69 7/29/2005 33.714535 -118.016127 Network Not Available 70 8/6/2005 33.72609456 -118.009867 Network Not Available 71 8/9/2005 33.721827 -118.013577 Mobile to Land 72 9/18/2005 33.735438 -118.016504 Network Not Available 73 9/23/2005 33.7107 -118.010375 Network Not Available 74 10/5/2005 33.731946 -118.014751 Mobile to Land 75 10/7/2005 33.733295 -118.06788 Network Not Available 76 10/8/2005 33.723149 -118.0183711 Network Not Available 77 10/12/2005 33.715621 -118.019638 Network Not Available 78 10/14/2005 33.72451612 -118.011635 Network Not Available 79 10/17/2005 33.72568074 -118.008018 Land to Mobile 80 10/23/2005 33.721975 -118.000327 Mobile to Mobile 81 10/29/2005 33.7346129 -118.019417 Mobile to Land 82 11/5/2005 33.73115415 -118.0040751 Mobile to Mobile 83 11/16/2005 33.72276176 -118.012265 Mobile to Mobile 84 12/2/2005 33.71876388 -117.996917 Mobile to Land 85 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#4381 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Diannje Larson Description: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you for working meetings with us into your busy schedules this last week to discuss the T-Mobile/CUMC cell tower issues. Thank you for the pertinent questions you asked, and for the high standards you have set for yourselves and our city even in the face of adversity. Thank you for your decision at the City Council meeting on Monday. Unanimous. I think it's the most beautiful word I have ever heard! Thank you. Respectfully, Dianne Larson Expected Close Date: 03/18/2010 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 Esgarza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4349 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Carol Settimo Description: Dear Mayor Green and all our Council Members, "Thank you" for supporting our neighborhood and rejecting the T-Mobile site at Community United Methodist Church tonight. I am so impressed to meet such fine neighbors who worked so hard and spent so many hours doing research, to prove our point why we feel the tower does not belong in our neighborhood. It is a great victory for us. Sincerely, Carol Settimo Expected Close Date: 03/17/2010 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: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 9:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4354 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Debbie Zentil Description: Dear City Council: I want to thank you for your time and attention to the matter of the T-Mobile cell phone tower at the Bell Tower site. It was a great pleasure to attend the meeting last night and learn of your adopted policy of transparency. For the entire meeting I kept wondering to myself where was T- Mobile's transparency and was the Council going to take this idea and apply it to the behavior of T-Mobile; from the comments from the Council I believe you did. Obviously, my neighbors and I am extremely overjoyed with the outcome and we truly appreciate your stand the apparent thought that went into your decision. Everyone can now breath a deep sigh of relief. Thank you again, so very, very much. Debbie Zentil Legal Assistant Phone: (714) 293-1216 Facsimile: (714) 847-5619 Expected Close Date: 03/17/2010 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: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:02 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4364 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Compliment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Ronald Passmore Description: Carol, I second that. Mayor and Council Members, I am so very proud of you, and very proud to be a member of this great city who places individuals such as yourself in positions to manage the city, its land, its development, and its future. Thank you for representing us fairly, objectively and with compassion. It is my unwavering opinion, which is one unequivocally supported by facts, that your decision yesterday evening saved myself and my neighbors significant losses in our property values, peace, and quality of life. We will reach out to CUMC with an olive branch, mend whatever needs mending, thank those who need be thanked, and move on with love, courtesy and common respect. Your actions have allowed the hurt to stop hurting, and the healing process to begin; full speed ahead. Have a great summer. See you on the pier!!!! Ronald M. Passmore, MBA, PMP Senior Project Manager 949-355-9612 Expected Close Date: 03/17/2010 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 2/5/2010 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered NIA City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 2/5/2010 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 2/5/2010 City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 2/5/2010 Administration(1 Copy) Date Delivered 2/5/2010 li Filed By: Monica Moretta with Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No.09-015(T- Mobile) Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk (714)536-5227 Fee Collected: $2,704.00 Form Completed by: Kelly Mandic, Deputy City Clerk Ij �, ...F '�^ - may ' i - -, ' 7 a >; -� 2 ra. ` -�^' 3 ' z .� - .es a.- - 1 ^ice^r �•f .'. t " 'y# -''Y zMa5 aat3 z _.---_ � — �If 90 Mp S I zk7 `� t-w t� 111 a¢ter* ,S;i s t ,a r,, im A OA7 ! * E`' ii.`3p tiA"T"F!�$5', z f, " n ifs.eF I #. bf1 ^4'� �52 f '=. $_`fd5c'as 5e z3�= air c+ �F d � ''� - y�# s z'- '-fx. - ' ,'� M. �s°�. t� -r"7�' �5,€�� i.!�` ..<MW"�` . r { _-,-L-- 3a-' —�_ �k� a�'# a, 'z�.`"�--� �a �"� �1 ,�-�r- �_�- tri E. i:} �, . -- �x➢as - : g 3gr �X�� ;-s.an_ _ ,1 - �o��9 NC3�4F#�ROVL - �; f3 "tom _ .a-,.. r -` ..A..n.'' . -....„. M.'s, " .} '2 s _ a -}��r.� `-�, a .�xiz "``�t�t..c `� � ..ti �'��- a?M .7✓''�r z+�"�:,.,'"+,: -k,ix. ��, r $ F Oil 'A'.', h i s�,"s � � � ^- ' >rkX a .� vw�dh+'".{ � d '` 1� ��I.af1L ��,• `T �} y C F k A _ _ :> ; - r Please a34it-wf�te{(1 }1E30M�E�OW : t t qa a ..;rkl 417 z r L.� 1, SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET TO: FROM: Joan Flynn Monica Moretta City Clerk Agent Representative Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. on behave of T-Mobile. COMPANY: DATE: City of Huntington Beach February 5, 2010 Department Planning SITE IDENTIFIER: ADDITIONAL REFERENCE NUMBER: 6662 Heil Ave T-Mobile LA33421-A Community UMC Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RE: Appeal Request for CUP Case No. 09-015 Attached please find the following items: Quantity Title 1 One Check for Entitlement Continuance $2,704 1 Appeal Letter NOTES/COMMENTS: Ms.Flynn- Attached is the check for$2,704 for the appeal and an original letter for this request on behalf of T- Mobile Corporation. Should you have any questions,please contact at your earliest opportunity. Best regards, au Monica Moretta Al EQjJ01 - - N) d C:� _ One Venture,Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949.241-0175 ONE VENTURE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949.753.7200 FACSIMILE: 949.753.7203 I.A33421-A Cammunity UM.0-Entitlement Coatunuance Fee-Transmittal,-2f 1018.d.0c 2010 FEB -5 PN 2: 01 February 5, 2010 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for CUP Case No. 09-015 6662 Heil Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92647 T-Mobile Site: LA33421A, Community UMC Dear Ms. Flynn: Applicant T-Mobile West Corporation ("T-Mobile") is appealing the January 26, 2009, Planning Commission decision granting of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015. T-Mobile requests that the City Council review the project and grant the Conditional Use Permit for a fifty-five foot (55') tall wireless telecommunications facility located at the Community United Methodist Church ("Community UMC") at 6662 Heil Avenue. Procedural History: T-Mobile proposed a 55 foot tall mono-palm, located at Community UMC located at 6662 Heil Avenue. The facility was redesigned at the request of the Zoning Administrator to be a completely stealth design with antennas inside of a replaced bell tower with all ancillary equipment underground. The proposed wireless facility is a public utility use and complies with all noise, height and setback requirements mandated by the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. T-Mobile has worked extensively with staff, to identify a design and location on the property to both minimize any visual impacts to the neighboring community as well as eliminate any potential interference with current and proposed use of the property by the Community UMC. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile representatives by both written and oral testimony. Further, T-Mobile has conducted two community outreach meetings to address the questions and concerns of the neighbors. T-Mobile has submitted site justification data that includes the number of customer complaints, dropped call data, and drive test data to further support the need for the facility. T-Mobile also invited Dr. Bushberg, who is a DipLomate of the American Board of Medical Physics, Diplomate of the American Board of Science of Nuclear Medicine and holds a Master's and PhD from the Department of Bionucleonics at Purdue University (full credentials are found in the report submitted to staff) to the Zoning Administrator and meeting to address any health related questions. At the meeting it was clear from public comment that the issue generating the opposition to the proposed facility is first and foremost a concern over the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. A power point presented Dr. Bushberg February 5, 2010 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 3 was submitted to staff, per their request. Additionally, a written report from Dr. Bushberg was send to staff in September of 2009. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile by both written and oral testimony. Rini History: T-Mobile identified a need for a site in the area to provide coverage to the residential neighborhoods surrounding the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, specifically indoor coverage around the intersection of Edward Avenue and Heil Avenue. The increase in the number of customers and the changing nature in the way that customers use their phones (1 out of 6 customers use their cell phone for all their calls, both at work, in car, and at home) creates a need for cell sites in residential areas where the phones are being used. The need for this coverage was determined based on extensive analysis by T-Mobile radio engineers using drive test data, call blocking and dropped call data, coverage modeling, and customer complaint logs. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile by both written and oral testimony. The drive test data, which is real time data collected from taking measurements in the field, determined that a facility is needed to improve weak indoor coverage in the area surrounding the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. Due to the residential nature of the area, there are limited options available to provide coverage as the majority of the neighborhood is zoned and used for residential purposes. The properties that are not zoned residential and/or used for residential uses are schools and city parks. None of these properties are available for the proposed facility as the property owners of these locations would not lease space to wireless carriers. The proposed location was selected and modified through the review process as it was the only site that had adequate vacant space for the equipment and the facility, provided an opportunity to disguise the site as an existing tall bell tower, maximized the distance away from adjacent residential uses (approximately 125 feet), and provided the highest antenna placement without proposing a new facility and provide the best possible coverage in the area. Further the site will not be recognized as a wireless facility considering that the antennas will be fully concealed behind fiberglass panels. Finally, while the coverage could be addressed through the use of multiple sites located on streetlight structures in the neighborhood, this option was rejected due to the City of Huntington Beach's prohibition on wireless facilities in the public right-of- way. Additionally, if sites in the public right-of-way were feasible, the increased number of sites required for equivalent coverage and call capacity would be between 3 to 6 sites total, and would significantly reduce the separation from residential uses as the poles are immediately adjacent to homes (typically less than 50 feet away). The proposed location and design is the best solution to solve T-Mobile's coverage problem when all factors are considered. This information was introduced into the record by T-Mobile by both written and oral testimony. " February 5, 2010 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Basis for Denial: Opposition testimony and the issues raised were based first and foremost on concerns regarding the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions in the form of adverse health effects. Other concerns raised included: speculation that the existence of a wireless telecommunications facility would negatively impact property values; an attempt to demonstrate through nonscientific methods that a facility is not needed at this location; the generalized statements that wireless facilities are not compatible with residential land uses; statements that minor insignificant visual changes to existing structures constitutes blight; and concerns over noise. These were all raised as substitute, or proxy issues, to the real concern: the perceived environmental effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. Additionally, there is a "substantial" lack of coverage in the area which T-Mobile has proven by the RF justification. T-Mobile and staff testified as to federal preemption of health effects as a basis for denial; the Planning Commission commented that it was not the perceived environmental and health effects of the radio emissions from the proposed wireless telecommunications facility that was the basis for their denial but rather it was the effect that a "stigma" associated with the perceived environmental and health effects of the radio emissions from the proposed facility that was basis for denial of the project. This finding was so apparent a violation of law that Commissioners and the City's legal counsel both commented on how the City's decision was potentially running afoul of Federal law. As the testimony presented at the hearing does not support the decision of the Planning Commission and as the Planning Commission findings for denial are barred by Federal preemption of health effect, T-Mobile requests that the City Council rehear the application on appeal. The appeal is based on testimony and the record of the Planning Commission, this letter, and any additional testimony (both written and oral) provided to the City Council. It is clear that T-Mobile has selected the best location and method available to fill the gap in coverage that surrounds the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, and that the project should be approved by the City Council. Sincerely Monica Moretta Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. For Applicant T-Mobile West Corporation Attachment: Technical Report submitted prior to Planning Commission cc: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Jill Arabe, Case Planner Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am the Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. - -- - - -- am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON i NOTICE OFPUBII(HEARING -BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of 0TYOFHUNTINCTONBEA(H general circulation, printed and published in NOTICE;IS HEREBY GIVEN that on'Monday, March 15, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. !i the City of Huntington Beach, Count of Ci the,city Council;Chambers _he Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public_ icc hearing on'the following planning and ythe zoning-items:'item ' I ❑ 1. APPEAL.OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL Orange, State of California, and USE`PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS. COMMUNICATIONS attached Notice is a true and coin lete co FACILITY) Appellant/Applicant: Monica Moretta, Sequoia .Deployment p py Services Request: To permit the construction of a 55 ft..high wireless as was printed and published on the ( communications facility,designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with 12 fOIIOWjng date($). I panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by'a 7. ft.,6 in. high. blockwall. The request includes-the relocation of a 5 ft.high biock wall trash enclosure.Zoning Administrator Approved Re-Design: On November 4;:.2009, the Zoning Administrator approved the construction of a 55 ft.high wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell`tower with six (6) panel I antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. Planning { Commission Action:,On January-26,2010,the Planning Commission denied j the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility'as a completely stealth designed church bell tower-with a finding for denial. Location: 6666 Heil'Avenue; 92647 (south 'side of Heil Avenue, east of March 4, 2O1 O Edwards Street)Project Planner:Jill Arabe NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 Thursday, March 11,2010. - - i ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited:to attend said hearing and express I 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 declare, under penalty ofperjury, that the limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the p `Y public hearing" described in ,this notice, or in. written corres ondence foregoing is true and correct. delivered to the City at, or prior to,-the public hearing. if there are any l 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 Executed on March 9, 2010 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 at Costa Mesa, California Published Huntington Beach Indep)ende t March 4,2010 031-383 Signa ure Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug.24, 1994,case A50479. PIS®®F OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) sso COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am the Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper Of BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE general circulation, printed and published in ,that.on CITY OF Monday,ON B arc ACH g p p NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN�that.on Monday, March 15, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. the City of Huntington Beach Count Of in the City'Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington•Beach, the y g r y lCity,Council will hold a public hearing,on the following'plarming and Orange State of California, and the zoning items: ' r O 1. APPEAL Of PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL attached Notice is a true and com lete co USE-PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T-MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS p py FACILITY) Appellant/Applicant:- Monica Moretti, Sequoia Deployment printed and published On the Services Request:-To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless as was p p communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with 12 fOIIOWIng date(s). panel antenh6s and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 ft. 6 im high;blockwall. The request includes the relocation of a 5 ft.'high-block wall trash enclosure.Zoning Administrator Approved Re-Design:.,On November 4; 2009, the Zoning Administrator approved the construction of a 55 ft.high wireless communications facility as-a completely stealth designed church-bell tower with six ,(6) panel antennas .and one (1) 'GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely'underground all associated ancillary equipment. Planning Commission Action:On January 26,2010,the Planning Commission denied the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications-facility as a . completely stealth designed church.bell tower with a finding for denial. Location: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street)Project Planner:Jill'Arabe . I March 4, 2010 ; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item 41 is categorically exempt from the provisions'of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 Thursday, March 11;2010. 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 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the limited to raising only,those issues you or someone else raised,at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence foregoing is true and correct. i delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.,lf there are any i further.questions please'call the Planning and Building Department'at i (714) 536-5271.,and refer to the above items. Direct,your, written I communications to the City Clerk. Joan L..Flynn,City.Clerk City of Huntington Beach Executed on March 9, 2010 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 at Costa Mesa, California (714)536-5227 Published Huntington Beach Independent March 4,2010 031-383 Signatur` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 15, 2010, 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: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-015 (T- MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY) Appellant/Applicant: Monica Moretta, Sequoia Deployment Services Request: To permit the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility designed as a palm tree "monopalm" with 12 panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including associated equipment surrounded by a 7 ft. 6 in. high blockwall. The request includes the relocation of a 5 ft. high block wall trash enclosure. Zoning Administrator Approved Re- Design: On November 4, 2009, the Zoning Administrator approved the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell tower with six (6) panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna, including the requirement to completely underground all associated ancillary equipment. Planning Commission Action: On January 26, 2010, the Planning Commission denied the construction of a 55 ft. high wireless communications facility as a completely stealth designed church bell tower with a finding for denial. Location: 6666 Heil Avenue, 92647 (south side of Heil Avenue, east of Edwards Street) Project Planner: Jill Arabe NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 Thursday, March 11, 2010. 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 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 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST p"9f,eN%_ Or Pt.as4�11 e�}n'Mt�tnt�'s tXkA1A<_ ot= cctJolTt�C�4L- SUBJECT: use Frr_ ,T- 1 Mitt- Wtc�c-Ess cs�Mµ��.11 O n DEPARTMENT: PwNOt-406 -ir MEETING DATE: 0a CONTACT: 35 LPHONE: N/A YES NO ( ) (v� ( .) Is the notice attached? { ) (✓) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appeilant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (v4 Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? { ) (✓S ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels"attached? (J) ( ) { ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: I. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published 1 3. Number of days between publications lJ PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST AFFIDAVIT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, ROBERT E. CUELLAR, hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and address of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of Orange County within the area described and for a distance of five hundred (500) from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as: See Attached Application Date: JUNE 25, 2009 Signet! �'Zmjl'x SITE: LA33421 A JUG 2 4 2009 6662 HEIL AVENUE 107617 a� nQ e NtNC pEPT qltl uNV-$oi o2 lal 16. 32_ 39_ OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6802 BRIDGEWATER DR 6781 BONNIE DR 16532 PATRICIA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 40_ 41_ 42. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 16501 PATRICIA LN 16521 PATRICIA LN 16531 PATRICIA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 45. 46. 47. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 16571 PATRICIA LN 16581 PATRICIA LN 16591 PATRICIA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA92647 55. 59, 69. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 16602 COOPER LN 16642 COOPER LN 6501 ABBOTT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 76. 77- 8 L OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6581 BISHOP DR 6571 BISHOP DR 6521 BISHOP DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 84_ 87. 102- OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 6542 BISHOP DR 6582 BISHOP DR 6561 OAKGROVE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 124. 125. 150_ 'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 16441 LAKEMONT LN 16451 LAKEMONT LN t6502 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 158_ 159. 170. OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 16622 DALE VISTA LN 16612 DALE VISTA LN 16571 DALE VISTA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 182_ ;OCCUPANT 6652 HELL AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 Et 4 111� iflt v> 9�tt� tfio Made in U.S. 09L8/0915Qh8Ab aan8 atggedwoo ww/g x ww gZ Iew1ol ap attanbg3 0 0918/09l.g6 tGany 14lM algg8dwoa„8/g Z x.,l azls lagel President Hu7- Box tington Har POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O_ Box 79 19671 Quie ay L 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset B ch,CA 9 42 Huntin n Be ,CA 648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefanides Orange County Assoc.of Realtors` 25552 La Paz Road Laguna Hills,CA 92653 President 3 Jeffrey M.Oderrnan 12 Pacific Coast Arc eological 1$ Amigos De Bol pica RUTAN& CKE P Society,Inc. P.O. Box 3 611 Ant Blvd_,�Floop,,' P.O_Box 926 Hun on Bea CA 647 Cos esa C - 0 Costa esa,CA 627 A • ane Go old Sunset Beach ty Assoc. 4 Pres_,H_B_ Hist Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies resi t C/O Newland House Museum O.C-Ping.& v.Se s De PO 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P_O.Box 48 S t B ch,C 0742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa a,CA 9 02-40 President Diane Ryan 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow HRB Chair O.C. Reso es& velop. M ept- PO Box 865 7701 Etna Circle P.O. Bo 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa a,C 2702 90 Julie Van rmost 6 Council on g 15 Planning Di or 20 BIA 1706 Or ge Av . City of a Mesa 17 S ark C e,#170 Hun gton ach,CA 48 P.O. B 12 00 in A 926 4441 Costa esa, 9 28-1200 Richard Spi Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Dire r 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA City of Fo fain V ey 818 st 7th, 1 Floo 19391 Sha4yHarbor,0icle 10200 ter A Lo Angete A Huntin n Bea ,CA 9 8 Fo am V ey, 708 Jean Kimbrell 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director c/o E.T.I.�Be 00 Seacliff H City of Newpo each 20292 Eas d CX 19382 rfdale L P.O. Box 1 Huntin CA 9 46 H tington B ch, 92648 Newpo each, 9 -8915 Robert Smith Lou Mannone 16 Planning Dir for Environmental Board Chair Seacliff HOA City of W Uninster 21352 Yarmouth Lane 19821 Oc Bluff rcle $200 stminst lvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Hun on Bea CA 48 Wes ste 92 3 Planning Director 4 Ocean View School District 38 HB Hamptons A 38 City of Seal Beac Attn:Cindy Pulfer,Admire_ Se ices Progressive mmunity Mgmt. 211 Eighth St 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Pu a Real, Seal Beac A 90 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Missio rejo, 9269 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery05160/8160 h 09tW09tgA 3 w a ggwdtnoa tuw L9 x tuw gZ I 'I a 3 ,* AWAV-0�-009-t 09Q t l` 'a0anbl�3 oo�is®Aa as wor,Gane nnnnnn `1918Y�1 I�1 .8/5 Z x„1 aws 1` salad- an California Coastal Coahrnission 25 Clary Hampton p Sally Graham 39 Theresa Henry Westrulnster Sdjool District Meadowlark Area South Coas ea Office 1412 t Cedarwood Avenue 5 t6 t Gel Circle 200 angate, wth Floor Westminster CA 92683 1 f agton Beach,CA 92649 ng Beacf} CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 25 Stephen Ritter L% Cheryle Browning 39 South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark Are 200 Oceangate r 5832 Bolsa Avenue 16771 evelt Lane L.on B CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 IT tington Beach,CA 92649 Ryan P.ChamLeo 11 26 Heatthside I himes 40 �3=,h�,I,=Diive, 12 6 cutive Grcle,Suite 250 Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 Director 27 Goldenwest College Bois Chica L and T t 41 Local Solid W £Agy_ Attu.Fred Owens 5200 W r venue,Ste- 108 Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O_ Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator OC County Harbors,Beach 36 $oisa Chica Land T 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks De t. Evan He sndcut 6771 Warner Ave_ P_O_Bo 8 1812 rt Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 S CA 92702-4048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker Bella Tema Ma11 Fountain Valley Elena-School Dist_ Atta=Pat Roge e 10055 Slater Avenue 7777 ger Ave_#300 Fountain Valley CA 92708 untington Beach CA 92647 Dr_Gary Rutherford,Super_ Gauntry View Estates HOA 38 OC Sanitation Distract 42 H8 City Elementary School Dist_ Carrie Thomas 10844 Ellis Ave 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Trotte ve Foun ey CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 gton Beach CA 92648 David Perry / 01, Country View Estates HOA 38 Eric Pendegraft,Plant M HB City Elementary School Dist. L Gerald Chapman AES Huntington LLC 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire e 21730 N d Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 gtoa Beach CA 92648 H gton Beach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach Girls Softball* 47 AYSO Region 56 9062 Kahul • ave Mike Erickson Commissioner John Gray Hun on Beach CA 92646 P_O_ Box 3943 9522 Smokey Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Ely AYSO Region 117 �J AYSO Region 55 22102 Rockport L John ATmanza Con unissnoner Russ Marlow Hun- e ach CA 92646 19961 Bushard SL 18111 Brentwell Circle Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 �1 biguettE r � ��dq$1b ► 8160 pglg/pg S&W 30AE elgBBdwoa ww L9 x ww yZ}etwol ap QUanb!q T A213AV 09 008 1 091 t�l > VbRanbi ®09bS®A11 a< ' woY-A1ane•AAMAA 99l$�( t9�� 1f}r113Afi� 1�t A:$i Z x l'a� aalad a;lar i-18 Coastal Conununities Ass 43 Huntington %Alcy Little League 1i6 field Rocket' David Condo Joel Ciotti tllaruial Padhiar 143 E- Meats Av e P-O Bos 51 t 1 17782 hletAler Dr Orange,Cr 865 Huntington Beach,CA 926t5 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Downtown Business Associatio 44 AYSO Region t43 HB Pop Warmer Football ' Mr.Steve Daniels Coaunissiorter Phillip"cc Paul Loflw 200 Main Stree 6 5552 Harold Place P-O_ Box 5066 Huntin ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Downtown Residents ciation 45 Fountain Valley Pony Baseball* (4J/ North HB Soccer Club Ms_Matie St.Ge Chris Mahoney x President George Mitton 505 Alabam 21212 Shaw Lane 18601 Newland Street, #94 Nunn a Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Chairperson 46 H_B_Jr. All-American Football** Robinwood Little League G-Acieleao/Tongv al Council Randy Wooten Dona Cardona PO Box 69 P.O_ Box 2245 P_O Box 1384 San uel,CA 91778 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Juaneno Band of Mission In 46 Huntington Beach Soccer League* 47 Seaview Little League G Acjachemen Nation Felipe Zapata Brian Setnmelroth 31411 La Mat treet 18442 Steep Lane,#3 P-O Box 5305 San Ju istrano,CA 92675-2625 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 South Coast Soccer Club** 47' Ocean View Little League Westminster Village HOA 4S President Martin Banaon Phil Shearer,President 5200 Blac"Road 8921 Crescent Drive 18141 Bt�eatwell Circle Westminster 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 West Co_Family YMCA* A-T) South HB Gills Fast Pitch Softball** 47 Gary Brown 49 - KchaeYTumec Frank LoGrasso Coastkeepers 2100 Main Street 9432 Alii Circle 3151 Array Ave_S - - 0 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Me 2663 Regional Fatvironmeatal Officer fo 5o Fort Irwin S0 Fort Hunter-Liggett 50 Western Region$n�625 e Lt Col Paul D_Cramer Mr Peter Rubin US Air Force Director of Public W Nael Training Cntr Director of Pu o&s 333 Madcet S P O Box 10509 Combat Support Twining Center San F co CA 94105-2196 Fort I A 92310 B790 5�St Pa&s RFTA Dublin CA 945680 Shd7a Donovan 50 Patrick Christman,Direct 50 Gold Coast Extreme Community P son Coordinator Western Region morel"Office Rick Bauer-President US US rps Building 1164 20501 Surburbia Lane 1220 Pacific Highway Box,555246 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 San Diego CA 921325190 Camp Pendleton CA 92055-5246 Sou$i Coast Bayem Futbol Club Q4j' California Futbol Club (4-7D District 62 Challenger Divisions Marissa Pena Hector Aguilar Gail Harder 22?22 Eucalyptus Lane 10571 Davitaur 17961 Scotia Circle Lake Forest,CA 92630 Garden Grove,CA 92943 Huntington Be",CA 92647 ��--�� label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/5160/8160 a.s 1(�ill Etipett c�� ®091S aleldwal any a< v®w wmmvr ate-, r` NV-UU102 09��I►��t�' tli'�L�� I3 lat L APN: 146-163-16 2. APN: 146-163-17 3_ APN: 146-165-06 STEPH6N T CHUCK STEVEN K FRYDv1AN STEPHEN A WEST 16382 REDLANDS LN 16381 TUFTS LN 6782 DEFIANCE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4041 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4058 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264-7-4026 4_ APN: 146-165-07 5_ APN: 146-165-08 6. APN: 146-165-09 GERALD G SYLVESTER MORRIS J KATZ RICHARD H LEC14NER 6762 DEFIANCE DR 6752 DEFIANCE DR 6742 DEFIANCE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4026 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4026 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4026 i 7. APN: 146-i65-10 8. APN: 146-165-I1 9. APN: 146-165-12 DONALD K JOHNSON MARIANNE BOGENREIF TANG QUY TRAN 6732 DEFIANCE DR 6722 DEFIANCE DR 6721 BRIDGEWATER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4026 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4026 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 10. APN: 146-165-13 It. APN: 146-165-14 12. APN: 146-165-15 MARY&A NISHIMfNE RONALD Y&MARILYN A KUGA ROBERT P MIGNOSA 6731 BRIDGEWATER DR 6741 BRIDGEWATER DR 6751 BRIDGEWATER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 13. APN: 146-165-16 14. APN: 146-165-17 15. APN: 146465-18 SHO ISHITOBI VINCENT LUAN DUC TRAN GERARD JAMES MANGAN 6761 BRIDGEWATER DR 6781 BRIDGEWATER DR 6791 BRIDGEWATER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4019 16. APN: 146-166-04 IT APN: 146-166-05 18. APN: 146-166-06 BENJAMIN SHEN LORRIN W CHEE YVONNE PARSONS 11941 195TH ST 6792 BRIDGEWATER DR 6782 BRIDGEWATER DR CERRITOS CA 90703-7548 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647AO20 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 19. APN: 146-166-07 20. APN: 146-166-08 21. APN: 146-166-09 CHARLES GEORGE DOUGLAS&JOY SAITO RONALD R LURVEY 6762 BRIDGEWATER DR 6752 BRIDGEWATER DR 6742 BRIDGEWATER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 22. APN: 146-166-10 23. APN: 146-166-11 24. APN: 146-167-03 LEOPOLD L BURG DARIN&GINA FISHMAN MICHAEL G&JOAN L MAYEAUX 6732 BRIDGEWATER DR 6722 BRIDGEWATER DR 16381 REDLANDS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4020 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474040 25. APN: 146-167-04 26. APN: 146-167-05 27. APN: 146-167-06 TIMOTHY R&TAMMY L CROWDER ROY M SMITH JOEL LESLIE GAINOUS 16391 REDLANDS LN 16401 REDLANDS LN 16421 REDLANDS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474040 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4042 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474042 28, APN: 146-167-07 29. APN: 146-167-08 30. APN: 146-167-09 THERESA B HERNANDEZ THOMAS WILLIAM MC CARTHY HOHL FAMILY LIVING TRUST 16431 REDLANDS LN 16441 REDLANDS LN 16451 REDLANDS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474042 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4042 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4042 Made in USA qFMVERSAL. UNV-80102 lai 31. APN: 146-107-10 32. APN: 146-291-07 33. APN: 146-291-08 PAUL& JOY NISHf W AKI ALFREDO CASTILLO MARK S&SALLY STRANGE �( ,ON 16461 REDLANDS LN 23445 LOS ENCINOS WAY 6771 BONNIE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4042 WOODLAND HILLS CA 9 1 3 6 7-6005 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264 7-43 1 1 34. APN: 146-292-34 35. APN: 146-292-35 36. APN: 146-292-36 CAROL GRIFFITH LOUIS S&CHRISTINE M ALBERNI DANIEL C&CONCEPCION KOCKA 16602 PATRICIA LN 16592 PATRICIA LN 16572 PATRICIA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4351 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4349 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4349 3T APN: 146-292-37 38. APN: 146-292-38 39. APN: 146-292-39 RACHEL I YOUNGASH CHAD R&TRACY M KINCAID HENEIN LIVING TRUST 16562 PATRICIA LN 16552 PATRICIA LN 6601 SUTTON ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4349 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4349 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-2 1 1 7 40. APN: 146-293-01 41. APN: 146-293-02 42. APN: 146-293-03 LAU FAMILY LIVING TRUST DONALD A&SUZANNE EDWARDS HENRY VAN GOETHEN 19641 ASHWORTH CIR 327 22ND ST 6891 STEEPLECHASE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3656 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3307 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1570 43. APN: 146-293-04 44. APN: 146-293-05 45. APN: 146-293-06 SUE E NISHIMURA JAMES E&DIONNA E DONALD SHEHNAZ REHMAT 16541 PATRICIA LN 16551 PATRICIA LN 16781 DEBRA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4348 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474348 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4322 46. APN: 146-293-07 47. APN: 146-293-08 48_ APN: 146-293-09 NACI N BALCI JAMES E MINIHAN TAI YOUNG&SHARON JUHA-E KIM 16551 MARIE LN 18326 FIELDBURY LN 16601 PATRICIA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4335 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1054 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4350 49. �14 -i8 50. APN: 146-32i-0i 51. APN: i46-321-02 C[TY OF CAROL J SETTIMO JOSEPH A&DEBORAH J MCCARRON PO 13 16542 COOPER LN 16552 COOPER LN H GTO EAC CA 92648-0190 HUNt HVGTON BEACH CA 92647-4305 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4305 52. APN: 146-321-03 53. APN: 146-321-04 54. APN: 146-321-05 WILLIAM G WALL KEVIN H WALKER ADAM HOANG NGUYEN 16562 COOPER LN 16572 COOPER LN 16592 COOPER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4305 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474305 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4305 55. APN: 146-321-06 56_ APN: 146-321-07 57. APN: 146-321-08 LINDA PEACH WARNER ANTHONY C&DMA S CHAVEZ JULIE C WYNN 8196 WILDWOOD DR 16612 COOPER LN 16622 COOPER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6752 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4306 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4306 58. APN:146-321-09 59. APN: 146-321-10 60. APN: 146-322-01 CAROLE V MASON SMITH-DEHNE TRUST JOHN WALTER&MACHE FINLEY 16632 COOPER LN 5911 LANGPORT CIR 6611 ABBOTT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4306 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-3 7 1 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4377 4m Made in u i is�e'��8� e�tiWJiuq►�' 0 E tl�@otQSt> 11Yfi�romi6le � 0 U.S 61. APN: 146-322-02 62. APN: 146-322-03 63. APN: 146-322-04 CHARLES&SUMMER POWERS EUGENE R MELLO ROSS DONALD BOBZIN 6601 ABBOT-F DR 6591 ABBOTT DR 6581 ABBOTT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4377 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 64. APN: 146-322-0j 65. APN: 146-322-06 66. APN: 146-322-07 JOHN MOORE MICHELLE HETHERINGTON RONALD G HETHERINGTON 6571 ABBOTT DR 6541 ABBOTT DR 6541 ABBOTT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 HUNT NGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 67_ APN: 146-322-08 68_ APN: 146-322-09 69. APN: 146-322-10 RANDALL R HERNANDEZ DAVID E&BRIDGIT LYNN MELLO YSUTOSHI YASUYIKI&SAC"IKO 6531 ABBOTT DR 6511 ABBOTT DR OKAZOE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4376 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474376 6792 GAS LIGHT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-2926 70_ APN: 146-322-11 71. APN. 146-322-12 72. APN: 146-322-13 THOMAS L HONRATH GARRETT J&STACI A STINSON MATTHEW S&NIKKI G EVER-LUNG 6512 ABBOTT DR 6532 ABBOTT DR 6542 ABBOTT DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-430 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4301 73_ APN: 146-322-14 74. APM 146-32245 75_ APN: 146-322-16 THOMAS W&MARY W SAVAGE VERNAL L&JULIE M DAY THOMAS C POINT 6562 ABBOTT DR 6572 ABBOTT DR 16542 COOPER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474305 76. APN: 146-322-17 77. APN: 146-322-18 78. APN: 146-322-19 PAUL S GIERA KENDRICK DARE STEPHEN PINKSTON 3686 E SUNNY DUNES RD 5221 BRYANT CIR 6561 BISHOP DR PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-1 1 54 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-1701 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474372 79- APN. 146-322-20 80. APN: 146-322-21 8 L APN: 146-322-22 HOWARD S RASKIN ISSAC&JUNE MC CANN RODOLFO L PEREZ 6541 BISHOP DR 6531 BISHOP DR 155 SIERRA MADRE BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4372 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4372 ARCADIA CA 91006-1642 82. APN: 146-323-02 83. APN: 146-323-03 84. APN: 146-323-04 NEWTON TODD&JULIE TRUST CAROL S CHUNG MICHELLE MORRIS 6522 BISHOP DR 6532 BISHOP DR 7 BASILICA PL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4302 MISSION VIEJO CA 92694-1441 85. APN: 146-323-05 86. APN: 146-323-06 87. APN: 146-323-07 IMOGENE POWERS MILDRED L CALL QUANG B TONG 6562 BISHOP DR 6572 BISHOP DR 16641 MARIE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4337 88. APN: 146-323-08 89. APN: 146-323-09 90. APN: 146-323-10 WENDY J BRIGHT MURAWSKI E A&G LIVING TRUST FORREST D PLUMMER 6581 CORRINE CIR 6571 CORRINE CIR 6561 CORRINE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474309 Um NONE AMAMI I Made in U.S. �1�� $�itR tS767fdii�8tfi9{il#tt9�� 0 WHIVERS AL. UNV0--80102 la 91_ APN: 146-323-11 92_ APN: 146-323-12 93. APN: 146-323-19 BRICE S&AMY B JONES THOMAS STAGLIANO KATHRYN PATTERSON 6551 CORRINE CIR 6531 CORRINE CIR 6562 CORRINE CiR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4309 IUNTINGTON BENCH CA 9264 7-4309 94. APN: 146-323-20 93. APN: 146-323-21 96. APN: 146-383-18 JOHN B NARDONE JOHN H&THERESA L NAKA[ STEVEN&LISA SPRUILL 6572 CORRINE CIR 6582 CORRINE CIR 6552 REDGROVE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4004 97. APN: 146-383-19 98, APN: 146-383-20 99_ APN: 146-383-21 VIRGIN[A M OSTI MICHA.EL FIELD RAY A&RENE A HUTCHINGS 6562 REDGROVE CIR 6572 REDGROVE CIR 6582 REDGROVE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4004 100. APN: 146-383-22 101, APN: 146-383-23 102. APN: 146-383-24 DANIEL E&PAMELA J MC ELROY ELLEN T PRENDERGAST STEFAN A REDL 6581 OAKGROVE CIR 6571 OAKGROVE CIR 17441 FLOWER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6230 103. APN: 146-383-25 104. APN: 146-383-26 105. APN: 146-383-30 KEVIN RAGSDALE THOMAS W&RANA E SiMPKIN FRANCES ROBERTA EASTBURN 6551 OAKGROVE CIR 6531 OAKGROVE CIR 6522 OAKGROVE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474001 106. APN: 146-383-31 107. APN: 146-383-32 108. APN: 146-383-33 DELORES A PERGROSSE THOMAS G REITEN DEWS&MICHELLE DIJAMCO 6532 OAKGROVE CIR 6552 OAKGROVE CIR 6562 OAKGROVE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 109. APN: I46-383-34J 110. APN: 146-383-35 ill. APW 146-384-03 CHRIS&EMMI SMITH ANDREW V&KIM L DIX NHON&VIVIAN NGUYEN 6572 OAKGROVE CIR 6582 OAKGROVE CIR 16392 OAKMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4002 112. APN: 146-384-04 111 APN: 146-384-05 114. APN: 146-384-06 WAYNE MC AULEY KENNETH J&KELLEY CICCARELLI CARLOS A HERELA 16402 OAKMONT LN 16412 OAKMONT LN 16422 OAKMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474003 115. APN:146-384-07 116. APN: 146-384-08 117. APN: 146-384-09 HARRISON LE LILLY E LAURSEN ROBERT&TAMMY ALVARADO 16432 OAKMONT LN 16442 OAKMONT LN 16462 OAKMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4003 118- APN: 146-384-10 119. APN: 146-384-14 120. APN: 146-384-15 CHARLEY H MILLER JEFFREY&PATRICIA JACKSON CLARA KENNEDY 16472OAKMONT LN 16391 LAKEMONT LN 16401 LAKEMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4036 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474038 UN I �&��t'ic�¢�,�S��A1pt3tibld�u�it� '�Sf1Qd8`8960 �STlntix�sl3�rinttt a� Made in U.S. '%N NIVERSAL. UNV--80102 091�b�� dumnu�9��l� �i�11➢�t�� r 1. 12l. APN: 146-384-16 122_ APN: 146-384-17 123, APN: 146-384-18 CECELIA GALASSI JAMES&GWEN M TANIGUCHI M DAVID&AMY E WILEY 16411 LAKEMONT LN 16421 LAKEMONT LN 16431 LAKEMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4038 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4038 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4038 124. APN: 146-384-19 125. APN: 146-384-20 126, APN: 146-384-21 KENNETH C NASSER YANG D C&J C LIVING TRUST JAMES P MELFI 30 67TH PL 837 ASBURY DR 6642 CHELE CIR LONG BEACH CA 90803-4 5 1 5 AURORA IL 60502-9087 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4024 127. APN: 146-384-22 128_ APN: 146-384-23 129. APN: 146-384-24 JOHN J&IVETTE D LUTZ AMANDA CHI PHAN ROBERT K&BRITTANY M DO WDLE 6652 CHELE CIR 6672 CHELE CIR 6671 CHELE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4024 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4024 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4024 130. APN: 146-384-25 131_ APN: 146-384-26 132. APN: 146-384-27 ONAM M&ADAN URENA WILLIAM F&HELEN I BROWN NANCY VU NGUYEN 16432 LAKEMONT LN 16422 LAKEMONT LN 16412 LAKEMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4039 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4039 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4039 133_ APN: 146-384-28 134_ APN: 146-384-29 135. APN: 146-384-30 HARVEY E WILLIAMS LARRY&SANDRA VAUGHAN BILL FERNANDEZ 6672 JULIEN CIR 6671 JULIEN CIR 16392 LAKEMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4035 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4035 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4037 136_ APN: 146-481-01 137. APM 146481-02 138_ APN: 146481-03 P DOUGLAS HOLLAND THOMAS E CORDRY SHELLIE T ELISON 16502 FOUNTAIN LN 16522 FOUNTAIN LN 16532 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4370 139_ APN:146-481-04 140. APN: 146-481-05 141. APN: 146-481-06 PAUL H HENEISE ARTHUR J AZZARA ROGER D LAWSON 16542 FOUNTAIN LN 16552 FOUNTAIN LN 16562 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 142_ APN: 146-481-07 143. APN: 146-481-08 144, APN: 146-481-09 JOHN DENNIS TALBOTT RONALD A&DEBRA D BERRY LOHR-THIERRY N LIVING TRUST 16572 FOUNTAIN LN 16582 FOUNTAIN LN 16592 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474370 145_ APN: 146481-10 146_ APN: 146481-11 147_ APN: 146481-12 WILLIAM JOHN&VAL JEAN JOHN A KAMP KYLE C KEMPLIN MICHALEWICZ 16612 FOUNTAIN LN 16622 FOUNTAIN LN 16602 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH_ CA 92647-4327 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474327 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4327 148. APN: 146-481-13 149. APN- 146481-14 APN: 146-481-21 RANDY RAYNAK HAROLD D GRAVES 16632 FOUNTAIN LN 16642 FOUNTAIN LN SAME AS 949 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474327 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4327 UN I �&�If'k> '�onl�►t3�til�a�ftt�A�rp�88 60 Made in U.S_ f� �fa� tc�lmarcacnPptltitr��e 8t8>a680 '%89MBVEK3AL, UNV-80102 09t1��1� �� tw�9d6��9E� $ 113 la Mwwwl 150. APN: 146-482-01 151. APN: 146-482-02 152. APN: 146-482-03 JOHN D TA MC MILLIN FAMILY LTD PARTNERSH RICHARD W BIGGINS 25681 HAMDEN DR 16591 FOUNTAIN LN 16611 FOUNTAIN LN LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677-1426 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4326 153. APN: 146-482-04 154- APN: 146-482-05 t55. APN: t46-482-06 ADAM S&CHRISTINE RODELL GREGORY C&MELISSA A POWERS ROBERT D JAMES 16631 FOUNTAIN LN 16641 FOUNTAIN LN 16651 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4326 156. APN.- 146-482-07 157- APN: 146-482-08 158. APN: 146-482-09 SEIJO OSHIRO RONALD MURRAY PASSMORE SECOND WESTERN HOME 16642 DALE VISTA LN 16632 DALE VISTA LN PO BOX 207 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4317 BONSALL CA 92003-0207 159. APN: 146482-10 160. APN: 146-482-1 1 16L APN: 146-482-12 CONNIE ORR ESTELLA S LANDIN WILLIAM F&TERESA A KET FLER 16444 BOLSA CHICA ST#144 16602 DALE VISTA LN 16592 DALE VISTA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2662 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4317 162. APN: 146-482-13 163. APN: 146-482-14 164. APN146-483-09 SCOTT W&DIANE L TAYLOR RICHARD ELLIOTT SKLAR DEBBIE ZENTIL 6672 MASON DR 6682 MASON DR 16641 DALE VISTA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4346 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474346 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4318 165. APN: 146-483-10 t66- APN- 146-483-1 1 167_ APN: t46483-12 DIANNE JO LARSON STEVEN D&CARMEN L BYNUM RYON A&NANCY A JONES 16631 DALE VISTA LN 16621 DALE VISTA LN 16611 DALE VISTA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474318 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4318 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474318 168. APN: 146-483-13 169. APN: 146-483-14 t70. APN: 146-483-IS MICHAEL M&SUMIKO WAYLONIS GILBERTJ COERPER ANNA L BURNS 16601 DALE VISTA LN 16591 DALE VISTA LN 2036 MANHATTAN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4318 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4316 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2862 171. APN: 146-483-16 172. APN: 146-483-17 173- APN: 146-483-18 J DONALD MC FARLAND RICHARD S&BLANCA D EVANS JOHN C&DIANE ANDERSON 6631 MASON DR 6641 MASON DR 6651 MASON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4345 174_ APN: 146-483-19 175. APN: 146-483-20 176_ APN: 146-483-21 ALBA A FERNANDEZ ERIC R STEWART DENISE PORTER 6671 MASON DR 6681 MASON DR 6691 MASON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4345 177. APN: 146-483-22 178. APN: 146-483-23 179. APN: 146-483-24 THOMAS D&THERESA K SHULT MAURILIO&CARLA BRAVO DAVID&ANNIE ERICKSON 6701 MASON DR 1654 t FOUNTAIN LN 16531 FOUNTAIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926474347 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4325 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4325 UN I i�t �"iz ��IBc i�l6vf�rthJA�gi9 0 Made in U.S. E ��d�+o�Vf>fit��fi�6�7r>�ticfl�piQ1##!b�'�i�9 0 WkWtRSAL. UNV-80102 180. APN: 146-483-25 18L APN: 146-483-26 182- APN: 146-483-29 CARLA R SMETANA DENISE P DAVIS CHURCH COMMUNITY UNIT1=.D 16521 FOUNTAIN LN 16501 FOUNTAIN LN 6662 f{EIL AVE j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4325 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4325 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926-1-7_ REPRESENTATIVE APPLICANT PSC ATTN: MONICA MORETTA T-MOBILE ATTN:PETE Sf-fUBIN SEQUOIA DEPLOYMENT SERVICES INC 3 IMPERIAL PROMENADE SUITE 1100 1407 WOODCREST AVE 1 VENTURI SUITE 200 SANTA ANA CA 92707 BREA CA 92821 IRVINE CA 92610 GC MAPPING SERVICE INC NP ATTN-GILBERT CASTRO 3055 W VALLEY BLVD ALHAMBRA CA 91803 1 it i I I� § � z ��c&I@i �4 � �� \j..:i:a6 in U.S.. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach am 012HI6 09932 Office of the City Clerk $00-414 P.O. Box 190 03%0512010 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 w it P aiwd From 92648 v- - ., � US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING o ` z 0 E16 Pop Waczter Football'* ;++ m Paul Login l./ P,O. Box 5066 It�e Huntington Beach,CA 92615 V� >1 FrETURN TO SENDER D VACANT ® °a, UNABLE TO FORWARD MC: 9.2648019090 *2077-03192-•1.2-22 y ��\xrr't"„a�'"S� � � ]f)�IIP3�{�111P11I111111�11�1131131111'31�'11111I111111)111111 V° U M °C Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach °� Office of the City Clerk r_ 00. 1,4 �' P.O. Box 190 ° O i3 5' ?l,V 3 yE Huntington Beach, CA 92648 N- US POSTAGE. Q n LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING : - ;_' ® ' Ln AYSO Region 143 �{/ �' (ommissioncr 1'lullip f{ice G✓ - 5552 Harold Place ® Huntington Beach, CA 92647 z N SX',&E 9217 IDE 1 aD 2ACS c RETURN To :SENDER XNSUFFTCTEN'T ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 92640019090 A2077-07900 24 Notice of Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit No. 09-015'(T- inn, City Clerk Mobile Wireless Communications Facility) - 3-15-2010 - Agenda itington Beach Item # 5 012H16209932 :he City Clerk O A t Box 190 00 each, CA 92648 ° 0310420 iB ir w Mailed Prom 0,2648 CaL = US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 84_ APN: 146-323-04 MICHELLE MORRIS 7 BASILICA PL MISSION VIEJO CA 92694-1441 2AC:5r- RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS .AC?DRESSEZO UNASLF_ TO FORWARD BC:: 92649019090 *0E10-OB129-10--27 - - - _ mn, City Clerk ltington Beach _ = �.'.2111525u 93 be CityClerk o OU. Box 190 each, CA 92648 am maiied xTc,m 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s " }� E� AYSO Region 117 John AJinanza C> J 19961 Bushard St Fountain Vallev.CA 92709 NI_X2a 917 c"I.0 1 00 0-3110J 10 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD SC: 9.2640019090 *kO-500-011-57-00- 02 190 box 190 w leach, CA 92648 Luz Cr w _ �. Mailed Rom 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 124. may. OCCUPANT 16441 LAKEMONT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 OZ11 2110