Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal of Planning Commission's Action that Upheld the Zonin (2) N',, 2000 Main Street, ��1.i:N 0,1,' oF,•sflro , .�BF Huntington Beach,CA o City of Huntington Beach MOTION TO2DENY 9�: Fa, o=Q�J CUP 23-006 cLfiik. eP�\�o� APPROVED 4-3 (KALMICK, MOSER, BOLTON — NO) File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Al Zelinka, City Manager VIA: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action that upheld the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Christina Price's appeal of the Planning Commission's action that upheld the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006. This application is a request to construct a new freestanding 'mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property occupied by a church. The installation would include a four sector array of four panel antennas each that utilizes stealth design by disguising the new wireless facility within the branches of a faux broadleaf tree. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 2023, to consider an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the project. The hearing resulted in a 3-3 vote and upheld the Zoning Administrator's approval. On June 23, 2023, Christina Price appealed the Planning Commissions' action citing multiple reasons outlined in the appeal letter (Attachment No. 2) and analyzed below. Financial Impact: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and B) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1) Alternative Action(s): City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powereW LegistarT"" File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 A) Do not make the suggested findings for Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006, which will result in a mandatory denial pursuant to Section 241.10(C) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. B) Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: John Silverman, Smartlink Group, 1227 West Raymar Street, Santa Ana CA 92703 Property Owner: Huntington Beach Community Church, 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 92647 Location: 8101 Slater Avenue, 92647 (North side of Slater Avenue, west of Marken Lane) The project site is a 0.88-acre commercial property, currently developed as the Huntington Beach Community Church. The subject request is to construct a new freestanding 'mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft., including the installation of an ancillary equipment enclosure located in the northwest corner of the property. The proposed maximum overall height of the antennas is 55 ft., and the freestanding tower is designed utilizing stealth techniques to camouflage the tower, antennas, and equipment by resembling a broadleaf tree. A comprehensive description of the proposed project as well as the General Plan and Zoning analysis can be found in the June 13, 2023 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 4). B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION The subject Conditional Use Permit was originally approved at the April 19, 2023 Zoning Administrator public hearing. The Zoning Administrator's approval was appealed by Christina Price, and the project was subsequently heard in a de novo public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 13, 2023. During public comments, nearby residents, including adjacent residential property owners, spoke in opposition to the project citing health and property value concerns. Additionally, Ariel Strauss, counsel for the appellant, also provided comments outlining issues related to wireless facility co-location feasibility, perceived deficiencies in the project application, compliance with Federal requirements, including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), potential for noise impacts to adjacent properties, potential impacts to migratory birds, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption determination. Following public comments, discussion between the Commissioners, staff, the applicant, and the appellant included the quality and scale of the submitted photographic simulations provided by the applicant, requesting that the applicant consider alternative simulations to improve public awareness of visual impacts, 4G vs. 5G frequencies, the identified outputs of the proposed facility, safety signage requirements for wireless communication facilities, and if any complaints received by the City City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powereW LegistarTM File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 regarding currently operating wireless facilities. Planning Commission Action on June 13, 2023 A motion was made by Commissioner Rodriguez, seconded by Commissioner Adam, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 with findings and conditions of approval. Subsequently, a substitute motion was made by Chair Pellman, seconded by Vice-Chair Twining, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006. AYES: Pellman, Twining, Kennedy NOES: Adam, Rodriguez, Acosta-Galvan ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wood SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED AYES: Adam, Rodriguez, Acosta-Galvan NOES: Pellman, Twining, Kennedy ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Wood MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED As a result of a 3-3 split vote, the Planning Commission failed to reach a majority vote on both the motion to deny and the motion to approve CUP No. 23-006. Pursuant to Roberts Rules of Order, in the event of a tie, the motion fails. Because there essentially is no action taken, the lower discretionary body's decision is upheld. This procedure is confirmed in the Parliamentary Procedure section of the City Council Manual. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator's approval of CUP No. 23- 006 on April 19, 2023 stands. A timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Christina Price on June 23, 2023 (Attachment No. 2). In the appeal letter, counsel for the appellant cites the two discretionary decisions being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Below is staff analysis and response to the subject appeal letter: Appellant's Grounds for Appeal 1. A tie vote by the Planning Commission on an appeal governed by Chapter 248 is not sufficient to grant a conditional use permit or to approve a CEQA exemption. The tie vote by the Planning Commission did not grant the subject CUP nor approve the recommended CEQA exemption. A tie vote on both motions by the Planning Commission resulted in a failure to meet the findings for both an approval and a denial. Thus, the Zoning Administrator's action of April 19, 2023 approving the project and findings the request exempt City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powere2i44 LegistarTM File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 from CEQA was upheld. 2. No Planning Commission vote was taken to approve the CEQA exemption. Each of the motions made by Commissioners in this hearing were inclusive of the respective motion to either find the project exempt from CEQA, or not, as referenced under the recommended action of the staff report and on the agenda. 3. The application was incomplete and did not include all information required by the City's Wireless Permit Application Form and Section 230.96 (E) and (G). Staff deemed the application complete for processing on March 21, 2023, within 30 days of its receipt, having found that the items provided to the City met the minimum requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. A Wireless Permit application was not filed and is not necessary for the subject project, as it was clear at the time of submittal that the subject request is subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Section 230.96 (E), which states: "No Facility shall be installed without first securing either a wireless permit or a conditional use permit..." The request to install and operate a new ground-mounted wireless facility is subject to a CUP pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.96 (E)(3). As such, a wireless permit is not required since the wireless permit review process, in addition to that of a CUP, would be duplicative. The applicant provided the minimum necessary information to process a CUP request for the proposed facility. Further, there is no other operating freestanding wireless facility within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provisions of HBZSO Sections 230.96 (E) and (G). 4. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to: (a) Make findings required by Chapter 241, including findings of: no detriment to property values in the neighborhood, lack of detriment to the general welfare and non-adversity of the General Plan, including the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance enacted to pursue it; Staff has reviewed the proposed project, and has identified sufficient evidence to support findings of approval, based on the project's compliance with the HBZSO's established standards for wireless communication facilities. There is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate to the City that there would be no detriment to property values in the neighborhood. City staff are unaware of any negative property value impact claims related to any previously approved wireless communication facility in the City. Further, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support the claim that the project would have an impact to the value of surrounding properties. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as outlined in Attachment No. 1. Upon installation, the proposed facility is required by Code to comply with established noise ordinance City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powere254 LegistarTM° File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 standards. (b) Assure the findings required by Chapter 241 will remain satisfied over the term of the conditional use permit given that, notwithstanding the City's Zoning Ordinance, federal law (including but not limited to 47 U.S.C. 1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. 1.6100(b)(7)) entitles AT&T, or another wireless carrier, to increase tower height and width by 20 feet in each direction, and otherwise modify the facility as provided by federal law, without meaningful City review: Although federal law can preempt the City's zoning ordinance in some regard as it applies to wireless communication facilities, the above stated scenario would require a new Conditional Use Permit application before any such modification could be made to an existing monopole facility such as is proposed. The subject CUP, if approved, is a discretionary authorization of the identified scope of work only, and does not include any modification outside of the stated scope of work, whether exempt or otherwise. Finally, demonstration of this is not a requirement of the applicant for land use approval by the City. (c) Demonstrate compliance with the identification of all antennas within 1,000 feet and co- location requirements of Section 230.96 (E)(1)(g) and (G)(5); HBZSO Section 230.96 (E)(1)(g) and (g)(5) apply to co-location. As previously stated, the proposed project was not subject to the review or approval of a wireless permit, and thus this section is not applicable. For the purposes of Section 230.96 (G)(5), there are no operating wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the project site, as verified by staff during its review of the CUP application. (d) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of Section 230.96 (G)(7) regarding compliance with federal rules and regulations, including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy act and avoidance of"take"under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. HBZSO Section (G)(7) states: "Interference. To eliminate interference 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 Wireless Antenna 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." This section does not require that the applicant demonstrate compliance with either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as a part of its local discretionary review. There may exist a requirement for the applicant to comply with NEPA or the MBTA for compliance with the federal license, but these City of Huntington Beach Page 5 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powered]LegistarM File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 standards are not a local requirement and therefore not a requirement to obtain land use approval to install and operate a wireless facility in Huntington Beach. 5. The project, including the 60-foot tower(which can be raised to 80 feet by-right under federal law), cooling equipment, 20kW diesel generator, and associated fuel adjacent to residential properties: (a) Does not qualify for a CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because the project does not entail the conversion or construction of a "small structure" within the meaning of the regulation and case law, and (b) "Unusual circumstances"also exist in light of the factors listed above and the potential harm to Cooper's hawks documented to roost and nest in trees on and adjacent to the project site. The project does qualify for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. In the scope of describing what is considered a small structure, the Guidelines offer a range of structures that include, at the maximum, a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial building, which is far larger in size and scope than the proposed project. The appellant's letter identifies that public comments advise the existence of the Cooper's hawk nesting on the subject property. While citing the presence of Cooper's hawk does not indicate that the project will have a significant impact on them, Cooper's hawk is a protected species under the MBTA. The MBTA protects over 1,000 species, including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species. Although existing trees within and near the project site may contain nesting areas for birds, the project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage as it is essentially isolated vegetation within an urbanized area. Notwithstanding, the Federal MBTA protects migratory birds and their occupied nests and eggs and as such, any vegetation removal should occur outside of the bird-nesting season. If active nests are encountered outside of the nesting season, standard protocols of the regulatory agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are in place to ensure no impacts to protected species would occur. As such, the presence of Cooper's hawk and implementation of applicable laws and regulations to protect Cooper's hawk as well as other avian species do not constitute unusual circumstances. Further, as noted in No. 4 above, compliance with the MBTA is not a requirement of the HBZSO, nor an applicable function of CEQA, in that the project is exempt and complies with all applicable development standards for wireless communication facilities. 6. Applicant has not demonstrated federal preemption applies due to the applicant: City of Huntington Beach Page 6 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 power LegistarTM File #: 23-585 MEETING DATE: 7/18/2023 (a) Having submitted a materially incomplete application, (b) Providing inadequate documentation of inability to substantially close a gap in personal wireless services, or otherwise meet the standard for federal preemption, in the event this specific application is denied, and (c) Because the City must retain an independent expert opinion pursuant to Section 230.96 (A) and (F) prior to accepting a claim of denial of effective service, and has not done so. As discussed previously, the application for the subject CUP is complete. The applicant's project description (Attachment No. 3) provides documentation that a gap in coverage exists. The language referenced above is in reference to HBZSO Section 230.96 (F), wherein an applicant may assert federal preemption at time of appeal to the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the federal preemption would apply only if and when the discretionary review body were to successfully vote to deny an application for a CUP to install and operate a wireless communication facility. The Zoning Administrator acted to approve the CUP application, which did not require the applicant to invoke the federal preemption. Further, the applicant would have had to file a request for Denial of Effective Service pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.96 (F) during the appeal period following the Zoning Administrator's action. The project was not denied and the applicant did not have to file a request for a Denial of Effective Service. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the subject project and the appellant's objection is moot. Strategic Plan Goal: Infrastructure & Parks Attachments: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plans, Elevations, and Photo-simulations 3. Notice of Appeal received and dated June 23, 2023 4. Zoning Justification Letter 5. Gap in Coverage Exhibit 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2023 City of Huntington Beach Page 7 of 7 Printed on 7/13/2023 powerel'LegistarTM City Council/ ACTION AGENDA July 18, 2023 Public Financing Authority Recommended Action: A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and B) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1) Ex parte communications: Councilmember Kalmick spoke with staff Supplemental Communications (17) Speakers (7) Motion to deny CUP 23-006 approved 4-3(Kalmick, Moser, Bolton-No) with a finding for denial of Zoning Code Section 241.10 A. 3., "The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 through 25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located." ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 18. 23-607 Adopted Resolution No. 2023-34 approving a Side Letter between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Huntington Beach Management Employees' Organization (MEO) Recommended Action: Approve Resolution No. 2023-34, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Huntington Beach Management Employees' Organization (MEO) by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement" and authorizing the Side Letter between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach MEO retroactive to FY 2015-16. Approved 7-0 19. 23-580 Received and Filed Report on the Future Development of 17642 Beach Blvd. Recommended Action: A) Receive and file this report; and B) Provide direction to staff regarding future use of the Site (Pathways Project Development Concept). Approved 7-0 20. 23-584 Received and Filed Middle-Income Housing Program Update Recommended Action: Receive and file. Approved 7-0 At 11:00 PM, a motion was made by Strickland, second McKeon to continue the Council meeting beyond the hour of 11:00 PM. The motion was approved 7-0. Page 7 of 8 City Council/ ACTION AGENDA July 18, 2023 Public Financing Authority Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract Between City of Huntington Beach and HF&H Consultants, LLC for Negotiation Services for SB 1383 Compliance." Approved 7-0 14. 23-506 Adopted Resolution No. 2023-30 authorizing the application for grant funds from the State Department of Parks and Recreation through the Habitat Conservation Fund Program Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 2023-30, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Application for Grant Funds from the Habitat Conservation Fund Program." Approved 7-0 15. 23-577 Accepted the lowest responsive and responsible bid and authorized execution of a construction contract with Premo Construction in the amount of $364,095 for the Well 9 Roof Replacement Project, CC1687 Recommended Action: A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Premo Construction, Inc. in the amount of$364,095; B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney; and C) Appropriate $97,300 from the Water Fund to account 50691043.82100. Approved 7-0 16. 23-582 Accepted the lowest responsive and responsible bid and authorized execution of a construction contract with Fleming Environmental Inc. in the amount of$1,093,371.00 for the Civic Center Underground Storage Tank (UST) Replacement Project, CC-1651 Recommended Action: A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Fleming Environmental Inc. in the amount of$1,093,371.00. B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING 17. 23-585 Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006 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 involves the installation of small new equipment for a wireless communication facility. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding `mono-broadleaf'wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property 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 because the facility is located approximately 55 feet from the nearest residential uses (to the north) and is located adjacent to existing broadleaf trees of similar height and appearance. Additionally, the structure is setback approximately 140 feet from Slater Avenue to the south and approximately 136 feet from the adjacent residences to the east to help mitigate any visual impacts. The project includes pole-mounted equipment at an overall height of 55 feet that, although in excess of the maximum 40 feet zoning height requirement, will minimize visual impacts of the installation through the incorporation of stealth design techniques, and will not interfere with other communication, radio, or television transmission/reception in and around the subject site. All associated ground mounted equipment will be placed behind an eight foot high split faced block wall that provides sound attenuation. The remaining enclosure block wall will matches the height and appearance of the existing perimeter block wall of the subject property which will further reduce the likelihood of visual and noise impacts. No significant impacts related to traffic, safety, or noise will be generated by the wireless communication facility. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding `mono- broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property will not adversely affect the General Plan in that it is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: a. Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1-D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion,scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. b. Public Services and Infrastructure Element 254 Goal PSI-10: Superior electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services improve quality of life and support economic development. Policy PSI-10-C: Support the use of new and emerging communication technologies. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 will permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility on a pole designed to appear as a mature broadleaf tree. The facility is designed, and conditioned, in a manner that will be minimally noticeable from the public right-of-way and is located outside of typical vehicular and pedestrian lines of sight.The structural pole, antennas, and associated equipment blend in with the existing trees and landscaping of the surrounding area. The facility incorporates stealth design techniques and is proposed in a minimally impactful location. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding 'mono-broadleaf'wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property 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 in that a conditional use permit is required to install a new ground mounted wireless communication facility that exceeds the maximum height of 40 feet. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006: 1. The site plan, photo simulations, and elevations received and dated February 28, 2023 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The portions of the block wall not enclosing above ground equipment serving the monobroadleaf facility shall be maximum 6 ft. high to be compatible with the existing block wall along the north property line. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Director of Community Development that a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license to operate the wireless communication facility has been approved. 3. Final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Community Development Department. c. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 4. Prior to submittal of building permits, zoning entitlement conditions shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 255 5. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur (0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 6. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 7. CUP No. 23-006 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 8. The Development Services Departments and divisions (Building &Safety, Fire, Planning, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 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. 256 1UNTIN 'iT ) N BEAcH , ' A 9th47 ORANGE COUNTY I N I TY MAP LOCAL MAP F V,:4pous Bair l.-ini,Tile Mamba xi, �,.`�, k.., `%i. l""'$+ � °at ei�Y, .almor `8 4 .' -11 . `� x FF �.ti]^>ais v v �.. Sc 5t �Es"k 4;, •t' f m . � '" a'.. 2 r ,-'a •i " .era V & 4 i�yi $ ,x$ � .• a �k . " r . ""s ra .° [ „ a3 s * , AYi q A : g 0's' a . y . + + ,4ID9luto Parts i i .r(i,1.• ffi�. v ,. - 4,7 6 .i>.'3rf64t;t2 - a b t , i M x# �Wlrdyands a .4 .. _ 4. Holiat10 Dr Army Thrift iite G 4`J .��} .i-iiiii..",3 R 2AKx • `.'.`4= .y.a� "a { ' ". ▪ .� 'i*4 g a? E Arm t.a. }. '-,a `s �'V°e ". �e i` s' :'�xg� .P y. rz F" ��Tx� ^r +Xs .3 3tt w* s� rc �u .. yi Y i• }{ i .'.. ?�•M �= � }kw`. , `sunset tv 'nne es '. ?The Donuttery —` � . e "i4;:'''':,...1.0.17.'t,,,,F117..* ,µ'..w `x'".r r .sa b indy%and9 Cit J A - °� r T r� .`4 s 1.1• '":_-_s_."""".�. - , p f_ "'." .,"' e,s ',. -,'__ : , `-- . • +'" b x. ,may} *,rz, �4 s '` a ,.t a r" 'om. g "y ,� •�3: x, "� , w:bN=?ciY3. �_ icy: .} eNNN###' Y gg i qq t w- aF✓ • Jv,r .�. --m tms, y, f°e".+.rt. T +. v n �:. Slater Ave Slater Ave '—Ass tah0~ "'' °. ^s t ¢ �• � �eagu HdCI���1s� '�� � , r � �� � '':77-44� e f `� a s t 4, Z U ,,-- . is - - 9tii l ry "!. 'tom;E *'+r �'ngel's E ,� �®"•r R, ,_ . 4ip `".r+.� bMt L,'4 ST t,y,,,:n, c ga Pig s z n;7 , '� C -, } ' %� •r • _°.. Fyn,„ �•t —.it. ^ a .-..,.,_ , a Opal Cit 'rsre477 s #.t ..o r '--. , .>f.�r '.Stater Aver • 4" ..:r4 Z � .; a ;i it.,.-- r..arx:x" <•_ a ..� ..: ..:s. ... a,..�.:a..:nrt?M�.r:, .zs•++vr 1.:"�u*'� __:�._r..:"•-""Y.•' 3, JUUUML.N I: CT PARENT OW AND DOCUMENT: :CT PARENT STEEL APN: 163-313-25 CONTAINER OW AND — - _r DOCUMENT: j l -7RECORDS _ 1 t� / :CT PARENT 1 - - - / ( , ', / OW AND / ( c �l I -26 DCUMENT: ) MUNICIPAL / )� - -}t= I I X.): ----6' A l I , AL RECORDS / l • SURVEY) / / `N (w ) ,--- t-.co c'_) OW AND / fir`' , ' 1 1 _ JCUMENT: I 'ANY / � ' ; orn e )i z 40101 ) LL 1 �- ���i�� 'i-�.'r�--.-------i <_____ ;IAL RECORDS / ( .'<i�O; ) I 1'�-41 BUILDING SURVEY) t � I ) NT 41x. 1r40;olk a "� la ) ,.: ij�; _a PARENT I ICENSE "' I I� ��!� —� '� '27• JN OF / o �� � i �t26.9 APN: 167— `j 2 .0 =z AP I COMMUNITY CHURCH I 49 4 ._•,1014, _ �Y WESTMII� N OF TR E •�� 11 vaftl aQ 27.3 ----� `,`-rt. � J TR��E� °- FC � 57.4 g6: BLDG AZARENE, A ` / 64.3 '�•a 6 I. 1 TREE 1 � 26. 126.5 26.6 I I I\1 fro _I- 1 I I I 1 rnn /�� ) I AFC FC FC P.O.B. 34.0 7-WALL S89°30'29"E S89°30'29"E 34.1 WALL 0.15' - 1 6.00' r 28.3 • •1 27.8 n 28. DUMPSTER r''r NG FC 27•P AP r AP �( \\// 28.3 \ 28.1 NG NG ( w \ ' PROPOSED LEASE AREA i f 28.3J \ (405 S.F.) ( N R 28 2 N G \2)1J) v)( LO� /( oN NG28.2NCO \ z I NG / I p N / 0 AI TREE 89.5 / - 27.8 \1 27.7 ( TRUNK TREE / NG 4FC ( \ N89°30'29'W il) \ / ( I 1 6.00' • ) ASPH PARKING ( \ \\_27.8 27.5 j / FC FC )( \ 28.2 8 2 27.7 `AP ( NG .SAP • 9 / 28.0 [AP ./ 51.8 \( '4 TREE --\ �) \\ PROPOSED FIBER ROUTE \/ ( - \ ) \ ( SW SW \ ) 1 1 27.9 28.0 �`` \ j FC _ FC ` \ 27.E �.` �28.2 FC I, 4 7)d; 27.8 N G . \\ FC / .LNG 2 #y1 8�1 N8G 0 Ir40 .65)\ ------ 0.9 �FC 27.g PALM _27.7 EE j I g PALM FC ( \ / TRUNKS C NG 27.7 27.9 V 27.5 FC FC 6 POSITION OF ( ( lFc 27.s GEODETIC COOR[ W �/// c ii2� ~ / 1 '�✓//// \\ ( t=,;.�, I ) * (E) CHAIN LINK GATE L.4 )) I ) " ' Mr-11, •, i .:`' h`" 1il immmmi 11(—(E) PAD-MOUNTED (( I� li ``.;%rp '`1 TRANSFORMER #P5136548 t 1 �� 'i'-� '� Li• ——- (SECONDARY POWER P.O.C.) j �\ jicli LI (( ; 1 //i/ri/iiiii/i//r/ii/ram/ . 'MI' / I F MONO-BROADLEAF / / / / i I / / r( 1 / r 141 > / / i /// /////)///////////////c///////// W / I( r ) 1 /I (E) BUILDING PARKING �. 1 /NI > ( I 1 / / (P) JOINT UTILITY TRENCH FIBER / o ) ✓ / PROVIDER TO PLACE 1-4" SCH. 40 PVC // / W/MULE TAPE (FIBER) AT&TM TO PLACE / / 1-3" PVC (POWER) (APPROX. 195') / L,,) //////////////////////////////////////////// / 0 / / 71 I //////////////////////// (P) NON-EXCLUSIVE I ACCESS ROUTE TO SITE L IAPN: 167-312-08 T&E {likillift I ill• J ;j 1 I as Lai ; ` 1 \ I— j `\\\ F �� \\�\\ (P) DC/FIBER �� \\\\ CONDUIT TRENCH Iti/ 1 \\'\\\ (APPROX. 70') 41 \\\\ `La \�\ (E) F \\\\\ TO E ` W `) \N \ ~ ; I `\\ \ I \\\ W ) I 1 \ \\�\ I ,\ I._ \ ,, 1 ` ..1 __ „\\ ILI 1 \\\\ w ) 1 \\\\ , \ 4 1 \\\`\ � 111016 IA ) I \ 'Il Illlllnlllll (Nlu "�,_.. I \ (E) PARKING ' i \ \\ \ — J I _ 0 \ I)JJ I .. I p I In I JJ I O an O — ) W I J I 1 jJ I I JJ 4/1 I Jj I I I i I Zi 1 v / O l/j �1..\ / �� .�. " 4' (P) LTE RRUs STACK tt �• MOUNTED BEHIND (P) r 31 ANTENNAS (12 PER SECTOR) n AUTH •4 4 0' /_ .�. (P)NIT)DC-12 (OUTDOOR U , TYP. OF 4 , 88 ..\ / /*---/Z,14:>,/ // //.77 0.07,,,,, :ti, lo- (P) CONDUIT STUB—UP, TYP. (P) ATS WITH CAMLOCK (P) AC PANEL (P) SERVICE LIGHT, TYP. (P) TELCO PANEL SCALE: 3 L 3/811=1-Cr EASE AREA PLAN )UIREMENTS RAD TRANSMISSION LINES (LENGTH FT +/—) FNTFR ....___ I -- _._.- " ( III /V• q�\ L4"-g�';'�' -P: QY �r. grin } 2 AROUND OADLEAF, 0 f4''TarKa k N ► ':":.,x0�' 4''kdmac, \\ _ FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE ,'� ''_ 1.0 ..�;' �',., �,f„. " ,, i M a , _ ,',, yr K ' © 0'-0" AGL ��© 0'—O" AGL SCALE: 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4 =1 -0 TOP OF (P) MONO—BROADLEAF TOP OF (P) MONO—BROADLEAF © 60'-0" AGL © 60'-0" AGL TOP OF (P) 'AT&T' PANEL ANTENNAS TOP OF (P) 'AT&T' PANEL ANTENNAS © 55'-0" AGL © 55'-0" AGL — _ 4.1, ?AD CENTER OF (P)'AT&T' PANEL ANTENNAS/Ls, (1 RAD CENTER OF (P) 'AT&T' PANEL ANTENNAS / © 53'-9" AGL -F "Q© 53'-9" AGL • ?AD CENTER OF (P) 'AT&T' PANEL ^ANTENNAS BRAD CENTERnOF (P) 'AT&T' PANEL ANTENNAS , - • ;"' , �: ©2023 Goole Ma,, . `ram; ' "`` ., • 1, . ., . .,, 4. ,,,.. .,-ir „iiil, tio ii:j „, ,....11 •„ .....,,, ,...a.„.".., ,,,,a, ..N1r... „...,..._:. ..1.., .. , ......s.47 . ;..`.. .i..t....141 1. * f i t, . . . 4 0 4 4 h i 0.1 i t et i . . it" . a ii , . 'r,!f,, ,"i„,.:1, -. ,'?--,,. f--.,,,'::‘.f... """P•'-'i•"".1. _...Liviiis } �i `t) • ow Win! ' •_ •_, • _ _. _ �* ,t ni• r - ,nw—ate•---. - .._:• -�� r�-a.� - Imo• _mour. " r '•Kwm.w cur+.,. vw••...h' M.r.+.-^uL'�".• • Sa :.» w�. ... :+.:.M... -....,.« e...�..J. ..J....... • .. .....m.. .� .'SF 6R',:"e9.<hh#k.¥-aw.S�'CF.:..*I.it',..,•. .lrF.++.Mc.F.rv.ifr.... ...- w iv +. „ . 7.�`•• i{ " ',". - ,.M• -1- ,fit - s - }4. � -..-y w' } 3 "rw,• z.w .. . , y. Kam. ;• t- f .! I f", ,. 1,1, .3 {7• ,!, i. -i:' 4 ,. a � 4 x Z.ik)y i,,-4;14 ' `' ,,f-, .-. f"y.,,t nt`' ; . "'•- 4 ., - �," :ty 3a'1"� �p„'�mr. ,e :g P,�'�'�',y'•`` •ar'`�rvx• r' `f,F � x"`r -.. LL.,s ,r3-'y`a, No F, .,, ;• .1.._"-, � .Nr_c.o f1 "-. Y c Y A ,. 1' t4; ti •`p''e' ka 'P,3 k}'fi c ,an.4., ,: ',4 >„y '1r'IA ' af, `� '"' ��'�" 1',V : ,if 4+ ',/` _ '''I *, w .} 4''c"6 ,f} »L .'f +f4 f i t ,. rY '1 @. y i' adith. rt .- "TM ` - • 3 n:k'-.}k r r 'i r s �`C Lt. &r'�' ,,.45-`' a , ` y 1 `".' ti i (.� .s b 't" '�+ •%ik`pkt 'd,' .,' 5..-- '°-^, ,, y„r•�, �. ',a, '� t per'/ 1':- , •ss - l - -. -� ••'4 tic V. . ^ ; a# k k 4 ,, ., -..-_ -.•� { 4. - t/ � ,._t^. •�. :ye .r".•- ° • _ • �f- PROPOSED MONOBROADLEAF III...S. r u L. { n+, :'�if ' . n ♦ `�, —�.� �` • .,ter 4*4` ' l' ri, k iy . • v ..' - 1101114011111- ; -.4.) A 0 :11......a, • • r JIl K ■POSED`EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURES■y`I, '1 ' , , 'a- ! o �•y g FY --4.", , ;.I • . • • 1'. r - y_ !� ,. ',94'..,. ' r;°'- . 1 '''' *'. -,, ' , -I f • GI,..:,!'''-.0'.4ama. 1"..-->."4-,- -."'•.- - -1 ir7-11,, ,,,i h., - ©2023 Goo.le Ma.s' I i -4'4 4. -4-44'. 4 4 -•'• -- ' ,--- '' ,,,,,,,i',---- Tyvek TyVe --,- ' ,-, * /,'11-4.44''',-:=; .. , '''' —4440 • , 'lot f• At Tv . ,4, .4 . ._, Tyve -,Ar /e1( l'1 ,,,:.::',.#.thet --'. ..., AloAt•-x--- r....- , „...., i ''' us, 0 M?pit0.„, '' -. I .4 i 7i3ifillk*:lff fC.' , . , „.:,,,,„,4„ k TyvEl„,„...2.,,-,„,„___„,..,.._ u . lc,..., .,,,,P'itl,,,9`. • 5:--- , . ...' . al 7 ti:.^ ,, ..t.,10. "" .,,yt s..„:,...,..-••...-_, ....., ------... :: -..p..4....._ ........,...1-4617..„---.--..,,t, ; NM . ,,„.4--, -,,,-.7., ,..."- ,,, ,:::: , __'INC1 L....,„ ......-,,r„. , .7.,,,,,,,,,„4„ek,4-,, ,'.t„,,,,,,,,,ek lyt, Tifvek-;: -'1Vve' 'V* ' ti:.;001*0- *I• '—'-'-' ' ' - ' ' - '' ,,'''',„ _41.!,-,-,..7;„. ... I i al*:":"" , „: ' At j i.. P ,..,:,....-i.,...,-... . 2 Vr-----4 7,----,,,,iiito. .. iitHi .. f ; : t ,... 4, A (11 - , .. , . . - .....-,, ..........41M1 ,„., .„,„„.. A.,... „, , --....,.... .. ............,,.-„,,,,...... ... ..,........„, _-_,-...-....”--..--„.*.m. ........., ''l l'',',6.31;',7'm • ---"".""'"*"."' ""''.'''""*""'* '''."''''' ' •FRIIN:Skt,plipW.. ....,.."' ......^' , - PROPOSED MONOBROADLEAF „ r'1 ,._ ,„ ,_ vve' .,!,$1,6,:' ,),,,!„,...---"' 4,W,6"' A 9 ''t'PRC . -''''', . ' . ,',.•t.,. --.,, A,,,t'a .,,,, . r„ 4.40' '. •..„, ,te ,'' t 1,,,— " .0 41,4. ',,,., 4..., •'`fiit' ' ' ' ", r--0 e k- ,__ k Tyvt., -%„4,-,,,4=4,-44:4- 44, _.,..:, _ ,,,,,,,, ,,,,, .•-1. , *4 ,.,44 :4,, ), ,_,.4 ,f,„,,_ , ,. , k Tv et. 1-: 4: -11.-,-.- - , -v . ..roll, k Tvvt. ..A.'• :-.14itti. ,77,-.1..!---1,-:--- ,...----:,,c14.1.7„, ii n....Aca, ,,,.,- .,7t,i,e• - t_.-4- - --, — ,' -- - -- ,.,,,•__„ , - 4i,..14figap 14.00x44,4P _ ,,, ('"r-f "7;,.1'' 41* ef..; F '''. .-'417111 •--:' k k S, _ a 1 J ©2023 Goo+le Ma+s • ,, {,y. .f.!..', - .•,:ezii, ••,.: : ,;,:,•;,-.,--,,r,4f 4,-, ,-,:.;,,-„,..4:if„; ..„,,,, -,,,:;:,,, : ,' .'', ::,' '•..—.:-.. —,:,c,--„ .. '. ,,—,..-,, ,,,-I4:,.„..Ar ,,,,,. • +..;;;414,1t. ',,,:.„,„ 1„In-.,11$ . it. 4.,,,.,.5.....„..,.,,,,%,,,,,,„ :, ; a L;ar. °yak y-4_-" f L f�! •Ee...-¢y P r' .:i':,,1+t 1i'4 'Nfl aH { - iy'� x Yi f n is,$, . ''�`'��• y p,'St. '' #+vI r 'N - _ r r '� ti '" .�ii x fir," ,e,,, ,e,.-K.,:..'.,',40,-11•,.:,,,•.;:,. . :- - - • 'r-:'-- : — '- --".-:.,--,-"s''''",.40%4 1 1),Pri,It.-•,,, • "4;40'''',,,t.'ks t se,j?-:,,,,.), r 1 _ '*` �r,' t. y '�' ` S •: g,zJ', r"' may,, �,, ., .�,. , _• .q t�t x / i �•.�.• _`t i• _ A ,,,,, s?i �- ,! .., _.fir ./''jj? "Et aK' (iy^y±,+k3 ' ' ` . '&} ,t, Ftyi _ fir. 1 4 it 4 iv ,,g¢ ,Y .! ,. x s fi f ,qfi '+► T �"i #� '` e, s r n t� A. ��1 b1K� 9,f�ttt� ... r a+' '—... '+.r `.s5�^ ;* "'$.,. �`i�� i ,' ' .., y L c-•,; '. 1+3't" fi, ''.tip"'!�p. t ,,,-`^„y.3�.,,.. _ I '' ' Y"„ +»s` ; 1. — '-^--'^a te.-- ".'e .,,?_ .e 4 n. "• — „ „a" v ...at," �! ' 1C ' ',, ,Z 4-,,' 17,- w;-::,i - gin . - 'a`- . T,N }r;± l t w►'. n . rr ga s -a 0.60 f,i r,--•. ,-..„.._, ., , ;,,,-,,,:, ,,,.,,,•,„,„,,..„ ,,,,,,,,,,,,::„.. ,-. „,-„,„- „..-:,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,„ ",::„,„,,,--- - "",,, ,,,,- ,,,,,,, .,,,,,,::‘,.,,--, ,. ..,„-, — ",„„ „ , ' , .„. ,, s .. ,, „h. .4., P ' 4 tl i .? r. _ a PROPOSED MDNDSRDADLEAF , 4. ff r r a. ' �.=;r s y + �' t i - d4>1+ } � 0., S ":„ fi3 `w 4, N �� � � ..� � 1, � +' j ( +' +!..ax -7� Au { _ "ff. , " �d '�+jt%� t�� �' � � „. t 3 m�. 1,:`Q:rr s k x , , „ ,iti.:A:,,,. , if is 1F,`�� `t ;�y°'*jjt•,�„) ��r�� b"z'''=y t`'�, yt` ry - �^' �1,. is �-� 0 x � ,..._ e 6 -r r.p _. 2::r.,,14':„,,,, ;ply} Lu.",.:1',,,',:i1,7,-,:;„::::: 4".:4''' Yi ;yyµn�� .""' ''''`` Na. ,ti.. -Ty'r�� 'k Q fir= f f ~' 'I .�•`t r 1I i• Y. v+•4'S1% ; '�' '-. #! .,ya 4+L4 T•,i�y �, ,�Ty'rt ` �� �' ' ..''t .>����A to v ! LQsw y • .Y� s,a1a : � ,1r 4. CS' y f t. p i, .+ct4P Yl qgi tk Y ��. y. -244 '4"� •.}jh r4it�' �,.: �.,.r' £ lam^. ''A..4:'. T ! x 'f. 'f-:' - � C7 � 4 7 tys 4 .„.(` IVED Notice of Appeal to the City Coungh JUG! 23 PM 2: 14 Identity of Appellant C y CLEAN Ci'i a OF Appellant: Christina Price, 8052 Windy Sands Cir.,Huntington Beach, CA 926411-949-3419=4467 Counsel for Appellant: Greenfire Law,P.C., c/o Ariel Strauss,2748 Adeline Street, Suite A, Berkeley, CA 94703, astrauss@greenfirelaw.com, 510-900-9502 x 702 IL Decision from Which Appeal is Sought 1. Planning Commission decision of June 13,2023 denying appeal and approving issuance of CUP No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility). 2. "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" CEQA exemption(CEQA Guidelines § 15303)in connection with the conditional use permit. M. Grounds for Appeal 1. A tie vote by the Planning Commission on an appeal governed by Chapter 248 is not sufficient to grant a conditional use permit or to approve a CEQA exemption. 2. No Planning Commission vote was taken to approve the CEQA exemption. 3. The application was incomplete and did not include all information required by the City's Wireless.Permit Application Form and Section 230.96(E) and(G). 4. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to: (a) make the fmdings required by Chapter 241, including findings of: no detriment to property values in the neighborhood,lack of detriment to the general welfare and non-adversity to the General Plan, including the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance enacted pursuant to it; (b) assure that findings required by Chapter 241 will remain satisfied over the term of the conditional use permit given that,notwithstanding the City's Zoning Ordinance, federal law(including but not limited to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)) entitles AT&T, or another wireless carrier,to increase the tower height and width by 20 feet in each direction, and otherwise modify the facility as provided by federal law,without meaningful City review; (c) demonstrate compliance with the identification of all antennas within 1,000 feet and co-location requirements of Section 230.96(E)(1)(g)and(G)(5); and (d) demonstrate satisfaction of Section 230.96(G)(7)regarding compliance with federal rules and regulations,including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and avoidance of"take"under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 5. The project, including the 60-foot tower(which can be raised to 80 feet by-right under federal law), cooling equipment, 20kW diesel generator, and associated fuel adjacent to residential properties: 1/2 267 (a) does not qualify for a CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because the project does not entail the conversion or construction of a"small structure"within the meaning of the regulation and case law, and (b) "Unusual circumstances"also exist in light of the factors listed above and the potential harm to Cooper's hawks documented to roost and nest in trees on and adjacent to the project site. 6. Applicant has not demonstrated federal preemption applies due to the applicant: (a) having submitted a materially incomplete application, (b) providing inadequate documentation of inability to substantially close a gap in personal wireless services, or otherwise meet the standard for federal preemption, in the event that this specific application is denied, and (c) because the City must retain an independent expert opinion pursuant to Section 230.96(A) and(F)prior to accepting a claim of denial of effective service, and has not done so. IV. Payment of Fee A check for the applicable fee has been tendered to the City Clerk along with this Notice of Appeal. Respectfully submitted, Christina Price June 23, 2023 2/2 268 John Silverman a`p_t Wireless Development }. `aC Specialist s m a r L i n�" On Behalf � -' 3300 Irvine Ave., Suite #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 818.823.0631 cellular john.silverman@smartli nkgroup.com AT&T Project Number: CLL01310 AT&T Project Name: HBCC City of Huntington Beach Application for a Conditional Use Permit Project Information and Justification Letter of Colocation Efforts and Alternative Site Analysis AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility application for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility (cell site), and presents the following project information for your consideration: Project Location Address: 8101 SLATER AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 APN: 167-312-08 Zoning designation: COMMERCIAL(GENERAL) Project Representative John Silverman Smartlink,LLC 3300 Irvine Ave., Suite#300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 818.823.0631 cellular Joht silverman@smartlinkgroup.com AT&T Contact Ivan Ocegueda,Project Manager 1452 Edinger Ave. Tustin, CA 92780-6246 io109k@att.com 562.210.9855 Project Description AT&T proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility camouflaged as a broadleaf tree on the property. The antennas will be screened between branches of the mono-broadleaf structure. The associated equipment cabinets will be located within an 8-foot-tall CMU wall enclosure with chain-link lid affixed to the top. AT&T will work with the City and the community to install a state-of-the-art stealth site which will provide a benefit to the residents and visitors of the area. The equipment will consist of: 60-foot mono-broadleaf structure,Emerson power cabinet,Purcell cabinets (stacked), twenty panel antennas (five per sector), forty-eight RRUs at antenna level (12 per sector), one GPS antenna,a 20 kilowatt compact generator on concrete pad,four DC-9 surge suppressors,and four DC- 12 Outdoor units within the walk-in cabinet. 269 Hours of Operation&Number of Employees The wireless facility will be in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week but is an unmanned facility. A networks operation personnel member will visit the site every 4-6 weeks for general maintenance review. Project Objectives There are several reasons why a wireless carrier requires the installation of a cell site within a specified area to close a"significant gap in coverage:" • The radio signal must be of sufficient strength to achieve consistent, sustainable, and reliable service to customers at a level sufficient for outdoor, in-vehicle, and in-building penetration with good voice quality(Threshold, -76db). • When nearby other sites become overloaded, and more enhanced voice and data services are used (5G and other high-speed data services) signal contracts and a gap is created. With heavy use it is intensified due to the unique properties of digital radio transmissions. In this specific case,this location was selected because AT&T's radio-frequency engineers (RF)have identified a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of and the surrounding community as demonstrated on the enclosed radio-signal propagation maps. The proposed use is necessary to close a significant gap in coverage. The wireless facility is necessary to close a significant gap in coverage, exhibited in the justification package dated November 12, 2020 on slides 3-5. Slide Three shows the significant coverage gap based on analysis of the AT&T system. Slide Four shows the coverage gap addressed by the placement of the proposed wireless facility on the site indicated above. Slide Five shows the signal coverage the proposed wireless facility will provide in a vacuum. As is noted,the placement of the wireless facility proposed will address the significant gap in coverage. The proposed wireless facility is necessary to address the significant gap in coverage as a different placement or proposed antenna structure would cover less geographic area. AT&T is proposing the minimum necessary antenna schedule as is necessary to address the gap in coverage shown in Slide Three. AT&T's search area representing significant coverage gap ' a. sw.v , tGOLDEhI...,,,IT:, xsv ,• . , ,/' ; ;li ii.{ ^ M�"F Yx r- = 56�'xAl ' t •g °tirr _is mi,z ft^ x '"` 1- .,-; ',Y inP 3 r i':', .." r1 ;a .i'r ,, ket rigiCen . 4..4. ..,i.. �} n o, t.`:.Z ' N a Mom: / '� 't . w me Avc. erg'.y Warner Ave,y� -'a:5 4. :W mM�tAva y I `W". Awe ° ,$.,. Tro °4#, tt Vi¢Yf I rune ve, � ` r l F 'iv 0.1` "` .' ,,'. 2 y , '� tr '�a: _' �"' '{pp „�. #.aF- m..J. IC 4 '" F 'lit. ;,�5.. '„"'.stF� ',�. 4 : ., ., t f "'', �.. " CLCQS3SQ - i'a ,..,t'-s } 'i"M �,Frit '* �,4 1.4 n EWA :41- �-.. �^r b, r r, ,ik 1 Vr. '-s 1 ,,, 4 s ..- Igtirt-t,4 ', r ads4QI? ^ ti'.. ,. NEJILA D, n ' '" . • Sit Ave �,,,,gt,1 �� �ii, ems. ` ,se+Avc $ State,�Ave ;fir 'It,.. a staie('A ... — rtton MiddSe chobt •d+,l+l#C # OAK VIEW rti u; , •.:17:S^1 ! Y .,YAK - II ,Ami,d,. 4,:. -110:404j::;114' 21*-1 7,1*.l.=AZ 4Sectlit4a--4-kt.144.40 ,44,,,Aiiiit '1,' ,1711'.: I-1 r" ri _ i, 1„ ..„ _.„,.....pp,07.1,,...:1..w.. ,,,,..„6„4„..21,„,4„. .. div .„...... . „..,_,:ti., .., 1.1: e.,.._ 4,t• '... ...; ... . 4 *'I, - St,.Yencenlotha:4 *'- 'ym. 'f I.2,0 i Cenuai L��br»ry is.: ,- 4- J-' `CathoLc rch ' t vwF , �_� w 1y�"t .r f'u �iv ."�s ' Ar glen+Seach t-. t:' -r ttrcn`Ave ^ice Erg '-a.. :ramare.,r : `-... , 'ts.. 'Av. sat Ava+j`^ s`Cemptex. n' r..Kt H�st1,r*mtn rte nt * ^f2 ;.'unc f c,N±,e.' i:.. - F+i.�khil{i4;�.#tom dtie aa:. ::tvGa?#Courrtfi x ..aax Mf _' s�!'�a At:, ,. ,.. w m s'4u 270 Alternative Site Analysis The following locations were evaluLated and the reasons why they were not selected for this project are addressed: t° ((A . _ i ®' ' g • ;� Loves Par root, ,,, t � > t . �EMe ..... ...:), , '':„r ilk �Subsfaiton' � ^r';�� ? " i " r C 01.310. .�•- —r- \ „' tt i , r• .4. '11., i . ; ., �w r � I ......„..3.. . .. f.-- tr. r.p.,..„ -, . ..... , t. , r. . ,.. _ .4. 1 �'•.' ---" , ' : Rii 4. '+a �y {4- .l ' »; i. d its,. w 'r if. SIg�n Shop - , . ;. __ _ :Ili ;mob , -4 :Ix: elii‘ii: } y r•,v' � -,, I - ,,firlaw •1 � �w i -r � , it 'Lliaisill"; , ':11 i '-71 VIIIr_. ....4 -11"!...-; - 7 '"r!-I'71°.,!:----*6'0,-:° t•""s-i.".*:P17---' 1 L wog Ste' � 4 r;i '.' _a 1 - t i _0 . it", 41: -. ...i.-' '<" --2s41.,- ' :5 1!2--41 r At,-: �t , r r 3 , . ,'' a i , Cu gent • o'osedr Opertr � •'- , j k„ Assistance Elf i, 5 g. . sat. pp rc iia• Huntington Beach Assistance League - 8071 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (APN: 167-312-07). Location was originally chosen for the project, but due to boundary limits shown on survey,there was not enough space to build without stretching out into the parking spaces. Landlord considered this proposal,but ultimately decided they did not want to lose any parking,so AT&T moved on to the current proposed site(which has the room to build without sacrificing any parking spaces as is indicated on associated plans). 271 • Ocean Plaza—17011 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA 92647(APN: 165-364-16). Owners of property were approached concerning the project but expressed they were uninterested in pursuing. • Lowe's Parking Lot— 8175 Warner Ave, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (APN: 107-704-05). The owner was approached with a proposal for this project, but they were uninterested in the project. • SCE Substation—on the corner of Warner Ave and B Lane,directly opposite the Lowes. This property was considered but rejected due to the lack of space for which to propose the siting of an antenna facility. • Empty Car Lot—17262 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA 92647(APN: 167-311-02). Owner was approached but never responded to inquiries. • A 1st Impression Full-Service Sign Shop— 17191 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (APN: 165-283-17). Owner was approached but never responded to inquiries. Findings/Burden of Proof The proposed use is consistent with the adopted General Plan. AT&T confirms that the plans will conform to the requirements under the General Plan, specifically those requirements set out for Wireless Facilities. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. The project will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties as it is a stealth design that will blend naturally with the subject property and the surrounding community. The project will provide a public benefit of better wireless telecommunications and data services to the surrounding neighborhoods and community. Description of surrounding uses to the North, South, East and West: The project is proposed on a piece of property designated as Commercial General. To the west is a piece of property designated as Commercial General. The property to the North is Single Family Residential. The property to the east is Single Family Residential. Description of population served by the proposed use or project. AT&T intends to serve the surrounding community near the project, with the increased wireless signal available with addition of this facility and the inclusion of First Net which prioritizes calls going to emergency responders. Further information on the spread of signal added with the proposed facility associated with this project is available on the Justification Package dated 1-27-2023 (power point document) submitted in association with this narrative. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site. The project will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties as it is a stealth design that will blend naturally with the subject property and the surrounding community. The proposed us will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,safety, or general welfare. The proposed use is a Wireless Facility, in the form of a mono-broadleaf with required equipment area. There is no aspect of this project which will jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare. In point of 272 fact, the project will serve the public safety and general welfare with additional wireless signal and First Net support for first responder services. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape. AT&T is proposing a mono-broadleaf design for this project which is considered a stealth design in accordance with the Huntington Beach general code. The requested height of the mono- broadleaf design is the minimum height necessary in order to fill the significant gap in coverage for this project. AT&T uses the most advanced technology and design when constructing the mono-pine so as to blend the facility with the surrounding community and landscaping and thereby minimizing the visual impact of the site. GENERAL INFORMATION Site Selection Customer demand drives the need for new cell sites. Drive-tests to gauge wireless signals in the area are conducted, and scientific modeling using sophisticated software is evaluated. Once the area requiring a new site is identified,a target ring on a map is provided to a real estate professional to begin a search for a suitable location. During an initial reconnaissance, properties for consideration for the installation of a cell site must be located in the general vicinity of the ring, with an appropriate zoning designation, and appear to have enough space to accommodate an antenna structure and the supporting radio equipment. The size of this space will vary depending on the objective of the site. The owners of each prospective location are notified to assess their interest in partnering with AT&T. Four key elements are considered in the selection process: • Leasing: The property must have an owner who is willing to enter into a long-term lease agreement under very specific terms and conditions. • Zoning: It must be suitably zoned in accordance with local land-use codes to allow for a successful permitting process. • Construction: Construction constraints and costs must be reasonable from a business perspective, and the proposed project must be capable of being constructed in accordance with local building codes and safety standards. • RF: It must be strategically located to be able to achieve the RF engineer's objective to close the significant gap with antennas at a height to clear nearby obstructions. The Benefits to the Community Approximately 90-percent of American adults subscribe to cell phone service. People of all ages rely increasingly on their cell phones to talk, text, send media, and search the Internet for both personal and business reasons. More and more, they are doing these things in their homes, therefore,becoming reliant on adequate service within residential neighborhoods. In fact, 50-percent of people relocating are not signing up for landline service at their new location and are using their cell phone as their primary communication method. The installation and operation of the proposed facility will offer improved: • Communications for local, state, and federal emergency services providers, such as police, fire, paramedics, and other first-responders. • Personal safety and security for community members in an emergency, or when there is an urgent need to reach family members or friends. Safety is the primary reason parents provide cell phones to their children. Currently 25% of all preteens, ages 9 to 12, and 75% of all teens, aged 13 to 19, have cell phones. • Capability of local businesses to better serve their customers. • Opportunity for a city or county to attract businesses to their community for greater economic development. 273 • Enhanced 911 Services (E911) — The FCC mandates that all cell sites have location capability. Effective site geometry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location information for mobile users through triangulation with active cell sites. (Over half of all 911 calls are made using mobile phones.) Safety—RF is Radio The FCC regulates RF emissions to ensure public safety. Standards have been set based on peer-reviewed scientific studies and recommendations from a variety of oversight organizations, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), American National Standards Institute (ANSI),Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH). Although the purview of the public safety of RF emissions by the FCC was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, these standards remain under constant.scrutiny. All AT&T cell sites operate well below these standards, and the typical urban cell site operates hundreds or even thousands of times below the FCC's limits for safe exposure. AT&T Company Information AT&T is one of the fastest growing nationwide service providers offering all digital voice,messaging and high-speed data services to nearly 30 million customers in the United States. AT&T is a "telephone corporation", licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate in the 1950.2-1964.8, 1965.2-1969.8 MHz and 1870.2-1884.8-1889.8 MHz frequencies,and a state- regulated Public Utility subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has established that the term "telephone corporation" can be extended to wireless carriers, even though they transmit signals without the use of telephone lines. AT&T will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC,Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)and the CPUC, as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and other applicable laws. Conclusion The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap. Denial of the site or a reduction in height will materially inhibit AT&T from providing and improving wireless service in this portion of Huntington Beach. The enclosed application is presented for your consideration. AT&T requests a favorable determination and approval of this Conditional Use Permit application to build the proposed facility. Please contact me at (818) 823-0631 or john.silverman@smarlinkgroup.com for any questions or requests for additional information. Respectfully submitted, 2,34L 3V1A4/2412a,?P John Silverman Real Estate Project Manager Smartlink,on behalf of AT&T 274 r „ LTE J u stification Plots ., _ ,,.. .., .,. !,, _, .,,,,,,,,,,,.„,„,-„,,.„ .. , .,., . . ,.„,,,,.,, .„..,,,,,,,.:,-„, ; , ...„„,,,,,,...,:„.„,,,„:„.„ _ _ ,...,,,,,,,,,,,g,....,,,,,,y.k , ''. .' .,'. ,,, ....._,„„,„„,,,,,_,..„.„,,,,,.,,,,,;,„? „ ,,. , , . . .,....;.r.,,e,-„,,,,,,,,,,,•,,,,I,f_ , , ... .,. Market Name: Los Angeles � � Site ID: CLL01310 '�' Site Address: . ° ATOLL Plots Completion Date: Jan 27, 2023 r ' x x , x x M ° AssMUVOCIM t§ref � ��,,�k�Sr ,�'�"� 'fi G"�� [7��c�1Er[n�0►] c� n� a 4,e. �" f�i o�o 1P [rren .-.A t® i (L esign tool} project fool that : E��,�: C'ii IQ� �t'41 c l P�� �r� © . c ` 7 4 L netw®i k c®ve"rage i ❖ The propagation referenced in this package is based on proposed LTE coverage of AT&T users in the surrounding buildings, in vehicles and at street level . For your reference, the scale shown ranges from good to poor coverage with gradual changes in coverage showing best coverage to marginal and finally poor signal levels. + The plots shown are based on the following criteria: Existing: Since LTE network modifications are not yet ®n-Air. The first slide is a snap shot of the area showing the existing site without LTE coverage in the AT&T network. > The Planned LTE Coverage with the Referenced Site: Assuming all the planned neighboring sites of the target site are approved by the jurisdiction and the referenced site is also approved and ®n-Air, the propagation is displayed with the planned legends provided. Without Target site: Assuming all the planned neighboring sites are approved by the jurisdiction and On-Air and the referenced site is Off-Air, the propagation is displayed with the legends provided. ©2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. rig Page 2 AT&T is a registered trademark All of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. CLL01310 , ,; i • r z L i , ` PomherlDr -. Pleasant Li Ave__ �^ �° r Rhirie Dr -- " View i tRose Ave - _ P�1unEa es 6� ,, Terr}r Dr' re l2 Scho CLLD3424 Q. d m di I Mlu dy Palk s`� m �� �a iI �, .,- g ! - V- ,d - _e ; } • �4� Mari nAu© LDENWEST 3 ', i ancaytetDr. Arnet4Dr r 1. 5 ,t (to, T l Rancho y o Dr t5A bah _Christian i i ce -‘,..end _ -I _ Nava , H IC�FI E 'i -._School .,� ` �c Elemenbr ; School _ m _, _ _ r o. ,.. :-- J .... :Schad Warner Ave 1Afintersburg = r�Avc - -' Warrior _ - ---- f =-t, --i l ,,,-- = ,.- --.. ,�ceart,lTfiw• _i1N Awc= I_ .- _ , �;e - ._U,, ve mer -t 1T t 5 t E .:. , EJ Ran¢kv Ave : ir" , - - ._sue' I, i ill ` E ttlaytock Dr v &r rn { ,CLLa3T36 -I d C press5 r NAars�rile Dr ,rr La f+alama Ave — 1 gcaan View High Sehh� iig" �- !' ,' ;1 ' I I Oak ? Palencia Dr :' I e f° ! La Catlta Ave dalusiaAue bc2 La CaprlLi A e Li t�xa�v: 5 i Y y :, a '-r? "; _ __VOW�- Elementary. Friesland Da - `` g is EttrcilaAve ai circle. : - 1 School o- v`1 - • e i,Guitders Dr- — G `�" I q E O G _ J 1 .�. V1 - Q • _ .. Ford et '' 'g __ _':@l Sol Ave.' c I i" .� a _� - __.� 'b 0 c Hisamatsu R. 4.5 �" ,i °` i Y '` ,, . w Tamura T La Wnn Ave. o W Nimrod Or m Q('+_ "r �7D Lake R �ieme ttary . - Lb C'olonle Ave - m _ 5 _:__�..__ ViAtivz..., t - --_- School r'� Ii Slater"A Slat --� SlaCerAve v5later_AVO�,pi I" — .5 __ in ,,; Flementaty T - - Wa11ey-,CLL03425 ;', m• i Scfroal v v ;' ._ - -, _ Mate Ave - Wits ? • Il cunt 1 ° Mirhatl Dr. E ; ', • . - High •" arr i- a Caplan Ave 1 1 ,nc d c .Speer Dr - chob! o 4 { d Liberty Park - { " :• 1 I j E k9 r E. liberty '----------"Harry, 1 f; „ ti , I I ,. $ } Huntington Control Park , ° ° I C Fulton J ) I i !� ElCominohve ' - - - Nmvman.Ave 1 .ir Middle - t' ', Pnunta n Valley I i t__._-- 1 a� 5e.h>Qai •.. !i. ,-�' `;High Schdol 'WOadwintl Dr Hun tingtnn -. C 1 r, _J i • m o ( Ronald'Dr ...Roth&td1Rd}Beatf'r o -_ , I r.. i I $ --_-H:05prtal' 11- I .,Laflocu_Ave_ _--- `< i llzr',ii ( •i' ` ii 1( r 1rfl �" i rt7 to As. a A4e 1 'Good Shepherd Cemetery; Dr 5tvordrishAve ll - -- a u N I ; ., -CathoEcCemeteries.Diocoe:d OPP age;-TalbGlCAv rnonAve , • • �_ 're11 Talbert Ave:_-. >= Talbeti Pave - I -_ . 7altrs`rR Ave.—Talbert-co- r ^C albert auo I r -- Talbert:Ave- -'"_,-,r e :- i 1 S ;Crest View - -_ "1t _ pp 1'?edict Lit '~ Pufflr,Ave a`,;;C ' 4, Elementary -a I-, ;1 1 _ o h9ei I'. r Cif q 57lji w c turtlpdoreAve t _ B t'ka - -0CLLD343.3 .Sterling Dr "U rn I Albatross IA,Bird�Ct Ct �u Rhona RiverAce s r T - �O.hu.1 -6. ` ' w {altnAve_ Crbs In Ma Kiner Dr 'pitAve._ 51 • r. r tD GCLL03435 YayloeDr Q -Magpie to' Phillip 4:)2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. Page 3 AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures, "•", ATE Coverage Before site CLL01310 ` = „ - Lct:;v.N0(Cov raga.si, :iI) - . , GCLL03424 1$11)1133d„r,t Sipnal J t.,r _ nkllhn ihlickr lrr Signal -i r • - • r - ',VIr',ir, urt] " .. [heart Vista' €CLL03736 r r r ' 0CLL01.310• , , , — .. - -- , .„ , .. " CLL03425 r I q lJicrty Pahl ! .- • T�ILerC y I: •1 C CLL03433 e G 'I• "; a Proposed Macro Site t ., z GCLL03435 :* 0 Existing Macro Sites Cv"air ...-,4,,,.--,, .x t r,' y"- ...'im", `,--...., �'-".;4 _. r•-.., �v 2t-`i'" .. v , Kyf, +„ x"4- '.' ' • ,� a '� rma `aly{. :" " , X rr w^++i f.�"K;}'�'�" 'u�* '0i Page 4 :,`P,"n ', * R _ ' .. Z � ' " a` ' ,11. .. `cam•:7j:..,�G'a' ',; "'..c ,r �' �' ".s":4:: 2t*,`':-�.. -A- .. 't..a •+ 'm� "st.,,. ..'`e ..,: +`. . ' LTE Coverage After site CLL01310 ' LLc:eNri((:n-u ra7.;1•Signal) GCLL03424 ;tIILtn Itidunt Si0nal 141Lhu 111..vrhie]e Si,!n,il !t;<II}m Outdoor :,i:;n.d Vlhnir •t:;i^n flu itt VI^44 • • GCLL03736 i 0cLL01310 _ GCLL03425 I. v tv 11,11k • - Ta lci[ W GCLL03433 - �, ,�a i. Proposed Macro Site CLL03435 Existin Macro Sites G JL . fti K. " 0 --,• Tr„ a / • , 79 „ . .'tiM }� Y M xr 'M< .[ �,�� a p7 �1 K���f��; i ,, . �' f wfdya n a # G1+w - r' " *, € 2 ,- �a '''." , x -?3s "" s , .,,- .,.tr> .,.`. _.a�_ ,....�. Nam„; a,� LTE Coverage standalone site CLL01310 --- i.,--, 1 - ..1,-_ .; • Ft'l,t`• t ' , ...t 1•1).`A''') LE( ED((A)vcrfil;c:-;igimil) e Or 1 ei r• .1..; .j: '1..I 1.-0,CLI.03424 , -7511317110,mi 1i1411;t1 f k 21, 1, .. P It t.ti,,t,Oa . -"g5t1Lini hi-Vehicle Slunal ...3.,,tt3_,:-••.•.., .P.,.,z".;It 1..... 11'7'.• 't t 1 ,,, ,t . .• „,. '..- Lr.-tli -qe4111in Outdoor StlAtial 1 I; Ire'4„It7 a ;•""1"'17). 'I .!../, ....„ 1: ' '_.1,'lit"Lit 'I ' ..! ' ' Winterillirrg • . . ' - - Ocealt 1,ricw ._- , t. t _ I , ; P,t.I - f c ,L t '' 1, .= ,t t .t ` "": . t.r 1 ,tCLL03736 1. .: l,141' ,It , r •t -,t,'•:;.••,,-4,4,r,;;.• ••• . , I a. ,...; -.-, ,. , t, t 1. . t.i i r•.'" •tt'•... - _ ,..- 4 ,..10,4•''.' i I. v.:,F, .11.1 111 11.-- .1.41 . f; r. 4 kr414`.., - : t„r ‹..,'- tzt t"•t•"tf• ti• „ , , ._": , . tri , •^t. - =1 •-,, " \,, t•Et •'• •,', -, ., .• s _ -• ..‘ , ,., .}4 4,1 . . t....itt.i;V:. '. t"'Tr.t 44.t') • , , • n2 1 . CLL013.1,04). .. — li t),.../.,.._,44.).,./ ',': 1, .."-.1t.tt.,it.,E• , •,-, 0 "/ r ,0, .-hrtt‘i ' t It tt•••,•''t,.7. .... •,:...it.-,. GCLL03425 Li E.,L.,r3it,t,%WO ,'A , 4 CI :.:. • Lliaerty Park: • , ; • :.,•-1 ! to A 11,1 il i5t41`)^ 'fr'i•—'1' P..11L' I. r ay ; ,3,,N,tatattt , r5 ,53,_ 3I;gi,•);Th tt,i i , ,^P::,t,•;:t,3-1-. Ili i . . .. - :0,...1 ... : it3 f+. 3.3...3t•tt t-i. , , 4,3,_,,,i t 31%,3 .; •3 • ,T.'",-c.,-;:',4.,•t:,C, _Is' u- , . . t.,c, , ,, ••••Itt.:.r.."..1 -,t:•.f(.7.,„":1r = 41„-tot•r„• . .:' ' „. ',,Y.t.:•.1-1,..e..,,, ' '''''" Talbert 1,-, , 1 c , ,-, ,:',' .::. . y, ., 1 1 Dtt•1 tit J CLL03433 0 ',,,,,i,,i D: ,7 (If'nt•P...,.,,-'1,- .... . i....''' 1, : 0 Proposed Macro Site weE 1 .i . .. , ,, -, ._..) :. 11 eiLL -, C03435 I Existing Macro Sites 1 ,,., t .,... Coverage Legend Rethink Possible In-Building Service: In general, the areas shown in dark green should have the strongest signal strength and be sufficient for most in-buildingcoverage. g g g However, in-building coverage can and will be adversely affected by the wJ. thickness/construction type of walls, or your location in the building (i.e., the basement, in the middle of the building with multiple walls, etc.) In-Transit Service: The areas shown in the yellow should be sufficient for �kwh street or in-the-open coverage, most in-vehicle coverage and possibly f° . h in-building coverage. Outdoor Service: The areas shown in the purple should`have sufficentoolernall strength for on-street or in-the-open coverage, but may not:have k) vehicle coverage or in-building coverage. + ice . fit. r . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission, FROM: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director] BY: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ;APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006 (HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY); REQUEST: ITo construct a new freestanding `mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property occupied by a church. The installation would include a four sector array of four panel antennas each that utilizes stealth design by disguising the new wireless facility within the branches of a faux broadleaf tree LOCATION: 8101 Slater Avenue, 92647 (North side of Slater Avenue, west of Marken Lane) APPLICANT: John Silverman, Smartlink Group, 1227 West Raymar Street, Santa Ana CA 92703 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach Community Church, 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 92647 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take the following actions: A) Find the proposed project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3. B) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): A) Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 and direct staff to return with findings for denial. 282 B) Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 and direct staff accordingly. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proposed Project: The subject request is to construct a new freestanding `mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property, including the installation of an ancillary equipment enclosure located in the northwest corner of the property. The proposed maximum overall height of the antennas is 55 ft. and the freestanding tower is designed utilizing stealth techniques that will camouflage the tower, antennas, and equipment by resembling a broadleaf tree. As discussed below, the Zoning Administrator approved the request on April 19, 2023. Pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 248.20, actions by the Zoning Administrator may be appealed, which results in review by the Planning Commission as a new matter. The Planning Commission may act upon the application, either granting it, conditionally granting it, or denying it, irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal. Zoning Administrator Action: A public hearing before the Zoning Administrator(ZA)was held on April 19, 2023. During public comments, many nearby residents, including adjacent residential property owners, spoke in opposition to the project citing health concerns and property value concerns. The ZA explained that staff's review was limited to aesthetics only and could not comment on property value impacts. Additionally, Federal Law preempts local jurisdictions from making decisions based on health impacts. Because the location, size, and visual appearance complied with City requirements for wireless communication facilities, the ZA approved the project on April 19, 2023, with staff's recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 4). A timely appeal of the ZA's approval was filed on May 1, 2023. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Commercial General Commercial Office (CO) Existing Church (CG) North and East of Residential Low RL Single Family Subject Property: Density (RL) Residential South of Subject Residential Medium RMH Multi-Family Property (Across High Density (RMH) Residential Slater Ave): West of Subject CG CG Assistance League Property: Thrift Shop 283 General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is currently Commercial General (CG). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1-D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 will permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility on a pole designed to appear as a mature broadleaf tree that will provide additional capacity to handle increased volume of wireless users in a dense area of the City, thereby providing improved wireless data services to surrounding residences and businesses. The proposed facility incorporates stealth design techniques to reduce visual impacts from surrounding uses by incorporating a mature broadleaf tree design similar to the existing mature trees within the adjacent area. Public Services and Infrastructure Element Goal PSI-10: Superior electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services improve quality of life and support economic development. Policy PSI-10-C: Support the use of new and emerging communication technologies. The facility is designed, and conditioned, in a manner that will be minimally noticeable from the public right-of-way and is located outside of typical vehicular and pedestrian lines of sight. The structural pole, antennas, and associated equipment blend in with the existing trees and landscaping of the surrounding area. The facility incorporates stealth design techniques and is proposed in a minimally impactful location. 1 Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with the development requirements of the Commercial Office district, the development requirements contained in Section Section 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and federal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996). The proposed ground mounted wireless communication facility is subject to a Conditional Use Permit at the proposed maximum overall height of 60 feet. Further, the proposed project utilizes stealth techniques to reduce visual impacts of the facility from nearby residential and commercial uses, as required by Section 230.96. The broadleaf design was chosen to provide the greatest amount of compatible design possible, citing the number of mature 284 trees that currently exist along the western property line of the subject site. The applicant provided photo simulations to illustrate street views of the existing conditions as well as proposed conditions post-installation, with the pole mounted wireless antennas concealed within fabric 'socks', behind a 360-degree canopy that emulates the appearance of a mature broadleaf tree (Attachment No. 2). Appeal: The Zoning Administrator's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 was appealed by an adjacent property owner, Christina Price, for reasons cited in an appeal letter dated May 1, 2023 (Attachment No. 5). The reasons for the appeal are listed below with analysis from staff: A) Wireless facilities should not be sited on commercial property, as this "does not align with the General Plan or Ordinances or Wireless Facility Policy" The proposed wireless facility is consistent with its Commercial General (CG) General Plan and Commercial Office (CO) Zoning Ordinance designation. Pursuant to Section 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities of the HBZSO, the City endeavors to locate antennas within commercial, industrial, and other non-residential zones, screen them from view, and encourage co-location with other facilities. New wireless facilities are generally designed as ancillary land uses on commercial and industrial properties, where they can be sited and designed to comply with the zoning standards in a manner that does not impact required parking, landscaping, and on-site vehicular access. Further, new wireless communications facilities require a greater vertical height than most existing buildings to achieve the necessary connection and provide data capacity to the greater wireless data network. As such, siting new communication facilities on commercially zoned properties enables greater height as needed, and by utilizing stealth design techniques, the proposed facility will reduce visual prominence through colorization and camouflage that mimics the appearance of a mature broadleaf tree, compatible with existing on-site landscaping. The subject proposed facility is located on a commercially zoned property in a manner that is consistent with Commercial zoning development standards, and incorporates stealth design techniques to minimize visual impacts that complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan. B) The project should not have been approved without "due process verifying the applicant's submitted burden of proof statements or sole justification for validity beyond reception in the application" The Zoning Administrator's approval of the proposed wireless facility occurred during a regular public hearing that was duly noticed and is consistent with similarly approved ground-mounted wireless facilities utilizing stealth techniques City-wide. The applicant provided a zoning justification letter that identified project objectives and alternative site analysis, and a site justification 285 presentation identifying that a gap in coverage exists in the vicinity of the subject property (Attachment No. 3). The subject freestanding mono-broadleaf facility is proposed in this location specifically because it is a high network traffic area that experiences inadequate signal quality and this wireless facility will alleviate capacity problems relating to wireless service. C) Conditional approval "will impact property values and rental incomes for homes in three separate residential areas and other commercial properties" Under current Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) requirements, the City's purview in the construction and operation of wireless communication facilities does not call for the consideration of economic impacts and is essentially limited to aesthetics. The City cannot make a determination on an application for a new wireless facility that is based in any part on the potential for impacts to property values. Regardless of location, all elements of the operation of wireless communication facilities are subject to compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As such, the facility operator (AT&T) is subject to compliance with federal law, which preempts the HBZSO. Further, the appellant has not provided any information to support the claim that the proposed project would have an impact on residential or commercial property values. D) Conditional approval "will impact resell capability and rental marketability of homes near cell towers in three separate residential areas" The appellant did not provide further supporting information related to this concern. However, as discussed above, economic impacts are not considered a standard of review for wireless facility applications. Environmental Status: [The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the installation of small new equipment. Coastal Status: Not Applicable. , (Design Review Board: On April 13, 2023, the Design Review Board recommended approval of the wireless communication facility designed as a faux broadleaf tree and associated equipment to the Zoning Administrator as proposed. I Subdivision Committee: Not Applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: 286 Not Applicable. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on June 1, 2023, 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 Division's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of June 7, 2023, two public comments have been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): March 21, 2023 May 21, 2023 The Zoning Administrator held the public hearing on April 19, 2023. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: A) Find the proposed project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3; and B) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). This recommendation is based on the following: • Consistent with the requirements of the base zoning district and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; • Complies with the General Plan; • Compatible with the existing surrounding uses in proportion, scale, and character, and includes stealth design that encloses the antennas within a faux broadleaf tree. ATTACHMENTS: Suggested Findings and Conditions of pproval 2. Site Plans, Elevations, and Photo Simulations Received and Dated February 28, 2023 3. Project Narrative Received and Dated February 28, 2023 �l. Applicant Site Justification reccivcd and datcd Fcbruary 28, 2023 5. Appeal Letter Received and Dated May 1, 2023 6. Zoning Administrator Notice of Action dated April 19, 2023 287 Van Arsdale, Renee From: Van Arsdale, Renee Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 2:52 PM To: Zelinka, Al; Luna-Reynosa, Ursula; Robin Estanislau (Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org); Gates, Michael; Hopkins, Travis; CITY COUNCIL(ONLY); Haberle, Scott Cc: Vigliotta, Mike; Beckman, Hayden; Daley,Jasmine;Andre, Tim R.; Milani, Bob; De Coite, Kim; Hyland, Connor; Hoffman, Michele Subject: Notice of Appeal to City Council - Appellant Christina Price - CUP No. 23-006 - Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility Attachments: Notice of Appeal to City Council - Appellant Christina Price - CUP No. 23-006 - Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility - 06-23-2023.pdf Good afternoon, Everyone, The attached Notice of Appeal to City Council was filed in the Office of the City Clerk today. Appellant Christina Price-CUP No. 23-006- Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility— Appeal Fee paid in the amount of$4,002.00 on Friday,June 23, 2023. Thank you, Renee Van Arsdale Records Specialist patiOA City of Huntington Beach,Office of the City Clerk t, 2000 Main Street,Second Floor,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' ,`' Main (714)536-5227 Direct (714)374-1681 Email renee.vanarsdale@surfcitv-hb.org 1 {,�c�� o 1oNGT +r+ 1# : \N� Argo '11 � CASH RECEIPT ti CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 711 s e6e 0.-` o HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-0711 CO "tp���r'i www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/payments DATE Issuing Dept. Dept. Phone# ( ) - FUNDS RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS Phone#: ( ) - FOR i9 r `° 2cFCG_UNTY CP\io�l/l AMOUNT RECEIVED O Cash X Check# j O Credit Card $ Prepared Received Finance By By Approval City of Huntington Beach IF OBJECT= 50000 THRU 90000, FINANCE APPROVAL REQUIRED Approval Date Date: 6/23/2023 Cashier:HowardC Business Unit Object Subs Sub-Ledger (Type Office: CITYH Tran #:178 Batch: 13231 Cash Receipts • — Receipt #: 03368322 Acct #: • Payment Total : $4,002.00 • • Transaction Total : $4,002.00 Check Tendered : $4,002.00 • • Please visit us on the web • • www.surfcity-hb.org • • TOTAL $ Stamped Validation Only Please do not write in the box below 00"LU0't$ :Io 01 lu='wfio,1 HAIR:a'i,}30 su*J1 0H:Ja!t4so:) IEi,kT :11-'108 SldlaDad ysD:)uolgdiJ.:>saa Wd LT-OZ/2J/9i :E"OJ uoiTop!IOA IL' J No. 1339067 ISSUING DEPARTMENT COPY Christina D.Price C D L E 4_y a 3 co 5 s e x,0 7A,sip A'7 9341 8052 Windy Sands Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92647-6334 2 62-112/311 Date Must p st by J ly 14,2023 Pay to the ,/�, ,,,QY Wbimtips,\ R y��,,�,�rr��)) ,c-� Leo or er of J� Cr V BoY iiL $ G� I V o t U✓+�� ""''-`� 0/1'10 I DoLLAN ��--�( (/Dollars 121 B;•°^ Payable Through Barclays Bank Delaware Wilmington,DE 19801 For APP r_ (mot 1:03LLOLL271:0003420L461468So9341 Notice of Appeal to the City CounA JUN 23 PM 2: 14 Identity of Appellant C( C t A N OF Appellant: Christina Price, 8052 Windy Sands Cir., Huntington Beach, CA 9264:7,-949-379=4467 Counsel for Appellant: Greenfire Law,P.C., c/o Ariel Strauss, 2748 Adeline Street, Suite A, Berkeley, CA 94703, astrauss@greenfirelaw.com, 510-900-9502 x 702 II. Decision from Which Appeal is Sought 1. Planning Commission decision of June 13, 2023 denying appeal and approving issuance of CUP No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility). 2. "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" CEQA exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15303) in connection with the conditional use permit. III. Grounds for Appeal 1. A tie vote by the Planning Commission on an appeal governed by Chapter 248 is not sufficient to grant a conditional use permit or to approve a CEQA exemption. 2. No Planning Commission vote was taken to approve the CEQA exemption. 3. The application was incomplete and did not include all information required by the City's Wireless Permit Application Form and Section 230.96(E) and (G). 4. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to: (a) make the findings required by Chapter 241, including findings of: no detriment to property values in the neighborhood, lack of detriment to the general welfare and non-adversity to the General Plan, including the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance enacted pursuant to it; (b) assure that findings required by Chapter 241 will remain satisfied over the term of the conditional use permit given that, notwithstanding the City's Zoning Ordinance, federal law (including but not limited to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)) entitles AT&T, or another wireless carrier, to increase the tower height and width by 20 feet in each direction, and otherwise modify the facility as provided by federal law, without meaningful City review; (c) demonstrate compliance with the identification of all antennas within 1,000 feet and co-location requirements of Section 230.96(E)(1)(g) and(G)(5); and (d) demonstrate satisfaction of Section 230.96(G)(7) regarding compliance with federal rules and regulations, including environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and avoidance of"take"under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 5. The project, including the 60-foot tower(which can be raised to 80 feet by-right under federal law), cooling equipment, 20kW diesel generator, and associated fuel adjacent to residential properties: 1/2 (a) does not qualify for a CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 because the project does not entail the conversion or construction of a"small structure"within the meaning of the regulation and case law, and (b) "Unusual circumstances"also exist in light of the factors listed above and the potential harm to Cooper's hawks documented to roost and nest in trees on and adjacent to the project site. 6. Applicant has not demonstrated federal preemption applies due to the applicant: (a) having submitted a materially incomplete application, (b) providing inadequate documentation of inability to substantially close a gap in personal wireless services, or otherwise meet the standard for federal preemption, in the event that this specific application is denied, and (c) because the City must retain an independent expert opinion pursuant to Section 230.96(A) and(F)prior to accepting a claim of denial of effective service, and has not done so. IV. Payment of Fee A check for the applicable fee has been tendered to the City Clerk along with this Notice of Appeal. Respectfully submitted, L Christina Price June 23, 2023 2/2 JA Huntington Beach Planning Commission gA 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 400 Nrio NOTICE OF ACTION June 14, 2023 John Silverman Smartlink Group 1227 West Raymar Street Santa Ana, CA 92703 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006(HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY) APPLICANT: John Silverman, Smartlink Group, 1227 West Raymar Street, Santa Ana CA 92703 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach Community Church, 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 92647 REQUEST: To construct a new freestanding 'mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property occupied by a church. The installation would include a four sector array of four panel antennas each that utilizes stealth design by disguising the new wireless facility within the branches of a faux broadleaf tree. LOCATION:. 8101 Slater Avenue, 92647 (North side of Slater Avenue, west of Marken Lane) DATE OF ACTION: June 13, 2023 On Tuesday, June 13. 2023, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission held a public hearing on your application, which was approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 19, 2023. The Planning Commission vote was tied on your application and as a result, the Zoning Administrator approval was upheld. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning,and Subdivision Ordinance,. the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10)'calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must, be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Thousand, Four Hundred Ninety-Four Dollars ($2,494.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Four Thousand and Two Dollars ($4,002.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is June 23, 2023 at 5:00 PM. Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:CUP 23-006 June 14,2023 Page 2 Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the conditions of approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance in order to expedite the processing/completion of your total application. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval, unless actual construction has started. "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020." If you have any questions, please contact Hayden Beckman, the project planner, at hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org or (714) 536-5561 or the Community Development Department Zoning Counter at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Secretary Planning Commission pipA Matthew S , eider, Planning Manager U LR:MS:H B:kdc Attachment: Finding and Conditions of Approval-CUP No. 23-006 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission --Al Zelinka, City Manager - Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development Tim Andre, Fire Division Chief - Mike Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney -Bob Milani, Principal Civil Engineer - Jasmine Daley, Building Manager -Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2023-006 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 involves the installation of small new equipment for a wireless communication facility. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding 'mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property 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 because the facility is located approximately 55 feet from the nearest residential uses (to the north) and is located adjacent to existing broadleaf trees of similar height and appearance. Additionally, the structure is setback approximately 140 feet from Slater Avenue to the south and approximately 136 feet from the adjacent residences to the east to help mitigate any visual impacts. The project includes pole-mounted equipment at an overall height of 55 feet that, although in excess of the maximum 40 feet zoning height requirement, will minimize visual impacts of the installation through the incorporation of stealth design techniques, and will not interfere with other communication, radio, or television transmission/reception in and around the subject site. All associated ground mounted equipment will be placed behind an eight foot high split faced block wall that provides sound attenuation. The remaining enclosure block wall will matches the height and appearance of the existing perimeter block wall of the subject property which will further reduce the likelihood of visual and noise impacts. No significant impacts related to traffic, safety, or noise will be generated by the wireless communication facility. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding 'mono- broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property will not adversely affect the General Plan in that it is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: a. Land Use Element Goal LU-1: New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policy LU-1-D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. b. Public Services and Infrastructure Element G:1PC\NOA1231061323 CUP 23-006(HB Community Church Wireless Facility) Attachment 1.1 Goal PSI-10: Superior electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services improve quality of life and support economic development. Policy PSI-10-C: Support the use of new and emerging communication technologies. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 will permit the installation of a new wireless communication facility on a pole designed to appear as a mature broadleaf tree. The facility is designed, and conditioned, in a manner that will be minimally noticeable from the public right-of-way and is located outside of typical vehicular and pedestrian lines of sight. The structural pole, antennas, and associated equipment blend in with the existing trees and landscaping of the surrounding area. The facility incorporates stealth design techniques and is proposed in a minimally impactful location. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 to construct a new freestanding `mono-broadleaf' wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property 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 in that a conditional use permit is required to install a new ground mounted wireless communication facility that exceeds the maximum height of 40 feet. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006: 1. The site plan, photo simulations, and elevations received and dated February 28, 2023 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The portions of the block wall not enclosing above ground equipment serving the monobroadleaf facility shall be maximum 6 ft. high to be compatible with the existing block wall along the north property line. 2. Final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Community Development Department. c. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 3. Prior to submittal of building permits, zoning entitlement conditions shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: G:1PCMNOA123\061323 CUP 23-006(HB Community Church Wireless Facility) Attachment 1.2 a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur(0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 5. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 6. CUP No. 23-006 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 7. The Development Services Departments and divisions (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 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 attomey'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. G:1PCINOA123\061323 CUP 23-006(HB Community Church Wireless Facility) Attachment 1.3 Cm owl 0/0"/ ' Pub ' 3-/l%3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 18, 2023, 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 item: Ell. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION THAT UPHELD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006 (HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY) Applicant: John Silverman, Smartlink Group Appellant: Christina Price Request: To construct a new freestanding `mono-broadleaf wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft. on a commercial property occupied by a church. The installation would include a four sector array of four panel antennas each that utilizes stealth design by disguising the new wireless facility within the branches of a faux broadleaf tree. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 2023, with a 3-3 vote. As a result, the Zoning Administrator approval was upheld. Location: 8101 Slater Avenue, 92647 (North side of Slater Avenue, west of Marken Lane) City Contact: Hayden Beckman NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project includes the installation of small new equipment for a freestanding ground-mounted wireless communication facility. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development 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 or on line at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov on Thursday, July 13, 2023. 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 Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Robin Estanislau, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 C:\Users\mooreta\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\DFZV1772\CUP 23-006 Appeal(HB COMMUNITY CHURCH WCF).docx http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ C:\Users\mooreta\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\DFZV1772\CUP 23-006 Appeal(HB COMMUNITY CHURCH WCF).docx Moore, Tania From: Sandra Campos <scampos@scng.com> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 2:10 PM To: Moore,Tania Subject: Re: PH Hearing Request- Proposed City Budget for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Hello Tania, Below are the 1/8 th page proofs and costs to publish in the Huntington Beach Wave on May 25, June 1, 2023 1.) Cost$843.60/Ad# 11604036 - Classified section PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH Notice of Public Hearing on the Proposed c _Budget for Fiscal Year 202312024 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of considering the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2023/2024. The Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 202312024 totals$508,818,053 including General Fund Expenditures of$285,564,240. The public hearing is scheduled in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center,located at 2000 Main Street on Tuesday,June 6,2023 at 6:00pm. The public may obtain copies of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 from the City's website at http://www.huntinatonbeachca.gov. All interested persons are invited to attend to express their opinions for. or against, the Proposed Budget with written or oral comments. Written communications to the City Council should be directed to the Office of the City Clerk at the address below. Further information may be obtained from the Finance Department, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. CA, 92648- 2702 or by telephone(714}536.6630. The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the admission or access to,or treatment or employment in,city programs or activities. The City of Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer_ Dated: May 25,2023 and June t,2023 City of Huntington Beach By: Robin Estanislau,City Clerk 200D Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2702 Telephone: (714)536.5227 hEtadlhuntinatonbeashmulualaPubliaCommeniel 2.) Cost$390.00/Ad# 11604041-Main section 1 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice of Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget for Fiscal Year 202V2024 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach for the purpose of considering the City Budget for Fiscal Year 202312024. The Proposed Budget for Fiscal.Year 202312024 totals $508,818,053 including General Fund Expenditures of$285,564,240. The public hearing is scheduled in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center,located at 2000 Main Street on Tuesday,June 6,2023 at 6:00pm. The public may obtain copies of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 202312024 from the City's websiteathttp:ww.huniinotonbeachca.aov. All interested persons are invited to attend to express their opinions for, or against, the Proposed Budget with written or oral comments. Written communications to the City Council should be directed to the Office of the City Clerk at the address below. Further information may be obtained from the Finance Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648- 2702 or by telephone(714)536-5630. The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, city programs or activities. The City of Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer. Dated: May 25,2023 and June 1,2023 City of Huntington Beach By: Robin Estanislaur City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648.27702 Telephone: VT14)536-5227 http:Uhuntinq Ion bca ch ca.povMBPublicC o mme ntsi Sandra Campos Sales Coordinator Orange County Register 1771 S.Lewis Street Anaheim,CA 92805 Main Line: 714-796-2209 Direct Line: 714-796-6748 Email: scampos(a,scng.com On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:23 AM Moore, Tania<Tania.Moore@surfcity-hb.org>wrote: Hi Sandra, 2 I know that Chrissy is out and we are supposed to be creating our own ads utilizing the self-service portal Column; however,the attached ad needs to run in both the regular section/main news and the legal section. Last time I attempted to create the ad, I was not able to do so myself because of this. Please advise how I should proceed as this needs to run as 1/8 page in The Wave on May 26th and June 2nd in both the regular section/main news and legal section. Thank you, Tania Moore, CMC Senior Deputy City Clerk City Clerk's Office 714-536-5209 tania.moore(c�surfcity-hb.orq 3 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on July 5, 2023, I served the foregoing documents described as: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action that Upheld the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 549 Addresses — see label list a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 5, 2023, at Huntington Beach, California. Senior Deputy City Clerk g:/followup/letters/proof of mailing.doc A` ERY 5160 asy •ee ••ress a•e s o o avery.com emp a es I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge i Use Avery Template 5160 i .41 1 167-311-01 2 167-311-04 3 167-312-01 SANDPIPER HUNTINGTON C&S LEE PROPERTIES FUNDAMENTALS CO P 0 BOX 24050 8792 BELDAY ST BLVD STE 100 100 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 CYPRESS CA 90630 BOCA RATON FL 33431 4 167-312-02 5 167-312-03,04 6 167-312-05 CI JULIEANNE LAM&THIEN PHAN STERLING CENTER G&M REALCO P 1209E 7TH ST 3835 BIRCH ST 16868 AST Z; LONG BEACH CA 90813 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 7 167-312-06 8 167-312-07 9 167-312-08 JANET JAN ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF HUNTINGTON CHURCH HTNG BCH COMMUNITY OF 3331 BOUNTY OR BEACH NAZARENE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 8071 SLATER AVE 145 8101 SLATER AVE ('u, HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 10 167-313-01 11 167-313-02 12 167-313-03 DAVID J CHERNEY THOMAS T HA MICHAEL A&BARBARA ANN MC 8081 WIDY SEA CIR 23541 RIDGE LINE RD MAHON §:". HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 8061 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i 7) 13 167-313-04 14 167-313-05 15 167-313-06 CTF INVESTMENTS MING-LIANG SHIAO PHILIP WANTS 5351 OCEANUS DR 817 S SHANADA CT 8072 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 ANAHEIM CA 92807 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 16 167-313-07 17 167-313-08 18 167-313-09 S GIAN DERIVI-CASTELLANOS SCOTT E BOXLEY RICHARD J&CORINA COOK 8082 WINDY SEA CIR 18588 COTTONWOOD ST 8071 WINDY SANDS CIR. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 (t R 19 167-313-10 20 167-313-11 21 167-313-12 CLAYTON&LISA DIANE SEARS CHRISTINA D PRICE DAVID&ANGELA GRIDLEY 3704 SUNSET MEADOWS DR 8052 WINDY SANDS CIR 8062 WINDY SANDS CIR PEARLAND TX 77581 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 5 22 167-313-13 23 167-313-14 24 167-313-15 MICHAEL G&LINDA H MC TIERNAN JERRY&CORALJEAN MARIE ZENO STEWART G SHIMODA 13 SAN GABRIEL 8082 WINDY SANDS CIR 25012 CRYSTAL CIR RANCHO SANTA MARG CA 92688 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 25 167-313-16 26 167-313-17 27 167-313-18 EDMOND HWANG JAMES JOHN KIATOS CRAIG A PHILLIPS 8102 WINDY SANDS CIR 8112 WINDY SANDS CIR 8101 WINDY SANDS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 28 167-313-19 29 167-313-20 30 167-313-21 JEREMY R STEELE ALEX ERVIN YEE BYUNG KI&SUNG HI LEE 8091 WINDY SANDS CIR 8092 WINDY SEA CIR 18401 MT LANGLEY STREET HUNTTGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 . . -- .. - I . . ..- •. . - . . - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 i r 31 167-313-22 32 167-313-23 33 167-313-24 CYNTHIA KO MICHAEL ALAN&MEGAN MARIE SARAH GLORIA MARICMAN 9200 LA BARCA CIR KRAVETS 8091 WINDY SEA CIR FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 8101 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 34 167-313-25 35 167-461-17 36 167-463-07 BEACH VILLAS ASSN BUU THAI NGUYEN LAWRENCE&ERIN CASTILLO 180 E MAIN ST 101 17471 JEFFERSON LN 17352 MARKEN LN TUSTIN CA 92780 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 37 167-464-02 i 38 167-464-03 39 167-464-04 ERIC&MEGHAN PEARSON CAROLE M SPRINGER JUDY V SCHAEFER 17382 MEER CIR 17392 MEER CIR 17402 MEER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 40 167-464-05 41 167-464-06 42 167-464-07 RAZMIG KONYALIAN HOAINAM TAN LE RICHARD L WATSON 9331 LAWTON DR . - 17432 MEER CIR 17442 MEER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 43 167-464-08 44 167-464-09 45 167-464-10 JANICE LOUISE FRAHM MICHAEL D FORD DANIEL D&PEARL R CASH 17452 MEER CIR 17472 MEER CIR 17471 MEER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 46 167-464-11 47 167-464-12 48 167-464-13 RICHARD WONG KEITH VO SAM DAYE 19821 FLAGSTONE LN I 17441 MEER CIR 17431 MEER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 49 167-464-14 50 167-464-15 51 167-464-16 JAMES H VIDALES GORDON OWEN&JOCELYN ANNE ; MAKIKO H PETERS 17421 MEER CIR LUDLOW 1 8562 LORRAINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 17401 MEER CIR ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 52 167-464-17 53 167-464-18 54 167-464-19 RODOLFO SEGURA DIANE L CARTER PETER HOUA LU 17381 MEER CIR 8182 HOLLAND DR 8162 HOLLAND DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 55 167-464-20 56 167-464-21 57 167-464-22 PAUL H VISSER SAM CHANH&COLLEEN CAO PHAN : ROBERT&TRACEY LAPWORTH 8152 HOLLAND DR 17382 MARKEN LN • 17392 MARKEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 58 167-464-23 59 167-464-24 60 167-464-25 KATHY HESSLER&CHET RINGWOOD RICK BIN HUANG I ANITA CASTRO 17402 MARKEN LN 17422 MARKEN LN , 17432 MARKEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel's I Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i AVERY 5160 .. I -- . . . . t Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` I Use Avery Template 5160 i �I 61 167-464-26 • 62 167-464-27 63 167-464-28 NGHIA T PHAM DAVID E PERSI DIANE WYLLIE 17442 MARKEN LN 17452 MARKEN LN 19121 QUEENSPORT LN B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 • 64 167-465-01 65 167-465-02 66 167-465-03 LONG THANH&SANG VU THU NGUYEN" SANTIAGO VILORIA I CAROL A CUCCHIAR.A 17361 MARKEN LN 7900 MARCH BROWN AVE 17391 MARKEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 LAS VEGAS NV 89149 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 l I 67 167-465-04 68 167-465-05 69 167-465-06 ALFRED L WAY GERALD BERNSTEIN MITCHELL C MOORE 17401 MARKEN LN 17421 MARKEN LN 250 NORMAN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 CYLDE CA 94520 70 167-465-07 71 167-465-08 72 167-465-09 MARK MAEHARA JOSHUA P BOOSTROM LONG&PHUONG K NGUY 17441 MARKEN LN 17451 MARKEN LN ! 17471 MARKEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � 73 167-471-02 74 167-471-03 75 167-471-04 S G V PROPERTY FUND JOSEPH J ZACCARI DAVID L AUGENSTEIN 119E SAINT JOSEPH ST 9973 GLADIOLA CIR PO BOX 4271 ARCADIA CA 91006 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 76 167-471-05 77 167-471-21 78 167-472-03 BRIAN W DOYLE JUSTICE D BARRY GREGORY K M LEONG 697 CYPRESS HILLS DR ' 74 GINKGO DR 3033 ALLENCASTRE PL ENCINITAS CA 92024 MCMIN -VILLE TN 37110 HONOLULU HI 96816 I I 79 167-472-04 80 167-472-19 ; 81 167-481-17 CHARLINDA L DUNN WBHBCA001 LLC BB SUNRISE APARTMENT 24092 LIMB ST I 125 S WACKER DR 1220 19234 CHANDON LN MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 j CHICAGO IL 60606 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 82 167-481-22 83 167-481-23 84 167-481-24 ALEXANDER M GILDERMAN SUNG KWON SUNG HONG CHOI 6822 BITCHING POST CIR 60 BELCOURT DR 6861 E AVENIDA DE SANTIAGO HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ANAHEIM CA 92807 85 167-483-01 j 86 167-483-02 87 167-483-03 HELENE PHAM KEITH R SNIDER ANTHONY BINH AN NGUYEN 21051 MANESSSA CIR 2618 SAN MIGUEL DR 266 7921 GLENCOE AVE A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 88 167-483-04 89 167-483-05 90 167-483-06 AMADOR M VEGA TING-YEE WANG MING-MEI WANG 17171 TWAIN LN 19018 FIKSE LN j 17003 EDGEWATER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 CERRITOS CA 90703 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® I Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up- 1 Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 t AVERY 5160 -- -.. - I �. U - - .. . U - 1 I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge`" I Use Avery Template 5160 i' 91 167-483-07 92 167-483-08 93 167-483-09 SAME AS#89 APOLONIO P DELAS ALAS ARMANDO ALCANTARA 8121 OPAL CIR 8122 OPAL CIR A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 94 167-483-10 95 167-483-11 96 167-483-12 ENRIQUE&LUCIA A BRITO THANH THE THIEN PHAM 10477 HOLDINGS 8132 OPAL CIR 8152 OPAL CIR. 16458 BOLSA CHICA 17 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 I ! 97 167-483-14 . 98 167-483-15 99 167-483-16 MICHAELHB LLC SAME AS#86 PAUL KERWIN PO BOX 5002 2100 WALNUT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 j MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 100 933-13-158 101 933-13-159 102 933-13-160 PETER NGUYEN DUEN-GUANG FONG ZAHIR A LOUHMADI 17578 VAN BUREN LN 64 WHEELER 10635 WILSHIRE BLVD 505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ! IRVINE CA 92620 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 I i 103 933-13-161 j 104 933-13-162 105 933-13-163 HUNG TRONG NGUYEN MARY TA WILLIAM&NATALYA HASKINS 17570 VAN BUREN LN 17568 VAN BUREN LN 5 17566 VAN BUREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92847 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 106 933-13-164 107 933-13-165 108 933-13-166 LAURENCE&BELINDA J COURTNEY SANDRA RENAUDO GEORGE R BOCK 17564 VAN BUREN LN 17562 VAN BUREN LN 17560 VAN BUREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 109 933-13-167 110 933-13-168 ' 111 933-13-169 JAMES V SANTO QUOC-HUY PHAM GEORGE&JENNY LEE CHEN 20631 PAISLEY LN I 17556 VAN BUREN LN 17554 VAN BUREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 112 933-13-170 113 933-13-171 AT&T MOBILITY NICHOLAS V&THAO H NGUYEN YUN-JU CHEN ATTN:ANDREW HOLLIHAN 17552 VAN BUREN LN 15761 PRIMROSE LN 1452 EDINGER AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 WESTMINSTER CA 92683 TUSTIN CA 92780 SMARTLINK,LLC AT&T SERVICES INC AT&T MOBILITY 3300 IRVINE AVE#300 ATTN:JULIO FIGUEROA ATTN:BRIAN MALOOF NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 3580 ORANGE ST#0 j 1452 EDINGER AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92501 TUSTIN CA 92780 . I GC MAPPING SERVICE INC ATTN:GILBERT CASTRO 3055 W VALLEY BLVD ALHAMBRA CA 91803 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits :I Pat:avery.com/patents 1 I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up`I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AAVERY 5160 .. .. _. . .. . . 1 I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` i Use Avery Template 5160 1 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#1A 8081 HOLLAND DR#1B 8081 HOLLAND DR#1 C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I ' 1. 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#1D ! 8081 HOLLAND DR#1E : 8081 HOLLAND DR#1F HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 ! 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#1G 8081 HOLLAND DR#1H 8081 HOLLAND DR#1J HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 .j j I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#1K 8081 HOLLAND DR#1L 8081 HOLLAND DR#2A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#2B 8081 HOLLAND DR#2C 8081 HOLLAND DR#2D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT • 8081 HOLLAND DR#2E 8081 HOLLAND DR#2F 8081 HOLLAND DR#2G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT j OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#2H 8081 HOLLAND DR#2J 8081 HOLLAND DR#2K HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#2L i 8081 HOLLAND DR#3A 8081 HOLLAND DR#3B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#3C 8081 HOLLAND DR#3D 8081 HOLLAND DR#3E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 , 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#3F 8081 HOLLAND DR#3G 8081 HOLLAND DR#3H HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° i Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-ups I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 .. I WIMP Mr - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 I 1 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#9E 8081 HOLLAND DR#9F 8081 HOLLAND DR#9G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#9H i 8081 HOLLAND DR#9.1 8081 HOLLAND DR#9L HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 - HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 j 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#10B 8081 HOLLAND DR#10D• 8081 HOLLAND DR#10E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' i l 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT j OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#10F 8081 HOLLAND DR#10G 8081 HOLLAND DR#10H HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I i I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#10J 8081 HOLLAND DR#10L 8081 HOLLAND DR#11B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 • OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#11D 8081 HOLLAND DR#11E 8081 HOLLAND DR#11F HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#11G 8081 HOLLAND DR#11H 8081 HOLLAND DR#11J HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#11L 8081 HOLLAND DR#12B i 8081 HOLLAND DR#12D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 . 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 I 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#12E 1 8081 HOLLAND DR#12F 8081 HOLLAND DR#12G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#12H 8081 HOLLAND DR#127 8081 HOLLAND DR#12L HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® I Allez a avery.ca/gabarits I Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' 1 Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 - -- -.. I _. . . - . . I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge" i Use Avery Template 5160 1 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT j OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#13D 8081 HOLLAND DR#13E 8081 HOLLAND DR#13F HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 II l I , 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#13G 8081 HOLLAND DR#13L 8081 HOLLAND DR#14D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#14E 8081 HOLLAND DR#14F 8081 HOLLAND DR#14G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � I l I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 I 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#14L 8081 HOLLAND DR#15D ' 8081 HOLLAND DR#15E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I i 1 167-311-01 1 167;311-01 j 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#15F 8081 HOLLAND DR#15G 8081 HOLLAND DR#16D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#16E 8081 HOLLAND DR#16F 1 8081 HOLLAND DR#16G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#17D 8081 HOLLAND DR#17F ' 8081 HOLLAND DR#17G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647. 1 167-311-01 • 1 167-311-01 I 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#18D 8081 HOLLAND DR#18F i 8081 HOLLAND DR#18G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#A1 8081 HOLLAND DR#A2 8081 HOLLAND DR#A3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#A4 8081 HOLLAND DR#A5 8081 HOLLAND DR#A6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® ' Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up'' I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY .• I • • -- -- - - - - tJ I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#A7 8081 HOLLAND DR#A8 8081 HOLLAND DR#B 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I i I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#B2 8081 HOLLAND DR#B3 8081 HOLLAND DR#B4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#B5 8081 HOLLAND DR#B6 8081 HOLLAND DR#B7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#B8 8081 HOLLAND DR#B9 8081 HOLLAND DR#B 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#B11 8081 HOLLAND DR#B12 8081 HOLLAND DR#C1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#C2 8081 HOLLAND DR#C3 8081 HOLLAND DR#C4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#C5 8081 HOLLAND DR#C6 8081 HOLLAND DR#C7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i i I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 j 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#C8 8081 HOLLAND DR#D 1 8081 HOLLAND DR#D2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#D3 8081 HOLLAND DR#D4 8081 HOLLAND DR#D5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#D6 8081 HOLLAND DR#D7 8081 HOLLAND DR#D8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • • Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® i Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' 1 , Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1. AVERY 5160 .. I -- - •• •• - - • i Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge" i Use Avery Template 5160 1 i i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#3J 8081 HOLLAND DR#3K 8081 HOLLAND DR#3L HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#4A 8081 HOLLAND•DR#4B 8081 HOLLAND DR#4C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 Ii 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#4D 8081 HOLLAND DR#4E 8081 HOLLAND DR#4F HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#4G 8081 HOLLAND DR#4H 8081 HOLLAND DR#4J HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#4K I 8081 HOLLAND DR#4L 8081 HOLLAND DR#5A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#5B 8081 HOLLAND DR#5C 8081 HOLLAND DR#5D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#5E 8081 HOLLAND DR#5F 8081 HOLLAND DR#5G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 ; 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT I 8081 HOLLAND DR#5H 8081 HOLLAND DR#5J 8081 HOLLAND DR#5K HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 " OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#5L 8081 HOLLAND DR#6A ! 8081 HOLLAND DR#6B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#6C i 8081 HOLLAND DR#6D 8081 HOLLAND DR#6E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® i Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : _ Pat:avery.com/patents i Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up`i Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY, 5160 . . -- .. I .0 U -V .. . U - - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#6F 8081 HOLLAND DR#6G 8081 HOLLAND DR#6H HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#6J 8081 HOLLAND DR#6K • 8081 HOLLAND DR#6L HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I i • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#7A 8081 HOLLAND DR#7B 8081 HOLLAND DR#7C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#7D 8081 HOLLAND DR#7E 8081 HOLLAND DR#7F HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 , 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#7G 8081 HOLLAND DR#7H 8081 HOLLAND DR#7J HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#7K 8081 HOLLAND DR#7L i 8081 HOLLAND DR#8A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#8B 8081 HOLLAND DR#8C 8081 HOLLAND DR#8D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#8E 8081 HOLLAND DR#8F 8081 HOLLAND DR#8G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 .1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#8H 8081 HOLLAND DR#8J 8081 HOLLAND DR#8K HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I i � 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#8L 8081 HOLLAND DR#9B 8081 HOLLAND DR#9D , HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 : HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : . Pat:avery.com/patents 1 1 Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 I - , -WW1 -- - - - - • I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` i Use Avery Template 5160 i I 1 1 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT j OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#D9 8081 HOLLAND DR#D10 8081 HOLLAND DR#D11 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 I 1 167-311-01 1 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLANDDR#D12 8081 HOLLANDDR#D13 8081 HOLLANDDR#D14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#D15 8081 HOLLAND DR#D16 8081 HOLLAND DR#D17 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#D18 8081 HOLLAND DR#E1 8081 HOLLAND DR#E2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 ! 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#E3 8081 HOLLAND DR#E4 8081 HOLLAND DR#E5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#E6 8081 HOLLAND DR#E7 8081 HOLLAND DR#E8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#E9 8081 HOLLAND DR#E10 1 8081 HOLLAND DR#E11 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 : HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#E12 8081 HOLLAND DR#E13 8081 HOLLAND DR#E14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 I 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#E15 8081 HOLLAND DR#E16 8081 HOLLAND DR#F1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT j OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F2 i 8081 HOLLAND DR#F3 8081 HOLLAND DR#F4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents i Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 -- -.. - I _. . .. . . - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` t Use Avery Template 5160 i I ! 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT1 -311-01` OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F5 8081 HOLLAND DR#F6 8081 HOLLAND DR#F7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j , HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I ! 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F8 8081 HOLLAND DR#F9 8081 HOLLAND DR#F 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I ' i � I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F11 8081 HOLLAND DR#F12 8081 HOLLAND DR#F13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 � I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F14 8081 HOLLAND DR#F15 8081 HOLLAND DR#F16 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#F 17 8081 HOLLAND DR#F 18 8081 HOLLAND DR#G1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I j 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G2 8081 HOLLAND DR#G3 8081 HOLLAND DR#G4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G5 8081 HOLLAND DR#G6 8081 HOLLAND DR#G7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 l HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 � OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G8 8081 HOLLAND DR#G9 8081 HOLLAND DR#G10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G11 8081 HOLLAND DR#G12 8081 HOLLAND DR#G13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G14 8081 HOLLAND DR#G15 8081 HOLLAND DR#G16 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 . . 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents i Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up'I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY, 5160 I " ' - I _" " . . - <J I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#G17 8081 HOLLAND DR#G18 8081 HOLLAND DR#H1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT • OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#H2 8081 HOLLAND DR#H3 8081 HOLLAND DR#H4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I j I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#H5 8081 HOLLAND DR#H6 8081 HOLLAND DR#H7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#H8 8081 HOLLAND DR#H9 8081 HOLLAND DR All 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#H11 8081 HOLLAND DR#H12 8081 HOLLAND DR#J1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#J2 8081 HOLLAND DR#J3 8081 HOLLAND DR#J4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#J5 8081 HOLLAND DR#J6 8081 HOLLAND DR#J7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#J8 8081 HOLLAND DR#J9 8081 HOLLAND DR#J10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#J11 8081 HOLLAND DR 012 8081 HOLLAND DR#K1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 l i I 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#K2 8081 HOLLAND DR#K3 • 8081 HOLLAND DR#K4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 , HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peer : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' i Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i AVERY 5160 .. I _. . . .. . . . - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` I Use Avery Template 5160 i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 111 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ,OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#K5 8081 HOLLAND DR#K6 ,8081 HOLLAND DR#K7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 j1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT IOCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#K8 8081 HOLLAND DR#L1 8081 HOLLAND DR#L2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I i 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 I1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT IOCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#L3 8081 HOLLAND DR#L4 ! 8081 HOLLAND DR#L5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 • OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#L6 8081 HOLLAND DR#L7 8081 HOLLAND DR#L8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 •OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#L9 8081 HOLLAND DR#L10 8081 HOLLAND DR#L11 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 1 167-311-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT , OCCUPANT 8081 HOLLAND DR#L12 8081 HOLLAND DR#L13 ; 8081 HOLLAND DR#L14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i I 2 167-311-04 ' 3 167-312-01 4 167-312-02 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17342 BEACH BLVD 17362 BEACH BLVD 17398 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 4 167-312-02 4 167-312-02 14 167-312-02 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17400 BEACH BLVD 17402 BEACH BLVD 17404 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 4 167-312-02 4 167-312-02 i 4 167-312-02 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT 17406 BEACH BLVD 17408 BEACH BLVD 17410 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 4 167-312-02 4 167-312-02 4 167-312-02 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17412 BEACH BLVD 17414 BEACH BLVD 17416 BEACH BLVD • HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up`I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i AVERY 5160" . . -- I . . ..- .. . -- . . - 1.J I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` I Use Avery Template 5160 I i 4 167-312-02 5 167-312-03,04 :5 167-312-03,04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17420 BEACH BLVD 17422 BEACH BLVD 117424 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 5 167-312-03 04 5 167-312-03,04 '5 167-312-03,04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 'OCCUPANT 17428 BEACH BLVD 17430 BEACH BLVD 117432 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 5 167-312-03,04 5 167-312-03,04 5 167-312-03,04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT IOCCUPANT 17434 BEACH BLVD#101 17434 BEACH BLVD#102 ;, 17436 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 'HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I • 5 167-312-03,04 6 167-312-05 17 167-312-06 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . 00CUPANT 17438 BEACH BLVD 17472 BEACH BLVD l 17444 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 : HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 l 7 167-312-06 7 167-312-06 f 8 167-312-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT • 17456 BEACH BLVD#101 17456 BEACH BLVD#102 8071 SLATER AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 11 167-313-02 13 167-313-04 • 14 167-313-05 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8071 8052 WINDY SEA CIR ' 8062 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTOON BEACH CA 92647 WINDYSEA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 H 17 167-313-08 19 167-313-10 . 22 167-313-13 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 WINDY SANDS CIR 8061 WINDY SANDS CIR 8072 WINDY SANDS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 24 167-313-15 30 167-313-21 31 167-313-22 OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT • OCCUPANT 8092 WINDY SANDS CIR 8102 WINDY SEA CIR 8111 WINDY SEA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 40 167-464-05 46 167-464-11 ! 51 167-464-16 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ; OCCUPANT 17422 MEER CIR I 17451 MEER CIR 17391 MEER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 l 63 167-464-28 65 167-465-02 69 167-465-06 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17472 MARKEN LN 17381 MARKEN LN . 17431 MARKEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up- I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 I AVERY 5160 1 ' ' I -- - " " " i Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' i Use Avery Template 5160 I 1 74 167-471-03 74 167-471-03 74 167-471-03 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 17562 CAMERON LN#A 17562 CAMERON LN#B 17562 CAMERON LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I j 74 167-471-03 74 167-471-03 74 167-471-03 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17562 CAMERON LN#D 17562 CAMERON LN#E 17562 CAMERON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � 75 167-471-04 75 167-471-04 75 167-471-04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17568 CAMERON LN#1 17568 CAMERON LN#2 17568 CAMERON LN#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I i 75 167-471-04 75 167-471-04 75 167-471-04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17568 CAMERON LN#4 j 17568 CAMERON LN#5 17568 CAMERON LN#6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 75 167-471-04 75 167-471-04 j 75 167-471-04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17568 CAMERON LN#7 17568 CAMERON LN#8 17568 CAMERON LN#9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I � 75 167-471-04 76 167-471-05 76 167-471-05 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17568 CAMERON LN#10 17572 CAMERON LN ; 17574 CAMERON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 76 167-471-05 76 167-471-05 76 167-471-05 OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17576 CAMERON LN 17578 CAMERON LN ; 17580 CAMERON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 77 167-471-21 77 167-471-21 77 167-471-21 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8082 SLATER AVE 8086 SLATER AVE 8092 SLATER AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 � III 77 167-471-21 77 167-471-21 77 167-471-21 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT , OCCUPANT 8096 SLATER AVE 8102 SLATER AVE 8106 SLATER AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I 77 167-471-21 78 167-472-03 78 167-472-03 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8112 SLATER AVE 17552 BEACH BLVD#A 17552 BEACH BLVD#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 j HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits i . Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez 6 la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up'I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5 •• , . . -- •- -- qv - - - I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' I Use Avery Template 5160 i, 78 167-472-03 78 167-472-03 78 167-472-03 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17552 BEACH BLVD#D 17552 BEACH BLVD#F 17552 BEACH BLVD#G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 79 167-472-04 80 167-472-19 81 167-481-17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17555 CAMERON LN j 17522 BEACH BLVD 17542 VAN BUREN LN#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17542 VAN BUREN LN#2 17542 VAN BUREN LN#3 17542 VAN BUREN LN#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I I 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT 17542 VAN BUREN LN#5 17542 VAN BUREN LN#6 17542 VAN BUREN LN#7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 81 167-481-17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17542 VAN BUREN LN#8 17542 VAN BUREN LN#9 17542 VAN BUREN LN#10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I ' 81 167-481-17 82 167-481-22 82 167-481-22 OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17542 VAN BUREN LN#11 8212 SLATER AVE#1 8212 SLATER AVE#2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • 82 167-481-22 82 167-481-22 83 167-481-23 • OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8212 SLATER AVE#3 8212 SLATER AVE#4 8202 SLATER AVE#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ! 83 167-481-23 83 167-481-23 83 167-481-23 OCCUPANT •• OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8202 SLATER AVE#2 8202 SLATER AVE#3 8202 SLATER AVE#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 84 167-481-24 84 167-481-24 84 167-481-24 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8192 SLATER AVE#1 8192 SLATER AVE#2 ' 8192 SLATER AVE#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 84 167-481-24 85 167-483-01 , 85 167-483-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8192 SLATER AVE#4 8122 SLATER AVE#A 8122 SLATER AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° ' Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents I Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' i Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i AVERY 5160 I -- -- -- - - - - - 1 I Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge` I Use Avery Template 5160 1 86 167-483-02 ' 86 167-483-02 I 87 167-483-03 OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8132 SLATER AVE#A 8132 SLATER AVE#B 8152 SLATER AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 87 167-483-03 88 167-483-04 88 167-483-04 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8152 SLATER AVE#B 8172 SLATER AVE#A 8172 SLATER AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1 ' ' � I 89 167-483-05 • 89 167-483-05 90 167-483-06 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 8171 OPAL CIR#A 8171 OPAL CIR#B I 8151 OPAL CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 90 167-483-06 91 167-483-07 i 91 167-483-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8151 OPAL CIR#B 8131 OPAL CIR#A 8131 OPAL CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I ' 92 167-483-08 I 92 167-483-08 93 167-483-09 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8121 OPAL CIR#A 8121 OPAL CIR#B 8122 OPAL CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 93 167-483-09 94 167-483-10 94 167-483-10 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8122 OPAL CIR#B 8132 OPAL CIR#A I 8132 OPAL CIR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 95 167-483-11 95 167-483-11 ' 96 167-483-12 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT 8152 OPAL CIR#A i 8152 OPAL CIR#B 8172 OPAL CIR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 96 167-483-12 97 167-483-14 197 167-483-14 OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT 8172 OPAL CIR#B 8151 MICHAEL DR#A • 8151 MICHAEL DR#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 98 167-483-15 98 167-483-15 ' 99 167-483-16 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8131 MICHAEL DR#A 8131 MICHAEL DR#B ! 8121 MICHAEL DR#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I 99 167-483-16 99 167-483-16 99 167-483-16 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT : OCCUPANT 8121 MICHAEL DR#B 8121 MICHAEL DR#C 1 8121 MICHAEL DR#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 , HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 I 1 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel° : Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : - Pat:avery.com/patents , Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 AVERY 5160 . . .. -- - . • . Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge" i Use Avery Template 5160 i � j I 101 933-13-159 102 933-13-160 109 933-13-167 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 17576 VAN BUREN LN 17572 VAN BUREN LN 17558 VAN BUREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 113 933-13-171 OCCUPANT 17550 VAN BUREN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 • I i � I I I I ' I � I � I i i • j f I I i I Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel® , Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Pat:avery.com/patents , Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up"'I Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i I sauege6/ea.AJane e zany ; lead Ase3 assaape,p sa;4anbii.3 1 2 13 HB Chamber of Commerce Orange County Assoc.of Realtors Newland House Museum President Dave Stefanides Pres.,H.B.Historical Society 16787 Beach Blvd.Unit202 25552 La Paz Road 19820 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 j Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 j I 26 I 14 5 Department of Transportation,Dist. 12 j Historic Resources Board Chair Huntington Beach Tomorrow Scott Shelley,Senior Planner Kathie Schey President 1750 E 4th Street Unit100 3612 Rebel Circle PO Box 865 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 57 j 64 Kathleen Belohovek Michael Cintron 9101 Five Harbors Dr. 200 Spectrum Center Drive,Suite 1800 Huntington Beach,CA.92646 Irvine,CA 92618 •01- AA , ..n.n.tvisitil.. Fes { 1 ® ro,t' PT C9.'t ' {f 'Saw A F r*t•� € r; *4, ° ,P. � . .6"TV-rrx- x W j I I li j I ( I I I 091S aaelduialAJ3AV esn I aGp3 do-dod asodxa oa awl GuoIe puag I .09L Ad sai.e1dLu /woa-AJane o}op ; slagei ssa.lppy,,ped Ase3 I S Huntington Beach Wave 1920 Main St., Suite 225 Irvine, Ca 92614 714-796-2209 5196687 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF-PLANNING& PROOF OF PUBLICATION BUILDING 2000 MAIN ST Legal No. 0011611916 ATTN: CELESTE COGGINS HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 ILE NO. CUP 23-006 AppealHB Comm Churc AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange I am a 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 above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the Huntington Beach Wave, a newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, on July 1, 1998, Case No. A-185906 in and for the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California;that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 07/06/2023 I certify(or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct: Executed at Anaheim, Orange County, California, on Date: July 06, 2023. ekta jAka....ks&Ary...t Signature r.LPI-12115/16 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 18, 2023, 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 item: ❑1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION THAT UPHELD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-006 (HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY) Applicant: John Silverman, Smartlink Group Appellant: Christina Price Request: To construct a new freestanding 'mono- broadleaf'wireless communication facility at an overall maximum height of 60 ft.on a commercial property occupied by a church. The installation would include a four sector array of four panel antennas each that utilizes stealth design by disguising the new wireless facility within the branches of a faux broadleaf tree. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 2023, with a 3-3 vote. As a result, the Zoning Administrator approval was upheld. Location: 8101 Slater Avenue, 92647 (North side of Slater Avenue,west of Marken Lane) City Contact : Hayden Beckman NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the proposed proiect is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project includes the installation of small new equipment for a freestanding ground-mounted wireless communication facility. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development 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 or on line at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov on Thursday,July 13,2023. 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 Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Robin Estanislau,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 714-536-5227 http://hunti ngtonbeachca.gov/H B Publ icComments/ Published Huntington Beach WaveJuly6,2023 r,LP1.12/15/16 2 From: Fikes.Cathy To: Aaenda Alerts Subject: FW:Agenda Item#17 Appeal of conditional use permit#23-006 Date: Friday,July 14,2023 3:08:40 PM From: D DAVENPORT<highc32@verizon.net> Sent: Friday,July 14, 2023 2:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item#17 Appeal of conditional use permit#23-006 This should be a no-brainer.The residents in the area do not want this cell tower in their neighborhood. Clearly, cell service is already being provided to the area by someone else and the residents are already comfortable with conditions as they currently exist. In fact, they feel so strongly about this issue that they have incurred legal expenses to fight against this approval. Whereas I do not live in the area affected by this decision, I do think that the residents should have more control over what get stuck in their neighborhood. Simple fairness would dictate that this appeal should be approved. D. Davenport Huntington Beach resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 3-/i F/,2.3 Agenda Item No.; /-623 ^5 s) From: Fikes.Cathy To: Aaenda Alerts Subject: FW: Public Comment Item 7&17,Tuesday,July 18,2023 Date: Friday,July 14,2023 3:25:43 PM From:Tasty<channelfrequency@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,July 14, 2023 3:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Public Comment Item 7& 17,Tuesday,July 18, 2023 Item 7 I urge support of D) SB 253 —Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act. business entities with total annual revenues in excess of$1,000,000,000 and that do business in California, defined as "reporting entities, "to publicly disclose to the emissions reporting organization Supporting this bill allows for greenhouse gases and toxins to be reported and thus to be held legally liable in all energy cases. Without liability, the safety, maintenance, conservation and recycling of multiple, current energy systems is inhibited from occurring in a timely manner. This affects all sectors. Item 17 Please don't allow the construction of cellular towers or unknown devices in the city. It's proven that cellular waves do exist and a person can feel the waves stinging when too close to a cellular object. The disappearance of landline telephones from the CI &public sectors shouldn't be tolerated. The safety, practicality& reliability of landlines is far superior to the convenience of cell phones. There are too many cellular towers in the city. They produce a violation of people's bodies, the limit should be set here. - Ben Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:41 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: 8101 Slater Ave Proposed Cell Tower From:Jennette Bennett<bennettjillj@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 1:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: 8101 Slater Ave Proposed Cell Tower The proposed cell phone tower at 8101 Slater Ave will be obtrusive and ugly and will be in a completely inappropriate place (residential neighborhood). it will lower the values of our properties, and interfere with the hawk that is roosting there, in addition to other migrant birds. The cell phone tower will also be a source of dangerous and cancer-causing emissions. Please stop this proposed tower. Thank you, Jill Bennett "In God we trust." SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Wifffr06?-3 1 Agenda Item No.; l7 63 "$E37) Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 3:41 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Neighborhood 5G Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave. Attachments: IMG_O.MOV; IMG_O.MOV From: Rick Cook<rickcook343@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 17,2023 1:12 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Neighborhood 5G Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave. Good Morning, I am writing to plead with you that you do not allow the proposed 60' high 5G Cell Tower to go in our backyards. If approved, and AT&T drops the anchor there,they immediately have the right to go 20' higher. That is 80' as more Gs are needed. What are 5Gs? What are the long term effects?Please understand that the closest bedroom window would be 65' away. That is where Ernest and Jodie (my neighbors)put their heads on their pillow at night. This tower will literally"tower" over us in our patios. We will constantly see it as we leave our house, from our windows, and as we enter our gate to come home. It is going to be the ultimate eyesore no matter how much of a fake tree they want it to look. Bottom line,there are several more suitable areas for this tower. These towers should be placed in transient areas, where people come and go like onramp/offramps, commercial areas, ect. There's a cemetery, "Good Shepherd" on Beach Boulevard. That would also be a good place for it,because the deceased do not care about radiation and property values. Lakeview Elementary School is right down the street. It is our job to protect the children. Cancer is not the only concern about these towers. There are also proven neurological effects that are a major concern. See IAFF (International Association of Firefighters)website. Cell towers have warning/hazard signs on them. They have those required signs for a reason. We need to take them serious. We can not turn it on and off like our cell phone, Wi-Fi, or microwaves. This proposed cell tower has already stolen the neighborhood peace: It has also created fear, anxiety, and anger. There is also confusion of why the church would want to sell out the neighborhood to make profit for their AC unit and their new roof at$2,500 a month. So, already it has created a lot of stress, which is a physiological response and has already been harmful to our WELL-BEING. There is a known Coopers Hawk(protected)that nests and lives in the eucalyptus tree adjacent to where the tower would be placed. There are also other several types of birds in those trees. This will also have a known negative affect on that hawk and the other birds. As a Fire Captain, I am aware that Cell Tower's have been banned from Fire Stations. They were banned for a reason. We also know that when Cell Tower's go in property values immediately drop,that is a fact. We work very hard to live in Huntington Beach and pay a lot of taxes. Please do not lower my property value. This area of Slater, already has homeless shelter and homeless hotel. Please do not put this here too. I am aware that Beach and Slater is a less desirable area to live in Huntington Beach. However, I still pay a lot of money to live here. I pay property tax on a 1 million dollar house. Below, you will find some information from the American Cancer Society's webpage regarding cell towers. I kept it as brief as possible,but basically it states all research is inconclusive. I am sure you are aware that nobody knows the long-term effects of 5G cell towers, being that they are so new. i Also, attached you will see and hear the pastor of the church who is requesting the tower for his financial gain. He is mocking the neighborhood in one sermon, and in the other one,he states that he"Feels the fear" of the neighbors..Which means, he agrees cell towers are dangerous and he is affecting us. In City Hall,there is a plaque that says "Huntington Beach in God we trust."Let's trust that God will find another way for the "Community Church"to make money for their renovations that is not going to harm and affect the community. I guarantee this would never, ever go 65' away from your house. Put the community before AT$T. It is your job to protect us. Please do not sell out. This whole process does not pass the smell test. The headline would be "David vs. Goliath." Again, I plead with you, please do not put this in our neighborhood. Please. Respectfully, Rick Cook (Beach Villas) ***Below is the information included from the same American Cancer Society webpage, followed by clips of the two sermons stated previously*** } -Cell phone towers are still relatively new, and many people are understandably concerned about whether the RF waves they give off might possibly have health effects. At this time, there's no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects. However, this does not mean that the RF waves from cell phone towers have been proven to be absolutely safe. Most expert organizations agree that more research is needed to help clarify this, especially for any possible long-term effects. Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there isn't a lot of 1 evidence to support this idea. Still, more research is needed to be sure. The American Cancer Society(ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequencv(RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer. So far, not many studies in people have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk, and the results of these studies have not provided clear answers. Both of these studies relied on estimates of RF exposure. Neither of them measured the actual exposure of people to RF waves from nearby cell phone towers. This limitation makes it harder to know what the results of these studies might mean. I 2 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 10:15 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Cell tower please say no. From:Golden Girls<goldengirls2022@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday,July 15, 2023 12:19 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Cell tower please say no. Dear Whom it may concern, I live behind the property where you are considering approving a new cell tower. I am going to write a letter from my heart,from one human to the next, hoping you will understand where I am coming from and vote no. I ask you to please say no to this proposal and relocate this project to an area,where there are no people living. There are so many commercial areas in HB, please consider a NO vote to protect our family and neighborhood. I am writing to urge you to say NO to the proposed cell phone tower that will sit approximately 75 feet away from our home. When this home was purchased 20 plus years ago there was no cell phone tower present and if I would have known that the city would be considering placing a cell tower behind the house, never would I have considered buying here. Please find another location, not near where local HB families are raising children. I ask you,as a mom,to not allow something that sends out RF waves 24 hours a day to be placed near homes,families, children and Lake View Elementary School students,which is a short distance from the site. Only you can put a stop to this, and I ask you from my heart to do so. I ask you,would you vote yes to having a cell phone tower up to 60 feet in the air 75 feet from your house? If the answer is no, I ask you to say no for the families that also do not want this tower this close to our houses. Please vote this down, please locate it somewhere else in a commercial area. We have little children here;we don't want to worry about potential health risks years later. Even though this project directly affects us,we are given no vote. I am also concerned if this cell tower passes the maintenance on the tower could cause issues for us with sleep and noise. The workers will be potentially working late night hours or early morning, right behind our house making all kinds of noise.This is another reason to vote no. Thank you for considering this request, I hope you can understand that no homeowner anywhere in the city would want this in their neighborhood. I ask you to just say no, no to potential radiation and health issues, no to a large structure up 1 to 60 feet in the air, no to possibly lowering our property value, no to this proposal because nothing good comes from it for the city or the homeowners. Please ask yourself if this was being proposed where I live,where my parents live or your family members,where your child lives,or your grandchild, would I vote yes, if you would not want this near your loved ones, please vote no for me, my husband, my son,and my wonderful neighbors as we do not have a vote, even though it directly impacts us! Thank you. Jen hwang Sent from my iPhone 2 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Cell tower behind church on Slater 8101 Original Message From: Linda Boxley<boxleys4@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:14 PM To:CITY.COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Cell tower behind church on Slater 8101 To whom it may concern? I Scott Boxley in Linda Boxley, an 8081 Windy Sands Circle, Huntington Beach 92647 with pose Cell Tower a number different reasons you've heard over and over.They did not do their dodiligence on getting given the full incorrect information about the Cell Tower before paying him before the city. Lost a renter in May 2023 because of the cell tower. Morgan and Andrew moved out at the end of May. New tenant moved in, but they objecting on the same grounds. His wife are with four children.They're looking for a new place but they have been able to find anything as nice as we have at Windy Sands Circle there. I believe you received some pictures and or documentation of the bird in question question is endangered in the area. I really believe that you have a company that's trying to push something through the city.Short of all the documentation you need. Scott and Linda Boxley 8081 Winy Sands Circle H. B. Calif 92647 714.220.8000 if you go to voicemail please leave a message please.Also phone number please Sent from my iPhone 1 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:49 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave Original Message From: Erik Gunn<erik_gunn@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:39 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower 8101 Slater Ave >>To our City Council, I am writing this email due to my concern for the Cell Tower being built in our community. I am very aware of the side effects and harm caused by these towers, since the county of Los Angeles allowed them to be built in the back of its Fire Stations,one of which I work in.Additionally, many of our stations are the middle of communities where families reside. Many studies have been done and as the American Cancer Society studies have shown, cell phone towers increase the risk of health hazards such as headaches, memory loss,congenital disabilities and cardiovascular stress. Other studies also report that cell towers lead to cancer as they emit non-ionising, high Radio Frequency(RF) waves. Due to these studies, our union, and the board of supervisors,actually voted to take down all the cell towers that were put into the back of our stations. » Please do not let the money from the cell tower companies get in the way of your constituents needs and health. Our Children, elderly and medically fragile community members, and family, are extremely vulnerable to the side effects of these towers. Please protect the health of the people you took oaths to serve. Sincerely, >> Erik. >>Sent from my iPhone 1 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 5:05 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: appeal of agenda item 23-435 From:Coraljean <corkycj@aol.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 5:00 PM To: Planning Commission <planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Beckman, Hayden <hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fw: appeal of agenda item 23-435 Forwarding previous emails. Still opposing cell tower. I would like to thank Casey for reaching out. I hope you understand how frustrating the last few months have been for us. We still don't want the cell tower for every reason you can think of. The same reason you wouldn't want it to be behind your home (as admitted by some of you at last meeting)and towering over and dominating your sight line applies to us. There are just too many other commercial options and I believed Council Greed AT & T did not do their due diligence in scouting locations. There is no coverage gap. If there were then AT&T is lying in their advertising to potential new customers. Looking forward to some clarification tomorrow. Thank you. Forwarded Message From: Coraljean <corkycjCc aol.com> To: planning.commissionsurfcity-hb.orq<planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 04:22:26 PM PDT Subject: appeal of agenda item 23-435 I am asking that the City Council appeal the 6/13/2023 Agenda item 23-435. After the approval we understood that an appeal could be filed by one person. My neighbor, Christina Price, filed the appeal and the $4536.00 fee was paid. I found it interesting that some on the Planning Commision who listened to our case last week didn't know how much HB residents are charged to defend their homes and property values. The appeal was scheduled for 6/13/2023, and should have been heard before 7 members of the Planning Commision. However, one person was on vacation. That left 6. We were very thankful for the members who came out to the property to see just how close this cell tower will be to our homes and a couple admitted that they wouldn't want it near their home. One admitted that if he had a choice between House A and House B that was basically where my house it, he would choose House A. It was agreed that this will cause a detriment to our housing values. Some questions were asked of the AT&T rep. Some of the Commisioners were stopped with their questions and told the questions were not for public discussion?? One member lives fairly close to i the proposed cell tower and there was a discussion as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest. We have no way of knowing how it was decided that there wasn't. A couple of the Commissioners asked the AT&T rep to do some things. They wanted pictures of real cell towers not just a computer generated presentation. Also, when the AT&T rep was asked about other locations,the response was that he sent letters but didn't get responses. The Commissioner said he wanted to work with the AT&T rep in contacting the other commercial property owners as he felt it was a much better option than where they wanted to put it, so close to our homes. One of the Commissioners asked if there was a financial risk to HB if they voted no. The answer was that there was no risk. So why didn't they say no especially when additional information was being asked for by half of the Commissioners? One said he didn't want to start a precedence. Another said he wondered about poor communities who couldn't pay the fee. Are you kidding? You think that people living at the Northeast corner of Slater and Beach are wealthy? Not even close. But why is it our fault that the appeal fees set by HB are so high? Should we suffer the penalty of poorer neighborhoods than ours? That isn't fair either. We aren't saying to put the cell tower in any other community where families live. We are saying to put it in one of the many commercial properties that would not see a 5G cell tower 60 feet from our heads when we sleep at night. But those requests went away when it came time to vote. Three of the six members seemed to give a verdict based on their belief that it didn't matter what they thought. They didn't feel they had the power or the right to say no. If that is true, then who does? Why advise the neighbors of a cell tower being proposed? Why let us think we have a voice? Why have us pay thousands of dollars fighting the decision of the Zoning Administrator? Does the Planning Commission have a say? If the vacationing member of the Planning Commission had been there It was not our fault that all seven members were not present. It is also not understandable that the people who paid for the appeal do not get the benefit of a tie. We are asking for City Council to appeal the 6/13 Agenda Item 23-435 so that the appeal fee will be waived and so this item can be brought before the full City Council. We understand that the appeal letter and fee are due this Friday. Thank you and please try to understand what this tower will mean to all of us, many of whom have lived here in this neighborhood for over 25 years. 2 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 6:01 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Cell Tower Construction Please Say NO From: Robert Caruso<bobinterstate@verizon.net> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 5:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>;JEN CARUSO<uclafan20@yahoo.com> Subject:Cell Tower Construction Please Say NO To Whom it may concern: I am writing this letter, hoping you can see that the location of this cell tower project is unfair to the local residences (24 houses), and how they may be adversely exposed to radiation from the proposed construction of a cell tower, basically in their back yard. Although they have been told there is no threat at this time, only history will tell if that was true. Many things in the country were used in various construction projects and were supposedly harmless, have turned out to be very dangerous, many years after their installation. You would have to admit that exposure to Asbestos, Mold and most recently Round Up fall into that category. The thing that is hard to understand is that other similar projects that included cell tower construction have been abandoned in other locations, such as the T-Mobile cell tower project by Harbor View School. I.assume they were discontinued by a NO vote in the city council. I still feel that the vote on this project was not taken in good faith, since not all the members were in attendance when the vote was taken. Another problem with this project is that Home prices will also be adversely effected. People do not wish to purchase property so near to a cell tower. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Robert B. Caruso Father and Grandfather of the occupants closely situated near this cell tower project i Moore, Tania From: Douglas Von Dollen <von.dollendouglas@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 11:24 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Opposition To Item#22 On City Council Agenda (Proposed Charter Amendment) Dear City Council Members and Staff, Huntington Beach is almost unique among California cities. It is the only one to vote no on certification of its housing element, and the only one to sue the state over the 50 year-old RHNA process designed to address the housing needs of residents, regardless of income. It has attacked homeowner rights to build "Granny flats." And now members of its City Council want to attack Joint Power Authority agreements designed to provide affordable work-force housing. Huntington Beach is also 1 of only 2 cities among the largest 25 in California that is majority White/Non- Latino. It is the only city in Orange County with more than 100,000 residents that is majority White/Non- Latino. Connecting Huntington Beach's unique approach to housing to its unique demographics can make people uncomfortable, so, to provide context, I suggest we look at the only other city among the 25 largest in California that is majority White/Non-Latino: Glendale. Like Huntington Beach has done through the formation of its Human Relations Committee and alliance with the Interfaith Council, Glendale has confronted a difficult past of religious and racial intolerance. For example, in October, 2020, it became the first city in California and the third in the nation to pass a resolution apologizing for its history as a "sundown town." The term references cities that once excluded African Americans. Like Huntington Beach, Glendale was required to plan for more than 13,000 new housing units between 2021 and 2029 by the Southern California Association of Governments as part of the state's Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. And this is where the similarities end. Glendale passed a housing element that was certified by the California Department of Housing (HCD) in February 2023. And in April 2023, Glendale entered into a novel Joint Powers Authority agreement that creates a trust between the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena to address regional affordable housing needs. Instead of putting limits on JPAs, Glendale is expanding their use. Glendale's representative to the new JPA is new Mayor Dan Brotman, a former economics teacher at Glendale College. Brotman is quoted in the press release announcing his selection as Mayor as saying, "As an educator, environmental activist, and City Council member, I have always tried to do what I can to make the world a little better, fairer, and more livable for everyone. That means identifying long-term challenges and applying best practices from around the world to turn them into opportunities." 1 Before proceeding with this proposal to restrict JPAs, I urge Councilmember McKeon and Finance Commission members Frank Lo Grasso Hank Cicerone, and Billy Hamilton to meet with Mayor Brotman and other representatives of Glendale to discuss their differing approaches to housing. I believe that HB's officials share Brotman's commitment to applying best practices to solve the city's challenges and will come away from this meeting with stronger proposals than the one on offer. 2 Moore, Tania From: Coraljean <corkycj@aol.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 10:54 PM To: Planning Commission; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); Beckman, Hayden Subject: Re: appeal of agenda item 23-435 Attachments: 20230416 131902.heic I sent a photo of my view from the bar in my kitchen prior to the very first meeting. Thought I should share another photo that shows the exact palm tree that is to be replaced with the faux tree. In the photo you will also see a fountain that is visited by dozens of birds each day. We enjoy watching them. We can only hope they will continue to visit our yard should the cell tower be constructed. Even if they do, we won't enjoy our view if it includes a 60 to 80 foot tall fake tree.Nor would any prospective future buyers. Also,the photos submitted by AT & T were obtained by someone illegally entering our gated community. It also shows a suggested rendering of what the tower will look like in relationship to the many mature trees in our community. Even when our trees are in full bloom,the faux tree will not blend in. How much more horrible will it be when the trees drop their leaves in the Fall? That cell tower will stand out like a sore thumb. Thanks again. On Monday,July 17,2023 at 04:59:48 PM PDT,Coraljean<corkycj@aol.com>wrote: Forwarding previous emails. Still opposing cell tower. I would like to thank Casey for reaching out. I hope you understand how frustrating the last few months have been for us. We still don't want the cell tower for every reason you can think of. The same reason you wouldn't want it to be behind your home (as admitted by some of you at last meeting)and towering over and dominating your sight line applies to us. There are just too many other commercial options and I believed Council Greed AT&T did not do their due diligence in scouting locations. There is no coverage gap. If there were then AT&T is lying in their advertising to potential new customers. Looking forward to some clarification tomorrow. Thank you. Forwarded Message From: Coraljean<corkycj@aol.com> To:planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org<planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org> Sent: Tuesday,June 20,2023 at 04:22:26 PM PDT Subject: appeal of agenda item 23-435 I am asking that the City Council appeal the 6/13/2023 Agenda item 23-435. After the approval we understood that an appeal could be filed by one person. My neighbor, Christina Price, filed the appeal and the $4536.00 fee was paid. I found it interesting that some on the Planning Commision who listened to our case last week didn't know how much HB residents are charged to defend their homes and property values. i The appeal was scheduled for 6/13/2023, and should have been heard before 7 members of the Planning Commision. However, one person was on vacation. That left 6. We were very thankful for the members who came out to the property to see just how close this cell tower will be to our homes and a couple admitted that they wouldn't want it near their home. One admitted that if he had a choice between House A and House B that was basically where my house it, he would choose House A. It was agreed that this will cause a detriment to our housing values. Some questions were asked of the AT&T rep. Some of the Commisioners were stopped with their questions and told the questions were not for public discussion?? One member lives fairly close to the proposed cell tower and there was a discussion as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest. We have no way of knowing how it was decided that there wasn't. A couple of the Commissioners asked the AT&T rep to do some things. They wanted pictures of real cell towers not just a computer generated presentation. Also, when the AT&T rep was asked about other locations, the response was that he sent letters but didn't get responses. The Commissioner said he wanted to work with the AT&T rep in contacting the other commercial property owners as he felt it was a much better option than where they wanted to put it, so close to our homes. One of the Commissioners asked if there was a financial risk to HB if they voted no. The answer was that there was no risk. So why didn't they say no especially when additional information was being asked for by half of the Commissioners? One said he didn't want to start a precedence. Another said he wondered about poor communities who couldn't pay the fee. Are you kidding? You think that people living at the Northeast corner of Slater and Beach are wealthy? Not even close. But why is it our fault that the appeal fees set by HB are so high? Should we suffer the penalty of poorer neighborhoods than ours? That isn't fair either. We aren't saying to put the cell tower in any other community where families live. We are saying to put it in one of the many commercial properties that would not see a 5G cell tower 60 feet from our heads when we sleep at night. But those requests went away when it came time to vote. Three of the six members seemed to give a verdict based on their belief that it didn't matter what they thought. They didn't feel they had the power or the right to say no. If that is true, then who does? Why advise the neighbors of a cell tower being proposed? Why let us think we have a voice? Why have us pay thousands of dollars fighting the decision of the Zoning Administrator? Does the Planning Commission have a say? If the vacationing member of the Planning Commission had been there It was not our fault that all seven members were not present. It is also not understandable that the people who paid for the appeal do not get the benefit of a tie. We are asking for City Council to appeal the 6/13 Agenda Item 23-435 so that the appeal fee will be waived and so this item can be brought before the full City Council. We understand that the appeal letter and fee are due this Friday. Thank you and please try to understand what this tower will mean to all of us, many of whom have lived here in this neighborhood for over 25 years. 2 Moore, Tania From: Chad Smith <chadmichaelsmith@icloud.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 6:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: No.23-006 Wireless Facility Chad Smith Subject: Opposition to Proposed Cell Phone Tower Installation near Residential Area Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed installation of a cell phone tower near my family home, where my children live and play. I kindly request that you carefully consider the potential health, safety, and aesthetic implications of such a decision on the well-being of our community. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for [number of years], and we have always appreciated the peaceful environment and sense of community it provides. The presence of a cell phone tower so close to our homes raises concerns about the potential adverse effects on our health, property values, and overall quality of life. 1. Health Concerns: Numerous studies have indicated potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phone towers. As a responsible parent, I cannot ignore the potential long-term effects on the health of my children and other residents in the area. It is crucial that we prioritize the health and safety of our community, especially our most vulnerable members. 2. Property Values: The installation of a cell phone tower in such close proximity to our homes can significantly impact property values. Potential buyers may be deterred from purchasing properties near a cell tower due to the perceived health risks and concerns about decreased property value. This could have severe financial implications for homeowners in the area. 3. Aesthetic Impact: Our neighborhood's beauty and tranquility will be compromised by the presence of a large cell phone tower. The tower's size and structure may disrupt the natural landscape and diminish the visual appeal of our community, impacting the overall sense of pride and enjoyment we derive from living here. 4. Alternative Locations: I urge the City Council to consider alternative locations for the cell phone tower that are farther away from residential areas. There are numerous commercial and industrial areas where the tower could be situated without posing a potential risk to our families and children. In conclusion, I implore the City Council to prioritize the well-being of our community and reconsider the decision to install a cell phone tower near our homes. I request a thorough and transparent 1 evaluation of all potential health risks, property value impact, and aesthetic consequences before making any final decisions. As a concerned citizen, I am willing to participate in community discussions and provide any assistance needed to explore alternative locations or solutions for this cell phone tower. Together, we can find a solution that balances technological advancement with the protection of our community's health and well-being. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that you will carefully consider the concerns and voices of the residents who will be directly affected by this decision. Sincerely, Chad M. Smith 2 From: Fikes.Cathy To: Aaenda Alerts Subject: FW:AT&T Letter re.Appeal of Approval of CUP 2023-006,8101 Slater Avenue Date: Friday,July 14,2023 1:23:37 PM Attachments: Letter to Huntington Beach City Council 7.14.2023,odf From:Shank,Aaron M. <AShank@porterwright.com> Sent: Friday,July 14, 2023 11:59 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMG STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Beckman, Hayden <hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org>; 'John Silverman' <john.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com> Subject:AT&T Letter re.Appeal of Approval of CUP 2023-006,8101 Slater Avenue Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council Members Burns, McKeon, Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton: Please accept this letter on behalf of my client AT&T in response to the appeal of the approval of AT&T's CUP application to construct the referenced stealth wireless communication facility. AT&T urges the City Council to uphold approval,which comports with applicable federal law, and deny the appeal. Please consider this letter and attachments in connection with your hearing of this matter next week. Thank you. Aaron M. Shank Outside Legal Counsel for AT&T AARON M. SHANK Porter Wright Morris&Arthur LLP Bio / ashank@_borterwright.corn D: 614.227.2110 / M: 614.578.5036 / F:614.227.2100 41 South High Street, Suites 2800-3200 / Columbus, OH 43215 / MANSFIELD CERTIFIED PLUS We are moving the needle on diversity,equity, and inclusion. Learn more NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP: This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.If you believe that it has been sent to you in error,do not read,print or forward it.Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error.Then delete it.Thank you. END OF NOTICE SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No.; /7l 23 -5?S j July 14,2023 Aaron M.Shank City of Huntington Beach City Council ashank®porterwrig ht.com www.porterwrightcom (C1tv.Council@a,surfcity-hb.org) Porter Wright Community Development Department Morris&Arthur LLP 2000 Main Street 41 South High Street Suites 2800-3200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Columbus,OH 43215 Direct: 614.227.2110 RE: AT&T's Response to Appeal from Approval of Conditional Fax: 614.227.2100 Main: 614.227.2000 Use Permit 2023-006, 8101 Slater Avenue AT&T Site ID CLL01310 Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark,and Council www.porterwright.cam Members Burns,McKeon,Kalmick, Moser,and Bolton: uorterwright I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS,LLC d/b/a CHICAGO AT&T Mobility(AT&T),to respectfully request the City Council CINCINNATI CLEVELAND uphold the approval of AT&T's application to install a stealth wireless COLUMBUS telecommunications facility("Proposed Facility")that will appear as a DAYTON broadleaf tree adjacent to the existing church building on the referenced NAPLES property. In addition to providing more robust and competitive personal PITTSBURGH wireless services, including significant improvements to 4G LTE TAMPA WASHINGTON,DC service,the Proposed Facility will provide FirstNet services to support first responder communications. This carefully sited and well-designed facility will minimize visual impacts and it is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this area. The appeal is based on project opponents' general concerns and fears that are not supported by substantial evidence and cannot support denial. In fact,the appeal is based primarily on environmental concerns, including fears of radio frequency emissions(which the city is preempted from considering)and AT&T's ongoing federal law reviews(which City Staff aptly describes as separate and apart from this appeal). The City Council should affirm approval of AT&T's application.As discussed in greater detail below, the city's approval of AT&T's application also comports with federal law. Thus,AT&T requests the Council deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T's application for the Proposed Facility. AT&T's Proposed Facility Consistent with Section 230.96(A)of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code,which expresses a preference for siting wireless communication facilities in commercial or industrial zoning districts, City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 2 of 9 AT&T proposes to construct the Proposed Facility in a commercial zoning district. AT&T seeks to construct the stealth Proposed Facility with a top height of 60 feet above ground. The antennas for AT&T's Proposed Facility will be mounted at a top height of 55 feet and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage. The related equipment will be housed in a 16- foot by 25-foot, four-inch lease space enclosed by an 8-foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color. The Proposed Facility has been designed to best blend into the surrounding environment. The Planning Commission Staff Report explained how the Proposed Facility complies with the city's General Plan, and explained,"The proposed project complies with development requirements of the Commercial Office district,the development requirements contained in Section 230.96 Wireless Communications Facilities of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and federal law(Telecommunications Act of 1996)."At the Planning Commission hearing on June 13, 2023, City Staff again explained that the Proposed Facility meets all applicable zoning requirements. AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&T's radio frequency engineers have identified a significant gap in service coverage in this large area that is roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north,Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south,and Sampson Lane to the west. (See Attachment A—AT&T Radio Frequency Statement.)This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods,commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools,parks, churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The Proposed Facility will improve critical wireless services to the area,which are desperately needed especially as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. In fact,the Center for Disease Control and Prevention studies the extent of mobile phone use, and recently found that more than 81%of California adults,and more than 98%of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.1 Additionally, customers rely on their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service,video streaming, GPS, Internet access,and texting. In fact,the Federal Communications Commission conservatively estimates that 74%of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.2 In addition,the Proposed Facility is a part of AT&T's commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet,the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. 'See Wireless Substitution:State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2019,available at httcs://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Wireless state 202108-508.pdf. 2 See, e.g., Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges(Dec.31,2021),at 12,available at https://www.fcc.Qov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-fee- report-2021.pdf. City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 3 of 9 AT&T's Analysis of Alternative Sites AT&T has taken care to select a location to reduce impacts to the community while maintaining a clear line-of-sight for signals to provide adequate service coverage to the gap area. This was a fairly difficult area to search for candidate sites as many other commercial sites in the area declined to lease space to AT&T or did not respond to AT&T's contacts seeking interest. AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites, evaluating numerous properties in the gap area, to make sure the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. AT&T's Alternative Sites Analysis(see Attachment B), includes review of several commercial, industrial, and park properties in the gap area. In all,AT&T examined eleven properties in addition to the proposed site and determined that each of those eleven locations was either unavailable or infeasible as an alternative to the Proposed Facility. Approval ofAT&T's Proposal Comports with Federal Law The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. § 332 ("Act")provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis.3 Indeed,rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications. The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city's review of AT&T's Application. Under the Act,the city's review of AT&T's applications must be based on substantial evidence.4 The"substantial evidence"requirement means that a local government's decision must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence."5 In other words, a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit. Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged effects of RF emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities"to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions."6 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v.Abrams,544 U.S. 113, 115-16(2005)("Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996(TCA), 110 Stat.56,to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to`encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.'Ibid.One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications,such as antenna towers."). 4 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). 5 Metro PCS,Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco,400 F.3d 715,725(9th Cir. 2005),abrogated on other grounds,T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct.808(2015). 6 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14,2023 Page 4 of 9 The Act also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would"prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."7 Courts have found an"effective prohibition"exists where a wireless provider demonstrates (1)a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and(2) that the proposed facility would provide the"least intrusive means," in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations,to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that gap.8 Under this test,when a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the municipality must approve the wireless facility.9 When a wireless provider presents evidence of a significant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative,the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden(and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption),the local government must grove that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage,that it is technically feasible,and that it is"less intrusive"than the proposed facility.'0 More recently,the FCC has confirmed its rulings that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services,'' and this material inhibition standard was again upheld by the Ninth Circuit.12 The FCC explained that the "effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public."13 Thus, a local government"could materially inhibit service in numerous ways—not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services."' Here,AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility.AT&T's radio frequency propagation maps submitted in connection with its application,which are also exhibits to the Radio Frequency Statement(Attachment A), depict the service coverage gap that AT&T is experiencing here. These maps show that AT&T lacks 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 8 See e.g.,Metro PCS, Inc.,400 F.3d at 734-35;Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates,583 F.3d 716,726(9th Cir.2009). 9 See T-Mobile USA,Inc. v. City ofAnacortes,572 F.3d 987,999(9th Cir.2009). 1°Id.,572 F.3d at 998-999. 11 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order,FCC 18-133(September 27,2018)("Infrastructure Order")at¶35; see also,In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc.,Opinion and Order,FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (July 17, 1997). 12 City of Portland v. United States,969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35(9th Cir.2020). 13 Infrastructure Order at n.95. 14 Id.at¶37. City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14,2023 Page 5 of 9 adequate wireless service in this significant area. The proposed service coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in the coverage maps.As you can see,placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this area. AT&T has also demonstrated that no less intrusive locations are available and feasible to close the gap (see Attachment B). The Proposed Facility is not only the best available and least intrusive means to do so, it is the only way for AT&T bring critical wireless services to the area, including FirstNet services. The Zoning Administrator's approval thus comports with federal law,and the Planning Commission should likewise approve AT&T's application and deny the appeal. Response to Appellant's Criticisms The appeal's objections to the Proposed Facility are predominated by concerns about environmental effects and unsupported speculation about the facility's impact. As described above,even if the Commission could identify a code-based reason to disfavor AT&T's Proposed Facility,the city is preempted by the Act from taking action that would prohibit or have the effective of prohibiting AT&T from providing and improving wireless services.Nevertheless, AT&T offers the following responses to the issues raised by the appeal filed on June 23, 2023: Radio Frequency Emissions. The central thrust of the appeal and opposition to AT&T's Proposed Facility are concerns about the environmental effects of RF emissions. Project opponents, including the appellant's attorney,testified about the effects of RF emissions on humans,animals, and trees. Even Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about the health effects of RF emissions. But the Act expressly precludes and broadly preempts the city from regulating effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the Proposed Facility complies with the FCC's applicable regulations: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate 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 [FCC]'s regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will operate well below applicable FCC limits.An engineering analysis was performed and a Radio Frequency—Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report was provided by EBI Consulting(Attachment C). The report confirms that the Proposed Facility will operate well within all applicable FCC exposure limits. Given the compliance with the FCC regulations concerning RF emissions,AT&T's application cannot be rejected based on concerns about RF emissions. Process Issues. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission's action on June 13,2023 was insufficient because it resulted in a tie vote. As the City Attorney explained at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing,a tie vote sustains the decision by the lower body. In this City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 6 of 9 matter,that means the Planning Commission's vote sustained the Zoning Administrator's approval of AT&T's application. In any event,the appellant's process concerns are moot as she will be heard again before City Council. Application Completeness. AT&T filed a comprehensive application for the Proposed Facility, which City Staff determined to be complete. While there may be other processes in the city that require different application components,AT&T complied with the relevant process here. And AT&T worked cooperatively with the city by providing even more information to address various specifics about the Proposed Facility. Moreover, on the basis of the submitted application, City Staff was able to conclude that the Proposed Facility will comply with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements. On the basis of the application,the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed project and the Planning Commission heard the appeal. There is,therefore,no question that the city has the appropriate information and materials to consider the application. Property Values. The appellant speculates that property values in the area will be adversely affected by installation of the Proposed Facility, even though it is a stealth facility that will appear as a tree next to the church. In fact,the photo simulations show it will not even be the tallest tree in the area. There is no substantial evidence to support this conjecture that the Proposed Facility will adversely affect property values. Importantly,AT&T's application cannot be rejected whether health concerns are raised explicitly or indirectly through some proxy such as property values.A federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption over radio frequency emissions, "concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions."15 Thus,these types of complaints cannot be a proxy for preempted concerns about RF emissions. As the appeal's property values claim is premised on concerns over RF emissions, the Council cannot consider it. Moreover,this claim that property values would decrease by installing a facility that will look like a tree next to a church cannot form the basis of denial. Courts within the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have long agreed that"generalized expressions of concern regarding aesthetics or the effect on property values"fail to meet the substantial evidence threshold under the Act.16 The appellant recycles a set of years-old letters from realtors who claimed that a cell tower on a campground in rural Santa Cruz County might reduce property values there by blocking ocean views. And she offers an analysis of property values for that same cell tower 15 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad,308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159(S.D.Cal.2003) (quoting H.R.Conference Report No. 104-458,201 (1996)). 16 California RSA No. 4 v.Madera County,332 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1308-09(E.D.Cal.2003)(citing Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490(2nd Cir. 1999);Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403,409(3d Cir.1999);Telespectrum v. Public Service Com'n. of Kentucky,227 F.3d 414(6th Cir.2000); Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County,296 F.3d 1210, 1219(11th Cir.2002)). City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 7 of 9 proposal more than 300 miles away in a completely different setting.17 This information has no bearing on how property values in this commercial district in Huntington Beach might or might not be affected by installation of a faux tree of similar height to other nearby trees surrounding the subject property. This information is not substantial evidence supporting appellant's RF- driven concerns about property values. The appellant also points to other far-flung studies about property values based on proximity to cell towers. But these studies explain that health concerns drive perceptions about property values, and, in fact,they show mixed results about impacts to property values. The studies by Sandy Bond and her colleagues were conducted in New Zealand in the 1990s, and then followed up in the Eastern U.S. in the 2000s. In those studies, she found some instances when property values decreased near new cell towers and she found other instances when property values increased by up to 12%after a nearby cell tower was constructed.18 Moreover, the authors specifically explained that their results were based largely on survey respondents' perceptions of health effects from cell towers.19 These studies also carefully noted that their results are location specific and should not be generalized to other locations20 In other words, even the authors do not endorse applying them here. In contrast,a data-driven property valuation study of home values conducted by two California realtor associations found no impact on values due to proximity to even non-stealth wireless telecommunications facilities based on market data for more than 1,600 single-family home sale in California.21 Indeed,more and more homebuyers are placing a premium on wireless connectivity.Because the Council must make its decision based on substantial evidence,not based on conjecture and fear,you should not rely on speculation that property values might decrease following installation of the Proposed Facility. Instead, you should rely on the stealth design for the Proposed Facility, which complies with the city's regulations and will minimize impacts to the area. Compliance with Federal Laws. The appellant and her counsel have raised questions about the effects of RF emissions from the Proposed Facility on birds. In particular,the concern raised was whether AT&T had considered the effects of RF emissions on Cooper's hawks,who may have been seen in or around the project site.And the appellant's attorney asked whether AT&T had '7 In fact,Santa Cruz County ultimately approved the proposed cell tower disguised as a pine tree. 18 Bond&Wang,The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods,The Appraisal Journal,Summer 2005,at 269(explaining the increase in property values was likely due to the lack of concern over possible health effects).In the same report,the authors also found another instance where there was an increase, albeit statistically insignificant(0.4%)increase,in property values after construction of a cell tower.See id.at 270. 19 See id. 20 See id.at 271("caution must be used in making generalizations from this study or applying the results directly to other similar studies or valuation assignments"). 21 See Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, Wireless Communications Initiative Study: Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values(Nov.2012)(study analyzed property values for over 1,600 single-family homes over a 9-month period,and concluded"It is quite clear from the data that the distance from a wireless facility has no apparent impact on the value or sale price of a home"). City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 8 of 9 conducted requisite studies under the National Environmental Policy Act("NEPA").As explained to the attorney,AT&T's analyses under NEPA are well under way and are expected to be completed soon. In fact,the analysis of impacts to species has already been completed. As the attached Findings of Biological Evaluation(Attachment D)explains,this analysis included an extensive review of biological resources at or near the project site, and no adverse effect was found with respect to the Cooper's hawk or other birds or their eggs. Specifically,the report found: • The project site does not contain sensitive biological resources, including suitable habitat for listed threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species. • The site is not located in a designated critical habitat,wilderness area, or wildlife preserve. • The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed,No wetlands or riparian areas occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project will not result in any impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. Further, in order to address concerns raised about the Cooper's hawk,AT&T will agree to conduct a nesting study before construction commences to ensure that any state or federally- protected birds, including the Cooper's hawk, are not identified as actively nesting in and around the project site. AT&T will certainly accept a reasonable condition of approval to this effect. The appellant and her attorney have more recently suggested that the City should deny AT&T's application based on the timing of its federal-law analysis. But that would not be appropriate—the city's decision needs to be based on the city's regulations. As City Staff noted during the Planning Commission hearing, federal-law processes that are still playing out are "separate and apart from"the city's zoning decision now before you on appeal. Coverage Gap. The appellant takes issue with AT&T's demonstration of its coverage gap.As you can see from the coverage maps submitted in connection with AT&T's application,which were submitted as part of a document dated January 27, 2023, and which are also appended as exhibits to AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement(Attachment A),AT&T has a significant gap in its 4G LTE service coverage across a large portion of the city. As the Radio Frequency Statement explains, areas shaded in yellow and pink are areas where signal strengths are too weak to provide adequate and reliable in-building level of service. AT&T(like its competitors) builds its wireless network to provide adequate and reliable in-building service,which the Proposed Facility will provide to close the gap. The appellant points instead to AT&T's online coverage viewer website that shows some coverage in the area. Importantly, as the legend and"learn more"link on that online map explain,those maps only a high-level approximation of outdoor service coverage. The appellant also points to the FCC's broadband maps to try to make the same point that AT&T has some service coverage in the area. But the FCC maps also do not depict in-building service coverage. In other words,this is not evidence of a lack of a gap. City of Huntington Beach City Council July 14, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Federal courts have made clear that online tools like these websites are not substantial evidence of the lack of a gap. Instead, as AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement explains,AT&T's network design engineers use much more sophisticated computer models to depict and predict actual coverage scenarios based on a host of variables that take into account AT&T's network, the built environment, and the natural environment.AT&T's evidence of its significant service coverage gap is precisely what federal courts rely on in the context of considering effective prohibition claims under the Act. AT&T's evidence here shows a very clear and significant gap. Noise. The appellant contends the Proposed Facility will violate the noise ordinance, but offers no study showing so,nor any basis for that belief. There is no indication the Proposed Facility will not comply fully with the city's rules. The generator—which AT&T would have a state-law right to install in any event(see Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75)—will operate only when maintained and in emergencies.As is typical for such facilities,AT&T will certainly accept a reasonable condition of approval to comply with the city's noise regulations. Conclusion AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in this area.AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed,requires) approval,and there has been no substantial evidence proffered on which the county could deny AT&T's application.AT&T urges the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T's application. Sincere , aron M. hank Attachment A:AT&T Radio Frequency Statement Attachment B:AT&T Alternative Sites Analysis Attachment C:EBI Consulting Radio Frequency—Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report Attachment D: Environmental Assessment Specialists,Inc.Findings of Biological Evaluation cc: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner(hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org) DocuSign Envelope ID:BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 AT&T has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. AT&T estimates that since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has increased 470,000%on its network.AT&T forecasts its customers' growing demand for mobile data services to continue. The increased volume of data travels to and from customers' wireless devices and AT&T's wireless infrastructure over limited airwaves — radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses from the Federal Communications Commission. Spectrum is a finite resource and there are a limited number of airwaves capable and available for commercial use. Wireless carriers license those airwaves from the FCC. To ensure that service quality, AT&T must knit together its spectrum assets to address customers' existing usage and forecasted demand for wireless services, and it must use its limited spectrum in an efficient manner. AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 6 GHz and higher), mid-band (i.e., C-band, 2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and signal quality may vary due to noise or interference based on network characteristics at a given location. To address this dynamic environment,AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. The proposed wireless communications facility at 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach(the "Property") is needed to close coverage gap in 4G LTE service in an area roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south, and Sampson Lane to the west. This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools, parks churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the area. AT&T currently has existing sites in the broader geographical area surrounding the Property but, as Exhibit 1 illustrates,these existing sites do not provide sufficient 4G LTE service in the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives,AT&T needs to construct a new wireless communications facility. DocuSign Envelope ID:BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 Wireless telecommunications is a line-of-sight technology, and AT&T's antennas need to be high enough propagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area, AT&T proposes a new stealth wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a 60-foot tall faux broadleaf tree. Denial of this proposed facility or a reduction in height would materially inhibit AT&T's ability to provide and improve wireless services in this portion of the city. The facility at the Property will help close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage. This site is part of an effort to fully deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. Specifically, the proposed facility will close this service coverage gap and provide reliable 4G LTE service for AT&T customers in the affected area. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file once you've sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services. What's more, LTE uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience. It is important to understand that service problems can and do occur for customers even in locations where the coverage maps on AT&T's"Coverage Viewer"website appear to indicate that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps display approximate coverage. Actual coverage in an area may differ from the website map graphics, and it may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, network changes, foliage, buildings, construction, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors. It is also important to note that the signal losses, slow data rates,and other service problems can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may not experience any problems on AT&T's network. These problems can and do occur even when certain customers' wireless phones indicate coverage bars of signal strength on the handset. The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a customer's wireless phone can show coverage bars of signal strength, but that customer will still, at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions due to service quality issues. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 To determine where equipment needs to be located for the provisioning of reliable service in any area, AT&T's radio frequency engineers rely on far more complex tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable service quality. This information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which simulate the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable in-building service quality. This level of service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98%of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes. And California households rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, video streaming, GPS,web access,text, etc.). In fact,the FCC conservatively estimates that 74%of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones. The proposed facility at the Property is also a part of AT&T's commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet,the federal First Responder Network Authority. Conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as necessary for first responder communications, Congress created the federal First Responder Network Authority, which selected AT&T to build and manage FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. The proposed facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders. Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of the existing 4G LTE service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes 4G LTE service coverage provided by other existing AT&T sites. The green shaded areas of the map depict acceptable in- building coverage. In-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The pink and white shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty receiving a consistently 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the yellow, pink, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap. Exhibit 2 is a map that predicts 4G LTE service coverage based on signal strength in the vicinity of the Property if the proposed facility is constructed as proposed in the application. As shown by this map,constructing the proposed facility at the Property closes this significant service coverage gap. My conclusions are based on my knowledge of the Property and with AT&T's wireless network, as well as my review of AT&T's records with respect to the Property and its wireless telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from Mapua Institute of Technology in Manila, Philippines, and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry for more than 30 years. r—DocuSigned by: --AE22A131 AE79477... Albert Landicho AT&T Mobility Services LLC Network, Planning&Engineering RAN Design&RF Engineering May 2023 22481802v1 4 Existing 4G LTE Coverage Before Site CLL01310 EXHIBIT 1 I . it- 5, t dui I i.Y \1�1(„%It4t,( i ii.*i) 7�f, 0. . r• GCLL03424 iWam Indrn,t 4.:ti41 I . ,h' i , r � .1. , tMilllin In %tilt.is`,i_11A1 r 1a ;alert, i Y_ 6 ( ,,' sClatiul �� .._i7'I' 1 tirlrtcrslwrg ..i j t •• Ertmr , ,i g • Vi+r.v� L ` I VIP., rtt,,v t kikx,„;. 4. , ua It �CLL03T36 = • S'�`-�1.I' rl'�....tL t E. r Ilis ifiti •L " •t Gillen:Vr , -0, *".* ` l i r MVII‘ ri ill J, 0C�LQ� f01lt L�Fc ^ a t;�ir.�ncae $ i .ate 's_r-6,r - Elemrirt.lr-'s"'"-...�_ - t.: - _ ip[b:: Scl.v.�! f . �i NAM t IF.... RI ' 1.'•chc�Dr t1 • .. El . -' . 14111 pi ' y Park ^ goo y s. s r_f ,nr ` "' Pe tt - NIr .t.--s,At„n -' ' . # ;�-�..lr x ,+iddi t ...VW.. ` I t i"'ni , `' ', y ' 4itrnt,ni�lnr I 41111 4. ",.. w. . ,� fed CIY — 1.I II ik. ,!2e_ij _ - r' i �.� i • s Ilk • r.r�j,•. .t@5^..7 Gtanye }t'alr+ori.t _ ! ,..1111111 ist td 'Jilt 4 g r- , , . 1P4 i ll 4)c +algir,ge' ai ' i� � ' .._. .._ C.: a Rh tint�: r' I O Proposed Macro Sjilir-ne } in �'L .'�tLi'�'�� �i .rs �'�,"A._ ,°'.a.. 1 ..` # 0 Existing Macro Sites 4G LTE Coverage After Site CLL01310 EXHIBIT 2 , . 7. , • z LLrdl�l){c.�,%�r�1,c .,, ,.,11 4 �rI �1.. � ( � 'r5tll►m 1nJrn,�y,;;nrl r �y��J�gf?.._ - - f. �' • M'+�IFlin In \'chi.ic,I•_n�l .filiqtr r p 11 I Ilrfi.o:tiAbit melt, . , . vitrIP ,,ire,-.10-7. ,.-1 Air ZMIP 40 ,El, ilk, ....„ ... . Altlirl 6 ti Z.. N. I a p 4..- A fill imi ' rai. GLLO13 Q.. r ..=A.3 /M :,'$ U t — "_, , MINI T- u r k Yam, *At le • # rIV IF bii 1 +✓ . ' ,�iv ... *1 AL I . i-- I. A . L;crtyp�rl: ,.,,,,,. r....- 6 ,;, Ili 11. . ik is _ ,..a, -4ati ' t i - ..: . ,iddleA, , I �4ah^, !f�+ f CtOfq� a•e _ ' n 1P4 i .111110figi 41 I . • •1 • r u a t ti •• r nr, '�,"•', ' ' O Proposed Macro Site -r,Pl LI51,t,�., 4 ��'fiY'� 4, W I. A ' , _ ': iii„.►; o 0 Existing Macro Sites ATTACHMENT B Alternative Sites Analysis 41- 7d/.1"' at&t . ., .. .. ... _ _ IsAt {{ `` } ..2,-, _1 Pt '' ,,igt:i * 'k �. PROPOSED MONO BROAD LEAF ° Y dP '.— I 1L} 7: PROPOSED EQUIPMENT EN GLOSLIREI y. ' 4 �••, ' ii � . om. �.-� � ` PROPOSED PARKING BOLLARDS .xa ,��. AT&T Mobility Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 8101 Slater Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Site ID: CLL01310 Introduction New Cingular Wireless PCS,LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility("AT&T")has a significant gap in its service coverage in the City of Huntington Beach and,therefore, needs to deploy a new wireless communications facility("WCF"). AT&T proposes to construct a stealth facility designed to appear as a 60-foot tall broadleaf tree ("mono-broadleaf") ("Proposed Facility") located in this commercial zoning district. The Proposed Facility consists of 20 panel antennas (four sets of five antennas)with a tip height of 55 feet above ground,and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage.The related equipment will be housed in a 16-foot by 25-foot, four- inch lease space enclosed by an 8-foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color as a means to fill this gap in coverage. The Proposed Facility is designed to minimize visual impacts,blend with the predominant visual backdrop and the existing environment, and the antennas will be obscured by the faux tree branches and foliage. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap of the alternatives investigated by AT&T as explained below. Objective AT&T Mobility has identified a significant gap in its service coverage in the City of Huntington Beach, in an area roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south, and Sampson Lane to the west. This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools,parks churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The service coverage in this portion of the City is described in the accompanying Radio Frequency Statement. Methodology and Zoning Criteria The location of a WCF to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, changes in elevation,zoning, existing structures, collocation opportunities, available utilities, access and a willing landlord. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires WCFs to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be served. AT&T seeks to fill a significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under the values expressed in the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code, including Section 230.96 of the City Zoning Code,regarding Wireless Communication Facilities. In particular, under Code Section 230.96(A),the City prefers sites in commercial and industrial zoning districts, and discourages sites in residential zoning districts. 2 Analysis AT&T developed a search area to identify where a new wireless telecommunications facility needs to be located to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this portion of Huntington Beach. AT&T searched for, but did not identify viable collocation opportunities in the gap area. Because most of the area is residential in character, and sites in residential locations are less preferred, AT&T searched for sites in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Thus, AT&T identified the Proposed Facility as the best available and least intrusive means to close the gap. The following map shows the locations of the search ring center(blue pin),the Proposed Facility(green pin), and the alternative sites that AT&T investigated (yellow pins). Location of Candidate Sites ., - .N- 4• n -lc - ..-.-. ^•i wimr. r a 1. C r " `,T i A a k, ISCESubstatio t . s . . • - .+ H. eF: i ?F c �TM a .TI r .. r sr ' • ' � � ?' C4),,.;nitir:"7a . t > t t a-'t. w. }r " � '"� v.: 1719.1.Beach�Blvd ,r r,ta�� ' ' �' '� �' fe' jam .,.1:�5�4'd, ��i �.� '�.r,,,9t.. -• �t � r, :I:owl: �CII t " ,; °.� ... =, .1r7�262 Bea, Ivd. . ` +r� �f .7 ..4S I t+�J I� �."I ii ':a: TIC'l.;ipr -�-,y,I NiN .ar., y • .�'� —mort ,' , A y�r r-to i 11 La_kerView Park• ,a. = �. I ' Al P- 'c, ;o..._Y!.*µme t I': .1^ .It :•p l ', ♦ ,,,,�,°:1 47' !yq.1 :s. :al t� Ac t t y m at0 `..7 I + 1 ei, �r Y tt-_,'1 .r 'f , �4 tt w►, r ummilroe �►a '" ■8071'Si to Aie.T&T iPror ose■ GL70131 a Westmo t`'ark , 7 {I' 7676.SIuter ~i h ° I �_ - a 1. `.., 7- S ater_Aee - S ater A. 'c- .i,1 p.. r ii aS5r rii■!rm■n -. ii .J .1uT'I" r 7,'• t•t- ti s! ,„, r, 1. s::`' Q( is : i r. I 4 -It" ;p. �t ■1 ..4x,,� `i , `•1 I V�+ , �,f { ��r�- "'-1 � "■Q'T ,�a> +aLs .�..d �... F3�f ..�. .I� k y4, �!it 2�1 � 1 IV t7.1.- i!� Y I rn.Plr"«. .' 'm 4 ,..-,„',,. 4 r:t i Ia�`�' 1 't y ji,�1� l ir. rq lia tin lea + ' ,�.. t / t.r,„ : „t.. 'a' ii. ini, .:- "it,' T' )l r ? .t ,_ y aL�rME/r�ty.rVrr grt - r 9 , r t .. v .! ` 1 F t 1!!I: y`. l,LM6`i*L1!'�iid1Y i i f — J JJs11 4 ' %.' �,.. F .wr' 1 t, xi s gl 1.1 1.11' 'pi; '' t,1 ',oral.--R �'�',t f i 0`�,l, ,t •! •* - .' t y ,14 : iv ,y o WDOdtNIF1 _r p ' r'� ;,,3a'' 0 ,, it!�'ig f_. 'rai ngton Beach espital '-- 4'. , Ili ,.:47g ■� r- .1 ! Yr r• 1 T ' 47 'e 41 rl 4" r .,pow :: 1 ram= . • i`.'9� 4: ti\h . f. - _ -- E � _ :0II"-; (`r-i-:t ram.. . f Proposed Facility—Faux Broadleaf Tree, 8101 Slater Avenue vtiiiii ti"s r l : ! A 2lrr • K t- a. '' ; ,,w 44 .ice `, ' "ra `•y Yi. l * i • ,~ !A ,. w. PROPOSED MONOBROADLEAF .n ., .., 4'F1 I p v P ,' t 1 ' .I,' • 3 r '• tk ,,t ' , `, k, 4 1 � ' ,, 11 L..J tt . s, 5 ‘r.,..t.,.r.., .. ntig PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOSURE ! 1, w[`'f - •�ryI .•IZ �'' # mil`1 , .;A .. :y , `. h. r i+ i ^91 1 �. i .. ^) I • PROPOSED PARKING IBOLLARDS LL Conclusion: Based upon location, a willing landlord and the superior coverage as shown in the proposed coverage map included in AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement, the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means for AT&T to meet its service coverage objective. The project location is in a commercial zoning district along Slater Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. AT&T' Proposed Facility will be a stealth design as a 60-foot tall faux broadleaf tree consisting of 20 panel antennas (four sets of five antennas)with a tip height of 55 feet above ground, and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage. The related equipment will be housed in a 16-foot by 25-foot,four-inch lease space enclosed by an 8- foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color. The Proposed Facility is designed to minimize visual impacts,blend with the predominant visual backdrop and the existing environment, and the antennas will be obscured by the faux tree branches and foliage. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 4 Alternative Site 1 —Huntington Beach Assistance League, 8071 Slater Avenue „� 1 ':' ' ,. nr � tl 14 : i '1 i ' ' Al: i ce, 4A'rl '' II! ij'i 'i_ `t , � 1� ? II N 1 �'� ' `„ i . q T. , .41 i �- r llt �� 44 "'• i �,I • ��% _ Fit, •, • H r • ' ._ ,N �`.r- yk, Z.;>fr�fi tom! y i 4,`" ,`c` y c�,a i F`=�` .. .,e ...4 ���.wW '7 Zc.Cs lr�ryrot., tt.t ,•'yi F ,fL jet.., y 7 o. ..+rt�� �' 'Cr • ":GW fir. . ge 7A.�,... :t g"""• -y.s l F ,R_£�t t`lid } .t ,�' •M't41 .•,, i,, i • " t 3 Conclusion: Unavailable. This building is in a Commercial General (CG)zoning district located close to the Proposed Facility. There is not enough space for a new WCF here without taking up parking spaces. Consequently,the property owner declined to lease space. 5 Alternative Site 2—Ocean Plaza, 17011 Beach Boulevard 'i . � p Conclusion: Unavailable. This property is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14)zoning district approximately 0.4 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. The property owner were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 6 Alternative Site 3—Lowe's Parking Lot, 8175 Warner Avenue arkl. , , ' �L'1^ !"I i'! _ _ d' _ C�_ -a.-. i il. 4r'''tr. _r_11____ ... -- .' _'R-91. -,.[ra."�{�lVsaysEie�4+�,.. i;sa i ,. rE,,-_ .-'_4-e-"7, �4• 'ter ! -",'-.� _:~''-- , £7- -v !I "'" . paelf � � "s t CzJ'�r 1 } t� y,.�:s . 1:+}s. t,j+e• t e Conclusion: Unavailable This business is in a Commercial General (CG)zoning district approximately 0.5 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. A freestanding WCF could be placed in the parking lot of this business, but the property owner were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 7 Alternative Site 4—SCE Substation, Corner of Warner Avenue and B Lane . _c________.___-- , 111, iiii.... lio, ,, r -r. ., \„,„ '4411--asio..--- .:., ., ♦`tea, • �� _ --i — r i7i� 7 _ ;: IV non 1 �y G . �. � 5+:7' a ,, feDn: �(€i ; � {� .��- 'may�`�' i• ����'F��. � 1 + aft 1 ]_.-= e,t,i ..- ' . � +i X _ I Conclusion:Infeasible. This utility substation is located near Lowe's(Alternative 3)and is approximately 0.5 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. There is insufficient space on this property to place a WCF. 8 Alternative Site 5—Empty Car Lot, 17262 Beach Boulevard -41 -pwu rosum - - �`if I '�j_ _'1- l r rres. Conclusion: Unavailable. This vacant lot is in a Specific Plan(SP-14)zoning district approximately 0.2 mile to the west from the Proposed Facility. The property owner did not show any interest in response to inquiries regarding siting a WCF here. 9 Alternative Site 6—A 1st Impression Full-Service Sign Shop, 17191 Beach Boulevard , l sex ...... ..... — - ' — �, . #. - x fsmom, - 1 ry =�'p._, Y sar F 1 - -i'ti c;-. jt �r 1 ��1 _______ "--- — 1. ie' f 1, '4+'fi �' � � �" Y rt • 2` s.. a'4 k# a6+. !y�- Conclusion: Unavailable. This business is in a Specific Plan (SP-14)zoning district approximately 0.3 mile to the northwest from the Proposed Facility. The property owner did not show any interest in response to inquiries regarding siting a WCF here. 10 Alternative 7—Security Public Storage,7676 Slater Avenue 3I F' I . 1 A 1 1 L i* II�III�II,I 4 , 0 1 -31 � 1 ry1Y�54W �I' AA _:.I....7 , 1 y. -,.... Conclusion:Infeasible. This business is located in an Industrial General (IG)zoning district approximately 0.4 mile to the west from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the west to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 11 Alternative 8—Walgreens, 17522 Beach Boulevard 1.r'` . " 1I• '1., fe ! / • aff in IOW x tr rj etg - - „ma .`Lma? Conclusion: Infeasible. This business is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14)zoning district approximately 0.1 mile to the southwest from the Proposed Facility. There is not sufficient ground space to place a freestanding WCF, and the building is too short for a rooftop WCF to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 12 Alternative 9—Lake View Park, Along Slater Avenue& Zeider Lane r — -r- 4s.- r.' F� /_ ��,_ - t y i / • }mot .} ktrxy .`• �'fc,L_ _ti �' � �! r r_. _.,_-_.11.— ....,— =. ice „r. ,i. >N .,r', r 1 r. • • faux F7iiii k,,�� iiiiiitAiiiiiimm— : , Conclusion:Infeasible; more intrusive than Proposed Facility. This park is located approximately one quarter of a mile to the northeast from the Proposed Facility.A new WCF in this park would interfere with park uses, including taking up a soccer field. 13 Alternative 10—Huntington Beach Hospital, 17772 Beach Boulevard Oil 1 ^5ir h a'A CI, is _ : ''...1 .' ' I— \ I '/ 11r, -----'.=.. . '4'i'l 4 ' ''''''' * .."".. J..... - ralleftweisiii. ii Conclusion: Infeasible; more intrusive than Proposed Facility. This hospital is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately one-third of a mile to the south from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the south to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 14 Alternative 11 —Westmont Park, Fountain Valley •• r— 1-; .t . r' A). 1."^"^ 11 ?,. e1 ,,.,„, �1 '', ems" - t *. , '- :` ,rIl "#; V cam•,9 ,__*te , tri . .. ; 1"'p,; i` pest ,on,, ,, ..ki ')....,..,. s '1, _—L,F-.-. t. .. ` gg L ,P iS , J*• _. 9 L k' _:Ci- 1 '7' k �` '� t'' ' r " kp. "- . —4 I p `J a : r ,- It iti ,sk ,y a "° .�ir`�5�'+]4 f[�yt:. , pv � ,.-< s. Conclusion: Infeasible. This park is located more than 0.5 mile to the east from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the east to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. Overall Conclusion The Proposed Facility, as redesigned, is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap. Denial of the site or a reduction in height will materially inhibit AT&T from providing and improving wireless service in this portion of the City. 15 ATTACHMENT C Radio Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report Site Number: CLLOI 310 RFDS ID: 5704878 Pace Number: MRLOS07753 I HBCC 8101 Slater Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92647 Orange County 33.70892500; -117.98740600 NAD83 Monotree The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage. EBI Project No. 6223001835 May 18, 2023 ,L a i 4-_ ' a , -'Phi'• .1� '!h-. ...i .`, ,..., a,;- ,._.�' M ;a1 .pia ..6. .ia__— Prepared for: AT&T Mobility, LLC c/o Smartlink, LLC 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92660 Prepared by: EBI Consulting A environmental I engineering I due diligence RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(FCC) REQUIREMENTS 3 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS 5 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING 5 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN 7 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8 6.0 LIMITATIONS 8 APPENDICES Appendix A Personnel Certifications Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan EBI Consulting • 21 B Street• Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 i RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CLL01310 located at 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields. This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following: • Site Plan with antenna locations • Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling • Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T's transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site. Statement of Compliance A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards. As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers. AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&Ts RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI's understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 1 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California The following signage is recommended at this site: • Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder. The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 2 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach,California 1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Table I and Figure I (below), which are included within the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are "time-averaged" limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures. The FCC's MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC's occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC's occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations. Table I: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Range Electric Field Magnetic Field 1 Averaging Time (MHz) Strength (E) Strength (H) Power Density(S) [Er, [H]2, or S (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm ) (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (I 00)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1,500 -- -- f/300 6 1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6 EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 3 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Range Electric Field Magnetic Field Averaging Time (MHz) Strength (E) Strength(H) Power Density(S) [E]2, [H]2,or S (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm ) (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (I 00)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (I 80/f)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1,500 -- -- f/I,500 30 1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f= Frequency in (MHz) *Plane-wave equivalent power density Figure I. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density 1,000 1 I I I I I I I I Occupational/Controlled Exposure ---- General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure 100— — N \ U \ E ` >. 10- \ - N \ c 5- - 0 m \ a1- \ i - - 0.1 I I I I I 1 I I I 0.03 0.3 q 3 30 300 1 3,000 30,000 I,300,000 1.34 1,500 100,000 Frequency (MHz) Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below: Personal Wireless Service Approximate Occupational Public MPE Frequency MPE Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000-80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2 Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 4 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach,California Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: I) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky. This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas. 2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that: 1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance; 2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and 3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed. Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0. 3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING In accordance with AT&T's RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMasterTM software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site rooftop and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMasterTM is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" (OET-65), RoofMasterTM calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMasterTM models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC's occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site. EBI Consulting • 2I B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 5 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLL0I310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the adjacent roof level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 76.01 percent of the FCC's general public limit (I 5.20 percent of the FCC's occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 76.01 percent of the FCC's general public limit (15.20 percent of the FCC's occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. Based on worst- case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 17.86 percent of the FCC's general public limit (3.572 percent of the FCC's occupational limit). A graphical representation of the RoofMasterTM modeling results is presented in Appendix B. Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. All microwaves on site are considered compliant with AT&T's guidance and were not included in the modeling analysis. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 6 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach,California 4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must: • Be posted at a conspicuous point; • Be posted at the appropriate locations; • Be readily visible; and • Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area. The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations. CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs v) NOTICE r malimem=_ (0.0NOTICE (ajl)) T .: , RF energy emitted by this antenna may exceed the FCC's NOTICE asl.parilrsr.aroer. exposure kmita for the general population. v ^.. �K hit p.��a� Stay at least I feet away horn the antenna. DECAL •- -- ...,..0aa.e011oltayaee/ Elial a MUNN rapraatwartan Call AT&T at 800.638-2822.option 9 then 3.for help it you .... kb.**0411.116mIleg1.ae need access wtthtn feet. .a. ..wr.�k rna,K.0 m.na rraeararalaner..rt YrW4.aasaniwerrrR TRILINGUAL «a. _._- e, NOTICE NOTICE 2 NOTICE Y r*A CAUTION rAcAulloNi AT&T operate.antennas at this structure, this point you are entering an area where radio frequency(Ry fields ((rd)) may exceed the FCC General Population A ((tt)) exposure limits. 5tlaeaea..uraaai0r. • Follow safety guidelines for working in an NOTICE hnrmrrl prwelnis"au AI1lopnaaun..,nt6.,n.. rtr.p 1aa.arfinbler/ane/Y RF environment. ttlopw.a Egonat NIL a nal.rgeakw you art entenn9 an area Keep ft.away from the fronts of the SIGN WNW,eveo.oaaothae 122et p�aenat2l4.pvrl.aie fields n4ormathe FIC derlumi antennas. owemtereata .voHr1 Rem uretrni,nl..uli:g In an Af Contact AT&T at 800438.2822.opt.9.3 rlii.etMWparatllalaat n.ent. and follow their instructions prior to s11ee�er0isbei6� c entr at aN-621 162.62 n9m61 performing any maintenance or repairs -...sawi rklr l.Pinnmu'.an+.l.updamat above this point. CAUTION 2— mamma or roimwil.mearyelra. This is AT&T Site USID '` _'f L". "' ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A aACAUTION ACAUTION a CAUTION 0 c(r t>> On Olt RF energyemittedthis antenna mayexceed the FCC's CAUTION ....,.peer. iwrea.,..malnn.e_ by Owlr,a90.,dnn Aw,o,,..,ar.0 .twee2.tn,,aeelret,neo occupational exposure limits. ..r...rtrrdcarwa+.wta..e tlmlt KW.CNape*.Fneiet nw.9mrNW DECAL C.maA111tRrna.9andAN flfORW ^e,[O wrt nee Stay at least I teat away from the antenna. Aa.21122221165,2 nnnbw.,4re. R6..ur.rtuae&n r...awlnalr raWrrw.2222,2.pot. .r,.n.e.t Call AT&T at 800-638.2822,option 9 then 3,for help If you 1222212.29212222221212221 (NW Anraooe6DRontun 9 and t. trt.wanee II nntonntnts.d.eat.al and accrue,instmiar rear toprena 9t need access within t feet. r,,,eor,l., .erre Pr moos.xwln.nemxtheWm.. mik.a.afepanber.0 Mil oaa. .ram.--...ae.. y CAUTION 2B - CAUTION 2C - TOWER PARAPETS A CAUTION ® AWARNING IA�� AT&T operates antennas at thts structure. thispant you are entering an r area where radio frequency(RF)fietdr, /ilk may emceed the FCC Occupational (01 exposure CAUTION A Follow safetyety guidelines for working in an 241cp,utn.m.nn01,12 a a4,3fet nnmerlaaaeaa. AC environment SIGN S""mt�i e.NUe oft*Net mftm ee u, Keep fL away from the fronts of tee f(cert.w-en. e,mn. ernelihr rQam.m.lrg.are brill. antennas. {Are lafCine u2222620e.224 t,not.14.c221,.04.s he..a.r Contact AT&T at 800-638.2822.out 9.3 ,an a e.bwan.tw:a...ltenaaey, ean 2.212222.2122122.2ki. and follow their instructions prior to (run Alilxem.ota-rczopnenent9. 2..1.¢612n062 URga.fd9. n. y 2.x up anew..l me.. M1etv...:b.etienn.4na..M. performing any maintenance or repairs a.'y ny�y croft. nw.:a..uhns<rn;.eree above this point _..._... Cell Site USED ----- --- WARNING I B WARNING 2A EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 7 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Based upon protocols presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site: • Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder. No barriers are required for this site. Barriers should be constructed of weather-resistant plastic or wood fencing. Barriers may consist of railing, rope, chain, or weather-resistant plastic if no other types are permitted or are feasible. Painted stripes should only be used as a last resort and only in regions where there is little chance of snowfall. If painted stripes are selected as barriers, it is recommended that the stripes and signage be illuminated. The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California. EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T's corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T's corporate RF safety policies. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T's corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 8 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Appendix A Personnel Certifications EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 9 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Preparer Certification I,Jos Schorr, state that: • I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. • I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified "occupational" under the FCC regulations. • I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation. • I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMasterTM modeling software. • I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 10 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No.CLL01310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 11 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No.325207 Site No.CLLO 1310 EBI Project No.6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,California Nearest Walking Surface Simulation 4 N RESIDENCES=20' !;, ..... ,. 1 I -- pl r II• LJIL II i GROUND LEVEL=O' r EQUIPMENT=B,,, I . � 1 I" SECTOR A • r , r 1 e i it 1------ -3 1motq - ; .......„,..N. 1 i — PT 1SECTOA D +►r_. = r _ r 11 1 SECTOR B • J ( _I� / .. � I 1 �cAurlO Proposed CAUTION _ 1 - _ 2B Sign at Base of -- =- -! Monotree �- —� = J.t%is«t l SECTOR C — L II L , t — ri ' V Percent MPE Legend I ❑ 0Z-100% GROUND LEVEL=O'.; ADJACENT BUILDING=26' 100:-500% i ! ❑ 500%-5000% • 5000%+ 11 �'., — _'� General Population Limits — - i , G Sula 09 — c u— `1 1 FarField Overlay —� 9 Reflection(1.61 _____1 . 10 toot grid size 1.11—*1 (Avg:26 to 32 Feet) I ,, i Carrier Color Code [ , --- I i 1 I [ . • ATT SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND ME ism* AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign ®._. AT&T CAUTION 2—Rooftop Sign Existing Sign fig ...r _A A AT&T WARNING I B and 2A Signs AT&T4' CAUTION 2B—Tower Sign Proposed Sign .NI... .... AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs A AT&T CAUTION 2C—Parapet Sign r - - - -- — — j Installed Sign _ -- - AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE Sign EBI Consulting • 21 B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 12 ATTACHMENT D Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. 71 San Marino Avenue Ventura,CA 93003 Office(805)650-0949 Fax(805)650-8054 www.easenv.com June 02,2023 AT&T Mobility,LLC Subject: Findings of a Biological Evaluation AT&T Mobility,LLC Candidate CLL01310 8101 Slater Avenue Huntington Beach,Orange County,California Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. (EAS) is pleased to submit this letter report addressing the biological resources associated with the subject AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) facility located within the City of Huntington Beach,Orange County,California. Telecommunication Site Description The proposed project is generally located on the east side of State Route 39, south and west of Interstate 405, in Huntington Beach, CA. The proposed mono-broadleaf will be installed within an existing landscaped planter on the north side of an existing asphalt paved church parking lot. The associated equipment compound will be installed within an existing landscaped planter in the northwest corner of the church property. The church property is located on the north side of Slater Avenue,east of the Beach Boulevard intersection, in Huntington Beach, CA. The proposed project is in Section 25 of Township 05S,Range 11W as shown on the USGS, Newport Beach, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle map. AT&T proposes the installation of 20 antennas (5 per sector, 4 sectors) onto a new 60' tall mono- broadleaf. Additionally, 48 LTE RRU's (12 per sector, 4 sectors) will be stack mounted behind the proposed antennas. The associated telecommunications equipment cabinets and back-up generator will be installed within a new 25'-4" x 16' CMU wall lease area. Additional ground disturbance will be required for the installation of utilities to the proposed project. Two established palm trees will be removed for the installation of the proposed mono-broadleaf. Two eucalyptus trees will be removed for the installation of the CMU wall equipment compound. Methods A biologist has evaluated any biological resources present on, adjacent to, or near the project site. The evaluation has been performed through a combination of research by EAS and a review of reference materials provided by AT&T. The evaluation's purpose is to determine whether the proposed action could potentially affect any biological resources. The biologist paid attention to the presence or potential occurrence of sensitive biological resources and the potential occurrence of wetlands. Project Biologist Martyn Leaver conducted a literature review to determine the potential for occurrence, on and near the project site,of sensitive plant and animal species as defined by the following: • The California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society 2023). • Telecommunication site plans provided by AT&T. • The National Wetlands Inventory On-line Wetlands Mapper(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 2023). • The U.S.National Wilderness Preservation System Map(Wilderness.net). • The California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)(California Department of Fish and Game 2023). • The National Wildlife Refuge System On-line Map(U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service 2023). • The Environmental Conservation Online System FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened&Endangered Species Online Mapper(U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service 2023). Results/Impact Analysis The proposed mono-broadleaf will be installed within an existing landscaped planter of an existing church parking lot, in Huntington Beach, CA. Ground disturbance will occur within existing landscaped planters within the asphalt paved parking lot of the church property. Trenching across the existing asphalt parking lot will be required to supply utilities from the mono-broadleaf to the equipment compound,then out to the utility POC within the Slater Avenue ROW. The site is subject to disturbance from frequent pedestrian use, vehicular traffic and routine maintenance activities associated with the church property. Land use adjacent to the project site generally consists of commercial properties in all directions. Established eucalyptus trees line the west side of the property. No undeveloped natural land occurs within the development footprint. Installation of the proposed facility will not result in any impacts to any native vegetation communities or suitable habitat for any sensitive plant or wildlife species. Based on the information provided by AT&T and EAS' biological evaluation: • The project site does not contain sensitive biological resources, including suitable habitat for listed threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species. • The site is not located in a designated critical habitat,wilderness area,or wildlife preserve. • The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed.No wetlands or riparian areas occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project will not result in any impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. Northern Long-Eared Bat(NLEB) The project is located outside of the NLEB's range. Therefore,no further action with USFWS or FCC is needed. Nesting Birds The established trees to be removed and those adjacent to the proposed trenching route provide suitable nesting habitat for several avian species. Therefore, pursuant to the MBTA and CFG Code, removal of vegetation or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 30. If construction activity occurs during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting survey will be required to determine if nesting activity occurs on site. If during the survey no nesting activity is observed, no further action is required. If nesting activity is observed, construction activity can proceed after the nestlings have fledged the nest. We at EAS appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Sincerely, Martyn Leaver Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. 6 National Wetlands Inventory lib. =IF. Ms.r...., IIIII 141•51. .. • x' • le at.Sine YAP •:. MN .14W 1"1 '1 illL,41.roP0 I 4 , 1.11•L 4E .....,... 0 61,108.^ 0 0 us....... I* !04......a 'A • •i , .. • (J 0•51.6....olunt• 0. 1 . .,. ' 0 .. Wetlands/Street Map '-!.t,••-:,?l.,:--,q-.-.„I.,-,,.4 m:;-1.*.,,-wgi.,.i. -.i,.'-;,-_._--t-_.•_, --'74'1--:•,-r'-,12sO—t-,,.-_--4...5.12 --4,.1-..-',1-.C.T.''..,:..:«..•)-'1,:,&,.l-_.-=g..-.!i,L-,_a;_'-)..,-.!L,.,t1--1._71-.:.g0--4-',i iP 1.-i'-ns-.2-.-'..H-1!-.,.•F,i.'.,•,..I•._.„•.„F---.Ma...it.lIp,,id."ti4,-f_.1l',-lf,.' -.4'_E,''-.-,:_-rl4'.•l l..-.'-..",'.z.'.-.,1.-I.1..:.7_tt-I,.4,s•tg l,•i.1-..4:-I.r..i1r.1,!i,I 1.L".,'t1-•%t4--'i.f,i'`-.4.-'-,-'',TE'.z116'I...1.-i:_-1I)i._7'i,.A,L'-.Z,.7S',-:,.;l '!Iif)'"llL;..,;.az;-;e"....':.0,.-k,",,,l,.aZ4.;..I•,.f,„•7ri.6i'.•,lyt%.'4.'+.,ta-.E P•-.'•i.,l.'.'itf.-.T,,-,mWiN.'r'Ift,'.6-•I'I r a3;,t it.';r.i 7sl*l.2.....!1J 6gg...1 n:.,,u.r,d''-.''-1,''—'-fi-1-'-%.-,7r-..kra.,f 7.:i..-;-;.L.1r'- 1•k.-7\'--1"`3-"..1,".--Z'V,•i--.e-1 7."''-,.b•..a'.dV-'in.JR'-•.:.p„i.„0,o•1'l'-i>,i4t,a..L.h.4.1..1.,2.m71:l f.14 1.-:'r''1,.11.4•.i.1.••,.-.':--,,--A_';a.1_A''n''t'-','.1 a=i!-e..f-1."..--"•-:A•"•.7,M-.-".A.I,i-‘l iI ei,-I _i4r - tM 7 w --- 1 .Nr.,,..m. s•asi,emcam. iits-ffff g1. ..i .7; ... .:•'4 -- ''''' ".r.'"' "'-'..-- ' L ...--,' -., tf+,7-'''..7:4- It-.s-ii7grii 44 t -4- .r 1 i,..i " . .'""'aii --\.. ' °Ns!' C-2:- ly.0",lei--1(.. .'1": 1-1' '—' ''1..,:' '''. C *1 ''''&7,r.,7,1.,,i, - " IF.6L` A'Z :f.7 i'.• -1 -• :' A•-4'1 -5.• .. ' 4`.:,',._( • ; , rf-L,.,L7. - i,„•:5;•'sr11 ", 1 ' I ' rj %I .1;4.. c••• ,4,,,LAta ..y I.;n':„. I,,rt.5.11,_Li._, , ,, ,0 I 8101 Slater Ave,Huntington Beach, - ""-• '';''''' 1..11:.-*' '. 1. ''' '.= , 26- - —, •••••• . Calrforrna.92647 it: ,-, • ....f \., 41 44110 10' '-131Ails ZIO .--- *. ;,,,... ,„.., Add to Map NoteS• *--- .41' 14:40.II i• ,. '1 kl C' ,—. ... i' --• c'.&J, ., t rt.-- .. lz,m,,4 •1 i' "CP.:,_,. :- --''- !!. \ ! r--. ., ,:„.aira78 ,i,(/2 •..L..ref . z- _. . .. '.,,, ...Or,'...ar".iit"'..- ....'is '1111:TRCV".. Nlikrr,.. . '';1.,'4,8,t. . .i-,-,iilipa' • -1".at... _ i ...egi-Hkr _ .L.o.s-,.., --44 ...r!,...;:,:;,.,; et ._..., . 1 ., 185ri.4., .\'---- .0 ii u;,i 2--' '---• air.. -- . .-, ',i.-ir,. .-,1.*.' ,-;, , --.... .dikrts.. 4. .1....-:4-ftt:':.'4.!.!v:::---'--- -- • -411,,,Itrik/*--- . 261. ° .--7,4 , - • ;_•.t,..>_.:- ,-,-- --'4.,;-77.----.. -ri i •-!I , : —_ ‘",III 3 -,-- -21...' 0., n 1 '10.1-1 '' A.;,:p - r-,-,,--j r--.7.17)-7';,,,.,---T;TI i-! ;.,,-,..3.- 11- ,'.-4 11;1_ • — Ytth si. ."-- Plif*.I.VNIS2C.i, , ...... N . .\ 4' ril ii-r.d. ZA-",:,,,'' -.ie'r.-...,:i4i—Vi ?,,,'.1,14,' i...d.i,,:'''-:.:V''-,.' r illefici,,• °WOW -11 --- "".-11M;-'641..-- !I .:.;.....;,......es. -„,,,,...........,... 1144411 .4'. 7,'''''''• Lt.'... '- TaA. ".. `: - ii . •-.- •. . . •r..a III w inli 4 . 4 _ `-'1---.: te.-0.---...-,--.. 1„•,-; =,.:7_,.:4111b..,:s.• • :.,•.,i_-'47.--,--, ..,t_,,i.'. . ,.'...1' ' 111"1 -- - •.1• 0- 8.;..`"ivilli•tim ii RI-'. . ,"'"J'. • •Y,L'‘...c;.. •-i:apagn 4.. '' ,....".2.-;e--'..-- --\-1;,....11...P.' 1 ''''.. li•mmi or_ ' ti,'1 --.' ,',„,,_14.S,-..„'Aci.„4,,,:?,;:7,,i4,;-•vii._, ,,,,,,,:if ,14,1 :f„7..., ..rj.u, .1,1,.,,,-, II. °I .,Ig& 2J... .4e. •• rt,kiA/2;--,•"4.' 1 I- 11- , u.,.. , ..., ...0. ,.,2,4 . , . ,. 14.. _;:- .-. oili, ....":•.-.1,,.c- :- -1'3- _ l, ' I \ \la-4,1/4. ,...,,,- ,.. „„: . .,,... .. _ ,-„, , . _ , .,,,,. ..._.3 c„..), ._ _,,,,,. , Ao - , r,,,,, .\ .-L.... .., . , , ,,,, . .- ,.,:. „._ .., ...,,::"....„.-,71...1,:.,'.,„,,--r_V--` : '"'•' '--- :.L.. .:-22--,), ._ .i_..,,4 .,...'',,; 'N 5's\ \ \\ — s,- N. ' 1:''*V '6,11."1''• fill 4:0.'i 'V. L=17._,....,,,,:::: 4* 31rill flifN II -- I 44;1,fl ''''I ' . . . ,. \ . zs: . ..‘, ,.. ., . .; . .t,,,,,te . ,.. a.,i,„1,..1.,_,,. ....2 _ ,...-_,!4,0,0--,-::-.!.. ' -7.',r_i;/.....*F"`: • .-irclut i 1.6-0'131..1 alG h. M ad 'VW . em•er. ...a.e, ......, .a..1.1 . Topographical Map/ Critical Habitat A review of the CNDDB and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants resulted in a list of 72 sensitive wildlife species, 04 sensitive plant community(s), and 29 sensitive plant species that occur within the Newport Beach, CA USGS topographic quadrangle. Element Type Scientific Name Common Name Animals-Birds Accipiter cooperii Coopers hawk Animals-Birds Circus hudsonius northern harrier Animals-Birds Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Animals-Birds Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Animals-Birds Bucephala islandica Barrows goldeneye Animals-Birds Ardea alba great egret Animals-Birds Ardea herodias great blue heron Animals-Birds Egretta thula snowy egret Animals-Birds Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron Animals-Birds Charadrius montanus mountain plover Animals-Birds Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover Animals-Birds Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo Animals-Birds Phoebastria albatrus short-tailed albatross Animals-Birds Falco columbarius merlin Animals-Birds Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon Animals-Birds Gavia immer common loon Animals-Birds Antigone canadensis canadensis lesser sandhill crane Animals-Birds Progne subis purple martin Animals-Birds Riparia riparia bank swallow Animals-Birds Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird Animals-Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat Animals-Birds Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Animals-Birds Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern Animals-Birds Larus californicus California gull Animals-Birds Sternula antillarum browni California least tern Animals-Birds Thalasseus elegans elegant tern Animals-Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey Animals-Birds Setophaga petechia yellow warbler Animals-Birds Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Animals-Birds Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Beldings savannah sparrow Animals-Birds Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican Animals-Birds Nannopterum auritum double-crested cormorant Animals-Birds Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher Animals-Birds Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail Animals-Birds Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Animals-Birds Rallus obsoletus levipes light-footed Ridgways rail Animals-Birds Numenius americanus long-billed curlew Animals-Birds Asio flammeus short-eared owl Animals-Birds Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Animals-Birds Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis Animals-Birds Calypte costae Costas hummingbird Animals-Birds Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird Animals-Birds Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus coastal cactus wren sandiegensis Animals-Birds Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher Animals-Birds Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Animals-Crustaceans Branchinecta sandiegonensis _ San Diego fairy shrimp Animals-Crustaceans Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp Animals-Fish Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Animals-Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 steelhead-southern California DPS Animals-Insects Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee Animals-Insects Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee Animals-Insects Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle Animals-Insects Cicindela latesignata western beach tiger beetle Animals-Insects Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima greenest tiger beetle Animals-Insects Habroscelimorpha gabbii western tidal-flat tiger beetle Animals-Insects Panoquina errans wandering(=saltmarsh)skipper Animals-Insects Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch-California overwintering population Animals-Insects Coelus globosus globose dune beetle Animals-Mammals Lepus califomicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Animals-Mammals Eumops perotis califomicus western mastiff bat Animals-Mammals Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat Animals-Mammals Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter Animals-Mammals Taxidea taxus American badger Animals-Mammals Sorex omatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew Animals-Mammals Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Animals-Mammals Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis Animals-Mollusks Haliotis sorenseni white abalone Animals-Mollusks Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia(=California brackishwater snail) Animals-Reptiles Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless lizard Animals-Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle Animals-Reptiles Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard Animals-Reptiles Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail Community-Terrestrial Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Community-Terrestrial Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Community-Terrestrial Southern Dune Scrub Community-Terrestrial Southern Foredunes Plants-Vascular Eryngium aristulatum var.parishii San Diego button-celery Plants-Vascular Centromadia parryi ssp.australis southern tarplant Plants-Vascular Helianthus nuttallii ssp.parishii Los Angeles sunflower Plants-Vascular Isocoma menziesii var.decumbens decumbent goldenbush Plants-Vascular Lasthenia glabrata ssp.coulteri Coulters goldfields Plants-Vascular Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Plants-Vascular Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's water cress Plants-Vascular Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma Plants-Vascular Atriplex coulteri Coulters saltbush Plants-Vascular Atriplex pacifica south coast saltscale Plants-Vascular Atriplex serenana var.davidsonii Davidsons saltscale Plants-Vascular Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite Plants-Vascular Suaeda taxifolia woolly seablite Plants-Vascular Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya Plants-Vascular Eleocharis parvula small spikerush Plants-Vascular Astragalus homii var.homii Horns milk-vetch Plants-Vascular Phacelia ramosissima var.austrolitoralis south coast branching phacelia Plants-Vascular Juncus acutus ssp.leopoldii southwestern spiny rush Plants-Vascular Sidalcea neomexicana salt spring checkerbloom Plants-Vascular Nama stenocarpa mud nama Plants-Vascular Abronia maritima red sand-verbena Plants-Vascular Abronia villosa var.aurita chaparral sand-verbena Plants-Vascular Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis evening-primrose Plants-Vascular Chloropyron maritimum ssp.maritimum salt marsh birds-beak Plants-Vascular Hordeum intercedens vernal barley Plants-Vascular Orcuttia califomica California Orcutt grass Plants-Vascular Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia Plants-Vascular Nemacaulis denudata var.denudata coast woolly-heads Plants-Vascular Lycium califomicum California box-thorn • MARTYN LEAVER BIOLOGIST PROJECT MANAGER Mr.Leaver is a Biologist,Graduated from University of Missouri,school PROFESSIONAL HISTORY of biological sciences. He has inventoried both plant and wildlife in Missouri,and consulted on Biological projects in California.Mr.Leaver Environmental Assessment has performed and managed Environmental Assessments and Specialists Investigations for the past 21 years.Mr.Leaver has extensive knowledge of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Project Manager Historic Preservation Action Section 106 requirements for the FCC Biologist wireless industry.Mr.Leaver has also been involved in the Consultation with Native American Tribes regarding both collocations and new EDUCATION telecommunications projects in California. B.A.,Biological Sciences, University of PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Missouri,Kansas City.School of • Provided QA/QC review of environmental reports including Biological Sciences NEPA environmental screens, cultural resource surveys, architectural historian surveys, view shed surveys, and biological assessments. • Managed environmental vendors for EAS West Region (California)and Northwest Region (Washington). • Participated in tracing source of E.coli contamination,in the Brush Creek Flood Control Project,Kansas City,Missouri. • Researched the effects of river bank construction on resident beaver populations along the Missouri River. • Conducted fish population survey on Blue Springs Creek,Blue Springs,Missouri. • Performed Biological resource investigations with Database searches using the California Natural Diversity Database, for light industrial, telecommunications, commercial facilities, residential developments and vacant parcels. Moore, Tania From: K Carroll <kcrissie7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 18, 2023 11:20 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: City Council/Public Financing Authority Mtg.July 18, 2023 Dear Mayor Strictland, Pro Tem Gracey Van Der Mark,Pat Burns, Casey McKeon, First off,thank you so much for what you are doing! You are doing an amazing job listening to residents and improving the quality of life from what it has been previous to your election. My daughter and family moved away from HB because of the homeless issue and safety concerns for their kids. They just visited and commented on how it has improved and I have noticed it too. Drove down Main Street the other day and it was so refreshing, clean and I did not see one homeless person. Love that we can drive down also instead of blocking off the street. I also think it is safer not having a street open that creates crowds. The improvement of the homeless is out of bounds. The previous majority said it could not be done and one excuse after another. Thank you for giving the Police Department the tools to do their job instead of continuing to pour money into ineffective 'remedies'. Look at LA who are asking for billions of additional funding, i.e.,taxation. Thank you for allowing me to comment on a few agenda items for tonight: j-23-585: No on appeal. Please keep our residential area's residential. This is an eye sore, health concerns and does lessen property value. 23-622: No. Let HR do their job. They should be spending their time recruiting and not tasked with ridiculous time consuming nonsense. From a previous HR Director,typically, I encourage people to make moves to enhance their careers and income. That is not a bad thing. If you can promote, if not let them move on to be a rock star instead of staying stagnant. It does cost to recruit and that cost should not be a factor in retention. 23-633: A huge YES on this. Thank you! Elan iwas and continues to be a disaster. Should have never been built,vacant stores on the bottom. Looks terrible. And the deal on taxes should have NOT been made by the council. That is a ballot item. Pipeline purchase for the homeless was another disaster by the previous council where they purchased in an industrial park where a homeless shelter accommodation necessary was never allowed by the regulations in the industrial park. Barbara Delglaize voted on this and her brother's real estate firm brokered the deal. That is criminal. Then the city had to turn around and sell for over 1 million dollar loss to the taxpayers. To add to this, Michael Gates never saw the contract. I don't believe that Barbara Delglaize did not know that it could not be used as a shelter with her being in Real Estate including PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. Michael Gates should review all contracts before purchase. I believe the council intentionally kept this from Michael Gates. No comments on all the other items. Know you will again hit home runs. Again,thank you to our fab four!! To the rest of you,we know you are undermining the City Council Majority and Huntington Beach Citizens who you never listened to. Keep it up. You will NEVER be re-elected. Your attempts on Michael Gates worked really well, didn't it? His fan base skyrocketed and will continue to do so as it will with the current majority. i Moore, Tania From: Cindi Lee <CLee@ovsd.org> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 6:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Frakes, Sandie Subject: OVSD Correspondence re Item 23-585 - Huntington Beach City Council Agenda, July 18, 2023 Attachments: CC Letter 07-18-23 ATT Tower 7-17-23.pdf Good day, Please see the attached correspondence from Ocean View School District regarding the above subject matter. Thank you. Cindi Lee, Executive Assistant Office of the Superintendent OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 847-2551, ext. 1309 clee@ovsd.org v-,... 1 Ocean View tit School District Connections Before Content! SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date; 7//Sr/ao,33 Agenda Item No.; /7 ( 3 -_Ws- 1 io Ocean View School District �k`� Board of Trustees � 17200 Pinehurst Lane, Superintendent ,�� Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Michael Conroy, Ed. D. Patricia Singer,President �lb" Tel: 714 847-2551 Gina Clayton-Tarvin,Vice President "Equity and Fax: 714 847-1430 Jack C.Souders,Clerk Excellence- Morgan Westmoreland,Member Web: www.ovsd.org Norm Westwell,Member SENT VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION City.Council@surfcity-hb.org SupplementalComm@surfcitv-hb.org July 17, 2023 The Honorable Tony Strickland, Mayor, and Members of the City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Item 23-585 City Council Agenda July 18, 2023 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action that Upheld the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) Dear Mayor Strickland and City Councilmembers: Ocean View School District supports the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 ("Project") for a 60-foot wireless cell tower located at 8101 Slater Avenue. We request the City Council deny the Project. The appellant, Ms. Christine Price, raises significant concerns with the proposed cell tower that need to be addressed prior to any action by the city on the application. Ocean View School District's Lake View Elementary School is near the proposed Project, and we have concerns with the negative impacts to our students, staff, and facilities. The application materials and supporting exhibits are in error and do not provide accurate information for the public or decision makers to understand or act on the Project. CEQA Determination The appellant identified concerns with using Categorical Exemption Section 15303, New Construction or conversion of Small Structures for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination.Although the staff report does not identify what Class 3 construction type the project falls under, it is difficult to conclude the single 60-foot artificial looking broad-leaf- tree cell tower is like a fence, water main, an additional single-family home, or duplex. All the items listed under a Class 3 exemption would blend with and be like the surroundings and would be of similar heights or be in or at ground level. The proposed 60-foot cell tower does not blend with the surroundings aesthetically. The cell tower visually dominates the area, and there are no board leaf trees like this in the area. Furthermore, although the church site has a commercial zoning designation, the adjacent properties are zoned residential. Residential zoning is listed as Huntington Beach City Council July 17, 2023 Page 2 of 4 a sensitive land use in the General Plan. Adverse project aesthetics impact the residents' quality of life. The Project needs to have a prepared environmental impact report, or at the least, a mitigated negative declaration that analyzes and mitigates the Project's impacts to aesthetics and land use. It also should establish a need for the facility based on significant coverage gaps defined in the Zoning Code as lack of service. The analysis needs to include project alternatives that lessen environmental impacts, such as a different location, design, and height of the cell tower. Aesthetics The photo simulations provided by the applicant do not correctly depict the impact of the proposed cell tower. South Elevation, page 3 of the Plan Set (Attachment 2 of the Staff Report), indicates the cell tower is significantly taller than the eucalyptus trees that border the property line. The southeast view (Photo Simulation View 3) from Windy Sands Circle indicates the cell tower is significantly lower than the eucalyptus trees, as well as the pine tree next to the block wall. Google Maps, Street View provides an excellent view of the church and its parking lot. The pine tree depicted on Windy Sands Circle is significantly lower than the adjacent eucalyptus trees.The aesthetic impact from the cell tower is significantly greater than is depicted in the photo simulation. The photo simulation depicts the cell tower to be significantly lower than the pine tree, which cannot be the case. Sight prospective does not justify the difference.Also,the top of the pine tree seems to have been altered to appear fuller and possibly taller than it is as shown below: /Rh/ , 1 \. .a . r • Af , It ' '4,.. 4,1.,,..4, F,'.'.! \.', 0 '' � ( � .- wa''�. F� a ro Google Maps Street View of Church Site Photo Simulation,Attachment 2 Staff Report Denial Procedure: Staff recommends if the City Council desires to deny Conditional Use Permit 23-006,that the findings not be adopted, and the Conditional Use Permit be continued. However, this is a de novo hearing, and if the project is denied, the applicant would need to reapply for a conditional use permit pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning Code Section 248.14 — Denial Huntington Beach City Council July 17, 2023 Page 3 of 4 Without Prejudice. However, if denied with prejudice, the applicant would be required to wait one year to reapply, Section 248.12. Need for 60-Foot Cell Tower Zoning Code Section 230.96—Wireless Communication Facilities states a wireless provider may choose a federal preemption because of significant coverage gap in existing service.The applicant states in the Zoning Justification Letter, Attachment 4 to the Staff Report, that they have identified a significant gap in coverage, although the location is left blank. The applicant submitted the "Gap in Coverage Exhibit" found in Attachment 5 of the staff report. This exhibit states that green depicts signal coverage for inside buildings,yellow is sufficient for on-street and most in-vehicle and some in-building, with purple is sufficient signal strength for outdoors, but may not be for in-vehicle or in-building coverage. Coverage signals are represented by-dBm to determine signal strength.The lower the -dBm the better the quality of service. A signal strength of-50 dBm is excellent and -100 dBm would result in loss of connection and poor service quality. Signal strength for a cell phone correlates to number of bars on the mobile device. -50 to-79 dBm is considered a great signal with 4-5 bars, - 80 to -89 dBm is a good signal with 3-4 bars, -90 to 99 dBm is average with 2-3 bars and -100 to 109 dBm is a poor signal at 1 to 2 bars. The ideal signal strength for wireless TV streaming is -67 dBm or better. The applicant indicates that they have identified "significant gap in coverage." The exhibit indicates the proposed service area of the cell tower to be mostly purple, -95dMBy, with most roadways as yellow at-85dMb. AT&T indicates that 5G is provided for all this area. The applicant has not established that there is a lack of service, but merely an opportunity to enhance the existing signal strength one more bar. Gap in Coverage Exhibit (Attachment 5 to Staff Report) The Gap in Coverage Exhibit is not adequate to understand the signal strength or coverage or the applicant's Project goal. The Gap in Coverage Exhibit needs to be revised to map meaningful signal strengths, such as -50 dBm or better, -50 dBm to -67 dBm, etc., and areas that are worse than -100 dBm that have significant gaps in coverage. Furthermore, the Gap in Coverage Exhibit is not accurate and uses an out-of-date base map of Huntington Beach. Cell Tower CLL03433 is depicted southwesterly of Talbert Avenue and Beach Blvd. intersection near residential land uses; however, it is located at 18080 Beach Blvd. on the southeasterly corner of Talbert Avenue and Beach Blvd on commercial property. This tower is over 68 feet in height.The underlying base map indicates Crest View Elementary School is in close proximity to a cell tower. However, Crest View Elementary school is closed, and a Walmart shopping center is located on the site. Ocean View School District has a policy not locate a cell tower on any of its property. Land Use The Project is inconsistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and Zoning Code.Zoning Code Section 230.96 — Wireless Communication Facilities states the purpose of this section is to Huntington Beach City Council July 17, 2023 Page 4 of 4 protect public safety, general welfare, and quality of life by regulating the location, height, and physical characteristics, and provide for orderly efficient placement of Wireless Communication Facilities. The applicant is required to establish that a significant gap in wireless coverage exists; the Gap in Coverage Exhibit does not do this and is inaccurate.The applicant has not established the purpose of the Project. The Project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-1-D because it is not of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. The proposed cell tower dominates the site, and is taller than the eucalyptus trees planted along the side property line. The photo simulations have been altered to make the cell tower appear smaller and nearby vegetation wider and taller, resulting in altering the understanding of the visual impacts by adjacent property owners. The City Council cannot make this finding to approve the Project. The Project is not consistent with Public Services and Infrastructure Element Goal PSI-10 or Policy PSI-10-C in that the cell tower, as designed and located, will be detrimental to the quality of life of adjacent residential properties, and has a significant visual impact to the residents within 55 feet of the facility. The proposed cell tower does not blend with the surrounding area and is significantly taller and nothing like the eucalyptus trees planted along the side property lines. Furthermore, eucalyptus trees in Orange County have frequently been removed from properties due to disease,tendency to be messy,and dropping of large branches causing liability to property owners. The proposed project findings rely on the existing eucalyptus trees that can easily be removed at any time. The Project should analyze the visual impact if the eucalyptus trees are removed. Ocean View School District supports the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 23-006,and we ask the City Council to vote to deny the application. The city needs to prepare at least a mitigated negative declaration per CEQA requirements.The applicant needs to mitigate aesthetic impacts to the adjacent residents, provide photo simulations that correctly depict the proposed cell tower, and correct the analyses and provide a better understanding of the "gap in coverage" to the decision makers and public. The applicant needs to provide meaningful project alternatives to lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Sincerely, .ice`✓���c Michael Conroy, Ed. D. Superintendent Ocean View School District cc: Al Zelinka, Huntington Beach City Manager (Sandie.Frakes@surfcity-hb.org) Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Appellant Letter- 7/8 City Council Hearing Agenda Item 17 re CUP No. 23-006 (AT&T Wireless Facility) Attachments: 2023-07-17 Price Appeal Letter to Council- inc attachments.pdf From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:00 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Beckman, Hayden<hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Appellant Letter-7/8 City Council Hearing Agenda Item 17 re CUP No. 23-006 (AT&T Wireless Facility) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Attached, please find a letter on behalf of Christina Price,the appellant in connection with July 18th Agenda item 17 concerning appeal of CUP No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility). Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: CIAOa3 Agenda Item No.; /? (23 -SYS) 1 Ariel Strauss,Of-Counsel 2748 Adeline Street, Ste.A GREEN FI R E Berkeley,CA 94703 LAW, PC 510-900-9502 x 702 astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com July 17, 2023 Via Electronic Mail To: City.Council@surfcity-hb.org RE: Opposition to Approval of CUP No.23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility)-Agenda Item 17 Table of Contents A. The Planning Commission Tie Vote Denied the Permit Because AT&T had the Burden of Establishing Each Required Finding. B. AT&T's Application is Incomplete and Fails to Consider Potential Colocation with 1,000 Feet. C. AT&T Did Not Establish that the Facility will Not be "Detrimental to the Value of the Property and Improvements in the Neighborhood. " D. The Council must Consider the Foreseeable Impact of a Future Taller Tower. E. Noise from the Diesel Generator Violates the Noise Ordinance and General Plan. F. AT&T's Project will Spew Unacceptable Pollution and be Detrimental to the General Welfare. G. AT&T's Project Violates Federal Law and HBZSO Section 230.96(G)(6). H. A 60-Foot Tower in a CO Zone with a Diesel Generator does not Qualify for the CEQA Exemption. I. The City Must Retain an Expert if it Intends to Approve the Application Based on Asserted Preemption. J. Conclusion. Exhibits A, B, C 1 Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council Members Burns, McKeon, Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton: I am writing on behalf of appellant Christina Price requesting that the Council deny a conditional use permit (CUP) for the 60-foot wireless communication facility and associated equipment proposed to be constructed at 8101 Slater Ave. A letter detailing the deficiencies in AT&T Mobility's (AT&T) application and additional background supporting the negative property value impacts of the facility were previously submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the appeal hearing held on June 13, 2023, and will be provided again separately for your review. This letter reiterates some of those materials and responds to the Staff Report and AT&T's letter submitted on July 14, 2023. K. The Planning Commission Tie Vote Denied the Permit Because AT&T had the Burden of Establishing Each Required Finding. Ms. Price already prevailed at the Planning Commission appeal hearing held on June 13th This is because, due to the absence of one commissioner,three commissioners voted to deny the appeal and three commissioners voted to uphold the appeal. As explained in the letter provided to the City Attorney and Planning Commission Chair on June 14, 2023 (see Exhibit A),the Planning Commission appeal and this City Council appeal hearing are both de novo and, according to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), "the applicant has the burden of proof at the public hearing on the application and at the public hearing on the appeal."' "The reviewing body shall hear the appeal as a new matter.The original applicant has the burden of proof."2 State law is explicit that when an appeal is on a de novo standard and the applicant has the burden of proof,the applicant must secure a majority vote to establish all required findings for issuance of a permit.3 Therefore,a tie vote was the Commission's refusal to the make the required findings and a denial of the permit application. This is also clarified by Section 11 of the Commission's Bylaws, which states: "An affirmative vote of a majority of the members present and voting shall be required for the passage of any matter before the Commission, except as otherwise noted in these bylaws." Legally, according to the standards of the HBZSO, the "matter before the Commission" was whether AT&T met its burden for issuance of a permit; as quoted above this is a "new matter." ' HBZSO§248.06. 2 Id. §248.20(D). 3 See, e.g., Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach(1996)48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1176 n;REA Enters. v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm. (1976)52 Cal.App.3d 596,612;Anderson v. Pittenger(1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 188, 195. 2 The Assistant City Attorney wrongly contended that a general statement in the City Council Manual, which is a guidance document for the City Council, transforms a tie vote into an approval of the permit. However,the City Council Manual does not override the clear standards in the HBZSO.4 The Council should conclude that the Commission's tie vote denied AT&T's application and refund Ms. Price's exorbitant appeal fee of$4,001.50. L. AT&T's Application is Incomplete and Fails to Consider Potential Colocation with 1,000 Feet. The Staff Report claims that AT&T need not comply with the Wireless Permit application requirements because its application is subject to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP),5 and demanding that information"would be duplicative."6 However, this is backward. First, the appeal is based on the failure of AT&T to provide missing information, such as the required number of photo simulation perspectives, "close-in photo simulations," and photos angle information stated on the City's application form,7 as well as a listing of existing antennas within 1,000 feet as required in the HBZSO.None of this missing material is "duplicative." Second, a CUP is a higher threshold precisely because the project does not qualify for a Wireless Permit on account of being a ground-mounted structure exceeding the allowed height in the zone by more than 10 feet.8 Therefore, it is illogical and backwards to claim that the minimum aesthetic and colocation information necessary to review a Wireless Permit application is somehow beyond what is needed for approval of a CUP. Larger stand-alone facilities are precisely the type that should be required to be collocated whenever possible given that they have the greatest propensity for detrimental aesthetics. The Code states that the applicant,"at a minimum shall provide the following information . . . Locations of all other Wireless Antennas within 1,000 feet of a proposed ground- mounted Facility. Co-location of ground mounted facilities shall be required where feasible The Forward to the Council Manual declares:"Any information contained in the Council Manual that conflicts with Federal,State or Huntington Beach law is superseded by the conflicting law." 5 See Staff Report,Section 4(c))"HBZSO Section 230.96(E)(1)(g)and(g)(5)apply to co-location.As previously stated,the proposed project was not subject to the review or approval of a wireless permit,and thus this section is not applicable.") 6 Staff Report, Section 3. 7 See items 2.08,3.02,3.06,4.01 and 5.01 of https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Wireless- Permit-Application-.pdf. 8 HBZSO§230.96(B)(3) 3 whenever such a Facility is proposed within 1,000 feet of any existing Wireless Antenna."9 The Staff Report disparages the significance of the lack of any mapping by stating that"there is no other operating freestanding wireless facility within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site."10 Nevertheless,the Code requires identification and analysis of colocation potential for "any existing Wireless Antenna."According to the ordinance definitions, "Wireless Antenna" includes roof mounted antennas and"permitted Wireless Antennas that have not yet been constructed[.]"11 The requirement is not limited to"freestanding wireless facilities." Staff and AT&T have simply made up this narrow condition. A search of the City's Accela Citizen Access portal for Wireless Permits turns up hundreds of approvals.A quick initial review revealed that Wireless Permit No. 2010-0043 was approved for 17473 Beach Blvd. in 2010. On May 20,2021, a building permit was issued for a cell site modification for six rooftop antennas.A copy of building permit B2020-005664 is attached as Exhibit B.As depicted in the GoogleEarth measurement below,this site near the corner of Beach Blvd. and Slater Ave. is within than 850 feet AT&T's proposed facility. 9 Id.§230.96(E)(1()g);see also§230.96(G)(5). 10 In response to my Public Records Act request(reference C004344-062123)of June 21,2023,for"address of wireless communication facilities 40 feet or greater that were approved by the City within the past 8 years[,]"staff informed me: Unfortunately,we do not have a way to filter our records to show all of the cell towers in in our city.Cell towers and their associated equipment can be submitted under various types of applications(Wireless permits,building permits and conditional use permits)so you may want to refer to either our online portal or our online records library. I do not know how staff made a determination that there no nearby stand-alone facilities. "HBZSO,§230.96(B)(6),(11). 4 *1,,-1I-II t- *---.-:‘t--._----t Ir'I,, i 1vitt 1 y u ! _ _ T+ 'j1 4 A^ Il s t r y �f _ , .1 . _-„ I- Ill 4 . F �. r� `H. j 0 4 r ,fps „At i. 1� "7. F -�rta I i c� � - 6e� 1 ' . 1 I 1 'v I }},, .1. .1 `'err _ u '��, ven Bpren lane, � I k :�y :y h., h �r,}.� il rz +., r ;;y.,,,,,,, li t` . , ' k m l_ _ -.. 1 _. :AI 1 "i3 Ire I .I'— _ 11 7.,M-'011' AT&T was required to identify all existing Wireless Antennas within 1,000 feet but plainly failed to do so, even after the issue was pointed out in the Planning Commission appeal. AT&T was also obligated to evaluate the feasibility of collocating on any nearby facility, including but not limited to the one at 17473 Beach Blvd.,but this too it has not done. As a result,the application must be denied as deficient. M. AT&T Did Not Establish that the Facility will Not be "Detrimental to the Value of the Property and Improvements in the Neighborhood." In plain legal error,the Staff Report asserts"There is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate to the City that there would be no detriment to property values in the neighborhood."12 This is perplexingly wrong. The HBZSO requires that AT&T"must apply for a conditional use permit(CUP)to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Chapter 241 of the HBZSO."13 Staff concur that a CUP is the 12 Staff Report,Section 4(a). 13 HBZSO§230.96(E)(3). 5 correct application process. According to Chapter 241, a required finding for issuance of a CUP is that"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."14 This burden must be borne by AT&T. The Staff Report further brushes aside property value concerns by stating that"City staff are unaware of any negative property value impact claims related to any previously approved wireless communication facility in the City. Further,the appellant has not provided any evidence to support the claim that the project would have an impact to the value of surrounding properties."15 Being"unaware" of impacts on other sites cannot carry the burden to confirm a lack of negative impact in this location.AT&T has similarly dismissed property value issue by citing to general academic studies and claiming all opposition is based on health fears. Specifically,the concern is that a 60-foot tower that can,by-right under federal law as discussed below, grow to 80 feet,will be a conspicuous commercial imposition that will diminish to the resale value of homes on Windy Sands Circle shown in this aerial photograph: - muaitly nnuun9 eu experinu:uLJ vesi..r ul'a0i. .� ! ' ---s St\ .. _ • ,., 1! . _�1 7. Y 1 „illI F - .. _ _____ 1 .,. _n. A sit ig. f i40 . k i ;,..„..... , ,,___,,..6-7 ',4---- . _ _ i_ _. ;! (ITs` ! I. I 4 I F- fir _ — -' I 1 11 Iti 1 . II ' -11' - ii, . _ ft .....ss MON I • - .•_,. �, _ Os' ., 14 Id.§241.10(A)(1). 15 Staff Report,Section 4(a). 6 Everybody knows that good schools increase property values in a community. But that does not mean,regardless of how it is run or configured,building a school will improve the property value of a property right next door. The same is true for a cell tower.Even if people want good cell service,the facility itself can be detrimental to adjacent homes. The property line for the closest home is within 60 feet of the proposed facility,or in other terms, less than the height of the tower itself. "[O]bjections raised by neighbors who know the local terrain and the sightlines of their own homes"do constitute "substantial evidence" of aesthetic harm.16 Many neighbors in public comment and letters to the Commission complained that they can tell the difference between a fake tree and a real tree; one comment described it as an"eyesore." If the"observations of self-interested neighbors conflict with an expert study submitted by a self-interested applicant,"the Council has the authority and discretion to side with the neighbors.17 The City cannot discount valid aesthetic objections merely because neighbors also express opposition on health grounds. The City Council itself legislatively determined that wireless faciliteis pose a threat of "potential negative aesthetic impacts of Wireless Communication Facilities, including visual blight and diminution of property value[.]"i8 In fact this is a primary"purpose" of the City's ordinance and staff and AT&T must not simply waive away this concern. A"completely stealth" Wireless Communication Facility is one"that has been designed to completely screen all aspects of the Facility including appurtenances and equipment from public view."19 Staff and AT&T concede that the proposed tower does not qualify for this designation.The HBZSO specifically determined that facilities precisely like this one, namely one that is not completely stealth,exceeds allowable height in the zone and is ground-mounted must pass discretionary CUP review.20 The fact that the Wireless Facility is clad in plastic branches cannot justify an automatic approval. At the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner specifically asked in the future that AT&T provide actual photos of the equipment and of this type faux tree in operation. AT&T's representative said that AT&T could do that. However, AT&T's visual materials have not been updated whatsoever. Given its proposed height,the tower will have full sun. Because it is to the 16 Omnipoint Comms.,Inc. v. City of White Plains(2d Cir.2005)430 F.3d 529,534. 17 Id. 18 HBZSO§230.96(A). 19 Id.§230.96(B)(4). 20 Id.§230.96(E)(2)(c). 7 south of the residences it will be backlit part of the year.The Council must consider whether the antenna equipment would remain hidden in full sunlight and avoid any reflecting or glinting 21 The extent of shadow cast on any neighboring properties,particularly during the winter months and near sunset must also be assessed. The opaque, simulated facility images do not allow these details to be determined. Given the Council's familiarity with community norms,the Council should determine that AT&T has not met its burden of demonstrating that this facility will not be "detrimental to the value of the" adjacent homes on Windy Sands Circle. N. The Council must Consider the Forseeable Impact of a Future Taller Tower. Federal law entitles AT&T, or any other carrier such as T-Mobile or Verizon,to add to this tower and expand it horizontally and vertically by up to 20 feet in each direction, regardless of any local zoning restrictions.22 The already-proposed height of 60 feet causes the facility to extend well above any of the nearest buildings,which are only two stories. The City must now consider the impact of an 80-foot tower(twice the height allowed in the CO zone). The Staff Report misleadingly reassures that expansion of the facility"would require a new Conditional Use Permit application before any such modification could be made to an existing monopole facility such as is proposed."23 While as a formality, a wireless carrier would have to procedurally request a CUP, in substance, federal statute expressly declares that"a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."24 FCC regulations defines a"modification . . .that does not substantially change"it to include the addition of collocated antennas and expansion 20 feet in any direction.25 The City will lack discretion to deny or meaningfully condition a large size increase. This should be a serios concern for the Council because the CUPs may only be approved if 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."26 In this instance,uniquely,the use can expand 21 Note that the design shows that the antennas are only 18 inches from edge of the plastic"canopy."(Attach#2 t the Agenda,Sheet A-2,Antenna Plan.) 22 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)(i),(ii). 23 Staff Report Section 4(b). 24 47 U.S.Code 1455(a)(1). 25 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100. 26 HBZSO§241.10(A)(1). 8 massively.Establishing it today can result in operations that will be detrimental to property values and general welfare because of its improper height that will draw excessive attention and cast shadows over adjacent residential backyards. While the probability that this growth will occur is unknown, it is certainly foreseeable. This is particularly so given that staff note there are no other stand-alone facilities in the vicinity so other carriers may wish to also locate on this site. This concern was noted by a Planning Commissioner as well. Regardless of the assumed likelihood of expansion,the purpose of a CUP is to impose sensible regulations to allow community assurance of the orderly use of property for the long-term future27 Because uncontrolled growth of this site will be detrimental in this location context,AT&T has not met its burden for approval of a CUP. O. Noise from the Diesel Generator Violates the Noise Ordinance and General Plan. In a letter to the Planning Commission submitted last month,the appellant detailed how cooling systems and 20kW Generac diesel generator just feet from a residential property line is likely to violate the Noise Ordinance.Notably,AT&T has all the information, such as data sheets and design specifications,necessary to prove that it will comply,if that is indeed the case. Instead of providing this information,AT&T stated in its letter of July 14th that"[t]here is no indication the Proposed Facility will not comply fully with the city's rules." Such a generic asserted lack of"indication" of violation does not meet the applicant's burden of proof to affirmatively establish compliance. It rather simply speaks to AT&T's decision not to share any information. It also is not responsive to the appellant's previous recitation in its letter to the Commission that a publicly available operating data sheet advertises a noise level of 70 dBA at 23 feet when"operating at normal load."28 This figure is just a marketing example and does not include deviations from advertised specifications,peak volumes, echoing, increase noise levels as the system ages or other issues. Under the Noise Ordinance,"fixed noise sources"may not produce noise received at the outdoor residential property line,which is approximately ten feet from the diesel generator,that is equal or greater than 50 dBA of continuous sound level late at night and 55 dBA during other times, nor a maximum sound level of 70 dBA late at night and 27 Note: State law generally prohibits permit terms less than 10 years for wireless facilities.(Gov.Code§65964.) 28 https://www.generac.com/generaccornorate/media/library/content/all-products/generators/home- generators/protector-series/10000023912.pdf. 9 75dBA other times.29 The Ordinance does not have any exception for emergency situations and AT&T does not offer any analysis of the expected frequency of emergency occurrences, which have been increasing with all too-common Southern California Edison outages in recent years. AT&T also falsely claims that"AT&T would have a state-law right to install in any event (see Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75)[.]" But Government Code, section 65850.75 provides a macro tower operator a right to install backup power on a "nondiscretionary basis if it meets all of the following requirements: . . . The macro cell tower site at which the emergency standby generator is proposed to be installed is an existing site that was previously permitted by the applicable local agency."This site has not yet been permitted so Section 65850.75 does not currently apply and it is inappropriate to seek to use this statute to force the City to reduce its present discretionary review, including the authority to deny the application. Even if this section was relevant,the generator must still "comply[] with all applicable state and local laws[,]" which includes the Noise Ordinance at issue now. The General Plan's Noise Element Goal N-2 "[r]equire[s] an acoustical study for proposed projects in areas where the existing or projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-2." It is not appropriate to defer consideration of noise for the building permit phase when the application as proposed is likely to violate the Noise Ordinance standards. P. AT&T's Project will Spew Unacceptable Pollution and be Detrimental to the General Welfare. The operation a diesel generator that emits greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide,as well as criteria pollutants like sulfur dioxide ("S02"), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse and fine particulate matter(PMI 0, PM2.5), and other hazardous pollutants like mercury,adjacent to residential backyards is detrimental to the general welfare. The conspicuous heigh of the tower and noise are also detrimental to the public welfare. Q. AT&T's Project Violates Federal Law and HBZSO Section 230.96(G)(6). The HBZSO requires that"All Wireless Communication Facilities must meet or exceed current federal and state laws, standards and regulations of the FCC, and any other agency of the federal or state government with the authority to regulate Wireless Communication Facilities."30 The appellant's June 12th letter to the Planning Commission addressed this in detail but the 29 Huntington Beach City Code§ 8.40.050(A). 30 HBZSO§230.96(G)(6). 10 appellant's Notice of Appeal in Agenda Attachment#2 cited to the wrong subparagraph(Section 230.96 (G)(7) instead of 230.96 (G)(6)). This typo was obvious because the Notice of Appeal discussed violations of federal law but the Staff Report,nevertheless, concluded:"This section does not require that the applicant demonstrate compliance with either the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)as a part of its local discretionary review."Plainly,the HBZSO certainly does require AT&T to establish compliance with NEPA and the MBTA. As explained in public comments submitted to the City, Cooper's hawks have been nesting on the Community Church site for many years. Unintentional, indirect killing of hawks or hawk eggs,or destruction of a nest, is a federal crime.31 As a result,the FCC requires assessment of actions by an FCC-licensee, such as AT&T,that"may have a significant environmental impact,"including by harming MBTA-protected birds.32 The assessment must also consider whether the project is a"source of controversy on environmental grounds in the local community."33 The U.S.Department of the Interior,the agency charged with enforcement of the MBTA, has informed the FCC that radiofrequency(RF) emissions from cell towers can result in the death of migratory birds and must be considered under NEPA. The Department of the Interior explained that"[r]adiation at extremely low levels(0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone)caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected(DiCarlo et al. 2002)."34 Additionally,mature birds, and especially hatchlings born in cell towers,may get caught in tower equipment, necessitating special procedures to deter roosting in such towers.35 While the City is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of RF that is within FCC limits,36 the level of RF within the faux tree will exceed those limits according 31 16 U.S.Code§703(a);see also,86 Fed.Reg.54642(Oct.4,2021)(discussion of prohibition on"incidental take"). 32 49 C.F.R. § 1.1307(d). 33 Id.§ 1.1311(a)(3). 34 Willie R.Taylor,Dept.of Interior,Letter to Eli Veenendall,FCC,Feb.7,2014,available at https://ehtrust.org/department-interior-letter-impacts-birds-el ectromagnetic-radi ation-outdated-fcc-lim its/. 35 FCC,Fact Sheet:Raptor Nesting on Towers(May 12,2016),available at https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau- divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and-antenna-siting. 36 47 U.S.Code§332(C)(7). 11 AT&T's modeling.37 Given raptor's propensity for roosting on the site, those emissions will foreseeably impact the protected Cooper's hawks, and that can be considered by the Council. Moreover,the Council must consider whether AT&T has complied with federal regulations mandating preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)under NEPA. On behalf of a different client, on June 9,2023,I filed a complaint to the FCC contesting AT&T's refusal to prepare an EA.A copy of that complaint is attached to the June 12,2023 letter to the Planning Commission and separately submitted to the Council.The FCC is currently in the process of determine whether AT&T's assertion that no further action is required complies with NEPA and the MBTA(see attached Exhibit C (Email from FCC)). AT&T's July 14th letter includes a superficial Biological Evaluation showing no critical habitats or endangered species. However,that has no bearing on the MBTA concern. The Evaluation is dated June 2nd,the day after I notified AT&T of potential injury or death to federally-protected Cooper's hawks due to entanglement or excessive radiofrequency emissions inside the Wireless Facility faux tree.To date,AT&T has done nothing to address the problem other than to offer to perform a site study to avoid hurting hawks"actively nesting in and around the project site" at the time of construction. Neither"the TCA [Telecommunications Act] nor any other federal law. . . forbids a local government from independently considering compliance with federal law in deciding whether to grant or deny a building permit"or planning permit.38 Moreover,under the HBZSO,the Council is obligated to determine whether AT&T has met its burden of demonstrating compliance with federal law. Presently,in light of the active FCC complaint and manifest risk of death to Cooper's hawks that will roost in the"broadleaf'Wireless Antenna Facility, it has not met its burden. R. A 60-Foot Tower in a CO Zone with a Diesel Generator does not Qualify for the CEQA Exemption. City staff claim that this application qualifies for the"New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" CEQA exemption provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. That exemption is for"construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures [and] installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures[.]"39 The 37 AT&T Letter to City Council,Attachment C,Appendix B,p. 12(July 14,2023). 38 Southeast Towers, LLC v. Pickens County(N.D.Ga.2008)625 F.Supp.2d 1293, 1302. 39 The Notice of Public Hearing stated a new,additional basis for exemption,Section 15302,covering the "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the 12 regulation does not define "small" but offers a nonexclusive list of examples, such as one single- family dwelling,a store not exceeding 2,500 square feet,commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet"on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances[,]" or"[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences." The proposed tower is not an"accessory"to anything on the Community Church property and is not covered by any of the specific examples. The Staff Report claims that the exemption applies because it covers"a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial building,which is far larger in size and scope than the proposed project."40 This misplaced analogy demonstrates a misunderstanding of the exemption.The 10,000 square foot maximum applies specifically to a"store,motel,office, restaurant or similar structure." These structures in a zone where they are allowed,would not be out of place and could be assumed to have usual impacts.However,this example would not exempt a stand-alone parking lot or farm of the same size,because such uses are less typically. Consequently, it is wrong to assume that a cell tower is a"small structure" simply because it is smaller than 10,000 square feet in floor area. It is necessary to look at the case law dealing with similar structures. In the case of Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego, this CEQA exemption was upheld for a 35-foot faux tree antenna tower hidden in a stand of taller trees in a city park because it was"much smaller than a single-family residence, store,motel,office or restaurant[.]"41 However, unlike the 35-foot disguised tower among trees at issue in Don't Cell Our Parks,AT&T's proposed facility is far more conspicuous. AT&T's tower, by virtue of its size and position, is also even more out of place with the surrounding environment than the installations recently denied in the 2022 case of Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association v. City& County of San Francisco. There,the court of appeal explained that this CEQA exemption cannot be used to exempt 90-foot-tall light standards because they are significantly taller than any other structure in the neighborhood, the city's zoning ordinance limits residential buildings in the area to 40 feet tall and typical streetlights are only 25 to 30 feet tall. . .The cell tower[in the Don't Cell Our Parks case]was small within its setting, unlike the light standards at issue here which will be by far the tallest structure same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced[.]"It is hard to understand how this could possibly pertain to the construction of a brand new,stand-alone cell tower that does not"replace"the preexisting palm tree.Given that the Agenda does not mention this exemption, I will assume that the City no longer is contending that it applies. 4°Staff Report,Section 5(b). 41 Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego(2018)21 Cal.App.5th 338,359-360. 13 in the surrounding area. They are not small within the environment but instead tower over it.42 The court also rejected comparison with buildings, specifically pointing out that"residential and commercial structures listed in the guideline are subject to applicable zoning requirements, which ensure their height will be generally consistent with the surrounding neighborhood."43 Here too, surrounding structures are of virtually identical height to the buildings in Saint Ignatius and the zoning height limit in the Office Commercial District(CO) zone is the same (40 feet)44 While AT&T's 60-foot tower is shorter than 90 feet, it has the potential to grow 20 feet under federal law(as discussed above). It also is not necessarily the case that the Church is a site "zoned for such use"because a CUP is required in order to exceed the 40-foot height limit.45 Moreover,the project entails a diesel above-ground tank,which is the"use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." The diesel generator adjacent to residents will have significant and unexplored environmental impacts due to noise and pollution that are not typical in this neighborhood (and even prohibited as discussed above). When a project entails a"feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class"46 it does not qualify for the exemption. The excessive height of the AT&T facility in this specific zone and the operation of a diesel generator make this project clearly ineligible for the Section 15303 CEQA exemption.47 S. The City Must Retain an Expert if it Intends to Approve the Application Based on Asserted Preemption. The Staff Report is correct that federal preemption is not relevant here. A detailed rebuttal to preemption was contained in the appellant's prior letter to the Planning Commission. The most essential point is that any preemption claims are moot because AT&T has not satisfied the application requirements. Federal law does not exempt AT&T from complying with the City's reasonable application procedures, such considering colocation, and it cannot demonstrate 42 Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco(2022)85 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072-73 (ordered depublished). 43 Id.at 1072. 44 HBZSO§211.06. 45 Id.§230.72. 46 Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley(2015)60 Ca1.4th 1086, 1105. 47 Note:FCC shot clocks do not prevent the City from conducting proper CEQA review because"the shot clock requirements create only presumptions...local officials can show that additional time is necessary under the circumstances."City of Portland v. United States(9th Cir.2020)969 F.3d 1020, 1043. 14 an effective prohibition of personal wireless services would exist if it were to properly apply for a site. However, if the Council were to accept that a denial would amount to an effective prohibition,the Council still lacks the authority to approve AT&T's application at the July 18th hearing on that basis alone. The HBZSO states as follows: A myriad of factors are involved in determining if a gap is significant,such as:whether the gap affects a commuter highway; the nature and character of the area and the number of potential users affected by the alleged lack of service; whether the signal is weak or nonexistent and whether the gap affects a commercial district. Consequently,the City will require scientific evidence from an expert in the field demonstrating the existence of a significant gap in service, and a lack of feasible alternative sites. The applicant will be required to pay for the cost of said expert opinion 48 The Staff Report is incorrect that mandatory expert review is only required if the applicant appealed on the basis of"Denial of Effective Service pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.96(F)[.]"49 Rather,the HBZSO dictates that an expert opinion be obtained whenever the City overrides its own ordinance because such action must not be taken lightly and staff lack the technical expertise to evaluate preemption claims. T. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons,the Commission must reject AT&T's application as incomplete and inconsistent with the HBZSO,Noise Ordinance and General Plan,and not compliant with federal environmental laws. It also must find that project in eligible for a Section 15303 categorical CEQA exemption. Respectfully, G ERE LAW, PC Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel 48 HBZSO§230.96(A). 49 Staff Report,Section 6(c). 15 Exhibit A Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel 2748 Adeline Street, Ste.A GREENFIRE Berkeley,CA 94703 LAW, PC 510-900-9502 x 702 astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com June 14, 2023 Via Electronic Mail To: Planning Commission Chair Tracy Pellman (planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org) and City Attorney City Attorney Michael E. Gates (Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org) RE: Request to Correct Error Regarding Interpretation of Tie Vote on June 13,2023 Appeal of CUP No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) Dear Chair Pellman and City Attorney Gates: I am writing to seek a correction of a mischaracterization of the consequences of the votes that occurred at yesterday's Planning Commission hearing on Christina Price's appeal of Conditional Use Permit 23-006 (CUP) and the approval of a CEQA exemption. As you will recall, Commissioner Woods was absent and only six Commissioners were present. After close of the public hearing and deliberation by the Commissioners, Commissioner Rodriguez made a motion for a vote to deny the appeal, which was seconded. The Chair then called for an alternative motion to uphold the appeal, which was also seconded. A vote was held on the motion to uphold the appeal on the basis of inappropriate aesthetic impacts and three votes were entered in favor. At that point, someone, I do not recall who, perhaps it was Assistant City Attorney Hyland, declared that the motion failed. I raised a point of order to the Chair, who recognized me to speak. I stated the objection that because the hearing is de novo, a majority vote of the Commission is required to make each of the applicable findings necessary for granting the CUP and three votes against issuance results in the applicant having not met its burden to establish the relevant findings. Assistant City Attorney Hyland informed me that rules of procedure dictate that, on appeal, a tie vote upholds the original decision. Thereafter, a vote was held on the motion to deny the appeal and three votes were entered in favor. Assistant City Attorney Hyland declared the appeal denied and the Commission moved on to other business. 1 Following the hearing, I asked Assistant City Attorney Hyland for the source of the rule dictating the treatment of tie votes in this situation. He told me that the City Council Manual applies to the Planning Commission but acknowledged something to the effect that the source is obscure and is a document that he intends to clarify in the future. The 2022 City Council Manual,pages 32-33,provides, in short, "When there is a tie vote, the lower body is sustained."Generally, for appeals to the City Council,this statement is correct because appeals at the Council level are not typically de novo and the appellant has the burden of proof so a tie will be insufficient to constitute action by the Council finding that the prior decisionmaker erred. However,there are several problems with applying this statement to the instant vote.First,while page 33 can be read as governing the Commission as well as the City Council,the Council Manual consistently refers to it applying specifically to the Council. The Forward to the Council Manual specifically declares: "By resolution,the City Council is bound by the rules and processes established hereto."The intent to apply it to the Commission is not sufficiently clear. The Commission's own bylaws do not include any such rule. More importantly,the Forward to the Council Manual also declares: "Any information contained in the Council Manual that conflicts with Federal, State or Huntington Beach law is superseded by the conflicting law."Here, ordinances,which are higher"Huntington Beach law," conflict with the applying the rule from the City Council Manual to this appeal. This appeal to the Planning Commission is governed by City Code Section 248.20(D): De Novo Hearing.The reviewing body shall hear the appeal as a new matter.The original applicant has the burden of proof.The reviewing body may act upon the application,either granting it, conditionally granting it or denying it, irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal. In addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal,the reviewing body shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken. Section 248.06 further clarifies that"In each case,the applicant has the burden of proof at the public hearing on the application and at the public hearing on the appeal." Section 248.08(A) provides "In each case where a reviewing body is designated to make a decision of an adjudicatory nature as the result of a proceeding in which a hearing is required by state law or this ordinance code to be given,the body shall make findings to support its decision." Case law is clear that when an appeal is heard de novo,a tie does not uphold the previous, lower body decision. Rather,the de novo appeal itself nullifies the original decision in its entirety and the appellate body itself then must make all applicable findings for approval. 2 While that approval can be done by adopting and affirming the decision below, as is common practice,this affirmance must nevertheless be a majority decision (i.e., a decision of the body empowered to make the determination). See, e.g., Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1176 n.24 (tie on de novo hearing does not affirm where applicant had burden of proof);REA Enters. v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm. (1976) 52 Cal. App. 3d 596, 612, 624 (de novo appeal entirely nullifies prior decision; defining a tie as "no action");Anderson v. Pittenger(1961) 197 Cal. App. 2d 188, 195 ("The tie vote was no action, and it was not an affirmance of the order of the commission."). Requiring a majority to approve the CUP is also consistent with Section 11 of the Commission's Bylaws, which states: "An affirmative vote of a majority of the members present and voting shall be required for the passage of any matter before the Commission, except as otherwise noted in these bylaws." Given the manifest error that occurred, please immediately notify the applicant that the Commission denied the CUP and that the applicant's deadline for appeal will run ten days from issuance of that notice. Sincerely, GREENF11&- IRE LAW, PC r Cuss, Of-Counsel 3 Exhibit B City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Inspector: William Ford • For Inspections Call: (714) 536-5241 (714)374-1631 Building Permit Permit Number: B2020-005664 Valuation: $15,000 Date Issued: 05/20/2021 Building Address: 17473 Beach Blvd APN: 165-234-07 Block: Tract: Lot: No.Stories: Zone: Code Year: Owner Contractor Agent PHAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SENIORS&JUNIORS INC 17473 BEACH BLVD 7203 VIRTUOSO HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 IRVINE CA 92620 7145965956 9492435510 Architect Engineer Designer PAUL C. PINA Huntington Beach CA Project Description: CELL SITE MODIFICATION-RJR 6 ANTENNAS&6 RADIOS; INCLDUDE AUXILARY EQUIPEMTN IN CABINET AND HCS CABLES ENTERED BY: kongs Description: Occupancy Group: Area(Sq Ft): Const.Type: Occupancy Load: Permit Fees: Permit Processing Fee 33.92 Total Fees: $1,086.55 Total Paid: $1,086.55 Balance Due: $0.00 I certify that I have read this construction application and that the information I have provided is correct and I agree to comply with all City and County ordinances and State Laws relating to building construction. I shall be responsible to ensure all improvements are consistent with applicable HOA. I authorize representatives of this City to enter upon the identified property for inspection purposes. I understand that all refunds are subject to a processing fee as listed in the City Master Fee Schedule. IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF THIS PERMIT,OR IF THE WORK IS ABANDONED,THIS PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION. LICENSE&WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION(for Contractors only) I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury: 1) I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9(commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my license is in full force and effect. 2) I have and will maintain workers compensation insurance or a certificate of consent to self-insure,as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code,for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued;Unless,in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued,I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers'compensation laws of California,and agree that if I should become subject to the workers'compensation provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code,I shall forthwith comply with those provisions. By my signature below,I certify I am either a Licensed Contractor,Property Owner*or Authorized Agent** *Requires separate verification form **Requires separate authorization form Signature: Date: Exhibit C astrauss@greenfirelaw.com From: Paul D'Ari <Paul.DAri@fcc.gov> Sent: Wednesday,June 21, 2023 11:07 AM To: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Cc: AShank@porterwright.com;towercomments;Allison Jones Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]: RE: Petition for NEPA Review re AT&T Facility at 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach, CA Attachments: 2023-06-12- Certificate of Service- NEPA Complaint.pdf Mr.Strauss: This is to confirm that we have received your request for further environmental review and it is currently under review. Paul D'Ari Senior Counsel Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau I FCC From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday,June 21, 2023 11:01 AM To:towercomments<towercomments@fcc.gov> Cc:Garnet Hanly<Garnet.Hanly@fcc.gov>; 'Shank,Aaron M.'<AShank@porterwright.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]: RE: Petition for NEPA Review re AT&T Facility at 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach, CA You don't often get email from astrauss(tgreenfirelaw.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the Federal Communications Commission.Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and trust the content to be safe. If you suspect this is a phishing attempt, please use the'Report Message'feature in Microsoft Outlook or forward the email to the NSOC. Good morning, I am follow up on the complaint I submitted on Friday,June 9th. Please confirm that the application has been received and is under review, or notify me if any further information is required to move forward at this time. On June 13th the Huntington Beach Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit for this project. I also wish to make also make a correction to the originally-submitted certificate of service. Due to an administrative error in my office,the complaint was not mailed to parties on June 9th and was instead mailed on June 12th. A corrected certificate of service is attached. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 1 From: astraussCc@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent: Friday,June 9, 2023 8:53 AM To:towercommentsec@fcc.gov Cc:garnet.hanly@fcc.gov; 'Shank,Aaron M.'<AShank@porterwright.com> Subject: Petition for NEPA Review re AT&T Facility at 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach, CA Good morning, Enclosed, please find a petition filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1307 and 1.1312 concerning a wireless facility proposed to be constructed at 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California. Service has been provided as detailed in the attached certificate of service;outside counsel to AT&T is copied on this email as well. Please confirm receipt and processing of this complaint. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meanin g of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 2 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 17, 2023 4:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Additional Appellant Materials- 7/18 City Council Hearing Agenda Item 17 re CUP No. 23-006 (AT&T Wireless Facility) Attachments: 2023-06-12- Price Appeal Letter to Planning Commission v2.pdf From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent: Monday,July 17,2023 4:01 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Beckman, Hayden.<hayden.beckman@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Additional Appellant Materials-7/18 City Council Hearing Agenda Item 17 re CUP No.23-006 (AT&T Wireless Facility) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Attached,on behalf of Christina Price,the appellant in connection with July 18th Agenda item 17 concerning appeal of CUP No. 23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility), please find a letter that was previously submitted to the Planning Commission and provide important background on AT&T's application and this appeal. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 1 Ariel Strauss,Of-Counsel 2748 Adeline Street, Ste.A GREENFIRE Berkeley,CA 94703 LAW, PC 510-900-9502 x 702 astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com June 12,2023 Via Electronic Mail To: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners(planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org) RE: Opposition to Approval of CUP No.23-006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility) Table of Contents A. AT&T's Application is Incomplete. B. AT&T's Project will Spew Unacceptable Pollution from the Diesel Generator and be Detrimental to the General Welfare. C. AT&T's Cell Tower Will be Aesthetical Unpleasant and Degrade Property Values. D. AT&T's Facility Violates the General Plan's Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance. E. AT&T's Project Violates Federal Law. F. A 60-Foot Tower in a CO Zone with a Diesel Generator does not Qualms for the CEQA Exemption. G. AT&T has not Established that Federal Preemption Applies. H. The City Must Retain an Expert if it Intends to Approve the Application Based on Asserted Preemption. I. Conclusion Exhibits A, B, C, D Dear Chair Pellman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of appellant Christina Price requesting that the Commission deny a conditional use permit(CUP) for the 60-foot wireless communication facility and associated equipment proposed to be constructed at 8101 Slater Avenue because (1)AT&T Mobility (AT&T)has not presented sufficient evidence to allow the Commission to make the required findings under the Huntington Beach Municipal Code(Code)and(2)the project does not qualify for the Small Structures California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)exemption. 1 This hearing is"de novo"and the Commission"shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof'and the Commission must deny the application "irrespective of the precise grounds or scope of the appeal"1 if the requirements in Code Sections 230.96,particularly subsection G, and 241.10 are not satisfied. A. AT&T's Application is Incomplete. AT&T's application is plainly deficient. First,AT&T filed the wrong form. AT&T's one- page application is attached as Exhibit A; it includes no relevant information. The correct form, attached as Exhibit B.2 is seven pages. More substantively, items 2.08, 3.02, 3.06,4.01 and 5.01 demanding by form are missing from the materials AT&T submitted and are highlighted in red boxes on Exhibit B. Among,the deficiencies,the application form requires that the site be shown in five or more photo simulations with stated photograph angles.However, only three were provided and none indicated the angle of the photograph.3 No photos depict what adjacent residents will see from inside their homes and backyards where they spend a majority of their time. Neighbors have also pointed out in comments that the photo simulations do not"scale properly"and under reflect the actual mass and height of the facility as compared with other trees and are misleading. The chain-link enclosure described in the narrative is also not shown in the simulations.4 Wireless communication facility applicants are required to also map the"[l}ocations of all other Wireless Antennas within 1,000 feet of a proposed ground-mounted Facility. Co- location of ground mounted facilities shall be required where feasible whenever such a Facility is proposed within 1,000 feet of any existing Wireless Antenna."5 No such mapping of all antennas, including small cells in the right of way, is included in the application. Instead,AT&T has only provided slides showing its own macro towers.6 Without more information, it is impossible for the City to independently scrutinize whether the AT&T could have or should have undertaken colocation. ' Huntington Beach Code §248.20(D);see also Id. §348.06("The applicant has the burden of proof' for all findings necessary for approval.). 2 Original available here:https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Wireless-Permit- Application-.pdf 3 See,Attachment 2 to Agenda. Agenda"Supplemental Communications." 5 Huntington Beach Code §230.96(E)(1)(g)(emphasis added);see also,230.96(G)(5)(accord). 6 See Attachment 4 to the Agenda(LTE Justification Plots). 2 Moreover,there is no discussion of why the desired coverage cannot be addressed by collocation with one or more existing macro or small cell sites. Colocation entails the addition of antennas on an existing support structure;this includes collocation with a different provider and raising the height of the structure, as a provider is entitled to do under federal law,to facilitate colocation.7 AT&T's Project Narrative included as Attachment 3 to the Agenda also contains serious errors that call into question the accuracy and professionalism of AT&T's conclusions. For instance,page 2 argues that"In this specific case,this location was selected because AT&T's radio-frequency engineers (RF)have identified a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of and the surrounding community as demonstrated on the enclosed radio-signal propagation maps."The blank space was never filled in. AT&T similarly refers to a"justification package dated November 12,2020,"which is years before the application was submitted.Nearly all other arguments in the letter are plainly boilerplate assertions lacking specific evidence. See, e.g.,"The requested height of the mono-broadleaf design is the minimum height necessary in order to fill the significant gap in coverage for this project." B. AT&T's Project will Spew Unacceptable Pollution from the Diesel Generator and be Detrimental to the General Welfare. Because the proposed tower is more than 10 feet taller than allowed in the Office Commercial District(CO)zone, a CUP is required.8 In order to issue a CUP, a discretionary determination must be made that the"establishment,maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity[.]"9 The 20kW diesel generator proposed to be operated in the event of outages is a significant potential source of particulate pollution just feet from residential backyards and homes where families and children will be playing and sleeping. "The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components,many of which are toxic."10 AT&T does not disclose how frequently the generator is expected to run, offer an analysis of the emissions or discuss the dispersal patterns of the exhaust. The wafting of fumes may constitute a nuisance to adjacent properties if it"is indecent or offensive to the senses,or an 'Huntington Beach Code §230.96(B)(3). 8 Id. §230.96(E)(2)(b),(3). 9 Id. §241.10(A)(1). to Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Comm. Investment&Infra. (2016)6 Cal.App. 5th 160,203-04 (noting that CEQA EIR considered health effect of diesel exhaust on children 200 feet away). 3 obstruction to the free use of property"by discouraging outdoor activities while the generator is operational.'1 Despite the California Public Utilities Commission mandating the installation of backup power for certain cellular antennas, it acknowledged that"[l]arge diesel generators—even when localized in select areas-present potential health risks for individuals who live or work near a temporary generation site."12 The application and the City's prior findings contain no analysis of the health risks posed by the generator.13 A"no detriment"finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the Notice of Action neglects to consider and discuss a significant potential health threat. C. AT&T's Cell Tower Will be Aesthetical Unpleasant and Degrade Property Values. Another finding required for a CUP is that the project will not be"detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood."14 The facility is not"completely stealth."15 Just because the tower is clad in plastic branches, it does not mean a structure of any size or in any location is appropriate and must be approved by the City.16 The City need not apply"objective" standards'7 but can use reasonable discretion. Code Section 244.06 requires the Design Review Board to consider The arrangement and relationship of proposed structures and signs to one another and to other developments in the vicinity; [] Whether that relationship is harmonious and based on good standards of architectural design; . . .The adequacy of proposed landscaping; [and] Elements of design affecting the performance characteristics of the proposed development[.] " Civ.Code§ 3479. 12 CPUC,Decision No. 20-07-011 Adopting Wireless Provider Resiliency Strategies,Rulemaking 18-03- 011,p. 113 (July 20,2020). 13 Note: The findings for approval also do not contain any requirement for incident management plans or other operating procedures related to the transportation and storage of diesel. 14 Huntington Beach Code §241.10(A)(1). 13 Id. §230.96(B)(4)(defined as facilities"designed to completely screen all aspects of the Facility including appurtenances and equipment from public view"and where the antenna is enclosed in a conventional diameter structure). 16 See, e.g., Id. §230.96(G)(3)(requiring compliance with Urban Design Guidelines);Urban Design Guidelines at 4-14("Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and be of appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended goals."). 17 City of Portland v. FCC(9th Cir.2020)969 F.3d 1020, 1041-43 (local regulations need not be "objective"). 4 The Review was clearly deficient.18 Design Review approval is merely a recommendation and is not binding. Therefore, deficient approval by the Board does not exempt the Commission for ensuring that all City design expectations are satisfied. The City Council itself legislatively determined that cell towers pose a threat of "potential negative aesthetic impacts of Wireless Communication Facilities, including visual blight and diminution of property value[.]"19 In fact this is a primary"purpose"of the City's ordinance and the Commission must not simply waive away this concern. Several studies have shown that when a cell tower is visible to neighbors,there is a decline in property values.20 It is intuitive and unsurprising that buyers will prefer a home without a visible antenna structure as compared to one with one. However,this does not automatically mean, as AT&T asserts,that any aversion to cell towers is a consequence of health concerns that the Commission cannot consider. Buyers will be weary of an uncommonly tall, plastic, artificial,tree studded with electronic equipment towering in their viewshed even if the buyer has no concern about the health effects of radiofrequency(RF). AT&T's letter argues that the"substantial evidence"required for the Commission to deem the tower detrimental is an exacting standard. It is not. It is deeply familiar to you and is the same standard required under state law for the Commission to lawfully make any determination.21 In many situations,reasonable people on both sides of an issue can correctly claim that substantial evidence supports their position 22 In the context of the a wireless approval, 18 Note:No notice of Board meetings was provided to residents,no members of the public attended the Board meeting that took place on April 13,2023 and no public comments were received or considered. 19 Huntington Beach Code §230.96(A). 20 Affuso, et al."Wireless Towers and Home Values:An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis,"56 JReal Estate Finan Econ 653-676(2018)(values declining 2.46%on average,and up to 9.78%for homes within tower visibility range);Lin&Yih-Ming Lin,"Willingness to Pay for Relocating Mobile Phone Base Stations."36 International J. of Ecological Econ. &Stat. 1-14 (2015)("Despite the customers' high demand for better mobile phone coverage in areas where they live or work,most of them do not favor having MBPs [mobile phone base stations] installed in their neighborhood.");Bond &Ko-Kang Wang,"The Impact of Cell Tower Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal J. 256-277(Summer 2005)("degradation in value can be only because of view,independent of health concerns.");Bond, Sandy G.et al. Using GIS to Measure the Impact of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida. (2007),available at http://www.prres.net/papers/Bond_Squires Using GIS to Measure.pdf. 21 See,Code Civ.Proc. § 1094.5(c). 22 United States Cellular Tel. of Greater Tulsa, L.L.C. v. City of Broken Arrow(10th Cir.2003)340 F.3d 1122, 1133)("The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence.");Luther v. Berryhill (9th Cir.2018) 891 F.3d 872, 875("Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla,but less than a preponderance."). 5 this standard is intended to retain local discretion and serve as a check to ensure that decisions are not"irrational or substanceless."23 In all cases of this sort,those seeking to build will come armed with exhibits, experts, and evaluations. [Wireless industry applicants], by urging us to hold that such a predictable barrage mandates that local governments approve applications,effectively demand that we interpret the [Telecommunications]Act so as always to thwart average,nonexpert citizens; that is,to thwart democracy.24 The Commission has a responsibility take seriously"objections raised by neighbors who know the local terrain and the sightlines of their own homes."25 Many neighbors complained in comments that they can tell the difference between a fake tree and a real tree; one described it as an"eyesore." If the"observations of self-interested neighbors conflict with an expert study submitted by a self-interested applicant,"the Commission has the authority and discretion to side with the neighbors.26 The City must not discount valid aesthetic objections merely because neighbors also express opposition on health grounds. Here,the tower is conspicuously placed in an open parking lot and is larger and higher than other structures in the area. It is natural that the eye will be drawn to it and scrutinize it closely. Yet,AT&T provides no photographs of the actual equipment, screening materials or examples of this model in operation to show how this supposedly-camouflaged tower will actually appear. Section 4.01(2) of the Wireless Permit Application, highlighted in Exhibit B, requires that: "All elements of the project as proposed by the Applicant must be shown in one or more close-in photo simulations."However,this has not been done. There is no justification for failing to provide these images; without them,the City cannot decide for itself whether AT&T's claims are correct or not. One serious question is whether the tower in fact needs to be 60 feet to accomplish its objective.AT&T should have provided examples of 4G LTE coverage with varying tower height options to enable the City to assess which height best balances AT&T's coverage objective against the negative impacts of the tower height. 23 See, e.g., Voice Stream PCS 1, LLC v. City of Hillsboro(D.Or.2004)301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1257(city was justified in denying tower permit where residents made site-specific observations and"stated they relied on the natural,residential character of the neighborhood in purchasing their homes"). 24 AT&T Wireless Pcs v. City Council of Va. Beach(4th Cir. 1998) 155 F.3d 423,431. 25 Omnipoint Comms., Inc. v. City of White Plains(2d Cir.2005)430 F.3d 529,534. 26 Id 6 Given its proposed height,the tower will have full sun.Because it is to the south of the residences it will be backlit part of the year. The City must consider whether the antenna equipment would remain hidden in full sunlight and avoid any reflecting or glinting. The extent of shadow cast on any neighboring properties,particularly during the winter months and near sunset must also be assessed. Finally, federal law entitles AT&T,or any other carrier,to add to this tower and expand it horizontally and vertically by up to 20 feet in each direction,regardless of any local zoning restrictions.27 The already-proposed height of 60 feet causes the facility to extend well above any of the nearest buildings,which are only two stories. The City must consider now the impact of an 80-foot tower(twice the height allowed in the CO zone). A 60-foot tower of this mass is not appropriate in this location. D. AT&T's Facility Violates the General Plan's Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance. The minutes of the Design Review Board meeting that occurred on April 13, 2023 state that Member Fertal "noted that other similar facilities produced audible noise"but staff appeared to contend that the role of the Board was only to consider the "design, colors,and materials of the proposal,"not the noise 28 Approval of the CUP must be consistent with the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance. The noise environment relates to a community's quality of life. Noise has been linked directly to numerous human health factors;aside from general annoyances,excessive noise is a source of discomfort, interferes with sleep, and disrupts communication and relaxation.29 The AT&T facility, including any air conditioning units, fans and the proposed 20kW diesel generator, are"fixed noise sources"that are prohibited from producing levels at the outdoor residential property line, approximately ten feet from the diesel generator,that is equal or greater than 50 dBA of continuous sound level late at night and 55 dBA during other times, or a maximum sound level of 70 dBA late at night and 75dBA other times.3° 27 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)(i),(ii). 28 https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1086170&GUID=1460220C-527E-4889- 8088-A838CE683BDE 29 General Plan,Noise Element at 6-1;see also, Baumgaertner,et al.,"Noise Could Take Years Off Your Life.Here's How,"New York Times,June 9,2023,available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/09/health/noise-exposure-health-impacts.html. 3°Huntington Beach Code § 8.40.050(A). 7 The Commission must recognize that power outages triggering ignition of the generator are not rare in Huntington Beach and appear to be more common as power infrastructure ages and is overtaxed by increasing number of high-heat days and customers switching from gas to electric appliances. Major outages occurred in October and November 2022 and February 2023.31 AT&T has not provided the noise specifications for the generator. The plans describe a 20kW Generac brand generator; a data sheet for a 20kW Generac generator advertises a noise level of 70 dBA at 23 feet when"operating at normal load."32 With such a model, noise levels on the residential properties will be exceeded during operation. Of course,this figure is just an example and does not include common deviations from advertised specifications,peak volumes, echoing, increase noise levels as the system ages or other issues.33 The General Plan's Noise Element Goal N-2"Require[s] an acoustical study for proposed projects in areas where the existing or projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-2."But the record does not contain any professional analysis of noise contours or noise levels.Nevertheless, Finding for Approval 1 of the Notice of Action states"an eight foot high split faced block wall . . . will further reduce the likelihood of visual and noise impacts.No significant impacts related to traffic, safety or noise will be generated by the wireless communication facility."The word"further"here is odd because the record does not establish any baseline for the noise level or the acceptability of this noise level. There is similarly no discussion of the noise level from air condition units or fans that cool the antennas. Included in Supplemental Communications attached to the Agenda are comments from two neighbors that adjacent residences lack air conditioning and people leave their windows open to take care of breezes. As a result, "people will be forced to hear the buzz all day,and there will be no escape."A finding no problematic noise impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. 31 See, e.g., Eric Lucas,"Power outage in Huntington Beach leaves as many as 15,700 Southern California Edison customers in the dark,"LA Times,Oct.24,2022; Sara Cardine,"Huntington Beach outage leaves thousands of Edison customers in the dark—again,"LA Times,Nov.28,2022;Julia Paskin,et al.,"Thousands Remain Without Power,Dozens of Roads Closed Including Grapevine Overnight,"LAist.com,Feb.25,2023. 32 https://www.generac.com/generaccorporate/media/library/content/all-products/generators/home- generators/protector-series/10000023 912.pdf. 33 Note: The plans do not depict any noise dampening construction. 8 E. AT&T's Project Violates Federal Law. The Code requires that"All Wireless Communication Facilities must meet or exceed current federal and state laws, standards and regulations of the FCC, and any other agency of the federal or state government with the authority to regulate Wireless Communication Facilities."34 "[N]othing in the TCA nor any other federal law . . . forbids a local government from independently considering compliance with federal law in deciding whether to grant or deny a building permit"or planning permit.35 AT&T is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)but has failed to do so. Unfortunately, noncompliance with NEPA requirements is not uncommon. For instance, in December 2022,Verizon admitted"that it violated the Commission's environmental and historic preservation rules by prematurely constructing wireless facilities prior to completing the required environmental or historical reviews" in Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky,Pennsylvania and Tennessee and paid the FCC a$950,000 civil penalty.36 Verizon is now under a consent decree requiring it to undertake remedial action and hire a NEPA coordinator. In this instance, FCC regulations require AT&T to assess the impact of construction and operation of the tower on the Cooper's hawk, a protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA). As explained in public comments submitted to the City,these raptors have been nesting on the Church site for many years. Unintentional, indirect killing of hawks and hawk eggs, or destruction of a nest, is a federal crime.37 As a result,the FCC requires analysis of actions by an FCC-licensee, such as AT&T,that"may have a significant environmental impact," including by harming MBTA-protected birds.38 The assessment must also consider whether the project is a"source of controversy on environmental grounds in the local community."39 The U.S. Department of the Interior,the agency charged with enforcement of the MBTA, has informed the FCC that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from cell towers can result in the death of migratory birds and must be considered under NEPA. The Department explained that 34 Huntington Beach Code §230.96(6). 35 Southeast Towers, LLC v. Pickens County(N.D.Ga.2008)625 F.Supp.2d 1293, 1302. 36 FCC,In re Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,DA 22-1339(Dec. 19,2022),available at https://docsfcc.gov/publidattachments/DA-22-1339Al.pdf. 37 16 U.S.Code § 703(a);see also,86 Fed. Reg. 54642(Oct. 4,2021)(discussion of prohibition on "incidental take"). 38 49 C.F.R. § 1.1307(d). 39Id. § 1.1311(a)(3). 9 "[r]adiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone)caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected(DiCarlo et al. 2002)."40 Additionally, mature birds,and especially hatchlings born in cell towers, may get caught in tower equipment,necessitating special procedures to deter roosting in towers.'" While the City is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of RF that is within FCC limits,the level of RF within the faux tree will exceed those limits. While this in-of- itself can be permissible, in this instance,those emissions will foreseeably impact the protected Cooper's hawks and that can be considered by the Commission. Moreover,the Commission must consider whether AT&T has complied with federal regulations mandating preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)under NEPA. AT&T's June 8th letter includes Attachment D,which is a"Biological Evaluation" dated June 2"d. This is plainly in response to my communication to AT&T between May 31 st and June 2nd notifying AT&T of an intent to file a complaint with the FCC. The hastily-prepared so-called evaluation does not claim to involve any site visit or consideration of risks to MBTA-protected species from nesting in the cell tower itself. It only considers potential problem of nests in the trees that will be removed during construction. This does not satisfy the requirements of a NEPA EA.42 On behalf of a different client, I filed a complaint with the FCC on June 9th,which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The FCC will evaluate this complaint and determine if it concurs with my client that AT&T is required to file an EA under these circumstances. Given that AT&T has not met the requirements of FCC regulations,pursuant to City Code Section 230.96(G)(6),the City must not approve AT&T's application. F. A 60-Foot Tower in a CO Zone with a Diesel Generator does not Qualify for the CEQA Exemption. City staff claim that this application qualifies for the "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures"CEQA exemption provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. That exemption is for"construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or 4°Willie R. Taylor,Dept.of Interior,Letter to Eli Veenendall, FCC,Feb. 7,2014,available at https://ehtrust.org/department-interior-letter-impacts-birds-electromagnetic-radiation-outdated-fcc-limits/. 41 FCC,Fact Sheet:Raptor Nesting on Towers(May 12,2016),available at https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and- antenna-siting. 42 See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. § 1.1311 (required elements of an EA). 10 structures [and] installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures[.]"The regulation does not define"small"but offers a nonexclusive list of examples, such as one single- family dwelling, a store not exceeding 2,500 square feet, commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet"on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances[,]" or"[a]ccessory(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences."The proposed tower is not an"accessory"to anything on the Church property and is not covered by any of the specific examples. In the case of Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego, this CEQA exemption was upheld for a 35-foot faux tree antenna tower hidden in a stand of taller trees in a city park because it was "much smaller than a single-family residence, store,motel, office or restaurant[.]"43 However, unlike the 35-foot disguised tower among trees at issue in Don't Cell Our Parks,AT&T's proposed facility is far more conspicuous. It is also more out of place with the surrounding environment than the installations considered in Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Association v. City& County of San Francisco where the court in 2022 explained that this CEQA exemption cannot be used to exempt 90-foot-tall light standards because they are significantly taller than any other structure in the neighborhood, the city's zoning ordinance limits residential buildings in the area to 40 feet tall and typical streetlights are only 25 to 30 feet tall. . .The cell tower[in the Don't Cell Our Parks case]was small within its setting, unlike the light standards at issue here which will be by far the tallest structure in the surrounding area. They are not small within the environment but instead tower over it.44 Here too, surrounding structures are of virtually identical height to the buildings in Saint Ignatius and the zoning height limit in the CO zone is the same (40 feet).45 While AT&T's 60- foot tower is less than 90 feet, it has the potential to grow 20 feet under federal law(as discussed above). It also is not necessarily the case that the Church is a site"zoned for such use"because a CUP is required in order to exceed the 40-foot height limit 46 Moreover, it entails a diesel above- ground tank,which is the "use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." As explained in 43 Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego(2018)21 Cal.App. 5th 338,359-360. 44 Saint Ignatius Neighborhood Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco(2022)85 Cal. App. 5th 1063, 1072-73. 45 Huntington Beach Code§211.06. 46 Id. §230.72. 11 connection with discussion of the General Plan, the diesel generator will have significant and unexplored environmental impacts due to noise and pollution. 20kW generators are not typical "small structures" in this neighborhood. When a project entails a"feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class"47 it does not qualify for the exemption. The excessive height of the AT&T facility in this specific zone,the noise and toxic pollutants from the diesel generator and the RF emissions above FCC limits potentially affecting Cooper's hawks roosting on the tower make this project clearly ineligible for the Section 15303 CEQA exemption 48 These factors are also "unusual circumstances"that will have a significant effect on the environment, further making use of the exemption inappropriate.49 G. AT&T has not Established that Federal Preemption Applies. AT&T claims that the City must approve its application or violate federal law by imposing an"effective prohibition."However,AT&T has not demonstrated this to be the case. AT&T's Project Information and Justification Letter from February 28, 2023, included as Attachment 4 to the Agenda, and its letter to the Commission dated June 8th refers to increasing use of mobile phones for calls in place of landlines and the need for good mobile coverage to make 911 calls. However,4G LTE,the service that AT&T asserts the facility will provide, is not usually required for voice phone calls but is rather for mobile broadband. There is no problem with phone service in the targeted area. Moreover,the FCC National Broadband Map shows that AT&T already provides mobile broadband, including indoors and inside cars, in the area sought to be served by this facility (see map attached as Exhibit D). The FCC map states it was updated as of May 2023. FCC regulations require that AT&T submit accurate information [for each of the mobile broadband technologies,3G,4G LTE,and 5G-NR,and for mobile voice services, the provider's coverage maps must account for terrain and clutter and use terrain and clutter data with a resolution of 100 meters or better. Each coverage map must have a resolution of 100 meters or better.5° This suggests that AT&T's purported gap in coverage is, at a minimum, overstated. 47 Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley(2015)60 Ca1.4th 1086, 1105. 48 Note:FCC shot clocks do not prevent the City from conducting proper CEQA review because"the shot clock requirements create only presumptions. . . local officials can show that additional time is necessary under the circumstances."City of Portland, 969 F.3d at 1043. 49 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). so 47 C.F.R. § 1.7004(c)(3)(iii) 12 Assuming there is a need for improved wireless broadband coverage, some courts have held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 only prohibits the effective prohibition of voice call service,not broadband. For instance,the Town of Flower Hill,New York, recently refused to approve a distributed antenna system (DAS)that provided wireless broadband. The applicant sued and the Town prevailed because the federal district court judge ruled that the Act only applies to "personal wireless services,"which does not include 4G broadband, and therefore, denying the application did not violate federal law.51 Even if the 4G LTE service sought to be provided by AT&T qualifies as"personal wireless services," "[t]he TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small dead spots".52 Rather,the approach should offer"the best solution for the community"53 based on the values expressed in the local ordinance. Without explaining what level of service could be obtained with a shorter tower, several small cells or collocation on multiple existing antennas (whether owned by AT&T or another carrier,whether macro or small cell),AT&T cannot demonstrate an effective prohibition. In this case,AT&T appears to have found a willing lessor in the Church and then worked backward to generate map images that show this site, and only this site,as filling precisely the conspicuous gap shown. It is suspicious in the extreme that there is only one feasible site and only one willing lessor. Without any understanding of the underlying data or inputs used to generate these coverage maps, and lacking the technical expertise to interrogate them, it is impossible to know the feasibility of any alternatives substantially meeting AT&T's claimed personal wireless service coverage objectives.54 AT&T lists 11 potential alternatives. For several locations,AT&T reports that the "property owner were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF."This alone does not demonstrate AT&T having made a good faith effort to consider that location. The Commission 51 Extenet Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Flower Hill(E.D.N.Y.2022)617 F. Supp.3d 125; see also,Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates(9th Cir.2009)583 F.3d 716,727(questioning whether the Telecommunications Act's"anti-prohibition language even covers situations,like that presented here,in which a telecommunications service provider seeks to replace existing WCFs,as contrasted with the more typical situation in which the provider seeks to construct new WCFs."). 52 Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C., 583 F.3d at 727(internal punctuation omitted);see also Id. (discussion of distinction between"gap"and"significant gap"). 53 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City& County of San Francisco(9th Cir.2005)400 F.3d 715,734. 54 Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego(9th Cir.2014)763 F.3d 1035, 1056(accepting the applicant's mere assertion about what is or is not feasible"would make the applicant—rather than the locality—the arbiter of feasibility and intrusiveness[.]"). 13 should inquire whether AT&T had already secured the lease at the Church and was actually disincentivized to find feasible alternatives that might make the City less inclined to approve its first choice. There is no information about the commercially-reasonableness of the terms offered to the owners and no copies of the actual communications included in the record.AT&T should be required to share, in confidence, copies of the actual communications with the City. To recap, because the FCC maps show there is already in-building 4G coverage; wireless broadband alone does not qualify as "personal wireless services;"AT&T has not demonstrated what degree of coverage could be afforded with a different, less intrusive permutation of its application, such as a shorter tower, colocation or multiple small cells; and AT&T has not documented that its efforts to obtain alternative sites were commercially reasonable,AT&T cannot establish that federal law mandates approval because even if this site is not approved, other locations may be feasible to substantially meet its legitimate coverage goals. H. The City Must Retain an Expert if it Intends to Approve the Application Based on Asserted Preemption. Even if the Commission is inclined to believe AT&T that denial would amount to an effective prohibition,the Commission lacks the authority to approve AT&T's application at the June 13th hearing on that basis alone. The City Code states as follows: A myriad of factors are involved in determining if a gap is significant,such as:whether the gap affects a commuter highway; the nature and character of the area and the number of potential users affected by the alleged lack of service; whether the signal is weak or nonexistent and whether the gap affects a commercial district. Consequently,the City will require scientific evidence from an expert in the field demonstrating the existence of a significant gap in service, and a lack of feasible alternative sites. The applicant will be required to pay for the cost of said expert opinion.55 As explained above,this is a very reasonable policy. Had AT&T appealed a denial on the basis of federal preemption, it would have paid a special review fee and provided the specific information demanded by Code Section 230.96(F)(2). The Commission may not now simply accept AT&T's say-so;the City Council has already legislatively concluded that City staff lacks the expertise to evaluate the veracity of this type of claim. Consequently, if the Commission determines that AT&T has not met its burden of proof with respect to any requirements in the ss Huntington Beach Code §230.96(A). 14 City Code but is concerned that federal preemption demands approval,the City is required to hire an independent expert.56 I. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons,the Commission must reject AT&T's application as incomplete and inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance,Noise Ordinance and General Plan, and not compliant with federal environmental laws. It also must find that project in eligible for a Section 15303 categorical exemption from CEQA. Respectfully, G E IRE LAW, PC ie trauss, Of-Counsel 56 The City should consider hiring Center for Municipal Solutions www.telecomsol.com/www2/node/20, a consultancy that exclusively advises municipalities on telecommunications permitting issues. 15 Exhibit A Liticro City of Huntington Beach {ok • e, Department of Community Development Planning Application Number: ,, • , 2000 Main Street,3rd Floor I •' . Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Entitlement Number(s): < ':.::,:.„i.. ..; /7 / (714)536-5271 �: www.huntingtonbeactica.gov ' ' "4;,`:1fJ ❑Planning Commission ❑Staff Review --"" Zoning Administrator ['Design Review is Project Address: 8101 SLATER AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 Assessor Parcel Number(s): 167-312-08 Project Description/Request: AT&T Mobility Wireless Facility stealth monopole in parking of church. Nearest Major Intersection: Beach Blvd. and Slater Ave. Lot Area: Property Owner: Huntington Beach Community Church Telephone: ( (714) 403-5691 Mailing Address: 8101 SLATER AVENUE Email: mboswith©hbcc.org City: HUNTINGTON BEACH State: CA Zip: 92647 Applicant/Authorized Agent: AT&T Mobility: John Silverman with Smartlink Telephone: ( 818 ) 823-0631 Mailing Address: 3300 Irvine Ave., suite #300 Email:john.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com City: Newport Beach State: CA Zip: 92660 I, ,Print Pronrrty ownar's Name; am the property owner of the subject property and have read and understand all statements including the filing requirements on the reverse side of this application. I hereby authorize tPrint Agonis Nanjai John Silverman of Smartlink to act as my representative and to bind me in all matters concerning this application. I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements, facts and attachments are true and correct. I understand that this application for entitlement or variance may be denied, modified or approved with conditions and that such conditions or modifications must be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits. I understand that by filing the application, information on the application including, but not necessarily limited to, the name and address will be included on public records that are posted on the internet. //�� ' A" � Z S`-1, 2_' A0.- 1/27/2023 Property Owner's Si e: Date: Applicant's gnature: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee: Environmental Review Zoning: DM: 0 Coastal Development Permit 0 Exempt E Ownership Verification General Plan Designation: El Applicant Authorization ❑Conditional Use Permit Section: ❑APN General Pian Sub Area: ❑Design Review ❑EA Required Plans 0 Entitlement Plan Amendment EA Fee: $ ❑Notification Req. Distributed By: ❑Planned Sign Program 0 Narrative Pursuant To: ❑Sign Code Exception [j Coastal Area: ❑Photos/Slides ❑Temporary Use Permit El Cat.Exclusion ❑Entertainment Permit ❑Variance [�HOA Approval ❑Appeal Area: Total Fee: Receipt No.: ❑Administrative Permit ❑Plans Date Stamped Received 8y: ❑General Plan Amend ❑Flood Zone Date Received: ❑Zoning Map Amend ❑Earthquake Zone ❑Seismic Hazard Zoning Text Amend El Oil District [I]Scenic Corridor Previous Cases: ❑ ❑Methane District ❑Residential Infill Local Coastal Program Amend Military Buffer ❑ ElNoise&CNEL ❑ G:iForms 2015\Planning\COUNTERrapplication Exhibit B °/1 ki City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Code Enforcement Division Building Division 714/536-5271 714/375-5155 714/536-5241 Fee $ 1,623 Wireless Permit No. 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 that qualifies for Director approval shall be considered for determination of completeness until this form and required attachments are provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Every page of this form, including this page, must be completed and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach, and each page must be signed and/or initialed where indicated. Questions about this form or the required information to be provided should be directed to the Project Planner assigned to your project or to the Department of Community Development at (714) 536-5271 for the City of Huntington Beach. You are advised to be familiar with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), which establishes standards and guidelines for the installation of wireless communication facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> Prior to submittal of a wireless permit application, an address assignment shall be obtained for all freestanding wireless communications facilities. (http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Address Assignment Application 2009.pdf) 1.00 Information 1.01 Project Address: 1.02 Project Assessors Parcel Number: 1.03 Name of Applicant (Primary Contact): 1.04 Applicant is: Owner Owner's Representative Other 1.05 Applicant's Address Line 1: 1.06 Applicant's Address Line 2: 1.07 Applicant's Phone Number: 1.08 Applicant's Mobile Number: 1.09 Applicant's Fax Number: 1.10 Applicant's Email Address: 1.11 Name of Property Owner: 1.12 Property Owner's Address Line 1: 1.13 Property Owner's Address Line 2: 1.14 Property Owner's Phone Number: If Applicant is the Property Owner and the name and contact information above is the same, initial here _ and proceed to 2.01. <Continue to next Page> Page 2 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: 2.00: Project Owner Information (i.e., carrier) 2.01: Disclose the Names, Addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers for all Project Owners (use additional sheets if required and mark as "Attachment 2.01"): 2.02: Project Owner Name (i.e., carrier or licensee): 2.03: Address (line 1): 2.04: Address (line 2): 2.05: City: State: Zip: 2.06: Contact Person Name: 2.07: Contact Person's telephone n i imhpr/Pxtpnsinn• 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 if Attachment 2.08 is attached to this application, and continue to 2.09. 2.09: If the Applicant is not the property owner, attach a letter of agency appointing the Applicant or Project Owner as representative of the Property Owner in connection with this application. Designate the letter of agency as "Attachment 2.09". Initial here if Attachment 2.09 is attached to this application, and continue to 3.00. <Continue to next page> Page 3 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: 3.00 Project Purpose 3.01 Justification. Provide a non-technical narrative, accompanied by written documentation where appropriate, which explains the purpose(s) of the proposed Project. Label as "Attachment 3.01." 3.02 Indicate whether the primary 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 specific area not already served by existing radio frequency coverage by the same Owner or affiliated entity (such as roaming agreement with an affiliated entity for a cellular or PCS carrier). Other 3.03 If the answer in 3.02 is not "Other" proceed to 3.05. 3.04 Attach a statement fully and expansively describing the "Other" primary purpose of this project. Designate this attachment, "Attachment 3.04". Initial to indicate that Attachment 3.04 is attached to this application. here 3.05 Provide three (3) sets of site plans, floor plans, and building elevations a maximum of 24" x 36" in size. Plans shall conform to HBZSO Section 230.96 and the following applicable requirements: Page 4 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: a. Draw to scale (minimum scale 1/8"= 1' or 1"= 30'); indicate dimensions of building and floor uses; and north direction arrow. Plans shall be oriented so that north points to the top of the page. b. Plot the entire parcel and dimension all pertinent data such as easements, driveways, landscaping, parking, fencing, and distances to all property lines. c. Plot all existing and proposed physical features, fences/walls, and structures on the subject property and abutting properties. d. Dimension to the nearest intersecting street and identify all street names. e. Dimension height of all structures from the highest adjacent curb. f. Building elevations shall depict all sides of building and indicate colors and materials proposed. g. Identify the legal description of the subject property on the site plan. h Fnlrl all plans to a maximum ci7P of R-1/7" Y 11" (InwPr right rnrnPr nut) 3.06 Is the project: Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.B.10) Completely Stealth (HBZSO Section 230.96.6.3) Visible, Not Stealth Office Use Only: Zoning General Plan Major Intersection DM <Continue to next page> 4.00: Project Photographs and Photo Simulations 4.01: 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 photographs and photo simulations. Photographs and photo simulation views must, at a minimum, be taken from widely scattered positions separated by an angle of no greater than 72 degrees from any other photo location. Page 5 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: 4. For each photograph and photo simulation. Show on an area map the location and perspective angle of each photograph and photo simulation in relationship to the Project location. 5. All `before' and 'after' photographs and photo simulations must be of the same scale. For example, do not place a smaller `before' photo in a box on the same page as a large "after" photo simulation. The number of site photographs, and photo simulations, and the actual or simulated camera location of these photographs and photo simulations are subject to City of Huntington Beach determination. The Applicant must submit photographs and photo simulations consistent with these instructions, and be prepared to provide additional photographs and photo simulations should they be requested by the City of Huntington Beach. <Continue to next page> 5.00: Form Certification 5.01: The undersigned certifies on behalf of itself and the Applicant that the answers provided here are true and complete to the best of the undersigned's knowledge. Signature Title Print Name Email Address Page 6 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: Print Company Name Telephone Number/extension Date Signed <Stop Here. End of Form.> Page 7 of 7 Applicant Must Initial Here: Exhibit C GREENFIRE Ariel Strauss,Of-Counsel 2001 Addison Street,Suite 300 LAW, PC Berkeley,CA 94704 Phone:(510)900-9502 x 702 Email: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com www.greenfirelaw.com June 9, 2023 By Electronic Mail To: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (towercommentsgfcc.gov_) From: Greenfire Law, P.C. Subject: Petition for an Immediate Order to Undertake NEPA Review (8101 Slater Avenue,Huntington Beach,CA 92647) Dear Federal Communications Commission: Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1307(d)and 1.1312(a),(d),please accept this petition that the Federal Communications Commission order Smartlink Group to immediately prepare an Environmental Assessment("EA")prior to any construction of a 18.3-meter-tall wireless facility on 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California,92647,as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"),1 National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")2 and the Commission's regulations3 to consider potential injury to Cooper's hawks known to nest and roost on the property.To our knowledge the proposed structure is not registered with the FCC and has not filed any public environmental notice. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 1.47,this petition has been served on the applicant, Smartlink Group by U.S. Mail. It has also been provided by email to the applicant's representative and outside legal counsel for AT&T. The Cooper's Hawk is a protected migratory bird under the MBTA.4 The Department of the Interior recently reaffirmed an obligation of individuals and businesses to avoid unintentional "incidental take" under the MBTA.5 As explained by the FCC "even though a potentially significant effect on migratory birds is not one of the categories of proposed actions identified in Section 1.1307(a) of the rules as requiring an EA, the Commission has on several occasions considered the impact of particular proposed construction projects on migratory birds, and in 1 16 U.S.C. § 703-712. 2 42 U.S.C. §4321,et seq. 3 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(d), 1.1308, 1.1311. 4 See,50 C.F.R. § 10.13(c)(1)("Cooper's,Accipiter cooperii"'). 5 86 Fed.Reg. 54642(Oct.4,2021). Page 2 of 5 appropriate circumstances has required modifications to protect them."6 The regulations allows "interested persons . . . to seek environmental review with respect to effects, such as impact on migratory birds, that do not routinely require preparation of an environmental assessment."7 Typically, there is no direct evidence of a protected migratory birds roosting within feet of the proposed wireless facility-related activity. The instant case is routine and requires particular attention. In January 2023, Smartlink Group,on behalf of AT&T Mobility (referred to jointly herein as"AT&T"), filed an application with the City of Huntington Beach, California,to construct a 18.3-meter(60-foot)wireless telecommunication tower clad in plastic branches and leaves.The facility was later described in filings to the City as the following: 60-foot mono-broadleaf structure, Emerson power cabinet, Purcell cabinets (stacked), twenty panel antennas(five per sector), forty-eight RRUs at antenna level (12 per sector), one GPS antenna, a 20-kilowatt compact generator on concrete pad, four DC-9 surge suppressors,and four DC-12 Outdoor units within the walk-in cabinet. A true and correct copy of the site plan submitted by AT&T is attached as Exhibit A. On April 19,2023,the City held a hearing and approved a planning permit to construct and operate the facility. Residents have appealed that approval and an administrative hearing is presently set for June 13,2023. In connection with the City's processing of the application, neighbors submitted comments that the faux tree tower would harm Cooper's hawks and spoke out at the April 19, 2023,hearing, which AT&T's representative attended,regarding the potential for harm to the hawks.Neighbors also complained to the site owner. On May 3,2023,the site owner's representative stated by email: The plan calls for the cell tower to be in the form of a eucalyptus tree. As the church property already has eucalyptus trees on it, it will be hard to distinguish from the trees that are already there. I have included here a link to a project to develop this particular kind of cell tower, so you can see what it will look like. https://www.ocregister.com/2014/07/24/eucalyptus-tree-no-irvine-co-is-helping-make-a- cellphone-tower/ 6 FCC,In re Nat'l Envtl. Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registration,26 FCC Rcd 16700, 16706(Dec.6,2011)(internal citations omitted); see also,Exec.Order No. 13186,Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds(Jan. 10,2001). 26 FCC Rcd at 16708;see also FCC,In re Effects of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds Notice of Inquiry,WT Docket No. 03-187,p. 8(Aug.20,2003);9 FCC Rcd 6901,6903 (1994)(EA ordered where community groups contended that an antenna would result in the unintentional"take"of migratory birds). Page 3 of 5 Because of this design, the tower is not going to "Harm and detour" the birds in your neighborhood.They will be resting and nesting in the structure that is built. Over the last decade,numerous neighbors have observed Cooper's Hawk adults and chicks roosting and nesting in trees on the site property and adjacent to it, such as at 8092 Windy Sands Circle, which is the residential property directly to the north abutting the proposed diesel generator area in which a eucalyptus tree is proposed to be removed per the plan in Exhibit A. True and correct copies of letters from the neighbors are attached as Exhibit B along with of a video and photographs of Cooper's hawks on the subject and adjacent properties, including flying low over 8092 Windy Sands Circle with the red two-story primary building on the subject property site visible in the background. Prior to submitting this petition,I contacted AT&T and their counsel to determine whether any environmental assessment had been conducted. Smartlink's representative responsible for processing permit applications with the City stated the opinion that the tower was categorically exempt from NEPA, indicating that impact to Cooper's hawks had not been considered; AT&T's stated a plan to follow up earlier this week but no update has been received. An AT&T representative also declined to state whether any"NEPA reports"existed. A true and correct copy of that communication is attached hereto as Exhibit C. AT&T was obligated to conduct all appropriate analysis prior to obtaining City approval for a specific location, tower design and antenna configuration but has not done so. The site owner's personal opinion aside,attracting birds to antenna towers poses serious risks to them, and is not a suitable location for birds' nests,regardless of the tower's stylistic appearance. First, FCC guidance documents warns of the risk of entanglement of raptors in towers, noting: Before initiating construction or maintenance activities on towers with nests it is critical to contact the state natural resource protection agency and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) field office for permits,recommendations, and requirements.8 There is no indication of any consideration by AT&T of impacts to Cooper's hawks or having engaged in any consultation or undertaken any best practices to reduce the risk of entanglement in the proposed tower. AT&T also has not shown any indication of having considered the potential impact of cutting down trees and constructing and operating a diesel generator adjacent to where the Cooper's hawks roost and nest. Second,hawks can roost on or close to antennas, as anticipated by the site owner, where the RF emissions will exceed FCC human occupational limits. It is entirely consistent with the FCC's RF human exposure regulations to recognize that exposing birds, including eggs and FCC,Fact Sheet:Raptor Nesting on Towers(May 12,2016),available at https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division/tower-and- antenna-siting. Page 4 of 5 chicks,to RF levels that the FCC already recognizes as unsafe,even for trained workers, would have determinantal environmental effects, including potentially excess death. Furthermore,the Department of the Interior,which is charged with enforcing the MBTA, has informed the FCC of serious concern that the FCC's current RF standards are insufficiently protective of migratory birds.9 The letter cites to several studies showing harm to birds from exposure to FCC-compliant levels of RF. The Department of the Interior letter was specifically emphasized in a recent decision from the D.C. Circuit as a basis for ordering the FCC to conduct further review of current RF emission standards.10 Courts have recognized that members of the public may petition the FCC to require further environmental analysis when FCC-compliant levels of RF from a federally-license project may harm wildlife." One factor that must be considered within NEPA analysis is the"degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks."12 AT&T was obligated to consider these RF-related risks to Cooper's hawks under the MBTA and FCC regulations but has not done so. Even if AT&T initially was not aware of the circumstances when it first applied to the City, in light of the information provided, it is now obligated to initiate an EA prior to construction and operation of an antenna tower designed to mimic the nesting habitat of Cooper's hawks.13 The information contained this petition demonstrates that AT&T's proposed activity"may have a significant environmental impact"within the standard set by Section 1.307(d). As a result, the Commission must immediately direct AT&T to prepare and file an EA prior to engaging in any site-altering activity. 9 Willie R. Taylor,Dept.of Interior,Letter to Eli Veenendall,Feb. 7,2014,available at https://ehtrust.org/department-interior-letter-impacts-birds-electromagnetic-radiation-outdated-fcc-limits/; see also,Thielens,A. et al.,Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz, 8 SCI REP 3924(2018), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3(discussing impact of non-ionizing radiation to birds and wildlife). 10 Envtl. Health Trust v. FCC,9 F.4th 893,909-910(D.C. Cir.2021). 11 See Jaeger v. Cellco P'ship,(D.Conn.Mar. 15,2010,No.3:09CV567)2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24394,at *26(noting propriety of seeking FCC review of impact of FCC-compliant levels of RF on eagles despite local authorities being preempted from considering such impacts). 12 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5);see also Sierra Club v.Norton(friends of the Earth,Inc.,207 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1336(S.D.Ala.2002)("Under NEPA, it cannot use the lack of existing information as a basis for acting without preparing an EIS."). 13 47 C.F.R. § 1.312(d)("If,following the initiation of construction under this section,the licensee or applicant discovers that the proposed facility may have a significant environmental effect,it shall immediately cease construction which may have that effect,and submit the information required by § 1.1311 of this part."). Page 5 of 5 This petition is submitted on behalf of an interested person residing in close proximity to the proposed facility. Please contact me with any questions regarding this petition. Respectfully submitted, Aii _ Ariel Strauss cc: Garnet Hanly Chief, Competition& Infrastructure Policy Division,(garnet.hanly@fcc.gov) Exhibit A We ma N wale,ale, 8 u AT&T 6 o51.P.CALIFORNIA ti00 i f: aB �.�_�� e J '1 I �-- — — — — — — CIN CONTASIED IX T.SET Of MM. ,R A,., , a Ijj, a n��. urt • / ' t r smartlink SECTOR 'A' g I` "'�""z 0' Bxro11,114E AVENUE SUITE Bm. Ntnm.xir BEACH.aBnm Ero fil..11US E 1�$ ',, - - - - - — EI:040119 1Mis IEABE AREA PT- - �E T�1� i • r 1 EiR(4k / B 7 �`\�� RBA nsxcx uvu.wn !� I �..\ (BwBur.NI A�iIufEM cu EDTRwmair 0 o,4�s' x ,\ rt)RBIu nntf �I t,c / �``� To BE aunm L I i �r K. I \A � 'atr AVIExu.lou,Nx rNV — SECTOR 'D' 0.�qB I • f �' faril-11*0 _ __. 270' WI I /� 7 -E--- 4; «.Nx.B.r I § TO BE PUOVED i NOT TO BE USED / m SWAN °;" FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 B 111111111. 1011111 I % / I I WO'onNO-BROADLEAr MOWER TO RACE b PC / I a fi" ABAE,A E .Ri.T ►.t I-r INC(xBIEII)lam,Bf7 CLL01310 ) 1 ii KKM, urt 10 9 } 8101 SLATER AVENUE �E)vu«iNe7 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 O i IU : T0 ^ x[ MONO-BROADLEAF(OUTDOOR) / i DRAIN EI, CHECK.,: 1.( v T,f i I I u s a�;AI6 1 A J I SECTOR 'C' sNEET nnE: 1 i AENLARGED SITE PLAN NBA i • min Bf90+4 m.o.AIC MYJ ON IxKm sun.Fmk MN CBOBIDArCN Ny COMO&: lyT a Cytn�.10 t. _ NO TH SHEET NIIYBER: A-1.1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN I SC�L� p... �.I 1 Exhibit B Ernest & Jody Delisanti 8092 Windy Sands Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 May 14, 2023 To Whom it May Concern: We (Ernest and Jody Delisanti) have been residents at the address above for almost 32 years and have observed the Cooper's hawks for approximately the last 10-12 years. We first noticed the hawk's nest about 10 years ago in the Eucalyptus tree (which is in the church parking lot)closest to our house. We watched the hawks tending the nest and subsequent baby hawks every year for about 5 or 6 years. The nest was removed at some point a few years back, but we continually saw adult and baby hawks every spring. After some searching,we saw that they had constructed a new nest a few trees closer to Slater Avenue in the same church parking lot. We have supplied several pictures (all taken by Jody)and a video (also taken by Jody) of hawk activity detailed below: 1. I (Jody)took the two pictures, dated June 22, 2015, which are of hawks in the Eucalyptus tree closest to our house. 2. The other picture, dated March 20, 2013, is in the Jacaranda tree in front of our neighbor's house, Craig Phillips at 8101 Windy Sands Circle, Huntington Beach, CA. 3. The video, dated June 17, 2017, was taken of the fledgling hawks in the tree in our front yard. We have both seen the hawks every spring in the trees located in our neighborhood. They are seen eating, bathing in the water that collects in the street, and teaching their young to fly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, � n By: Date? / ' 2G2� Ernest Delisanti(g-6#7)d:1414;By: Date: -1/l !ulv2U�_dy Delisanti • yr � + . 1i �ltla� • " • • • 111 c" "'. i .i • • 0. fr .. '�►.!'.' •r '� *.^Yak + -� - it ' �pd w `. �.., - VW ». .4.r.---k, - .. . ( ;. „fin. i i� _ ,� s • s+ • ' �.;4 +`Ar., y 1 it p P7 O r i r t lit ' Of r-+. A I 1 ! J .1 1 .10it 4 ' '". 11',‘,' s iillir ; ,) a , ! 1P4* NI 4 sh, j4f4i I f P) 1 c, - t .itk I) 1r If , • N l; ll 10 r+M• "I � l N1" r , �" , /ilk * ''' 14 °J1. I f': 4 ,\, , , .. � ' t r 1# ry I r � w ,,kilt !r i 4:, ti.. 'Ift, Video Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fjb7yPIVZHkHZvx2orZAT2- 30tgchhgU/view?usp=sharing. David&Angela Gridley 8062 Windy Sands Circle Huntington Beach CA 92647 June 5,2023 To Whom it may concern, We have been residents at the above address for the past 10 years and have observed the Cooper's Hawk on and off over the years in the area. We first noticed the Hawk flying around between the 8092 Windy Sands Circle and 8082 Windy Sands Circle close to the open parking area. The nesting during that time was a tree near 8092 Windy Sands Circle Around the same time we noticed that there were baby hawks in the area as they were walking around in front of 8081 Windy Sands Circle. This is supported by the photos taken between June 18th and June 24th, 2016. We both have seen the hawks return year over year to the trees in our neighborhood. Thank you, Sincerely, Z.1441/4; 61c./7c .0 David Gridley Date: Angela Gridley Date: r. his •, roaklsr:V �\ .4.0. ..,' Alii.joilr,;:.. , . j , t t 1. f 7, - - .. , y� yM . �f,%� i IIIf r _ ��1 /.;. - d, . , — ''."-.'ar '• V • " ,as . .. - .•- Nikk �• • / 41 .w .144 R • j j— ,Tali - w ¢'..s1{A P�j c yv* 1J .4. y � � • § y. � • _ . © w . . . \, /• 'd %z . . . . / • \^« \\ \/' , , . . • / • \1 . {} ^\\ 7 '" . « '}Jy , °« A. \ \ "A, m. . . .� • < � d�{§, . x . . . \ «»w. : ,. y 2 d t <+ \, /.��. . . yz \ ^ . - - I• .._ Ai o - -0 , fe- • -„.. ‘ i • t 4 i 14i1 ,11, V 111 ,..„. .....„..........., 44„... .......-- i ;.--100 4.4, 4 1 ONO 4 II •I d''._ ... ,., ,.. ,„2.5., ,.. 5V ' ,, . •''' -V i=r: '! ,- ,,,,,, • „,,,0, ,,,,,,,„•,4.,, . .., , I, v411 , ,. atal ,...,., , it • g At' .' -it+ , ' III i 1 t." . Exhibit C astrauss@greenfirelaw.com From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 2:54 PM To: 'Shank,Aaron M.' Cc: 'Will Kazimi; 'Alisha Strasheim'; 'John Silverman'; io109k@att.com Subject: RE:#EXT# RE: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No. CLL01310) Good afternoon Mr Shank, I appreciate your reaching out, as I believe direct communication with experienced counsel, such as yourself,will be most productive. As you are aware, NEPA analysis should not be only"under way"at this point but must have been completed prior to seeking approval by the local agency for a specific site, design and antenna configuration. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do all appropriate due diligence early in the process. Having already obtained final local approval appears to strongly prejudice the options that would practically be considered by AT&T. While, I do wish to resolve this issue cooperatively, I intend to move forward with filing a complaint by June 7th if the materials provided do not demonstrate the appropriate level of NEPA compliance or AT&T does not agree to complete an EA. Sincerely, Ariel 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. From: Shank,Aaron M. <AShank@porterwright.com> Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 2:21 PM To:'astrauss@greenfirelaw.com'<astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Cc: 'Will Kazimi'<will.kazimi@smartlinkgroup.com>; 'Alisha Strasheim'<alisha.strasheim@smartlinkgroup.com>; 'John Silverman'<john.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com>; io109k@att.com Subject: RE:#EXT# RE: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No. CLL01310) Good afternoon, Mr.Strauss. I am AT&T's outside counsel,and I wanted to reach back out to you following the email exchanges in the last couple of days.AT&T did not intend to appear dismissive of the issue that you raise.The NEPA analysis is underway, but it is not yet completed. I have spoken with AT&T's in-house lawyer about this issue, and he is planning to look into the status and scope of AT&T's NEPA analysis.We plan to follow up with you by mid-next week on the issue. Have a nice weekend. Aaron M.Shank Outside Counsel for AT&T 1 AARON M. SHANK Porter Wright Morris&Arthur LLP Bio / ashank(a oorterwright.com D: 614.227.2110 / M:614.578.5036 / F: 614.227.2100 41 South High Street, Suites 2800-3200 / Columbus, OH 43215 / MANSFIELD CERTIFIED PLUS We are moving the needle on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Learn more From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:30 PM To:'John Silverman'<john.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com>; io109k@att.com Cc:Shank,Aaron M.<AShankPporterwright.com>; 'Will Kazimi'<will.kazimi@smartlinkgroup.com>; 'Alisha Strasheim' <alisha.strasheim@smartlinkgroup.com> Subject:#EXT#RE: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No. CLL01310) #External Email# Good evening, Thank you for the prompt response. It is much appreciated. Section 1.1307(d) provides that "If the Bureau responsible for processing a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded,determines that the proposal may have a significant environmental impact,the Bureau,on its own motion, shall require the applicant to electronically submit an EA." The Note associated with that subsection confirms that the environmental review must encompass consideration of significant impact to species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While the regulations specify that an EA"shall [be] require[d]"whenever the tower is 450 feet tall,this is but one example and an EA is also necessary in other instances where impacts to MBTA-protected birds are a significant possibility. In 2014,the Department of Interior submitted comments to the FCC expressing RF-related MBTA concerns and several studies have identified harm to eggs due to RF exposure. If the Cooper's hawks nest or roost next to antennas in the faux tree(or potentially in nearby trees as well),as should be anticipated by the Pastor and neighbors,they, and their eggs and chicks,would be subject to RF levels in excess of what would be permissible for much larger and more resilient humans, with potential harm to these birds. The FCC has considered potential harm to migratory birds from tower strikes in past EAs,courts have indicated that complaints to the FCC would be procedurally proper concerning RF-related impacts to migratory birds,the Department of Interior recently reaffirmed an obligation to consider incidental take under the MBTA(86 FR 54642 (Oct. 4, 2021))and the FCC is also still considering a 2020 EA complaint regarding RF-related impacts to migratory birds from a proposed Verizon tower in South Lake Tahoe; it has placed the project on-hold pending a determination. My reading of your response shows that AT&T has not yet considered impacts to the Cooper's hawk,though I have seen comments regarding this concern submitted to the City of Huntington Beach during the permitting hearing process. Is AT&T amenable to conducing environmental analysis to avoid the need to adjudicate this issue before the FCC? Sincerely, Ariel 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 2 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. From:John Silverman <john.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:24 PM To:astraussPgreenfirelaw.com; io109k@att.com Cc:Shank,Aaron M. <AShank@porterwright.com>;Will Kazimi<will.kazimi@smartlinkgroup.com>;Alisha Strasheim <alisha.strasheim@smartlinkgroup.com> Subject: RE: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach(AT&T Proj. No. CLL01310) Good afternoon, Mr.Strauss. To my knowledge AT&T's project is categorically exempt under NEPA because it satisfies the FCC's rules under 47 CFR 1.1306 and 1.1307. Please let us know if there is a specific rule that applies here. Best, John Silverman s m a rt l i n k Real Estate Specialist II iohn.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com c:818-823-0631 www.smartlinkgroup.com [NPIn.9 AHIH KI CJ,MC[!d F.,Ones, ?D Ytars Link with us. O 0 0 0 From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 31, 2023 12:23 PM To:io109kc att.com;John Silverman <iohn.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com> Subject: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No.CLL01310) CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon Mr. Ocegueda and Mr. Silverman: I am counsel to neighbors living adjacent to the wireless communication facility proposed for 8101 Slater Avenue. I have been informed that Cooper's hawks have been seen nesting and roosting in the trees in the Huntington Beach Community Church parking lot and, according to the Pastor,are anticipated to roost in the proposed faux tree adjacent to the antennas. Given that the Cooper's hawk is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and birds, chicks and eggs may be harmed by very close proximity to RF emissions from the proposed antennas,environmental 3 analysis is required to avoid "incidental take"of protected, migratory birds or violation of environmental protection standards(See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/general/nepa-faq (second question); FCC NEPA Checklist, note (v);47 C.F.R.§ 1.13O7(d) (an EA is required if the action "may have a significant environmental impact.").) Has AT&T undertaken any study or analysis to assure compliance with the MBTA and NEPA regulations with respect to the Cooper's hawk? Please provide copies of any analysis or pertinent documentation. In the event that I do not receive appropriate assurances,on Monday,June 5th, I will be filing a NEPA complaint pursuant to Section 1.1307 of the FCC regulations. I am uncertain of the appropriate person, or identity of AT&T legal counsel,to whom I should direct this inquiry and see you are listed as the contact on the permit issued by Huntington Beach. Please relay this message to the appropriate person to address this issue. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP: This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.If you believe that it has been sent to you in error,do not read,print or forward it.Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error.Then delete it.Thank you. END OF NOTICE 4 astrauss@greenfirelaw.com From: PERKINS -TUBBS, AMANDA J <ap4891@att.com> Sent: Thursday,June 1, 2023 3:12 PM To: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Cc: SILVERMAN, JOHN;OCEGUEDA, IVAN; FRANCO, LAURA Subject: RE: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No. CLL01310) Good afternoon. We do not submit our NEPA reports to third parties.You may file an FCC complaint, if you feel inclined. Thank you. Amanda Perkins Tubbs Manager-Regulatory Relations AT&T Services,Inc. o 469.295.4085 I amanda.i.perkins@att.com From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com <astrauss@greenfirelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 31, 2023 12:23 PM To: io109k@att.com;John Silverman <iohn.silverman@smartlinkgroup.com> Subject: Notice of Intent to File NEPA Complaint to FCC re 8101 Slater Ave., Huntington Beach (AT&T Proj. No.CLL01310) CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon Mr. Ocegueda and Mr.Silverman: I am counsel to neighbors living adjacent to the wireless communication facility proposed for 8101 Slater Avenue. I have been informed that Cooper's hawks have been seen nesting and roosting in the trees in the Huntington Beach Community Church parking lot and, according to the Pastor,are anticipated to roost in the proposed faux tree adjacent to the antennas. Given that the Cooper's hawk is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and birds, chicks and eggs may be harmed by very close proximity to RF emissions from the proposed antennas,environmental analysis is required to avoid "incidental take" of protected, migratory birds or violation of environmental protection standards(See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/general/nepa-faq (second question); FCC NEPA Checklist, note(v);47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(d) (an EA is required if the action "may have a significant environmental impact.").) Has AT&T undertaken any study or analysis to assure compliance with the MBTA and NEPA regulations with respect to the Cooper's hawk? Please provide copies of any analysis or pertinent documentation. In the event that I do not receive appropriate assurances,on Monday,June 5', I will be filing a NEPA complaint pursuant to Section 1.1307 of the FCC regulations. I am uncertain of the appropriate person, or identity of AT&T legal counsel,to whom I should direct this inquiry and see you are listed as the contact on the permit issued by Huntington Beach. Please relay this message to the appropriate person to address this issue. 1 Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 2 EXHBIT D in in,ra'" FCC National Broadband Map P Hone LaUbon Sum., Pomade,DeuW Mea Summary Geld uuwnI,a1 Abend i Broadlun0 lan:1 y NIrgi • a,... S .,'. 1 T13CI.,CA 42E4? - -�_ t.••• • .♦t a Fund 04,0 bmm • •. , _{ %= •a 7 • , • ••••••••••1 ii=1 th•f S i l 2 S {g' selected Lecadon 0 ; •• • • • !i��••'7 +.....•..• ♦ • :I ••••••'••••••i`••••• _ }i l«••••••••e••••r•:t Iw .`g gm,suTntgua • • { •--1....!-•• { • !,••••••••!I 1•i !•I••!• t. {{ NUMINGTMCCH.C4.2.7 •• • • • • es ♦ r• u••} •••••••••M i•..j�t i••MM••- { • t , .. Warless I UM[Count •e • •••••••••••••••!•••e•••e.**n**•. +{i2 •••••• % { M••M • •• • • • • I M• '�wG..�., !tti••••.••rrw••••.a +. i w�; li• Broadband 0 •••!•�•a•• .ram 4 ILA .• t % {_• • •{ lI -�••e•eee.•e•t {i !f1• •t n.oaevo.g0 nVehicle pei I • • • t t •.... i ji! 1• { Sf waa c v,Mba.l E i• • • .• • "R •r •!• • I i:...♦.•e.. I t { t Data 0 Of 31.2oulU#Updated rz4rz3) • Y••,•••••••}{.•♦`•M%Z} • { • •a]}] ,•{{! ••t • :; • :} Outdoor S[DOOndryln Vehicle Mobile• Mobile CM1alkngeO •••t•t••.•i iI i ••••{{• • •. •.i e • � Z { � {I • /jZ+ ..•.I I S .M• Provider 36 WLTE SO-POR .• : • • me ••a••••• •••••e••••••••••rice} ••••44 •••••• t J• • .ATBT I)C ✓ ✓2/1 ✓35,3 • •• •• „, •♦ ♦�=••e .e.r. f I• lilt I l t i �•. I T Mobile USA Inc ✓ ✓]/1 • e ••• • ' • 1St %• •:Wit•••...M..••♦ : • 1.. ( t • •[•I S.MM.. ,•f=v•••e• •f ••••• ' .." a VeriZmn CommuNcatl0ns In<. ., •• • • S •••••C . ••.....4••S•••••• • • • t in.: ••`.1:•.Me.. I S • •'am••a S••. ! f ••1••• •deed,: 1JM'•ts_ f is • • •.w.. •••.•••••• • «.••....... }} { ! • • : • ••• ••♦1••t••eh♦ 4P, t•••••• a• •M•♦. 'j••�V I •••••••••• Map Legend I w • i • ••• •••♦•• eaM• •e• v ..., • • •,.M••M• •H4 G pe110ntdge of Area Served ♦ •• e' w • • S ••• •• •• ••S • •P.'�+f'•Y.• ! •: .. !•.r�iii'WsoB'••••• .B. zo.no+e .• • • • •••••a••� •e•• ,ate 60-609E • {.. • • g , ♦••t.•.••t{ ••••••••••••ow. • : t ••• to••:,'$ wien60-80% • • : • • : •• : f z::;s l • • .. .:.. Itsa t,I s i .....80-1009b https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home Moore, Tania From: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com Sent: Tuesday,July 18, 2023 7:42 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Beckman, Hayden Subject: Appellant's Draft Findings- 7/8 City Council Hearing Agenda Item 17 re CUP No. 23-006 (AT&T Wireless Facility) Attachments: Draft Findings for Resolution Denying CUP-Agenda Item 17.docx Good morning Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Christina Price,the appellant in connection with July 18th Agenda Item 17 concerning appeal of CUP No. 23- 006 (Huntington Beach Community Church Wireless Communication Facility),for the convenience of the Council, attached, please find draft findings for denial of the CUP. Sincerely, Ariel Strauss 510-900-9502 x 702 Greenfire Law,P.C. 2748 Adeline.Street,Suite A Berkeley,CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.Section 2510,and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message.This transmission,and any attachments,may contain confidential attorney- client privileged information and attorney work product.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2,and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 1 Draft Findings for Resolution Denying AT&T's Application for CUP No.23-006 and Approving Christina Price Appeal Based on the information set forth in the staff report, materials submitted by the parties to this appeal, comments from the public, the de novo hearing of July 18, 2023, and the public record as a whole, be it resolved that the City Council finds that:. 1. The applicant has not demonstrated satisfaction of all conditions required under the HBZSO for issuance of a CUP for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility because: a) AT&T's application is materially incomplete in that it does not include photo simulations from sufficient number of angles, close-in photos of equipment or information about photographic angles to determine the aesthetic impact of the proposed facility as requested by Wireless Communication Facility application form. b) AT&T's application is materially incomplete in that it does not include a list of "Locations of all other Wireless Antennas within 1,000 feet of a proposed groundmounted Facility." (HBZSO §§ 230.96(E)(1(g), 230.96(G)(5).) c) AT&T has not met its burden of evaluating and demonstrating that colocation is infeasible on any existing or approved Wireless Antenna within 1,000 feet. (Id.) d) AT&T has not met its burden to establish that a 60-foot facility and associated diesel generator, will not be"detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood" (Id. § 241.10(A)(1)), specifically the residential properties on Windy Sands Circle,the property line for some of which are setback less than the height of the facility. e) AT&T has not met its burden to establish that the facility will remain not "detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood" (Id. § 241.10(A)(1)), specifically the residential properties on Windy Sands Circle, for the duration of the CUP period in light of federal law enabling the potential increase in height of the facility by 20 feet. f) AT&T has not met its present burden of demonstrating that the facility will "meet or exceed" FCC environmental regulations, as required by HBZSO Section 230.96(G)(6), in light of the ongoing review by the FCC. g) AT&T has not met its burden of evaluating potential noise impacts as required to establish that the project will "not adversely affect the General Plan" and comply with the Noise Element. (Id. § 241.10(A)(2).) 2. The proposed project composed of a 60-foot Wireless Communication Facility and associated diesel generator in this parking lot location adjacent to residents does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. 3. The Planning Commission denied the CUP at the de novo hearing held on June 13, 2023, when a majority of Commissioners did not vote in favor of approving the CUP. Consequently, Ms. Price shall receive a refund of the appeal fee.