Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL OF MC 13-110/CUP 13-009 (2)IT Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: % Item to be presented by: Mike Marshall DATE: May 27, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE MASTER CASE 13-110, CUP 13-009 TO ALLOW AT&T MOBILITY TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING WATER REJECTION TOWER AT 23621 FAIRVIEW DRIVE DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council receive the information and materials that constitute Master Case 13-110 (CUP 13-009) and adopt a resolution to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision on the project approving Master Case 13-110 and its associated entitlements, including Conditional Use Permit 13-009, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). BACKGROUND On December 3, 2013, the Planning Commission received staff's presentation and public testimony regarding a monoeucalyptus wireless facility proposed by AT&T Mobility ("Applicant") to be located at 23621 Fairview Drive. Included in the applicant's proposal were two design alternatives that included monopole and "popsicle stick" designs. Due to a lack of sufficient information to allow the Planning Commission to support either design alternative, the project was continued to a date uncertain. Further, the Planning Commission instructed staff to continue to work with the applicant to derive a project design that could be supported by the Planning Commission. Based upon direction received by the Planning Commission, the applicant removed the monopole and popsicle stick design alternatives and instead opted to provide additional materials to support the monoeucalyptus design. On February 18, 2014, in a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission received a second staff presentation, a presentation from the applicant, and additional testimony from the public. At that meeting, the applicant provided the Planning Commission with additional site Confinued To: a dkA--q- c r�VA n photos and visual simulations, as requested. Public testimony again focused upon perceived health risks, noise generation, aesthetics, and impacts to property values. After considering the staff presentation, public testimony, discussion amongst the commissioners and City Attorney, the Planning Commission approved the proposed wireless facility by a vote of 3-2. On March 5, 2014, the City received a letter appealing the Planning Commission decision of February 18, 2014, from a resident within 500 feet of the subject property (attached). The appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission requires a public hearing before City Council. Further, supplemental information provided to City staff by the appellant has been attached to the Agenda Report. SITE DESCRIPTION The project is proposed on a graded pad that also contains an existing 52 -foot tall water rejection tower. The site is surrounded by natural vegetation consisting of small shrubs and trees up to 40 feet in height, several of which are eucalyptus. Photos of the existing site conditions are attached. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed monoeucalyptus would consist of eight panel antennas placed on two sectors. The total height of the structure would be 47 feet and would be located adjacent to the existing 52 -foot tall water rejection tower. The proposed project also includes a 240 square -foot equipment shelter within a proposed 444 square -foot lease area as demonstrated on the site plan included as part of the attached noise study. Visual simulations showing both the existing and proposed conditions are attached. Photos are attached showing existing monoeucalyptus installations elsewhere in Southern California that are similar to the proposed facility. SITE ALTERNATIVES Staff worked with the applicant to identify alternative locations for the proposed wireless facility that would also facilitate the coverage needs of residents and emergency service personnel. While the applicant explored three alternative sites, these locations were not feasible due to vegetation, height and topographical issues. A map showing the alternative sites is attached. The applicant will be available for further discussion on this matter at the public hearing. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING Section 17.45.13(a) of the UDC requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for wireless communications facilities installed above 35 feet in height in an Urban Residential 1 (URI) zone. The proposed antennas would be installed in the URI zone at a maximum height of 47 feet; therefore, a CUP is required. The subject property is bound to the north by Northbridge Park, to the west by Helmers Elementary School, to the south by an MWD utility corridor, and to the east by single-family residences. PROJECT ANALYSIS Noise Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant provided staff with a noise analysis prepared by Aspectus, Inc., dated August 14, 2013. The noise analysis contemplated all noise generated by the equipment located within an equipment shelter and two HVAC units surrounded by a simulated stone wall and obscured from public view by surrounding topography and natural vegetation. The noise study concluded that there would be no net increase in ambient noise levels as measured from four locations surrounding the project site including the closest single family residences approximately 270 feet from the location of the proposed equipment enclosure. The noise analysis is attached for further review. Aesthetics The proposal is suitable for the site because the proposed antennas would be installed lower than • the adjacent 52 -foot tall water tower. The proposed wireless facility will be consistent with the existing tower and natural environment in terms of color and finish. The area around the project site contains trees up to 40 feet in height which will act as a natural buffer to the proposed facility. All associated equipment will be screened within an equipment shelter and fenced enclosure. The project will further be obscured from public view by existing topography. GOVERNING LAW The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions for telecommunication facilities. Local jurisdictions are preempted by the FCC under the TCA from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio frequency emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would operate in compliance with these regulations. Therefore, no potential hazard to the public's health or safety would result from radio frequency emissions relative to the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. Gap in Coverage Federal law limits a local jurisdiction's ability to interfere with a wireless provider's attempts to eliminate significant gaps in coverage. Once a significant gap in coverage is identified, the courts have found that the local jurisdiction must approve the least intrusive means of providing • services within the gap in coverage. Courts have further determined that generally multiple sites are more intrusive than single sites. W General Plan Zonine Land Use • Project UR1 UR1 MWD Water Rejection Tower North OS OS Northbridge Park South UR3 UR3 MWD Utility Corridor West PI PI Helmets Elementary School East URI URI Single Family Residential PROJECT ANALYSIS Noise Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant provided staff with a noise analysis prepared by Aspectus, Inc., dated August 14, 2013. The noise analysis contemplated all noise generated by the equipment located within an equipment shelter and two HVAC units surrounded by a simulated stone wall and obscured from public view by surrounding topography and natural vegetation. The noise study concluded that there would be no net increase in ambient noise levels as measured from four locations surrounding the project site including the closest single family residences approximately 270 feet from the location of the proposed equipment enclosure. The noise analysis is attached for further review. Aesthetics The proposal is suitable for the site because the proposed antennas would be installed lower than • the adjacent 52 -foot tall water tower. The proposed wireless facility will be consistent with the existing tower and natural environment in terms of color and finish. The area around the project site contains trees up to 40 feet in height which will act as a natural buffer to the proposed facility. All associated equipment will be screened within an equipment shelter and fenced enclosure. The project will further be obscured from public view by existing topography. GOVERNING LAW The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions for telecommunication facilities. Local jurisdictions are preempted by the FCC under the TCA from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio frequency emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would operate in compliance with these regulations. Therefore, no potential hazard to the public's health or safety would result from radio frequency emissions relative to the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. Gap in Coverage Federal law limits a local jurisdiction's ability to interfere with a wireless provider's attempts to eliminate significant gaps in coverage. Once a significant gap in coverage is identified, the courts have found that the local jurisdiction must approve the least intrusive means of providing • services within the gap in coverage. Courts have further determined that generally multiple sites are more intrusive than single sites. W The area around the proposed wireless facility is topographically challenged, with a series of hillside and low lime valley areas. The applicant has provided a map showing a significant gap in coverage in this • area. In response to commute y concern, the applicant has looked at finding other ways to fill the necessary gap in coverage; however, due to the challenging topography, the alternatives would require multiple new wireless facilities in more intrusive locations, such as residential backyards. In addition, any alternate locations would not meet the aesthetic requirements of the UDC. Accordingly, the Planning Commission detemvned that the proposed location serves as the best and least intrusive site for installing a wireless facility that would remedy the applicant's gap in coverage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS This project is exempt per Article 19: Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 exemption A Class 3 exemption consists of the constriction or conversion of new small structures. The proposal includes installation of 47 -foot tall moroeucalyptus wireless teleconnn,m;oation facility adjacent to an existing 52 -foot tall water rejection tower within an existing utility corridor. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS City Council affirm the appeal and deny the request for Master Case 13-110, or other action as determined by City Council • FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item ATTACHMENTS Notice of Public Hearing 5-27-2014 Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Appeal Letter Appellant Information for City Council Existing Site Photos Visual Simulations Sample Monoeucalyptus Designs Site Alternatives Noise Assessment Report Applicant Letter - Regarding Appeal Applicant Subrnrtted - Alternative Site Analysis Subsequent to Appeal Applicant Submitted - Radio Frequency Statement Applicant Submitted - Visual Simulations Subsequent to Appeal Emails in Support of Installation of Wireless Facility Planning Comr nission Staff Report 12-3-13 available in the City Clerk's Reading File • Planning Commission Staff Report 2-18-14 available in the City Clerk's Reading File L\ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 13-110 APPLICATION: Master Case 13-110; Conditional Use Permit 13-009 PROJECT LOCATION: 23621 Fairview Drive APN: 2811-001-279,-281; 2811-037-061,-062 PROJECT APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility adjacent to an existing water rejection tower owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On February 18, 2014, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a resolution approving Master Case 13-110 which includes the installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION• A resident residing within 500 feet of the subject property filed an appeal of this Planning Commission action on March 5, 2014. • CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):_ The proposed wireless facility is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303: Class 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: May 27, 2014 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City of Santa Clarita, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita, at or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, please contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II. Arming Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk Publish Date: May 6, 2014 • RESOLUTION 14-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE MASTER CASE NO. 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009, ALLOWING FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A MONOEUCALYPTUS WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING WATER REJECTION TOWER AT 23621 FAIRVIEW DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. On August 1, 2013, an application for Master Case 13-110 (MC 13-110), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 13-009 was filed by AT&T Mobility (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita. The property for which this application was filed is located at 23621 Fairview Drive (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The application was deemed complete on August 30, 2013; • C. The applicant proposes to install and operate a monoeucalyptus wireless telecommunication facility located adjacent to an existing water rejection tower on the subject site; D. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is Urban Residential 1 (URI); E. The surrounding land uses include a park to the north, an elementary school to the west, a utility corridor to the south, and single family residences to the east of the subject site; F. On December 3, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony, and continued the project to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to provide more design related information to staff, G. On February 18, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; • H. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony, and approved the proposed E • wireless facility by a vote of 3-2; I. On March 5, 2014, the City received a letter from a resident within 500 feet of the subject property appealing the Planning Commission decision; and J. On May 27, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this public hearing, the City Council considered the agenda report, staff presentation, appellant's presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: A. A Notice of Exemption for this project was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); B. This project is exempt per Article 19: Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303 of CEQA as a Class 3 exemption. A Class 3 exemption consists of the construction or conversion of new small structures. The proposal includes installation of a 47 -foot tall monoeucalyptus wireless telecommunication facility adjacent to an existing 52 -foot tall water rejection tower within an existing utility corridor; • C. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is the MC 13-110 project file, and that this project file is located within the Community Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and D. Based upon the findings set forth above, the City Council hereby finds the Notice of Exemption for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 13-110. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for MC 13-110, the City Council hereby determines as follows: A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are in accordance with the purpose of the City's General Plan and the development policies and standards of the City. Specifically, the Land Use Element of General Plan policy LU 4.4.4 dictates that the City work to protect and enhance public utility facilities as necessary to maintain the safety, reliability, integrity, and security of essential public service systems for all residents. As proposed, the project would improve the City's cellular coverage and service. The proposed project is also consistent with Policy N 1. 1.4 of the Noise Element of the General Plan by controlling noise sources adjacent to residential development by creating no new net increase in ambient noise levels. 2 • B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC); The proposed project complies with the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance, Section 17.69 of the UDC. All associated equipment will be obscured from public view within an equipment shelter and fenced enclosure. Therefore, the proposed wireless telecommunications facility would not be visually or physically obtrusive. The facility would be unmanned, would not increase pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and would have no effect on circulation patterns in the area. The equipment enclosure would be located on an existing graded pad line, and is approximately 270 feet from the nearest single family residence. The project would be in keeping with the types of uses and services that are conditionally permitted within utility corridors in the Urban Residential 1 (URI) zone. The proposed project would not have a negative impact on the physical character of the surrounding neighborhood and would not have any other adverse impact to the project site or adjacent properties. As a public amenity, the facility would increase wireless telecommunication coverage in the Valencia community leading to improved wireless reception. Therefore, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), together with the Conditions of Approval, the proposed wireless communications facility is consistent with the City's UDC, and would be allowed in the underlying URI zone. • C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The proposed wireless facility would be installed within a utility corridor adjacent to an existing water tower, and would be consistent with the tower and natural environment in terms of color and finish. The auxiliary equipment would be located within a prefabricated enclosure with a locked entry door making it inaccessible to unauthorized persons. The proposed wireless facility is required to comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations to ensure that there is no potential hazard to the public's health or safety. Therefore, the wireless telecommunications facility would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare, nor would the facility be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; . The proposal is suitable for the site because the proposed antennas would be installed lower than the adjacent 52 -foot tall water tower. The proposed wireless facility will 3 R • be consistent with the existing tower and natural environment in terms of color and finish. The area around the project site contains trees up to 40 feet in height, which will act as a natural buffer to the proposed facility. All associated equipment will be screened within an equipment shelter and fenced enclosure. The project will further be obscured from public view by existing topography. 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The proposed wireless facility would be unmanned and thus would not generate traffic nor impact the physical character or capacity of surrounding streets. The wireless facility would not change the nature or use of the existing utility corridor, nor would it affect any of the current or future uses of the subject property. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The project site is located in a developed portion of the City that is served by public facilities, services, and utilities. The site is unmanned; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant additional demand on public facilities, services, and utilities. is The Land Use Element of General Plan policy LU 4.4.4 requires the City to protect and enhance public utility facilities as necessary to maintain the safety, reliability, integrity, and security of essential public service systems for all Santa Clarita residents. As proposed, the project would improve the City's cellular coverage and service, in keeping with the policy. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would be located within a utility corridor adjacent to an existing residential area and would have no significant effect upon the environment or natural resources. The proposed facility would not alter site drainage and would not produce any additional solid waste on-site. The facility is unmanned; therefore, no impacts on schools or potable water are anticipated. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings of fact, the staff report (including staff report and materials from the Planning Commission hearings), written correspondence and oral testimony presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council does hereby deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision on the project approving MC 13-110 and its associated • entitlements, including CUP 13-009, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). 4 9 • SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2014. MAYOR ATTEST: INTERIM CITY CLERK WE CJ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Armind Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27th day of May, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 0 INTERIM CITY CLERK 5 P • EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 13-110 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 RESOLUTION 14-_ DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The pre-existing legal use shall not be re- established or resumed after the one hundred eight (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. • GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the city fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GCS. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. 0 Conditions of Approval — Exhibit A Resolution 14 - Master Case No. 13-110; Conditional VsePennitNo.13-009 Page 2 of 4 GC6. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community Development, their affidavit (Acceptance Form) stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC7. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies and not modified by this permit must be specifically approved in writing. GC8. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVSION PL1. The applicant shall be permitted to install a monoeucalyptus wireless telecommunications facility adjacent to an existing water rejection tower within a utility corridor at 23621 Fairview Drive (APNs 2811-001-279,281; 2811-037-061, 062) in the City of Santa Clarita. • PL2. The project shall be consistent with the approved site plan on file with the Planning Division. Any change in size, location or configuration shall be subject to the review of the Director of Community Development, and may require approval of the Planning Commission. PL3. Within 30 days of notification by the City or any other affected agency of maintenance concerns regarding the approved monoeucalyptus wireless telecommunication facility, the applicant shall remedy said concern to the satisfaction of the Director. PL4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and fees of affected agencies including but not limited to the Los Angeles County Fire Department. PL5. All requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and specific zoning for the subject property shall be complied with unless set forth in this permit and shown on the approved site plan. PL6. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to habitable structures required for compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and standards governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. PL7. The proposed wireless communication facility shall conform to all standards and guidelines of the City's UDC including Chapter 17.69 (Wireless Communication • Facilities and Satellite Dish Antennas). t2 Conditions ofAppraval —Exhibit A Resolution 14-_ • Master Case No. 13-110,• Conditional Use Permit No. 13-009 Page 3 of 4 PL8. The telecommunications facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning, or required signage. All required seals and signage shall be obscured by building and screening design when, and as much as, possible. PL9. All wire or cable necessary for operation of the facility including reception shall be adequately screened from public view. PL10. The wireless telecommunications facility shall not restrict access to any existing antenna or potential future antenna location which could be used either by the permitee or by another provider. PLl1. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the proposed facility and is required to meet all requirements set forth by the City of Santa Clarita Building and Safety Division. PL12. Necessary equipment for the proposed project shall be located in a locked or otherwise secured area that is not accessible to unauthorized persons. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed to prevent unauthorized climbing. • PL13. The operation of the facility shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods, including television, radio, telephone or computer use, nor may the antenna create harmful interference between any other telecommunication facilities, including City -owned communication facilities. PL14. All wireless facilities shall comply with City adopted noise standards. All equipment, including accessory equipment shall comply with the City's noise standards as set forth in the City's noise ordinance. If necessary, equipment shall be replaced or modified with noise dampening materials or techniques to come into compliance with City standards. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BS1. Detailed construction plans for the wireless facility shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documentation, such as structural calculations, energy calculations and soil/geology reports shall be included in the plan submittal package. BS2. Plans submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with the California Building Codes in effect at the time the plans and building permit application are submitted. The current California codes are: 2010 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes, and the 2008 California Energy Code. If the application date for the building permit is after January 1, 2014, the submitted plans shall comply with the new 2013 California Codes. 0 Conditions of Approval—ExhibitA Resolution 14 -- Master Case No. 13.110; Conditional Use PemzitNo. 13.009 Page 4 of 4 BS3. Plans submitted to Building and Safety for plan review shall be 100% complete. Plans submitted shall show all work being performed for this project including Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing. BS4. Submitted plans shall be stamped and signed by a California Licensed Architect or Engineer qualified to design the type of work proposed. BSS. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety for plan review, please contact Deanna Hamrick or Racheal Allen, at (661)255-4935, for project addressing or address verification. BS6. The site plan submitted to building and safety shall show all lot lines, easements, restricted use areas, flood hazard areas, etc. Any structures proposed in an easement shall obtain written permission from the easement holder(s). BS7. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from other agencies may be required. Contact Building and Safety for the agency clearances required for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ESI. All tenant improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES2. The project shall comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials Recycling Ordinance and the following: a) A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. b) A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. c) A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES3. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. The applicant shall contact Environmental Services staff at 661-286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. \5 MCURREMN2013\13-1101CUP 13-0091'amew Cell Sitel\City Couxil\13-110 CC Conditims of Anorovaldoc 9 Brent & Jennifer Downs Residents at Northbridge Valencia 23615 Ashland Ct I Valencia I CA 191354 1 (661) 360-9917 March 3, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Charles Heffernan Chairperson, Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 at t _ Mr. Tom Cole %'% g m Director of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard m Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-+1�F-009 f A building a Cell Tower with Building Facilities in the Northbridge Sgdivision* Dear Chair Heffernan and Director Cole: On behalf of strong and rapidly growing support of Valencia/Santa Clarita Residents against the construction of a cell tower and facilities in the Northbridge Subdivision, we wish to Appeal the 3- 2 split decision of Master Case 13-110 that approves the application to construct a cell tower with building facilities in our neighborhood and would like to present our appeal to the City Council of Santa Clarlta: • We have attempted to contact AT&T through the appropriate channel with the Assistant Planner ll, Mike Marshall, in order to discuss concems and resolve our case directly with the applicant. However, we currently have not received any response from AT&T. Please let us know next steps so that we may proceed with our appeal in a manor appropriate and compliant as it pertains to the appeal process. Thank you. Sincerely & Respectfully, Brent Downs Brent & Jennifer Downs Residents at Northbridge Valencia 23615 Ashland Ct Valencia, CA 91354 (661) 360-9917 to 15 The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential 0The Appraisaltoumal,Summer2005 '(D ab=t Neighborhoods This article examines by Sandy Bond, PhD, and Ko -Kang Wang whether proximity to cellular phone towers has an impact on residential property values and the extent of any impact First. a survey approach is used to examine he introduction of cellular phone systems and the rapid increase in the • how residents perceive number of users of cellular phones have increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Health consequences of long-term use of cellular phones are not living near cellular phone known in detail, but available data indicates that development of nonspecific health base stations (CPBSs) and symptoms is possible.' Conversely, it appears health effects from cellular phone how residents evaluate the equipment (antennas and base stations) pose few, if any, known health hazards' impacts of CPBSs. Next, a A coneem associated with cellular phone usage is the siting of cellular phone market study attempts to transmitting antennas (CPTAs) and cellular phone base stations (CPBSs). In New confirm the perceived value Zealand, CPBS sites are increasingly in demand as the major cellular phone companies there, Telecom and Vodafone, upgrade and extend their network cov- impacts reported in the erage. This demand could provide the owner of a well -located property a yearly survey by analyzing actual income for the siting of a CPBS.' However, new technology that represents po- property sales data. A tential hazards to human health and safety may cause property values to dimin- multiple regression analysis ish due to public perceptions of hazards. Media attention to the potential health in a hedonic pricing hazards of CPBSs has spread concerns among the public, resulting in increased framework is used to resistance to CPBS sites. measure the price impact of Some studies suggest a positive correlation between long-term exposure to the electromagnetic fields and certain types of cancer," yet other studies report proximity to CPBSs. Both inconclusive results on health effects.= Notwithstanding the research results, the survey and market sales media reports indicate that the extent of opposition from some property owners analysis find that CPBSs have a negative impact on 1. Stanislaw Szmigtelskl and Elableta Sabiczewskx, "Cellular Phone Systems and Human Health -Problems with the prices of houses in the Risk Perception and Communication," Environmental Management and Health 11, no. 4 (2000): 352-368. 2. Jerry R. Barnes, "Cellular Phones: Are They Safe?' Professional Safety 44, no. 12 (Dec. 1999): 20-23. study areas. 3. R. Williams. 'Phone Zone -Renting Roof Space to Me Bell," The Property Business 12 (April 2001): 6-7. 4. C. M. Krause et al., 'Effects of Electromagnetic Field Emitted by Cellular Phones on the EEG During a Memory • Task," Neuroreport 11, no. 4 (2000): 761-764. 5. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health (Report to the United Kingdom Govern- ment, 2000), http://.w .iegmp.org.Uk. 0The Appraisaltoumal,Summer2005 '(D • LJ affected by the siting of CPBSs remains strong.` How- ever, the extent to which such attitudes are reflected in lower property values for homes located near CPBSs is not known. Understanding the impact of CPBSs on property values is important to telecommunications compa- nies both for planning the siting of CPBSs and for determining likely opposition from property own- ers. Similarly, property appraisers need to under- stand the valuation implications of CPBSs when valuing CPBS-affected property. The owners of af- fected property also want to understand the magni- tude of any effects, particularly if compensation claims or an award for damages are to be made based on any negative effects on value. The research here uses a case study approach to determine residents' perceptions towards living near CPBSs in Christchurch, New Zealand, and to quantify these effects in monetary terms according to an increasing or decreasing percentage of prop- erty value. The case study uses both an opinion sur- vey and an econometric analysis of sales transac- tion data. A comparison of the results can be used to help appraisers value affected property as well as to resolve compensation issues and damage claims in a quantitative way. Further, the results provide a potential source of information for government agen- cies in assessing the necessity for increased infor- mation pertaining to CPB Ss. The following provides a brief review of the cel- lular phone technology and relevant literature. Then, the next section describes the research procedure used, including descriptions of the case study and control areas. The results are then discussed, and the final section provides a summary and conclusion. Cellular Telephone Technology? Cellular (mobile) telephones are sophisticated two- way radios that use ultrahigh frequency (UH F) ra- dio waves to communicate information. The infor- mation is passed between a mobile phone and a net- work of low -powered transceivers, called mobile phone sites or cell sites. As mobile sites are very low powered they serve only a limited geographic area (or "cell"), varying from a few hundred meters to several kilometers; they can handle only a limited number of calls at one time. When a mobile phone user on the move leaves one cell and enters another, the next site automatically takes over the call, al- lowing contact to be maintained. When a mobile phone call is initiated, the phone connects to the network by using radio signals to communicate with the nearest mobile phone site. The mobile phone sites in a network are interlinked by cable or microwave beam, enabling phone calls to be passed from one cell to another automatically. A mobile phone site is typically made up of a mast with antennas connected to equipment stored in a cabinet. Power is fed into the cabinet by underground cable. The antennas are designed to transmit most of the signal away horizontally, or just below hori- zontal, rather than at steep angles to the ground. Mobile phone sites can only accommodate a lim- ited number of calls at any one time. When this limit is reached, the mobile phone signal is transferred to the next nearest site. If this site is full or is too far away, the call will fail. Cell site capacity is a major issue for telecom- munication companies. As the number of people using mobile phones grows, more and more cell sites are required to meet customer demand for reliable coverage. At the end of March 2002, Telecom had more than 1.3 million mobile phone customers and more than 750 mobile phone sites throughout New Zealand. Vodafone had over 1.1 million mobile phone customers.8 In areas, such as Auckland (the largest city in New Zealand, with close to a third of the NZ population), where almost complete coverage has been achieved, the main issue is ensuring that there is the capacity to handle the ever-inereasingnum- her of mobile phones and calls. Locating Cellular Phone Sites For cellular phone service providers, the main goals when locating cell sites are (1) finding a site that pro- vides the best possible coverage in the area without causing interference with other cells, and (2) finding a site that causes the least amount of environmental impact on the surrounding area. Service providers usually attempt to locate cell sites on existing struc- tures such as buildings, where antennas can be mounted on the roof to minimize the environmental impact. If this is not possible, a mast will need to be erected to support the antennas for the new cell site. 6. S. Fox, "Cell Phone Antenna worries Family; Fast & Bays Courier, November 8, 2002, 1. 7. The information in this section was sourced from Telecom, http,.//www.telemm.w.nz; New Zealand Ministry for the EmAronmenthdp://w .mfe.goA.nr, and New Zealand Ministry of Health, httpy/www.moh.gov nz. • S. Vodafone, 'Cell Sites and the Environment: http://www.vodafone.m.nz/aWutus/vdfn_aboLn_celisites.pctf (accessed December 19. 2002) and "Mo- bile Phones and Health: http://www.vodafane.m.nz/aWutus/vdfn-atrout-heatth_and_safetypdf (accessed December 19, 2002); and Telecom, 'Mc- bile Mo-bile Phone Sites and Safety," http://www.telemm.M.nz/content/0,3900,2711r,1536,00.htmi (accessed December 19, 2002). the impact of cell phone towers on house prices m residential neighborhoods ® q 0 n L J • Service providers prefer to locate cell sites in com- mercial or industrial areas due to the `resource con- sent' procedure required by the Resource Management Act 1991' for towers located in residential areas. Despite the high level of demand for better cell phone coverage, the location of cell sites continues to be a contentious issue. The majority of people want better cell phone coverage where they live and work, but they do not want a site in their neighbor- hood. Thus, cell sites in or near residential areas are of particular concern. Concerns expressed usually relate to health, property values, and visual impact 10 In general, uncertainties in the assessment of health risks from base stations are presented and distributed in reports by organized groups of resi- dents who protest against siting of base stations. When the media publishes these reports it ampli- fies the negative bias and raises public concerns. Ac- cording to Covello, this leads to incorrect assessment of risks and threats by the public, with a tendency to overestimate risks from base stations and neglect risks from the use of cell phones." Assessment of Environmental Effects Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), an assessment of environmental effects is required every time an application for resource consent is made. In- formation that must be provided includes "in assess- ment of any actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects may be mitigated •" An assessment of the environmental effects of cell sites would take into consideration such things as health and safety ef- fects; visual effects; effects on the neighborhood; and interference with radio and television reception. Radio Frequency and Microwave Emissions from CPBSs According to the Ministry for the Environment, the factors that affect exposure to radiation are as follows: • Distance. Increasing the distance from the emit- ting source decreases the radiation's strength and decreases the exposure. • Transmitter power. The stronger the transmit- ter, the higher the exposure. • Directionality of the antenna. Increasing the amount of antennas pointing in a particular di- rection increases the transmitting power and increases the exposure. • Height of the antennaabove the ground. Increas- ing the height of an antenna increases the distance from the antenna and decreases the exposure. • Local terrain. Increasing the intervening ridgelines decreases the exposure." The amount of radiofrequency power absorbed by the body (the dose) is measured in watts per kilogram, known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). The SAR depends on the power density in watts per square meter. The radio frequencies from cellular phone sys- tems travel in a "line of sight' The antennas are de- signed to radiate energy horizontally so that only small amounts of radio frequencies are directed down to the ground. The greatest exposures are in front of the an- tenna so that near the base of these towers, exposure is minimal. Further, power density from the transmit- ter decreases rapidly as it moves away from the an- tenna. However, it should be noted that by initially walking away from the base, the exposure rises and then decreases again. The initial increase in exposure corresponds to the point where the lobe from the an- tenna beam intersects the ground .14 Health Effects According to Szmigielski and Sobiczewska, the ana- logue phone system (using the 800-900 megahertz band) and digital phone system (using the 1850-1990 megahertz band) expose humans to electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions: radio frequency radiation (RF) and microwave radiation (MW), respectively. These two radiations are emitted from both cellular phones and CPBSS." For years cellular phone companies have as- sured the public that cell phones are safe. They state that the particular set of radiation parameters asso- ciated with cell phones is the same as any otherra- 9. The Resource Management Act 1991 is the core of the legislation Intended to help achieve sustainabiltty in New Zealand: see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ laws/rma. 10. Szmigielski and Sobiczewska; and Barnes. 11. Vincent T. Covello, "Risk Perception. Risk Communication. and EMF Exposure: Tools and Techniques for communicating Risk Information," in Risk Perception, Risk Communication and Its Application to EMF Exposure: Proceedings of the World Health Organization and ICNIRP Conference, ad. R. Matthes, J. H. Bernhardt M. H. Repucholi, 179-214 (Munich. Germany. May 1998). 12. Section 88(4), (b), Resource Management Act 1991 13. Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health, National Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radiofrequency Transmitters, available at http:// w vinfi .govt.nx and http://w ..moh.govL.nz (accessed May 21. 2002). 14. Ibid.; and Szmigielski and Sobiczewska. 15. Szmigielski and Sobiczewska. 0The Appraisal loumal Summer 2005 001 u • dio signal. However, reported scientific evidence challenges this view and shows that cell phone ra- diation causes various effects, such as altered brain activity, memory loss, and fatigue.1B According to Cherry, there is also strong evidence to conclude that cell sites are risk factors for certain types of cancer, heart disease, neurological symptoms and other effects." The main concerns related to EMF emissions from CPBSs are linked to the fact that ra- dio frequency fields penetrate exposed tissues. Public concern regarding both cell phones and CPBSs in many countries has led to establishment of independent expert groups to carry out detailed reviews of the research literature. Research on the health effects of exposures to RF are reviewed by, for instance, the NZ Radiation Laboratory, the World Health Organization, the International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNI RP), the Royal Society of Canada, and the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. The reviews con- clude that there are no clearly established health ef- fects for low levels of exposure. Such exposures typi- cally occur in publicly accessible areas around ra- dio frequency transmitters. However, there are ques- tions over the delayed effects of exposure. While present medical and epidemiological studies reveal weak association between health ef- fects and low-level exposures of RF/MW fields, con- troversy remains among scientists, producers, and the general public. Negative media attention has fu- elled the perception of uncertainty over the health effects from cell phone systems. Further scientific or technological information is needed to allay fears of the public about cell phone systems. Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Standards International Standards. The reviews of research on the healtheffects of exposures to RF have helped establish exposure standards that limit RF exposures to a safe level. Most standards—including those set by the ICNI RP, the American National Standards In- stitute (ANSI), and New Zealand—are based on the most -adverse potential effects. The 1998 ICNIRP guidelines have been accepted by the world's scientific and health communities; these guidelines are both consistent with other stated standards and published by a highly respected and independent scientific organization. The ICN IRP is responsible for providing guidance and advice on the health hazards of nonionizing radiation for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Interna- tional Labour Office." The New Zealand Standard, In New Zealand, when a mobile phone site is being planned, radio frequency engineers calculate the level of electromagnetic en- ergy (EME) that will be emitted by the site. The level of EME is predicted by taking into account factors such as power output, cable loss, antenna gain, path loss, and height and distance from the antenna. These calculations allow engineers to determine the maxi- mum possible emissions in a worst-case scenario, i.e., as if the site was operated at maximum power all the time. The aim is to ensure that EME levels are below international and NZ standards in areas where the general public has unrestricted access. All mobile phone sites in New Zealand must com- ply in all respects with the NZ standard for radio fre- quency exposures.14 This standard is the same as used in most European countries, and is more stringent than that used in the United States, Canada, and Japan. Some local communities in New Zealand have even lower exposure -level standards; however, in reality mobile phone sites only operate at a fraction of the level set by the NZ standard The National Radiation Laboratory has measured exposures around many operating cell sites, and maximum exposures in publicly accessible areas around the great majority of sites are less than 1% of the exposure limit of the NZ standard. Expo- sures are rarely more than a few percent of the limit. and none have been above 10%. Court Decisions Two court cases in New Zealand have alleged adverse effects due to CPBSs: McIntyre v. Christchurch City 16. K. Mann and J. Rbschke, 'Effects of Pulsed High -Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep," Neuropsychobiology 33, no. 1 (1996): 41-47; Krause at al.; Alexander Borbely at al., "Pulsed High -Frequency Electromagnetic Field Affects Human Sleep and Sleep Electroencephalogram," Neurosci Let, 275, no. 3 (1999): 207-210; L Kellenyi at al., 'Effects of Mobile GSM Radiotelephone 6yosure on the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)," Neurobiology 7, no. 1 (1999): 79-81; B. Hocking, "Preliminary Report Symptoms Associated with Mobile Phone Ilse," Occup Med 48, no. 6 (Sept. 1998): 357-360; and others as reported In Nell Cherry, Health Effects Associated with Mobil Base Stations in Communities: The Need for Health Studies, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University (June 8, 2000); httpV/pages.brftishlibmry.net/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm. 17. Cherry. 18. Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health. 19. NZS 2772.1:1999, "Radiohequancy Fields Part 1: Maximum Exposure Levels - 3kHz to 300GHz." This standard was based largely on the 1998 ICNIRP recommendations for maximum human exposure levels to radio frequency. The standard also includes a requirement for minimizing radio frequency exposure. See National Radiation Laboratory, Cell Sites (March 2001), 7; available at http://www.nit.MDh.govt.nz/CellsiteBooklet.pdf. the impact of cell phone lowers on house prises in residential neighborhoods I 1 0 0 Ll Council" and Shirley Primary School v. Telecom Mo- bile Communications Ltd.2' Very few cell site cases have actually proceeded to Environment Court hear- ings. In these two cases the plaintiffs claimed that there was a risk of adverse health effects from radio frequency radiation emitted from cell phone base sta- tions and that the CPBSs had adverse visual effects. In McIntyre, Bell South applied for resource con- sent to erect a CPBS. The activity was a noncomply- ing activity under the Transitional District Plan. Resi- dents objected to the application. Their objections were related to the harmful health effects from m- dio frequency radiation. In particular, they argued it would be an error of law to decide, based on the present state of scientific knowledge, that there are no harmful health effects from low-level radio fre- quency exposure. It was also argued that the Re- source Management Act contains a precautionary policy and also requires a consent authority to con- sider potential effects of low, probability but high impact in reviewing an application. The Planning Tribunal considered residents' objections and heard experts' opinions as to the po- tential health effects, and granted the consent, sub- ject to conditions. It was found that there would be no adverse health effects from low levels of radia- tion from the proposed transmitter, not even effects of low probability but high potential impact. In Shirley Primary School, Telecom applied to the Christchurch City Council for resource consent to establish, operate, and maintain a CPBS on land adjacent to the Shirley Primary School. This activity was a noncomplying activityunder the Transitional District Plan. Again, the city council granted the con- sent subject to conditions. However, the school ap- pealed the decision, alleging the following four ad- verse effects: • Risk of adverse health effects from the radio fre- quency radiation emitted from the cell site • Adverse psychological effects on pupils and teachers because of the perceived health risks • Adverse visual effects • Reduced fmancial viability of the school if pu- pils withdraw because of the perceived adverse health effects The court concluded that the risk of the children or teachers at the school developing leukemia or other cancers from radio frequency radiation emitted by 20. NZRMA 289 (1996)- 21. NZRMA 1996).21.NZRMA 66 (1999). 22. NZRMA 97 (1996). ® The Appraisal Joumal, Summer 2005 the cell site is extremely low, and the risk to the pu- pils of developing sleep disorders or learning disabili- ties because of exposure to radio frequency radiation is higher, but still very small. Accordingly, the Telecom proposal was allowed to proceed. In summary, the Environmental Court ruled that there are no established adverse health effects from the emission of radio waves from CPBSs and no epi- demiological evidence to show this. The court was persuaded by the ICNIRP guidelines that risk of health effects from low-level exposure is very low and that the cell phone frequency imposed by the NZ standard is safe, being almost two and one-half times lower than that of the ICNI RP. The court did concede that while there are no proven health effects, there was evidence of prop- erty values being affected by both of the health alle- gations. The court suggested that such a reduction in property values should not be counted as a sepa- rate adverse effect from, for example, adverse visual or amenities effects. That is, a reduction in property values is not an environmental effect in itself; it is merely evidence, in monetary terms, of the other adverse effects noted. In a third case, Goldfinch v. Auckland City Coun- cil,22 the Planning Tribunal considered evidence on potential losses in value of the properties of objec- tors to a proposal for the siting of a CPBS. The court concluded that the valuer's monetary assessments support and reflect the adverse effects of the CPBS. Further, it concluded that the effects are more than just minor as the CPBS stood upon the immediately neighboring property. Literature Review While experimental and epidemiological studies have focused on the adverse health effects of radia- tion from the use of cell phones and CPBSs, few stud- ies have been conducted to ascertain the impact of CPBSs on property values. Further, little evidence of property value effects has been provided by the courts. Thus, the extent to which opposition from property owners affected by the siting of CPBSs is reflected in lower property values is not well known in New Zealand. Two studies have been conducted to ascertain the adverse health and visual effects of CPBSs on prop- erty values. Telecom commissioned Knight Frank (NZ) Ltd to undertake a study in Auckland in 1998/ 10 • • L] 99 and commissioned Telfer Young (Canterbury) Ltd to undertake a similar study in Christchurch in 2001. Although the studies show that there is not a statisti- cally significant effect on property prices where CPBSs are present," the research in both cases in- volves only limited sales data analysis. Further, no surveys of residents' perceptions were undertaken, and the studies did not examine media attention to the sites and the impact this may have on saleability of properties in close proximity to CPBSs. Finally, as the sponsoring party to the research was a telecom- munication company it is questionable whether the results are completely free from bias. Hence, the present study aims to help fill the research void on this contentious topic in an objective way. CPBSs are very similar structures to high-voltage overhead transmission lines (HVOTLs); therefore it is worthwhile to review the body of literature on the prop- erty values effects of HVOTLs. The only recently pub- lished study in New Zealand on HVOTLs effects is by Bond and Hopkins 36 Their research consists of both a regression analysis of residential property transaction data and an opinion survey to determine the attitudes and reactions of property owners in the study area to- ward living close to HVOTLs and pylons. The results of the sales analysis indicate that having a pylon close to a particular property is sta- tistically significant and has a negative effect of 20% at 10-15 meters from the pylon, decreasing to 5% at 50 meters. This effect diminishes to a negligible amount after 100 meters. However, the presence of a transmission line in the case study area has a mini- mal effect and is not a statistically significant factor in the sale prices. The attitudinal study results indicate that nearly two-thirds of the respondents have negative feelings about the HVOTLs. Proximity to HVOTLs determines the degree of negativity: respondents living closer to the HVOTLs expressed more negative feelings to- wards them than those living farther away. It ap- pears, however, from a comparison of the results, that the negative feelings expressed are often not reflected in the prices paid for such properties. There have been a number of HVOTLs studies carried out in the United States and Canada. A major review and analysis of the literature by Kroll and Priestley indicates that in about half the studies, HVOTLs have not affected property values and in the rest of the studies there is a loss in property value between 2a/o 10%.' Kroll and Priestley are generally critical of most valuer -type studies because of the small number of properties included and the failure to use econometric techniques such as multiple re- gression analysis. They identify the Colwell study as one of the more careful and systematic analyses of residential impacts'6 That study, carried out in Bli- nois, finds that the strongest effect ofHVOTLs is within the fust 15 meters, but the effect dissipates quickly with distance, disappearing beyond 60 meters. A Canadian study by Des Rosiers, using a sample of 507 single-family house sales, finds that severe visual encumbrance due to a direct view of either a pylon or lines exerts a significant, negative impact on property values; however location adjacent to a transmission corridor may increase valuer This was particularly evident where the transmission corri- dor was on a well -wooded, 90 -meter right-of-way. The proximity advantages include enlarged visual field and increased privacy. The decrease in value from the visual impact of the HVOTLs and pylons (on average between 5% and 10% of mean house value) tends to be cancelled out by the increase in value from proximity to the easement. A study by Wolverton and Bottemillee' uses a paired -sale analysis of home sales in 1989-1992 to ascertain any difference in sale price between prop- erties abutting rigbts-of-way of transmission lines (subjects) in Portland, Oregon; Vancouver, Washing- ton; and Seattle, Washington; and those located in the same cities but not abutting transmission line rights-of-way (comparisons). Subjects sold during the study period were selected first; then a match- ing comparison was selected that was as similar to the subject as possible. The study results did not support a finding of a price effect from abutting an HVTL right-of-way. In their conclusion, the authors 23. Mark Dunbar, Tetter Young research valuer, personal communication with Bond, 2002. The results of these studies have not been made publicly known. The study by Knight Frank or Auckland was conducted by Robert Albrecht 24. S. G. Bond and J. Hopkins, "The Impact of Transmission Lines on Residential Property Values: Results of a Case Study in a Suburb of Wellington, New Zealand" Pacific Rim Property Research Journal 6, no. 2 (2000): 52-60. 25. C. Kroll and T. Priestley, "The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Review and Analysis of the Literature," Edison Electric Institute (July 1992). 26. Peter F. Colwell, "Power Lines and Land Value," Journal of Real Estate Research 5, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 117-127. 27. Frangols Des Rosiem, "Power Lines, Visual Encumbrance and House Values: A Microspabal Approach to Impact Measurement," Journal of Real Estate Research 23, no. 3 (2002): 275-301. 28. Marvin L Wolverton and Steven C. Bottemiller, "Further Analysis of Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal (July 2003): 244-252. the impact of cell phone towers on house atices in residential neiehborboods ® E� E • warn that the results cannot and should not be gen- eralized outside of the data. They explain that limits on generalizations are a universal problem for real property sale data because analysis is constrained to properties that sell and sold properties are never a randomly drawn representative sample. Hence, gener- alizations must rely on the weight of evidence from numerous studies, samples, and locations.29 Thus, despite the varying results reported in the literature on property value effects from HVOTLs, each study adds to the growing body of evidence and knowledge on this (and similar) valuation issue(s). The study reported here is one such study. Opinion Survey Research Objectives and Methodology Research by Abelson;30 Chalmers and Roehr;31 Kinnard, Geckler and Dickey;"- Bond;33 and Flynn et a1.,36 recommend the use of market sales analysis in tandem with opinion survey studies to measure the impact of environmental hazards on residential property values. The use of more than one approach provides the opportunity to compare the results from each and to derive a more informed conclusion than obtained from relying solely on one approach. Thus, the methods selected for this study include a public opinion survey and a hedonic house price approach (as proposed by Freeman" and Rosen'"). A compari- son of the results from both of these techniques will reveal the extent to which the market reacts to cell phone towers. Public Opinion Survey An opinion survey was conducted to investigate the current perceptions of residents towards living near CPBSs and how this proximity might affect prop- erty values. Case study areas in the city of Christchurch were selected for this study The study included residents in ten suburbs: five case study areas (within 300 meters of a cell phone tower) and five control areas (over 1 kilometer from the cell phone tower). The five case study suburbs were matched with five control suburbs that had similar living environments (in socioeconomic terms) ex- cept for the presence of a CPBS. The number of respondents to be surveyed (800) and the nature of the data to be gathered (percep- tions/personal feelings towards CPBSs) governed the choice of a self-administered questionnaire as the most appropriate collection technique. Question- naires were mailed to residents living in the case study and control areas. A self-administered survey helps to avoid inter- viewer bias and to increase the chances of an hon- est reply where the respondent is not influenced by the presence of an interviewer. Also, mail surveys provide the time for respondents to reflect on the questions and answer these at their leisure, without feeling pressured by the time constraints of an in- terview. In this way, there is a better chance of a thoughtful and accurate reply. The greatest limitation of mail surveys is that a low response rate is typical. Various techniques were used to help overcome this limitation, including care- ful questionnaire design; inclusion of a free -post re- turn envelope; an accompanying letter ensuring anonymity; and reminder letters. An overall re- sponse rate of 46% was achieved for this study. The questionnaire contained 43 individual re- sponse items. The first question acted as an identifier to determine whether the respondent was a home- owner or tenant. While responses from both groups were of interest, the former was of greater impor- tance, as they are the group of purchasers/sellers that primarily influence the value of property. How- ever, it was considered relevant to survey both groups as both are affected by proximity to a CPBS to much the same extent from an occupiers' perspec- tive, i.e., they both may perceive risks associated with a CPBS. It was hypothesized that tenants, being less - permanent residents, would perceive the effects in a similar way, but to a much lesser degree. Other survey questions related to overall neigh- borhood environmental desirability; the timing of 29. Ibid., 252. 30. P W. Abelson, "Property Prices and Amenity Values" Journal of Environmental Economia and Management 6 (1979): 11-28. 31. James A. Chalmers and Scott Rmhr, `Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property," The Appraisal Journal (January 1993): 28-41. 32. W. N, Kinnam, M. B. Geckler, and S. A Dickey, 'Fear (as a Measure of Damages) Strikes Out Two Case Studies Comparisons of Actual Market Behaviour with Opinion Survey Research' (paper presented at the Tenth Annual American Real Estate Society Conference, Santa Barbara, California, April 1994). 33. S. G. Bond, 'Do Market Perceptions Affect Market Prices? A Case of a Remediated Contaminated Sae," in Real Estate Valuation Theory, ed. K. Wang and M. L Wolverton. 285-321 (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002). 34. James Flynn et al.. 'Survey Approach for Demonstrating Stigma Effects in Property Value litigation' The Appraisal Journal (Winter 2004): 35-45. 35. A. Myrick Freeman, The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1979). 36. Sherwin Rosen, 'Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competkion;' Journal of Political Economy 82, no. 1 (Jan/Feb 1974): 34-55. 0 The Appraisal loumal. Summer 200± 2Z 0 • P the CPBS's construction and its proximity in rela- tion to the respondent's home; the importance placed on the CPBS as a factor in relocation decisions and on the price/rent the respondent was prepared to pay for the house; how a CPBS might affect the price the respondent would be willing to pay for the prop- erty; and the degree of concern regarding the effects of CPBSs on health, stigma, aesthetics, and property values. The surveys were coded to identify the prop- erty address of the respondent. This enabled each respondent's property to be located on a map and to show this in relation to the cell site. Eighty questionnaires37 were distributed to each of the ten suburbs (five case study and five control areas) in Christchurch. Respondents were instructed to complete the survey and return it in the free -post, self-addressed envelope provided. The initial re- sponse rate was 31%. A month later, a further 575 questionnaires with reminder letters were sent out to residents who had not yet responded. A total re- sponse rate of 46% was achieved. Response rates from each suburb ranged from 33% (Linwood) to 61% (Bishopdale). The questionnaire responses were coded and entered into a computerized database. -'s The analysis of responses included the calculation of means and percentage of responses to each question to allow for an overview of the response patterns in each area. Case Study and Control Areas The suburbs of Beckenham, Papanui, Upper Riccarton, Bishopdale, and St Albans were selected for the case study because there is at least one CPBS within each of these communities. Census data, pro- viding demographic and socioeconomic character- istics of geographic areas, was used to select the con- trol suburbs of Spreydon, Linwood, Bromley, Avonhead, and Ilam's The control areas are located further away (over 1 kilometer) from the CPBS in their matched case study area. As well as matching demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, each suburb was selected based on its similarity to its matched case study area in terms of living envi- ronment and housing stock, distance to the central business district, and geographic size; the only dis- similarity is that there are no CPBSs in the control areas. (See Appendix I for a location map.) Demographic statistics show that Bromley and Ilam comprise a younger population (median age about 33), with Bishopdale and Upper Riccarton having an older population (median age about 40). The ethnic breakdown of each suburb indicates that Papanui and Spreydon have the highest proportion of Europeans (about 90%), Bromley has the highest proportion of both Maoris and Pacific Islanders (13.9% and 8.5% respectively), while Ilam, Avonhead, and Upper Riccarton have the highest proportion of Asians (16.1% to 18.5%).40 Median household and median family incomes (MH I and MFI) are highest in Ilam and Avonhead (MHI: $34,751NZ, $53,405NZ; MFI: $51,530NZ, $65,804NZ, respectively) and lowest in Linwood and Beckenham (MHI: $22,275NZ, $26,398NZ; MFI: $29,673NZ, $33,847NZ respectively) 4' Residents of St Albans West have the highest levels of education (21.7% have a degree or a higher degree) followed by Upper Riccarton (18.7%), Ilam (16.7%), and Avonhead (16.2%). These same suburbs have the highest proportion of professionals by occupational class (20.3% to 27.3%). Residents of Bromley have the lowest education (40% have no qualification) and the lowest proportion of professionals (5.5%),42 In 5.5%)°'- In summary, the socioeconomic data shows that Ilam is the more superior suburb, followed by Avonhead, Upper Riccarton, St Albans West, and Papanui. The lower socioeconomic areas are, in de- creasing order, Spreydon, Bishopdale, Bromley, Beckenham, and Linwood. Survey Results A summary of the main findings from the survey is presented in Appendix II, and the survey results are discussed in the following. Response Rates Of the 800 questionnaires mailed to homeowners and tenants in the case study and control areas (400 to each group), 50% from the case study area and 41% 37. Approved by me University of Auckland Human Subjects Ethics Committee (reference 2002/185). 38. The computer program SPSS eras selected as the appropriate anaytical tool for processing Me data. 39. The census is conducted in New Zeaiand every five years, and the data used to define the control areas is from the latest census conducted in 2001, see Christchurch City Area Unit Profile, 2001 at http://v .ccc.govt.nz/Census/ChristchumhCityAre UnitProfile.xls. 40. Christchurch City Area Unit Profile statistics. 41. $1NZ - $0.65US. thus, $34.751NZ - $22,588US. 42. The median house price for Christchurch city in August 2003 was $185,000NZ,/$120,OOOUS (New Zealand national median house price at this time was $215.000N$/$140,OOOUS), http,.//www.rein&w.nZ/files/HousingFacts-Sample-Pgl-5.pdf (accessed March 17, 2004). Median house prices in each individual suburb could not be obtained as the median sales dam from the Real Estate Institute of NZ (REINZ) contains more than one suburb in each location grouping. the impact of cell phone towers on house prices m residential neiehborhoods 2� C� S from the control area were completed and returned. Over three-quarters (78.5%) of the case study respon- dents were homeowners compared to 94% in the control area. Desirability of the Suburb as a Place to Live More than half (58.3%) the case study respondents have lived in their suburb for more than five years (compared to 65% in the control group) and a quar- ter (25%) have lived in their suburb between I and 4 years (compared to 28% in the control group). Around two-thirds (65% of the case study re- spondents and 68% of the control group respondents) rated their neighborhoods as either above average or superior as a place to live when compared with other similar named suburbs. The reasons given for this include close proximity to amenities (shops, li- brary, medical facilities, public transport, and rec- reational facilities)and good schools. Reasons given for rating the case study neighbor- hoods inferior to other similar neighborhoods include lower house prices, older homes, more student hous- ing and lower-income residents. The reasons given by the control group respondents for an inferior rating include distance from the central business district (Avonhead); smell from the sewerage oxidation ponds and composting ponds (Bromley); and lower socioeco- nomic area and noise from the airport (Linwood). Feelings About a CPBS as an Element of the Neighborhood In the case study areas, a CPBS had already been con- structed when only 39% of the respondents bought their houses or began renting in the neighborhood. Some responded that they were not notified that the CPBS was to be built, that they had no opportunity to object to it, and that they felt they should have been consulted about its construction. For the respondents who said that proximity to the tower was of concern to them, the most common reasons given for this were the impact of the CPBS on health, aesthetics, and prop- erty values. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the respon- dents said they would have gone ahead with the pur- chase or rental of their property anyway if they had known that the CPBS was to be constructed. In the control areas nearly three-quarters (72%) of the respondents indicated they would be opposed to construction of a CPBS nearby. The location of a CPBS would be taken into account by 83% of respon- dents if they were to consider moving. As with the case study respondents, the control group respon- dents who were concerned about proximity to a ® The Appraisal humaf Summer 2005 CPBS were most often concerned about the effects of CPBSs on health, aesthetics, and property values. Impact on Decision to Purchase or Rent In the case study areas, the tower was visible from the houses of 46% of the respondents, yet two-thirds (66%) of these said it was barely noticeable, and one-quarter said it mildly obstructed their view. When asked in what way the CPBS impacts the enjoyment of living in their home, 37% responded that its impact was related to health concerns, 21% said it impacted neighborhood aesthetics, 20% said it impacted property value, and 12% said it impacted the view from their property. When asked about the impact that the CPBS had on the price/rent they were prepared to pay for their property, over half the case study respondents (53.1%) said that the tower was not constructed at the time of purchase/rental, and 51.4% of the respon- dents said the proximity to the CPBS did not affect the price they were prepared to pay for the property. Nearly 3% said they were prepared to pay a little less, 2°ib said they were prepared to pay a little more. For the control group respondents, 45% of the respon- dents would pay substantially less for a property if a CPBS were located nearby, over one-third (38%) were prepared to pay just a little less for such a prep- erty, and 17% responded that a CPBS would not in- fluence the price they would pay. Only 10% of the case study respondents gave an indication of the impact that the CPBS had on the price/rent they were prepared to pay for the prop- erty; one-third of these felt it would decrease price/ rent by 1% to 9%. For the control group, over one- third (38%) of the respondents felt that a CPBS would decrease price/rent by more than 20%, and a simi- lar number (36%) said they would be prepared to pay 10% to 19% less for property located near a CPBS. The responses are outlined in Table 1. Table 1 impact of a CPBS on Purchase/Rental Price Decision 2 Percent of Case Study Respondents (Control Group Price/Rent Effect Responses) 20% more 5%(3%) 10-19% more 10%(2%) 1-9% more 14%(2%) 1-9% less 33%(19%) 10-19% less 24%(36%) 20% or greater reduction in price/rent 14%(38%) 2 • • Interestingly, it would seem that those living far- ther away from the CPBSs (the control group) are far more concerned about proximity to CPBSs than those living near CPB Ss (the case study group); they indicated that a CPBS would have a greater price/ rent effect. The possible explanations for this are discussed in the survey results section. Concerns About Proximity to the CPBS Most case study respondents were not worried about the effects of proximity to a CPBS related to health (506/a), stigma (55ei%), future property value (61%), or aesthetics (63%). About one-quarter to one-third of these respondents were somewhat worried about the impact of proximity to a CPBS on health (38%), stigma (34%n), future property value (25%p), or aesthetics (25%). From the list of issues, respondents were most worried about future property value, but only 13.5% of the respondents responded this way. Here again, control group respondents were much more concerned about the effects of proximity to a CPBS than their case study counterparts. Of the possible concerns about CPBSs on which respondents were asked to comment, control group respondents were most worried about the negative effects on fu- ture property values and aesthetics. Nearly half the respondents were worried a lot about these issues. Similar responses were recorded for the possibihty of harmful health effects in the future from CPBSs (42% were worried a lot about this) and stigma asso- ciated with houses near CPBSs (34% were worried a lot). The responses regarding concerns about living near a CPBS are shown in Table 2. In both the case study and control areas, the is- sue of greatest concern for respondents was the im- pact of proximity to CPBSs on future property val- ues. The main concerns related to CPBSs were the unknown potential health effects, the possible so- cioeconomic implications of the siting of CPBSs, and how CPBSs affect property values. There also were concerns that the city council was not notifying the public about the possible construction of CPBSs. Table 2 Concerns about Living Near a CPBS" Concern Does not worry me Possibility of harmful health effects 50%(20%) Stigma effect 55% t21%) Effect on future property values 61%(15%) Aesthetics 63%(18%) Discussion of the Survey Results The results were mixed, with responses from resi- dents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proximity to a CPBS. In general, those people living in areas farther from CPBSs were much more concerned about issues related to prox- imity to CPBSs than residents who lived near CPBSs. Over 40% of the control group respondents were worried a lot about future health risks, aesthetics, and future property values compared with the case study areas, where only 13% of the respondents were worried a lot about these issues. However, in both the case study and control areas, the impact of prox- imity to CPBSs on future property values is the is- sue of greatest concern for respondents. If purchas- ing or renting a property near a CPBS, over a third (38%) of the control group respondents said a CPBS would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%. The perceptions of the case study respon- dents were again less negative, with a third saying they would reduce the price by only 1 n/o-9%n, and 24% saying they would reduce the price by 100/, 19%. The lack of concern shown by the case study respondents may be due to the CPBSs being either not visible or only barely visible from their homes. The CPBSs may be far enough away from respon- dents' properties (as was indicated by many respon- dents, particularly in St Albans West, Upper Riccarton, and Bishopdale) or hidden by trees and consequently not perceived as affecting the proper- ties. The results may have been quite different had the CPBS being more visually prominent. Alternatively, the apparent lower sensitivity to CPBSs of case study residents compared to the con- trol group residents may be due to cognitive disso- nance reduction. In this case, respondents may be unwilling to admit, due to the large amounts of money already paid, that they may have made a poor purchase or rental decision in buying or renting property located near a CPBS. Similarly, the homeowners may be unwilling to admit there are concerns about CPBSs when the CPBSs were built Worries me somewhat Worries me a lot 38%(38%) 12%(42%) 34%(45%) 12%(34%) 25%(37%) 13%(47%) 25%(37%) 11%(45%) percent of cave study respondents having Nat concem (control group respondents). NI numbers are munded. • the impact of cell phone towers oo house prices in residential neighborhoods 25 • • • after they had purchased their homes, because to do so might have a negative impact on property values. Regardless of the reasons for the difference in re- sponses from the case study and control groups, the overall results show that residents perceive CPBSs negatively. In both the case study and control areas, the impact of proximity to CPBSs on future property values was the issue of greatest concern for respon- dents. Overall, respondents felt that proximity to a CPBS would reduce value by from 10% to over 20%. The sec- ond part of the study outlined below, involving an econometric analysis of Christchurch property sales transaction data, helps to comma these results. Respondents' comments added at the end of the survey indicate that residents have ongoing concerns about CPBSs. Although some people accepted the need for CPBSs, they said that they did not want them built in their back yard, or they preferred that they be disguised to blend better with their environment. Market Study Research Objectives and Methodology A market study was undertaken to test the hypoth- esis that in suburbs where there is a CPBS it will be possible to observe discounts to the selling price of homes located near these structures. Such discounts would be observed where buyers of proximate homes view the CPBSs in negative terms due to a perceived risk of adverse effects on health, aesthet- ics, and property value. The literature dealing specifically with the mea- surement of the impact of environmental hazards on residential sale prices (including proximity to transmission lines, landfill sites, and ground water contamination) indicates the popularity of hedonic pricing models, as introduced by Court"' and later Griliches,00 and further developed by Freeman49 and Rosen .46 The more recent studies, including those by Dotzour;41 Simons and Semente Ili ;48 and Reichert'49 focus on proximity to an environmental hazard and demonstrate that this reduces residen- tial house prices by varying amounts depending on the distance from the hazard.S' However, there are no known published studies that use hedonic hous- ing models to measure the impact of proximity to a CPBS on residential property values. As in the previous residential house price stud- ies, the standard hedonic methodology was used here to quantify the impact of a CPBS on sale prices of homes located near a CPBS. The results from this study in tandem with the opinion survey results will help test the hypothesis that proximity to a CPBS has a negative impact on property value and will reveal the extent to which the market reacts to CPBSs. Model Specification A hedonic price model is constructed by treating the price of a property as a function of its utility -bearing attributes. Independent variables used in the model to account for the property attributes are limited to those available in the data set and known, based on other well -tested models reported in the literature and from valuation theory, to be related to property price. The basic model used to analyze the impact on sale price of a house locatednear a CPBS. is as follows: P, - f(X IJ, X2, ............... X2.) where P. = property price at the i th location XI � ... Xa, - individual characteristics of each sold property (e.g., land area, age of house, floor area, sale date, construction materials, house condition, CPBS construction date, etc.) The more recent hedonic pricing studies that demonstrate the effects of proximity to an environ- mental hazard use different functional forms to rep- resent the relationship between price and various property characteristics" In hedonic housing mod- els the linear and log -linear models are most popu- lar. The linear model implies constant partial effects between house prices and housing characteristics, while the log -linear model allows for nonlinear price effects and is shown in the following equation: 43. A. T. Court,'Hedonic Price Indexes with Automotive Examples; in The Dynamics of Automobile Demand (New York: General Motors, 1939). 44. Zvi Griliches, ed. Price indexes and Quality Change (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). 45. Freeman. 46. Rosen. 47. Mark Dotzour, "Groundwater Contamination and Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal (July 1997): 279-285. 48. Robert A. Simons and Arthur Sementeili, "Liquidity Loss and Delayed Transactions with Leaking Underground Storage Tanks," The Appraisal Journal (July 1997):255-260. 49. Alan K. Reichert. `Impact of a Toxic Waste Superfund Site on Property Values; The Appraisal Journal (October 1997): 381-392. 50. Only Dotzour found no significam Impact of the discovery of contaminated groundwater on residential house prices. This was likely due to the nonhaz- ardous nature of the contamination where the groundwater was not used for drinking purposes. 51- See for example L Dale et al., "Do Property Values Rebound from Environmental Stigmas? Evidence from Dallas:' Land Economics 75, no. 2 (May 1999): 311-326; Dotzour; Simons and Sementelii; and Reichert ® The Appraisal toomal Summer 2005 2l0 • • 0 1nP, - bo + bi -Xi. + b, ' Xa +b3 ' X3 ......... +bn-X..1 +a - D. + ... ...+am-D.+eo where: InP. -the natural logarithm of sale price b,, =the intercept b, ... bo; a ... am = the model parameters to be estimated, i.e., the implicit unit prices for increments in the property characteristics Xr ... X. =the continuous characteristics, such as land area Do ... D,, -the categorical (dummy) variables, such as whether the sale occurred before (0) or after (1) the CPBS was built Sometimes the natural logarithm of land area and floor area is also used. The parameters are esti- mated by regressing property sales on the property characteristics and are interpreted as the house- holds' implicit valuations of different property at- tributes. The null hypothesis states that the effect of being located near a CPBS does not explain any variation in property sale prices. The Data Part of the process for selecting appropriate case study areas was identifying areas where there had been a sufficient number of property sales to pro- vide statistically reliable and valid results. Sales were required for the period before and after the CPBS had been built in order to study the impact of the CPBS on the surrounding properties' sale prices. Further, due to the multitude of factors that com- bine to determine a neighborhood's character, such as proximity to the central business district, stan- dard of schooling, recreational facilities provided, standard of housing, proximity to amenities, and the difficulty in allowing for these separately, sales lo- cated in areas with comparable neighborhood char- acteristics were preferred. Four of the suburbs in the survey case study met the criteria for the market study: St Albans, Beckenham, Papanui, and Bishopdale. No sales data was available for Upper Riccarton after the CPBS was built in this suburb, hence this suburb was not included in the market analysis study. As each CPBS was built at a different date, the sales from each suburb were sepia- rately analyzed The uniformity of locational and neigh- borhood characteristics in each of these suburbs al- lows the analysis to be simplified and to focus on the properties' physical attributes. The relative homoge- neity of housing, locational, and neighborhood at- tributes was verified through field inspections. The dependent variable is the property sale price. The data set includes 4283 property sales that occurred between 1986 and 2002 (approximately 1000 sales per suburb)." The independent data set was limited to those vari- ables that correspond to property attributes known and suspected to influence price. These variables are floor area (m'-); land area (ha); age of the house (the year the house was built); tower (a dummy variable indi- cating whether the sale occurred before or after the CPBS was built); sale date (month and year); time of sale based on the number of quarters before or after the CPBS was built (to help control for movements in house prices over time); category of residential prop- erty (stand-alone dwelling, dwelling converted into flats, ownership unit, etc); quality of the principal struc- ture (as assessed by an appraiser); and roof and wall materials. The number of bedrooms was not available in the data set. but would not have been included as an independent variable since the number of bedrooms is highly correlated with floor area. Since the GIS coordinates of properties for the initial analysis were not available, street name was included as an independent variable instead. To a limited extent, street name helped to control for the proximity effects of a CPBS. It was suspected that houses on a street close to a CPBS may, on average, sell for less than houses on a street farther away from the CPBS. While views, particularly water views, have been shown in previous empirical studies to be an impor- tant attribute affecting sale price, in the present study the flat contour of the landscape where the homes are located, together with the suburban nature of the en- vironment surrounding these, precluded any signifi- cant views. Thus, views were not included in the analy- sis. Further, due to the latae number of sales included in the analysis, inspections of each individual prop- erty were not made to determine the view, if any, of a CPBS from each house. It was felt that it is not merely the view that may impact on price, but also proximity to a CPBS due to the potential effect this may have on health, cell phone coverage, and neighborhood aes- 52. These sales were obtained from Headway Systems Ltd, a data distribution and system development company. Headway is the major supplier of property market sales information to New Zeeland5 valuation profession: it is jointly owned by the NZ institute of Valuers (NZIV) and Pr Inw;stmerds, a consortium of 28 shareholders from within the property industry. tie impact of cell phone lowers on bouse prices m residential neighborhoods 2] • thetics. Hence, view of a CPBS was not included as an independent variable. The variable descriptions are listed in Table 3, Variable codes are shown in Appen- dix III and basic descriptive statistics for selected quan- titative variables are shown in Appendix IV. Table 3 Variable Descriptions Variable* Definition SLNETX Sale price of the house (NZ$) SITSTX Street name CATGYX2 Category of dwelling: D, E, etc.- CATGYX4 +@ 7 Quality of the structure: A, B, C' TIMESOLD.Q Using the time the cell phone tower was + ®y built as a baseline quarter, the number of +®m-ROOFCNX quarters before (-) and after (+) it was built AGE Year the house was built LANDAX Land area (ha) MATFAX Total floor area Irv) WALLCNX Wall construction: W, B, C, etc.' ROOFCNX Roof construction: W, B, C, etc. f TOWER An indicator variable: 0 if before the cell phone tower was built, or 1 after it was built • Sale once is the dependent vahalAe. t See Aopendix III for explanation of variable codes Market Study Results An econometric analysis of Christchurch property transaction data helped to confirm the opinion sur- vey results. In the analysis of selected suburbs, the sales data from sales that occurred before a CPBS was built was compared to sales data from after a CPBS was built to determine any variance in price, after accounting for all the relevant independent variables. Empirical Results The model of choice is one that best represents the relationships between the variables and has a small variance and unbiased parameters. Various models were tested and the results are described in the next section. The following statistics were used to help select the most appropriate model: the adjusted co- efficient of determination (adjusted R=); the standard error of the regression equation; the AIC" and BICS° statistics; and t-test of significance of the coefficients and F -statistic. Significance of Variables and the Equation: St Albans As hedonic prices can vary significantly across dif- ferent functional forms, various commonly used functional forms were examined to determine the model specification that best describes the relation- ship between price and the independent variables. Also, to test the belief that the relationship between Price and Land Area is not a linear function of Price, the variable LANDAX (land area) was transformed to reflect the correct relationship. Several transfor- mations were tested including: linear of SLNETX (sale price) and log of LANDAX; log of SLNETX and linear of LANDAX; and log of SLNETX and log of LANDAX. All dummy variables remained in their linear form in each model. It was found that the best result was obtained from using the log of SLNETX and log of LANDAX, and the linear form of all the dummy variables. Tatting the log of an independent variable implies diminish- ing marginal benefits. For example, an extra 50 square meters of land area on a 550 -square -meter site would be worth less than the previous 50 square meters. The log -log model shows the percent change in price for a one -percent change in the independent variable, while all other independent variables are held con- stant (as explained in Hill, Griffiths, and Judge)" In the semilogarithmic equation the interpreta- tion of the dummy variable coefficients involves the use of the formula: 100(e b. - 1), where b is the dummy variable coefficient9eThis formula derives the percentage effect on price of the presence of the factor represented by the dummy variable and is advocated over the alternative, and commonly mis- used, formula of 100. (be). The resulting model in- cluded all the available variables as follows: log(SLN ETX) _ ( + ®I • TOWER + (9, - SITSTX + 0, - CATGYX2 + ®x - CATGYX4 + ®, - TIMESOLD • Q + ®fi • AGE +@ 7 log(LA NDAX) + Or MATFAX + ®y WALLCNX +®m-ROOFCNX 53. AIC is the Akaike Information Craermn. and is a `goodness of fa' measure imoWing the standard error of the regression adjusted by a penaky factor. The model selected is the one that minimizes this criterion (Microsoft SPSSPC Online Guide, 1997). 54. The BIC is the Bayesian Information Criterion. tike the AIC. BIC takes into account both how well the model his the observed cars, and the number of parameters used in the model. The model selected is the one that adequately describes the series and has the minimum SBC. The SBC is based on Bayesian (maximum -likelihood) considerations. (Microsoft SPSSPC Online Guide, 1997). 55. R. Carter Hill, William E. Griffiths, and George G. Judge, Undergraduate Econometrics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997). 56. See Robert Halvorsen and Raymond Palmquist, 'The Interpretation of Dummy Variables In Sem4Loganthmic Equations) American Economic Review 70, no. 3(1980): 474-475. ® The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005 • • From the regression output, the variables ROOFCNX and WALLCNX were found to be insignificant so these were removed from the model and the regres- sion was rerun. The table in Appendix V summa- rizes these results. The F -statistic (123) shows that the estimated relationship in the model is statisti- cally significant at the 95% confidence level and that at least one of the coefficients of the independent variables within the model is not zero. Table 4 summarizes the model selection test sta- tistics. Based on the AIC and BIC, the regression that excludes the variables ROOFCNX and WALLCNX is superior to the regression that includes them (AIC and BIC are minimized). For this reason, the model excluding these variables was selected for analysis, and it is discussed next. Table 4 Test Statistics St Albans Adjusted R' AIC BIC Full Model 0.82 -118.38 36.55 Sub Model 0.82 -121.64 5.95 Tests for nonreality, heteroskedasticity, and multicollinearity generally indicated that the model was adequately specified and that the data were not severely ill conditioned (heteroskedasticity and multicollinearity were diminished when the data were transformed). /p The coefficient of determination (R') indicates that approximately 82% of the variation in sale price is explained by the variation in the independent vari- able set. All variable coefficients had the expected signs;' except for TOWER, which was positive. The positive coefficient for TOWER shows that, when all the other variables are held constant, after the in- stallation of a CPBS in St Albans, the price of a house would increase by e°' 133 _ 1.12 (12%). A possible ex- planation is that cell phone technology was quite new at the time (1994), and as there bad been little in the media about possible adverse health effects from CPBSs, people may have perceived it as a benefit as they were likely to get better cell phone coverage. The most significant variables were TIMESOLD.Q (the quarter in which the sate oc- curred before or after the CPBS was built), log(LA NDAX) (log of land area), and MATFAX (to- tal floor area) and all have a positive influence on price. The positive TIMESOLD.Q indicates that the market was increasing over time since the CPBS was built (1994), but only to a limited extent (1.38%). The positive log of land area and total floor area shows that prices increase with increasing size. The regression coefficient on log(LA NDAX) is 0.3285, which indicates that, on average, a 10% in- crease in LANDAX will generate a 3.285% increase in price. The positive coefficient for MATFAX indi- cates that, when all the other variables are held con- stant, for each additional m- the price would increase by e0.0022314 _ 1 0022314 (0.22% increase). Significance of Variables and the Equation: Papanui The same functional form used for St Albans was used for Papanui. From the regression output, the variable CATGYX2 was found to be insignificant so it was re- moved from the model and the regression was rerun; Appendix VI summarizes the results. The F -statistic (152) shows that the estimated relationship in the model is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and that at least one of the coefficients of the in- dependent variables within the model is not zero. Table 5 summarizes the model selection test sta- tistics. Based on the AIC and BIC, the regression that excludes the variable CATGYX2 is superior to the re- gression that includes it (AIC and BIC are minimized). For this reason, the model excluding this variable was selected for analysis, and is discussed next. Table 5 Test Statistics— Papanui Adjusted R' AIC BIC Full Model 0.87 -509.91 -37L99 Sub Model 0.87 -510.57 -381.56 The coefficient of determination (R') indicates that approximately 87% of the variation in sale price is explained by the variation in the independent vari- able set. This would be considered high in compari- son with the amount of explanation obtained in simi- lar hedonic house studies reported in the literature}a All variable coefficients had the expected signs. The most significant variables were TIMESOLD.Q, MATFAX (total floor area), and TOWER The former two have a positive influence on price. The positive TIMESOLD.Q indicates that the • 57. Note that the variable AGE is positive as this variable indicates the year the house was built; therefore, the higher the year, the younger the home. Newer houses have less wear and tear than older homes and sell. on average, for more than older homes. 58. For ewmple, Reichert obtained an adjusted R' of 84%; Simons and Sememelli, 78%I Abelson, 68%; Dotrour, 56%-61%. the impact of cell phone towers on house ptites i¢res dentia) nei¢hhothaods Z 2n • • • market was increasing over time since the CPBS was built (2000), but only by 1.401. per quarter. The positive coefficient for MATFAX indicates that, when all the other variables are held constant, the price would in- crease by eo0 2S16 _ 1.00427 (0.43%), with increasing size. The negative coefficient for TOWER shows that, when all the other variables are held constant, after the installation of a CPBS in Papanui, the price of a house would decrease by e01340 _ 0.79 (21 % decrease). Significance of Variables and the Equation: Beckenham The same functional form used for Papanui and St Albans was used for Beckenham. From the regres- sion output, the variable ROOFCNX was found to be insignificant so it was removed from the model and the regression was rerun; Appendix VII sum- marizes these results. The F -statistic (214) shows that the estimated relationship in the model is statisti- cally significant at the 95% confidence level and that at least one of the coefficients of the independent variables within the model is not zero. Table 6 summarizes the model selection test sta- tistics. Based on the AIC and BIC, the regression that excludes the variable ROOFCNX is superior to the regression that includes it (AIC and BIC are mini- mized). For this reason, the model excluding this variable was selected for analysis. Table 6 Test Statistics — Beckenham Adjusted R' AIC BIC Full Model 0.89 -819.00 -641.39 Sub Model 0.89 -818.66 -650.66 The coefficient of determination (R') indicates that approximately 89% of the variation in sale price is explained by the variation in the independent vari- able set. Again, as with the model for Papanui this amount of explanation would be considered high. The most significant variables were TIMESOLD.Q, MATFAX, and TOWER. The former two have a positive influence on price. The positive TIMESOLD.Q indicates that the market was increas- ing over time since the CPBS was built in 2000, but only by 1.91% per quarter. The positive coefficient for MATFAX indicates that, when all the other variables are held constant, the price would increase by eoo 20S4 1.00421 (0.42%), with increasing size. The negative coefficient for TOWER shows that, when all the other variables are held constant, after the installation of a 0 The Appraisal laumal. Summer 2005 CPBS in Beckenham, the price of a house would de- crease by ems' --301 _ 0.793 (20.7% decrease). Significance of Variables and the Equation: Bishopdale The same functional form used for the other three suburbs was used for Bishopdale. From the regres- sion output, the variables ROOFCNX and CATGYX were found to be insignificant so these were removed from the model and the regression was rerun; Ap- pendix VIII summarizes these results. The F -statistic (122) shows that the estimated relationship in the model is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level and that at least one of the coefficients of the independent variables within the model is not zero. Table 7 Test Statistics — Bishopdale Adjusted R7 AIC BIC Full Model 0.79 -927.48 -775.71 Sub Model 0.79 -929.32 -796.52 Table 7 summarizes the model selection test sta- tistics. Based on the AIC and BIC, the regression that excludes the variable ROOFCNX and CATGYX is su- perior to the regression that includes it (AIC and BIC are minimized). For this reason, the model exclud- ing these variables was selected for analysis. Again, the most significant variables were TIMESOLD.Q and MATFAX; the variable of interest, TOWER, was not a significant variable in the model so it is not discussed further. The former two vari- ables have a positive influence on price. The positive TIMESOLD.Q indicates that the market was increas- ing over time since the CPBS was built in 1994, but only at 0.98% per quarter. The positive coefficient for MATFAX indicates that, when all the other variables are held constant, the price would increase by e000D60 1.004 (0.40%), with increasing size. Summary of Results The above analysis shows that the most significant variables and their impact on price were similar be- tween suburbs. This indicates the relative stability of the coefficients between each model. Interestingly, the impact of TOWER on price (a decrease of be- tween 20.7% and 21%) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in the year 2000. This may he due to the much greater media public- ity given to CPBSs after the two legal cases in Christchurch (Mclimyre and Shirley Primary School 30 • • in 1996 and 1999, respectively). The two suburbs where TOWER was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%. were suburbs where towers had been built in 1994, prior to the media publicity. Limitations of the Research The main limitation affecting this survey was in the selection of the case study areas. Specifically, the ar- eas selected had CPBSs that were not highly visible to residents. If more -visible CPBSs had been selected. the results may have been quite different. Thus, cau- tion must be used in making generalizations from this study or applying the results directly to other similar studies or valuation assignments. Factors that could affect results are the distance of homes from the CPBS, the style and appearance of the CPBS, how visible the CPBS is to residents, the type of home (single family, multifamily, rental, etc.), and the so- cioeeonomicmake-up of the resident population. To help address the proximity factor, a study is in progress examining the role of distance to the CPBSs and price effects; that study uses GIS analysis to de- termine the impact this has on residential property prices. It is expected that this will provide a more pre- cise estimationof the impact of a CPBS on price. It must be. kept in mind that these results are the product of only one case study carried out in a spe- cific area (Christchurch) at a specific time (2003). The above results indicate that value effects from CPBSs may vary over time as market participants' percep- tions change. Perceptions toward CPBSs can change either positively or negatively over time. For example, as the World Health Organization's ten-year study of the health effects from CPBSs is completed and be- comes available, consumers' attitudes may become more positive or negative depending on the outcome of that study. Consequently, studies of the price ef- fects of CPBSs need to be conducted over time. Areas for Further Study This research has focused on residents' perceptions of negative effects from proximity to CPBSs and how these impact property values, rather than the scien- tific or technological estimates of these risks. The technologists' objective view of risk is that risk is measurable solely in terms of probabilities and se- verity of consequences, whereas the public, while taking experts' assessments into account, view risk more subjectively, based on other factors. Further, the results of scientific studies about the health ef- fects of radio frequency and microwave radiation 59. For example, high-voltage overhead transmission lines. from CPBSs are not consistent. Residents' percep- tions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes, and this may explain why their assessments differ from those of the experts. Given the public concerns about the potential risks arising from being located nearby a CPBS, it is important for future studies to focus more attention on the kinds of risks the public associates with CPBSs and the level of risk perceived. How far away from the CPBS do people feel they have to be to be safe? What CPBS design, size, and surrounding landscape would help CPBSs to be more publicly acceptable? What social, economic, educational, and other de- mographic variables influence how people perceive the risks from CPBSs? Do residents that are heavy users of cell phones have a different perception of CPBSs than residents who make little use of this technology? Are these perceived risks reflected in property values and to what extent? Do these per- ceived risks vary over time and to what degree? Answers to these questions, if shared among re- searchers and made public, could lead to the devel- opment of a global database to assist appraisers in determining the perceived level of risk associated with CPBSs and other similar structures." Knowledge of the extent that these risks are incorporated into prop- erty prices and how they vary over time will lead to more accurate value assessments of properties in close proximity to CPB Ss and other similar structures. Summary and Conclusions Focusing on four case study neighborhoods in Christchurch, New Zealand, this article presents the results from both an opinion survey and market sales analysis undertaken in 2003 to determine residents' perceptions towards living near a CPBS and how this may impact property prices. From the results, it ap- pears that people who live close to CPBSs perceive the sites less negatively than those who live farther away. The issue of greatest concern for survey respon- dents in both the case study and control areas is the impact of proximity to CPBSs on future property val- ues. Overall, respondents would pay from 10%-19% less to over 20% less for a property if it were in close proximity to a CPBS. The opinion survey results were generally con- firmed by the market sales analysis using a hedonic house price approach. The results of the sales analy- sis show prices of properties were reduced by around 21 % after a CPBS was built in the neighborhood. How - he mpact of cell phone towers oa hoose p ces is residtptiel aei¢hbmhoods ®3 • • ever, this result varies between neighborhoods, with a positive impact on price being recorded in one neighborhood, possibly due to the CPBS being built in that suburb before any adverse media publicity about CPBSs appeared in the local Christchurch press. Research to date reports no clearly established health effects from radio frequency emissions of CPBSs operated at or below the current safety stan- dards, yet recent media reports indicate that people still perceive that CPBSs have harmful effects. Thus, whether or not CPBSs are proven to be free from health risks is only relevant to the extent that buyers of properties near CPB Ss perceive this to be true. Even buyers who believe that there are no adverse health effects from CPBSs, knowing that other potential buy- ers might think the reverse, will probably seek a price discount for a property located near a CPB S. The comments of survey participants indicate the ongoing concerns that residents have about CPBSs. There is the need to increase the public's understand- ing of how radio frequency transmitting facilities oper- ate and the strict exposure -limit standards imposed on the telecommunication industry. As more information is discovered that refutes concerns regarding adverse health effects from CPBSs, and as information about the NZ safety standards are made more publicly avail- able, the perception of risk may gradually change, elimi- nating the discounts for neighboring properties. Appraisal Institute. Proposed USPAP Statement on Appraisal Standards—First Exposure Draft: Utilization of Statistical and Market Survey Techniques in Real Estate Research, Appraising, Counselling, and Consulting Assignments. Report of Task Group for the Development of Standards for Determining the Acceptability of Applications of Statistical and Market Survey Techniques to the Valuation of Real Property. Chicago: Ap- praisal Institute, 2000. Burch, J. B., J. S. Reif, M. G. Yost, T. J. Keefe, and C.A. Pittrat. "Nocturnal Excretion of Urinary Melatonin Metabolite Among Utility Workers" Scand J Work Environ Health 24, no. 3 (1998): 183-189. Christchurch City Council Web site, http:// www.ccc.govt.nz/index.asp. Fesenko, E. E., V. R. Makar, E. G. Novoselova, and V. B. Sadovnikov. "Microwaves and Cellular Immunity: Effect of Whole Body Microwave Irradiation on Tumour Necrosis Factor Produc- tion in Mouse Cells" Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49, no. 1 (1999): 29-35. ® The Aw6sal Journal Summer 2005 Sandy Bond, PhD, MBS, ANZIV, SNZPI, is a senior member of the New Zealand Property Institute (NZPi), a director on the Board of the International Real Estate Society, and a past president of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES). She was awarded the PRRES Achievement Award in 2002 and the NZ Institute of Valuers' Presidential Citation in 1997. Before com- mencing her academic career in 1991, she worked as an appraiser in both New Zealand and London, UK. Contact: dr_sandybond@yahoo.com Ko -Kang (Kevin) Wang is a recent graduate from the University of Auckland and has been a tutor in the Statistics Department at the university. Wang has recently commenced doctoral studies in Australia. Contact: Kevin.Wang@anu.edu.au Acknowledgements The authors thank Mark Dunbar of Telfer Young and Robert Albrecht of DTZ for sharing the results of their cell phone research on valuation impacts from proximity to CPBSs, and Maya Marshall, Project Administrator at Telecom NZ, and Rapheal Hilbron, Community Relations Manager at Vodafone NZ, for information about CPBS locations and environmental impacts from these. Khudnitskii, S. S., E. A. Moshkarev, and T. V. Fomenko. "On the Evaluation of the Influence of Cellular Phones on Their Users" [In Russian] Med Tr Prom Ekol 9 (1999): 20-24. International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection. "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand -Held Radio Telephone and Base Transmitters-' Health Physics 70, no. 4 (April 1996): 587-593. International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection. "Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time -Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz)." Health Physics 74, no. 4 (April 1998): 494-522. Priestley, T., and G. Evans. Perception of a Trans- mission Line in a Residential Neighbourhood: Results of a Case Study in Vallejo, California. San Francisco: Southern California Edison Environ- mental Affairs Division, December 1990. 32 • • Priestley, T, and P. C Ignelzi. A Methodology for Assessing Transmission Line Impacts in Residen- tial Communities. Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute, June 1989. Repacholi, M. H., A. Basten, V Gebski, D. Noonan, J. Finnie, and A. W. Harris. "Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHZ Electromagnetic Fields." Radiat Res 147, no. 5 (1997): 631-640. Royal Society of Canada. A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices: An Expert Report Prepared at the Request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Society of Canada, March 1999. http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/ expert_panels/RF//RFreport-en.pdf. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz). Environmental Health Criteria 137. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993. Appendix I Location Map # 2 t L Source: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/maps/Wises/ the impact of cell phone towers 00 house prices in residential neighborhoods 33 0 0 9 Appendix 11 Summary of' the Survey Results Variable Responosc Valid Percent ("r,) Case Study Control Occupancy - Homeowner 78.5 94.2 Tenant 21.5 5.8 How long have you lived there? Less than 6 months 8.0 2.6 6 months -1 year 8.6 4.5 1-4 years 25.1 27.7 More than.5 years 58.3 65.2 How would you rate the desirability of your neighborhood? Superior 27.4 30.9. Above Average 37.4 36.8 Average 28.5 27.0 Below Average 5.6 4.6 Inferior Y.1 0.7 Would you be opposed to construction of a cell phone tower nearby? Yes 72.1 - No 27.9 When you purchased/began renting was the telt phone When Yes 39.3 tower already constructed? No 60.7 Was the proximity of the cell phone tower aconcern to you? Yes .20.0 No 80.0 Would you have gone ahead with rental/purchase if you had known a Yes 73.9 cell phone site wasto be constructed? No 26.1 Is location of a cell phone tower a factor youwouldconsider Yes 83.4 when moving? No 16.6 Is the cell phone tower visible from your house? Yes 45.7 No 54.3 If yes, how much does it. impact on your view? Very obstructive 9.6 Mildly obstructive 24.5 Barely noticeable 66.0 In what way does it. impact on the everyment of living in your house? Views 11.8 Aesthetics 20.6 Health concerns 36.8 Change in property value 19.9 Other 11.0 Effect a nearby cell phone tower would have on the price/rent you Tower wasn't constructed 53.1 would pay for the property Pay substantially more 0.0 0.0 Pay a little more 2.3 0.0 Pay little less 2.8 37.6 Pay substantially less 0.6 45.4 Not influence price 51.4 17.0 ".6 Effect a nearby cell phone tower would have on the price/rent you 20% higher or more 5 3.2 would pay for the: property 10-19% more 1.0 1.6 1-9% more 14 2.4 1-9% less 33 19.2 10-19% Jess 24 36.0 20% or a greater reduction 14 .37.6 Concern :about the .possibility of harmful health effects in the future Does not worry me 50.3 19.9 Worries mesomewhat38.0 38.4 worries me a lot 1.1.7 41.7 Concern about the stigma associated with houses near the cell Does not worry me 54.6 20.8 phone sites Worries me somewhat .33.9 45.0 Worries me a lot 11.5 34.2 Concern about theaffect on your properties value in the future Does not worry me 61.3 15.4 _ Worries me somewhat 25.4 37.2 Worries me a lot 13.3 47.4 Concern about theaesthetic problems caused by the. tower Does not worry me .63.3 18.2 Worries me. somewhat 25.4 37.0 Worries me alot 113 44.8 ® Tho Appraisal Jourual. Summer 2001 J� • 9 Appendix III Variable Codes Category of Dwelling Code Definition D Dwelling houses are of a fully detached or semi-detached style situated on their own clearly defined piece of land. E Converted dwelling houses that are now used as rental flat F Ownership home units which may be single storey or multi-storey and which do not have the appearance of dwelling houses. H Home and income. The dwelling is the predominant use, and there is an additional unit of use attached to or associated with the dwelling house that can be used to produce income. R Rental flats that have been purpose built. Quality of the Principal Structure Code Definition A Superior design and quality of fixtures and fittings is first class. B The design is typical of its era and the quality of the fixtures and fittingsis average to good. C The design is below the level generally expected for the era, or the level of fixtures and fittings is barely adequate and possibly of below average quality. Building Materials: Walls and Roof Code Definition W Wood B Brick C Concrete S Stone R Roughcast F Fibrolite M Malthoid P Plastic I Iron A Aluminium G Glass T Tiles K Appendix IN" Descriptive Statistics Variable Mean Std. des. Median Minimum Maximum St Albans: Sale Price ($) 221,957 110,761 200,000 42,000 839,D00. Land Area (ha) 0.0658 - 0.0331 :0.0579 0.0261* 0.3794. Floor Area (m1) 161 _70.40 .150 50 450 Beckenham: Sale Price ($) 116,012 50,037 111,000 21,500 385,000 .Land. Area (ha) - 0.0601 0.0234 0.0553 0.0164* 0.2140 Floor Area (m') 115 32.50 .110 40 340 Papanui: Sale Price ($) 127,661 51,114 119,000 43,000 375,000 Land Area (he) 0.0685 0.0289 0.0675 0.0310 0.3169 Floor Area (m2) 122 34.60 110 56 290 Bishopdale: Sale Price ($) 136,786 41,390 134:500 :56,000 342,000 Land Area (he) 0.0679. 0.0163 0.0653. :0.0400. 0.2028 Floor Area (m2) 125 31.20 118 64 290 ': These small land areas are related to apartments or units in a block o3 apartments/units brat have the land area apportoned oa a on. Range 797,000 0.3533 400 363,500 0.1976 300 332,000 0.2859 234 286,000 0.1628 226 toe imeact otcell phone towers on house Inices in residential ueiahborboods I 2b L J The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005 Appendix V Regression Model: St Albans • iog(SLNETX) -TOWER +CATGYX-,+CATGYX4 +TIM ESOLCQ-AGE +. log(JANDAX)-MATFAX -SITSTX Resaduals: Min IQ 'Median 3Q Max -0.72855 -0.15032 0.01593. 0.14263 0.72047 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error 1 -value J}t,. Itt) (Intercept) 91781868 0-6769096 13559. < 2e16 *** TOWER 0.1133186 0.0318188 3.561 0.000395 *** CATGYX2D 0.1846417 00702520 2.628 0008776 ** CATGYX20 0.0334663 0,1.008594 0.332 0.740134 CATGYX4B -0.1551409 0.0245485 6.320 475e-10*** CATGYX4C -0.1483169 .0.0722959 -2.052 0.040600 TIMESOLD.Q 0.0136663 0.0008206 16.650 <2e-16*** AGE 0.0016408 0.0003521 4.660 3.81=-06 '"** log(LANDAX) 03285367 0.0283810 11.584 , 2016 *** MATFAX 0.0022314 0.0001962 11.373 < 2e-16 - SITSTXAIKMANS RD 0.4029259 0.0533671 7.550 1:410-12 SITSTXBEVERLEY ST 0.2330787 0.0803137 2.902 .0.003827 - SITSTXBRISTOL ST 0.1706840 0.0521716 3.272 0.001124 ** SITSTX.BROWNS RD 0.2492536 0.0720854 3.458 0.000579 *** SITSTXCOX ST 0.3055798 0.0581672 5.253 200007 *** SITSTXGORDON AVE 0.0823422 0.0679833 1211 0226236 SITSTXKNOWLES ST 0.1690979 0.0558911 3.025 .0.002576 ** SITSTXMANSFIELD AVE 0.2954242 0.0652983 4.524 7.16e-06 *** SITSTXMCDOUGALL AVE 0.3303105 0.0623720 5.296 1.60e-07 *** SITSTXMURRAY PL :0.3613773 0.0629166 5.744 1.40e-08 *** SITSTXOFFICE RD 0.3681146 0.0543368 6.775 2.71-11 *** SITSTX Other 0.0618491 0.0736629 0.840 0.401416 SITSTXPAPANUI RD 0.1940369 0.0560474 3462 0.000070'** SITSTXRANFURLY ST 0.1701716 0.0617504 2.756 0.006012 ** SITSTXST ALBANS ST 0.1458665 00571172 2.554 0,010873'* SITSTXWEBB ST 0.1895432 0.0725061 2.614 0-009143'** SITSTXWESTON RD 0.2084419 0.0527555 3.951'. 8.60e-05 *** Signif. codes: 0"***0.001'**' 0.01'*' 0.05': 0.1 ' 1 Residual standard error: 012175 on 677 degrees of freedom MVHiple R -Squared: 0.8253, Adjusted R -squared: 0.8186 F -statistic: 123 on 26 and 6`17 D5 0value: <22e16 • Appendix VI Regression Model: Papanui Indarmule=log(SLNETX)- TOWER +SITSTX:+TIMESOLD.Q+AGE +log(IANDAXI- MATFAX-WALLCNX*R00FCNX+CATGYX4, data =Papanurflnap Residuuls. Min IQ Median 3Q Max -0.484987 -0.098006 0.003859 0.106253 0,563126 COCffi,iEpte! fisu n.te Std- Error !-Value Pa, jI (Intemegt) 5.9482316 0.8998186 8.500 ,.2016 p--*+. TOWER -0.2339640 0.0240908 -9.712 , 2e16 **'"- SITSTXHOANI ST 0.1966982 0.0265429 7.411 4.26e-13 *** SITSTXLANGDONS RD -0.1192547 0.0281242 -4.240 2.58e -O5 *** SITSTXLEANDER ST 0.0305555 0:0449437 0.680 0.496853 SITSTXMATSONS. AVE 0.0949636 0:0292461 3.247 0.001231 ** SITSTXMORELAND AVE -0.0892332 0.0397622 -2.244 0.025183 SITSTXMORRISON AVE -0.1984492 0.0289772 6.848 1.84e11 *** SITST)(Other -0,1543194 0,0337436 4.573 5.83e06 *** SITSTXSAILS ST -0.0761412 0,0433455 -1757 .0.079490 . SITSTXSAWTELL PL 0.1840793 0.0393904 4.673 3.66006 *** SITSTXSAWYERS ARMS RD 0.0872393 0.0201388 4.332 1.73005 - SITSTXST JAMES AVE 0.2497688 0.0289940 8.615 a 2e-16 - TIMESOLD.Q 0.0138914 0 0004137 33.575 , 2e-16 *'�* AGE 0.0029307 0.0003512 8.345 4.85e-16 *'* log(LANOAX) 00904764 0.0270812 3-343 0.000886.*`* MATFAX 0.0042576 0.0002410 17.664 < 2e-16 *** WALLCNXC 0.0054100 0.0200666 0,270 0.787558 WALLCNXF -0.0980851. 0.0464442 -2112 0.035106 WALLCNXO. -01158407 0.0468334 -2.473 0.013655 WALLCNXR 0.0670051 0.0244382 -2.742 0.006291 ** WALLCNXW -0.0679166 0.0192628 -3.526 0.000454 *** WALLCNX% 0.0571365 0.0358369 -1.594. 0.111381 ROOFCNXI 0.1502973 01139845 '1.319 0.187810 ROOFCNXO 0.0870092 0.1164152 0,747 0.455111 ROOFCNXT 00954874 0.1138506 0.839 .0.401955 CATGYX4B -0.0623758 0.0343487 -1.816 0:069872 . CATGYX4C -0.3669901 0,0905659 -4.052 6.740-05*** Signg. Codes: 0"***' 0.001.'**' 0.01'*' -0.05': 0.1"1 Residualstantlartl. error: 0.1579 on 604 degrees of freedom Multiple RSquared: 0.8718. Adjusted R -squared: 0.8661 F statistic: 1522 on 27 and 604 DF,. p-value'<22e-16 L J The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005 Appendix VIII Regression Model: Bishopdale in(formue = log(SLNETX) - TOWER + TIMESOLD,Q.+ AGE � loralANOAX) +. MATFAX <. WALLCNX + SITSTX, dam = Bishopdale.final) Rcsidudis. \lin Appendix VII Regression Model: Beckenham X1. In(formula = log(S W ETX) - TOWER + SITSTX+ CATGYX4 -TIM ESOLD.Q -AGE - log(IRNDAXj - MATFAX - WALLCNX - CATGYX2, data = Becbennam.finap Residuals: Min 1Q Medan 3Q Max -0.64490. -0.09026 0.01142 0.10112 0.40993 Coefficients: Esi rnate Std. Error i.ealuc Pr(> (tl) (Intercept) 9.2062865 0.4725194 19483 <2e16*** TOWERS -0.2301418 0.0182774 -12.594 <:2e -1G *** SITSTXBECKENHAM ST 0.1648069 0.0515406 3.198 0.001436 `* SITSTXBOON ST -0.0616738. 0.0484966 -1.272 0.203817 SITSTXBRADFORD AVE 0.0923843 0.0494942 1.867 0.062300 . SITSTXCOLOMBO ST 0.0623765 0.0467234 1.335 0.182223 SITSTXDEVON ST -0.0959430 0.0457562 -2.097 0,036299 SITSTXDUNN ST -0.0207886 00427676 -0.486 0.627031 SITSTXFISHER AVE 0.2271245 0.0400288 5.674 1-90e-08 *'* SITSTXLONGFELLOW ST -0.0186953 0.0451597 -0:414 0.678990 SITSTXOTHER -0.0222126 0,0467607 -0.475 9.634888 SITSTXPERCIVAL ST 0.0347190 0.0517740 -0.671 -0.502663 SITSTXROXBURGH ST 0.1029109 0.0466753 2.205 0.027729 SITSTXSOMERFIELD ST 0.0186495 0.0428968 0,435 0.663851 SITSTXSOUTHAMPTON.ST -0.0243265 0.0402926 -0.604 0.546171 SITSTXSOUTHEYST -0.0324513 0.0429880 -0.755 0.450520 SITSTXSTRICKLAND ST -0.0819418 0.0407196 -2.012 0.044494 ' SITSTXTENNYSON ST' 0.1165007 0.0393410 2.961 9.003147 SITSTXWEMBLEY ST 0.0648226 0.0458033 .1.415 0.157359 CATGYX4B 0.0275481 0.0373405 0.738 0.460864 CATGYX4C 0.1168640 0.0469787 -2.488 0.013049 TIMESOLD.Q 0.0189904 0.0003396 55.928 <2e-16 *tla AGE 0.0010988 0.0002426 4.530 674e-06 °** log(LANDAX) 0,1546535 0.0195655 7.904 8'19c15 *6* MATFAX 0.0042054 0.0002138 19.674 <2e-16 *** WALLCNXC -0.0208433 0.0378338 -0.551 0.581833 WALLCNXF -0.1171637 0.0394091 -2.973 0.003031 " WALLCNXO -0.0445073 .0.0399745 -1.113 0.265849 WALLCNXR -0.1119164 0.0235736 4.748 2.41:06 -- WALLCNXW -0.0629968 0.0222366 -2.833 0.004718 ** WALLCNXR -0.0992564. 0.0398493 -2.491- 0.012933 CATGYX2D 0.1445276 O.D399650 3.616 0.000316 - CATGYX2F 0.3069113 0.0744524 4.122 4.11e-05*** CATGYX2R 0.2927391 0.1222453 2.395 0.016847 'Signif. coal'* *' 0,001'**' 0.01'*' 0.05': 0.1 ".1. Resitlual standard error: 0.1515 on 864 degrees of freedom Multiple R -Square C: 0.8911, F-daturaw: 214.2 on 33 and Adjusted R -squares: 0.8869 864 DF, P value: <2.2e-16 Appendix VIII Regression Model: Bishopdale in(formue = log(SLNETX) - TOWER + TIMESOLD,Q.+ AGE � loralANOAX) +. MATFAX <. WALLCNX + SITSTX, dam = Bishopdale.final) Rcsidudis. \lin IQ Mahan 3 X1. -053633 -0.08893 0.01446 0.08850 0.49048 CociYrdcnt' .Estimate Std. E.c- t -value Pr(>Itj) (Intercept) 9.0005033 0-6988891 12878 <2e-16 *** TOWER 0.0262575 0.0182796- 1,436 0,151259 TIMESOLO.Q 0.0097887 0.0004834 20.251 <2e-16 AGE 0.0013236 0:0003598 3.679 0.000249 **' log(LANDAXi 0.1357753 0.0333622 4.070 -5.16.-05 MATFAX 0,0039665 0.0001855 21.389 <2e-16'** WALLCNXC -0.0169935 0.0108641 -1.564 0,118160 WALLCNXO 0.0785660 0,0336688 2.333 0.019863 WALLCNXR -0.0693225 0.0300511 2 307 0.021313 WALLCNXW -0.0815023 0.0230110 -3542 .0.000420 =*'• SITSTXCARDOME. S 0:0610536 0.0314227 1.943 0.052360 . SITSTXCHEDWORTH AVE 0.0330487 0.0317738 1.040 0.298589 SITSTXCLOTILDA PL 0.2252988 0.0420078 5.363 1.06e-07.*** SITSTXCOLESBURYST 0:0528749 0.0302668 1.747 0.081018 . SITSTXCOTSWOLD AVE 0.0604953 0.0286474 2.112 0,035012 SITSTXEASTLING ST 0.0551537 0,0319833 7.24 0,085003. SITSTXFARRINGTON AVE -0.0001768 0,0238544 -0.007 9.994087 SITSTXHAREWOOD RD 0.02044122 0.0252674 0,809 0,418753 SITST)OHiGHSTED. RD 0.0391760 0.0253953 1.543 0.123302 SITSTXKILBURN ST -0.0176756 0.0366951 -0.482 0.630155 SITSTXKINGROVE ST -0.0052772 0.0375965.0.140 0.888406 S1TSTXLEACROFr ST 0.1058243 0.0333633. 3.172 0.001571*' SITSTXMURMONT ST 0.1825316 0.0365287 4.997 7.12.-07 "** SITSTXNEWMARK ST -0.0342136 0.0272490 -1256 0.209621 SITSTXOTHER 0.0525437 0.0253634 2.072 0.038612 SITSTXRALEIGH ST 00470151 0.0314032 1.497 0.134740 SITSTXSTACKHOUSE AVE 0.0235719 0.0278844 0.845 0.398165 - Sign H. codes:0 '***' 0.007. '-t' 0.01 *' 0.05 % C.1 " 1 Residual standard error: 0.137 on 821 degrees of freedom 'Multiple R -Squared: 0.7946, Adjusted R -squared: 0.7881 • F-statistic:.122.1 on 26 add 821 DF, pwalue'. < 2.2e-16 the impact of cell phone towers an house prices in residential neidborhoodc N 31 0 The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on 91 The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida 38 House Prices in Florida This article outlines the results of a study by Sandy Bond, PhD carried out: in Florida in 2004 regarding the effect that cell phone tower proximity has on residential prop- erty prices. The study he siting of cellular phone transmitting antennas, their base stations, and involved an analysis the towers that support them (towers) is a public concern due to fears of potential of residential property health hazards from the electromagnetic fields that these devices emit. Negative sales transaction data. media attention to the potential health hazards has only fueled the perception both GIS andmultiple of uncertainty over the health effects. Other regularly voiced concerns about the regression analysis in siting of these towers are the unsightliness of the structures and fear of lowered anedonic framework property values. However, the extent to which such attitudes are reflectedin were used to determine lower property values affected by tower proximity is controversial. the .effect of mear This article outlines the results of a cell phone tower study carried out in distance of homes to. Florida in 2004 to show the effect that distance to a tower has on residential towers on residential property prices. It follows on from several New Zealand (NZ) studies conducted property prices. The in 2003.' The fust of the NZ studies examined residents' perceptions toward results of the research living near towers, while the most recent NZ study adopted GIS to measure the show that prices of impact that distance to a tower has on residentialproperty prices using multiple properties decreased regression analysis in a hedonic pricing framework. The study presented in this by just over 2%, on article was conducted to determine if homeowners in the United States make price .average, after a tower adjustments that are similar to those of NZ homeowners when buying properties was built. This effect near towers, and hence, whether the results can be generally applied. generally diminished The article commences with a brief literature review of the previous NZ with distance from the studies for the readers' convenience. The next section describes the research tower and was almost data and methodology used. The results are then discussed. The final section negligible after about provides a summary and conclusion. 656 feet. 1. Sandy Bond and Ko -Kang Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Tourers on House Prices in Residential Neighbor. hoods," The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2005): 256-277: S. G. Bond, and K Beaman, "Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived Impact on Residents and Property Values," Pacific Rim Property Research Journal 11, no. 2 (2005): 158-177; and S. G. Bond, and J. Xue, "Cell Phone Tower ProzimKy Impacts on House Prices: A New Zealand Case Study" (European Real Estate Society and International Real Estate Society Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June 15-18.2005). 91 The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida 38 Literature Review Property Value Effects First, an opinion survey by Bond and Beamish' was used to investigate the current perceptions of residents towards living near towers in the case study city of Christchurch, New Zealand, and how this proximity might affect property values. Second, a study by Bond and Wang' that analyzed property sales transactions using multiple regression analy- sis was conducted to test the results of the initial opinion survey. It did this by measuring the impact of proximity to towers on residential property prices in four case study areas. The Bond and Xue' study refined the previous transaction -based study by including a more accurate variable to account for distance to a tower. The city of Christchurch was selected as the case study area for all the NZ studies due to the large amount of media attention this area had received in recent years relating to the siting of towers. Two prominent court cases over the siting of towers were the main cause for this attention.' Dr. Neil Cherry, a prominent and vocal local professor, brought negative attention to towers by regularly publishing the possible health hazards relating to these structures.° This media attention had an impact on the results of the studies outlined next The Opinion Survey The Bond and Beamish opinion survey study in- cluded residents in ten suburbs: five case study areas (within 100 feet of a cell phone tower) and five control areas (over 0.6 of a mile from a cell phone tower). Eighty questionnaires7 were distributed in each of the ten suburbs in Christchurch (i.e., 800 surveys were delivered in total). An overall response rate of 46% was achieved. The survey study results were mixed, with responses from residents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proxim- ity to a tower. In both the case study and control areas, the impact of proximity to towers on future property values is the issue of greatest concern for respondents. If purchasing or renting a property near a tower, over one-third (38%) of the control group respondents would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%. The perceptions of the case study respondents were less negative, with one-third of them saying they would reduce price by only 10/-9%, and 24% would reduce price by between 10% and 19%. Transaction -based Market Study The Bond and Wang market transaction -based regression study included 4283 property sales, in four suburbs, that occurred between 1986 and 2002 (approximately 1000 sales per suburb). The sales data from before a tower was built was compared to sales data after a tower had been built to determine any variance in price, after accounting for all the relevant independent variables. Interestingly, the effect of a tower on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 2l %) was very simi- lar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in 2000, after the negative media publicity given to towers following the two legal cases outlined above. In the other two suburbs, the results indicated a tower was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, where the towers had been built in 1994, prior to the media publicity. The main limitation affecting this study was that there was no accurate proximity measure included in the model. A subsequent study was performed using GIS analysis to determine the impact that dis- tance to a tower has on residential property prices. The results from that study are outlined next. Proximity Impact Study The Bond and Xue study conducted in 2004 involved analysis of the residential transaction data using the same hedonic framework as the previous Bond and Wang study. It also included the same data as the previous study, but added six suburbs to give a total of ten suburbs: five suburbs with towers located in them and five control suburbs without towers. In ad- dition, the geographical (z, y) coordinates that relate 2. Bond and Beamish, `Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived Impact on Residents and Property Values." 3. Bond and Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoodsf 4. Bond and Xue, "Cell Phone Tower Proximity impacts on House Prices: A New Zealand Case Study." 5. McIntyre v. Christchurch City Council, NZRMA 289 (1996), and Shirley Primary School v. Telecom Mobile Communications Ltd., NZRMA 66 (1999). 6. For example see Neil Cherry, Health Effects Associated with Mobil Base Stations in Communities: The Need for Health Studies, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University (June 8, 2000); available at httP://pages.braishlibmrynet/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm. 7. Approved by the University of Auckland Human Subjects Ethics Committee (reference 2002/185). The Effect of. Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida The. Appraisal Journal, Fall. 2007. „ ?�A 0 0 • to each property's absolute location were included. A total of 9,514 geocoded property sales were used (approximately 1000 sales per suburb). In terms of the effect that proximity to a tower has on price the overall resultsindicate that this is statistically significant and negative. Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is re- duced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet. The study reported here, outlined next, adds to the growing body of evidence and knowledge from around the world on property value effects from cell phone towers. Florida Market Study The Data Part of the selection process was to find case study areas where a tower had been built that had a suffi- cient number of property sales to provide statistically reliable and valid results. Sales were required both before and after the tower was built to study the effect of the existence the tower had on the surrounding property's sale prices. Case study areas were selected using both GIS maps that showed the location of cellular phone towers, and sale price and descriptive data about each property located in Orange County. The maps and sales data were obtained from the Florida Geo- graphic Data Library (FGDL)." Approximately 60% of the towers located in Orange County were constructed between the years 1990 and 2000. Additionally, frequency distributions of properties sold during that period indicate that twenty of the towers have the greatest potential for impact on the price of residential properties, based on the greatest number of residential properties close to each tower. These twenty towers were selected to construct a data set for the study. Parcel data recorded in the FGDL was collected from the Office of the Property Appraiser for Orange County. Florida.° Residential properties that sold between 1990 and 2000 (the years the towers were constructed) and that are closest to the twenty towers were selected. Areas close to Interstate 4 and limited access roads were avoided to ensure sale prices (i,e., home buyers' choices) were not affected by highway access or traffic noise variables. Similarly, proper- ties south of Colonial Drive were avoided due to the lower socioeconomic nature of that location. The final areas were selected after site visits had been made to verify that each mapped tower existed, to confirm the location of the homes to the tower, and to ensure nonselected towers were not located near the homes that might impact on the study results. Overall, 5783 single-family, residential properties were selected from northeast Orange County (see the Location Map in the Appendix). Variables The study investigates the potential impact of proxim- ity to a tower on the price of residential property, as indicated by the dependant variable SALE _PRICE.1 ' The study controls for site and structural character- istics by assessing the impact of various independent variables. The independent data set was limited to those available in the data set and known to be related to property price, based on other well -tested models reported in the literature and from valuation theory. The independent variables selected include lot size in square feet (LOT), floor area of the dwelling in square feet (SQFT), age of the dwelling in years (AGE), the time of construction (A FTER_TWR), the closest distance of each home to the associated tower (DISTANCE), and the dwelling's absolute location is indicated by the Cartesian coordinates (XCOORD) and (YCOORD).11 The effect of construction of a tower on price is taken into account by the inclusion of the dummy, independent variable A FTER_TWR. By including A FTER_TWR, property prices prior to tower con- struction can be compared with prices after tower construction.12 Frequency distributions indicate that S. The FGDL is an assemblage of virtually every geographic data set for Florida that the GeoPlan Center of the University of Florida was able to obtain, this mostly from government sources. including the Federal Communications Commission. 9. As reported to the Florida Department of Revenue. 10. Model 1 and Model 2 estimate the log of the SALE_PRICE. 11. For further discussion of the significance of the absolute location in the form of ix, yl coordinates see Timothy J. Fik, David C. Ling, and Gordon E Mulligan, "Modeling Spatial Variation in Housing Prices: A Variable Interaction Approach,' Real Estate Economics 31 (Winter 2003): 647-670. 12, Dummy variables for each year of residential sales were also incorporated into both model specifications to control for the potential effects of time on the price of residential property. ._.. .he.Appraisal_Jaurna(�Ea1L2QQZ.__,,,.___,m,_.,...,._._._Sh€Eti6nkQf12istarfce�S�C,&ILPhone.TnwQ[aan.HsusaPtices,in.Fltz[ida �O • J among the residential properties sold between 1990 and 2000, approximately 80% of the residential prop- erties were sold after tower construction. Based on the parcel and tower data for Orange County, the mean sale price of single-family, resi- dential property that sold between 1990 and 2000 is $113,830. The mean square footage is 1535 square feet, the mean lot size is 8525 square feet, and the mean age is 14 years. The mean distance from a residential property to a tower is 1813 feet." Descriptive statistics for select variables are presented in Table 1. Research Objectives and Methodology The study hypothesis is that in areas where a tower is constructed, it will be possible to observe discounts made to the selling prices of homes located near these structures. Such a discount will be observed where buyers of homes close to the towers perceive them in negative terms due to, for example, the risk of adverse health, or aesthetic and property value effects. The literature dealing specifically with the mea- surement of the impact of environmental hazards on residential sale prices (including proximity to transmission lines, landfill sites, and groundwater contamination) indicates the popularity of hedonic pricing models, as introduced by Court14 and later Griliches" and further developed by Freeman1s and Rosen." The standard hedonic methodology was used to quantify the effect of cellular phone towers on sale prices of homes located near these. GIS was also adopted to aid the analysis of distance to the towers. Model Specification In hedonic housing models the linear and log -linear models are most popular. The linear model implies constant partial effects between house prices and housing characteristics, while the log -linear model allows for nonlinear price effects and is shown in the following equation: InP,=bn+bX,,+bXl+bX,;... +b,rX,+aDo+...+a,D.+ea... where: 1nic, = the natural logarithm of sale price be = the intercept h, ..b ; dr...am the modelparameter to be estimated, i.e., the implicit unit prices for increments in the property characteristics Xf ... X = the continuous characteristics, such as land area D ... Dm = the categorical (dummy) variables, such as whether the sale occurred before (0) or after (1) the tower was built Sometimes the natural logarithm of land area and floor area is also used. The parameters are estimated by regressing property sales on the property characteristics and are interpreted as the households' implicit valuations of different property Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables, Orange county, Florida Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. SALE -PRICE 113830.6 58816.68 45000 961500 SQFT 1535.367 503.8962 672 5428 LOT 8525.193 4363.28 1638 107732 AGE 13.92755 10.03648 0 35 XCOORD 664108.9 6130.238 640460 671089 YCOORD 511489.4 2422.946 506361 531096 DISTANCE 1813.077 725.5693 133 6620 Notes: n = 5783. Polynomial expansions of the independent variables, Identified by the VARIABLP were Included in the lnterac ions in one two model specifications discussed in the methodology. The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 . 13. Initially, HEIGHT was also Included among the explanatory variables. However, the HEIGHT variable provided no significant explanatory power. 14. K T. Court "Hedonic Price indexes with Automotive Examples," in The Dynamics of Automobile Demand (New York: General Motors, 1939). 15. Zvi Griliches, ad., Price Indexes and Quality Change (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). 16. A. Myrick Freeman, III, The Benefits of Environmental Improvement Theory and Practice (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). 17. Sherwin Rosen, "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Compatftan; Journal of Political Economy 82, no. 1 (Jan/Feb 1974):34-55. The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 . • 0 attributes. The null hypothesis states that the effect of being located near a tower does not explain any variation in property sale price. To address the many difficulties in estimating the composite effects of externalities on property price an interactive approach is adopted." To allow the composite effect of site, structure, and location attributes on the value of residential property to vary spatially, they are interacted with the Cartesian coordinates that are included in the model.19 Unless the hedonic pricing equation provides for interaction between aspatial and spatial character- istics, the effects of the explanatory variables on the dependant variable will likely be underestimated, misspecified, undervalued, or worse, overvalued. Including the Cartesian coordinates in the model is intended to increase the explanatory power of the estimated model and reduce the likelihood of model misspeeiftcation by allowing the explanatory vari- ables to vary spatially and by removing the spatial dependence observed in the error terms of aspatial, noninteractive models. Empirical Results The model of choice is one that best represents the relationships between the variables, and has a small variance and unbiased parameters. Adhering to the methodology proposed by Fik, Ling, and Mulligan,30 various empirical models were selected and progres- sively tested. The models were based on other well - tested hedonic housing price equations reported in the literature to derive a best -fit model. To test the belief that the relationship between SA LE PRICE and other specific independent vari- ables such as SQFT, AGE, and DISTANCE is not a linear function of SA LE PRICE, the variables were transformed to reflect the correct relationship. It was found that the best result was obtained from using the log of SALE _PRICE and the square of SOFT, AGE, and DISTANCE. The methodology progresses from an interac- tive model specification, which controls for site and structural attributes of residential property as well as the effects of absolute location, to a model that incorporates the impact of explicit location to measure the effects of the proximity to towers (as indicated by DISTANCE) on the sale prices of resi- dential property. Preliminary tests of each model, proceeding from interactive aspatial and spatial estimates, were executed to identify an appropriate polynomial or- der, or a model that provided the greatest number of statistically significant coefficients and the highest adjusted R -squared value.''-' Like the study by Fik, Ling. and Mulligan, sensitivity analyses suggested the use of a fourth -order model, at most. Similarly, the following model specifications are estimated with a stepwise regression procedure to minimize the potential for model misspecification due to multicollinearity and to ensure that only the inde- pendent variables offering the greatest explanatory power are included in the second model. The study used Levene's test for equality of variances. The as- sumption of homoskedasticity, like the assumption of normality, has been satisfied. Model I was utilized as a benchmark for the second model. The sale price (SA LE PRICE) is es- timated using the following independent variables: lot size (LOT); square footage of the dwelling (SQFT); age of the dwelling in years (AGE); and the dwelling's absolute location (XCOORD) and (YCOORD). To in- vestigate the effect of tower construction on the price of homes, the dummy variable (A FTER_TWR) was also included. Residential sale prices prior to tower construction (A FTER_TWR = 0) were compared to sale prices after tower construction (AFTER _TWR= 1). With the addition of the absolute location, Model 1 was used to provide a sound model specification, to maximize the explanatory value of the study and minimize the potential for misspeciftcation in the estimated second model. Model 2 includes distance -based measures indi- cating the property's explicit location, with respect to the closest tower. Both explicit distance and the distance squared were included. Model 2 integrated the base model (Model 1) with the distance from the tower to the property. The independent variable DISTANCE is introduced in the model and interacted 18. Externalities include influences external to the property such as school zoning, proximity to both amenities and disamenhies, and the socioeconomic make-up of the resident population. 19. Model misspecifications could include inaccurate estimates of the regression coefficients, inflated standard errors of the regression coefficients, deflated partial t-tests for the regression coefficients, false nonsignificant p -values, and degradation of the model predictability. 20. FIk, Ling, and Mulligan. 21 Ibid., 633. ,,.jbie Appraisal Journal, Fall 20Q7„ . . The Effectof Distance to, Cell Phone Towerson House. Prices. in, Florida �n Ll 0 1 LA with the variables from Model 1. This model is used to assess the variation in sale price due to proximity to a tower. Table 2 shows the development of a spatial and fully interactive model specification to estimate the ef- fects of the proximity to towers on the price of residen- tial property, according to Model 1, the base model. In the semilogarithmic equation the interpretation of the dummy variable coefficients involves the use of the formula 100(ee. -1), where b is the dummy vari- able coefficient." This formula derives the percentage effect on price of the presence of the factor represented by the dummy variable. Results from Model 1 suggest that the price of resi- dential properties sold after the construction of a tower increases by 1.47% (i.e., AFTER _TWR = 1.46E-02). Interactions with AFTER TWR and other variables also suggest an increase in the price for single-family residential properties sold after tower construction. Among the control variables, SQFT increases price by 0.039% with each additional square foot of space (i.e., SQ,FT = 3.88E). AGE reduces price by 0.25% for each additional year of age. The t -statistics for the explana- tory variables SQFT, AGE, XCOORD, and YCOORD suggest significant explanatory power within the specification (i.e., SQFT = 47, AGE' = 7, XCOORD = -7.105 and YCOORD= 6.799). Model 1 accounts for 82% of the variation in the SALE PRICE (i.e., Adj. R -Squared = 0.8219987). Model 2 introduces the independent variable DISTANCE to assess the variation in sale price due to the external effect of a tower. The Model 2 results are Table 2 Model 1 Results presented in Table 3; Table 4 provides a summary of the distance results. The results clearly show that the price of residen- tial property increases with the distance from a tower. The independent variable, DISTANCE, estimates a coefficient with a positive sign, which increases with increasing distance from the tower (i.e., DISTANCE _ 5.69E-05). As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. Moreover, the t -statistic associated with the estimated coefficient indicates the significance of the explanatory power of this variable (i.e, t -statistic = 10.751). DISTANCE presents significant interactions with the other independent variables. The i -statistics associ- ated with these interactions provide strong evidence that the price of residential property, while highly associated with site and structural characteristics, may be significantly impacted by proximity to towers (i.e., AFTER _TWR'DISTANCE = 3.519; DIS7ANCE2 _ -12.258; DISTANCE*AGE= 4.829). Further, although the estimated effect of the ex- planatory variable AFTER_TWR continues to suggest that the value of residential property increases with the distance from towers, the interactive nature of AFTER _TWR with DISTANCE' suggests that the effect of AFTER_TWR may vary due to varying distances from the tower. Indeed, the estimated coefficient for AFIER_TWR from Model 1 is diminished in Model 2 when the explicit, distance -based locational attribute is included in the model specification (i.e.. Model 1, AF- TER_TWR= 1.46)=02(1.47%); Model 2,AFTER _TWR = 0.012722 (1.28%)). Notes: n = 5783. Adjusted R' = 0.8219987. 22. Robert Halvorsen and Raymond Palmquist, `the Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations;' American Economic Review 70. no 3 (June 1980): 474-475. The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida. _ _ _ The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 9 I 1 Est. Std. Variables coefficient Std. Error coefficient t -Stat Significance Constant 3.689244 0.257416 14.332 0.0000 AFTER_TWR 1.46E-02 5.08E-03 0.0353 2.867 0.0042 AFTER_TWR*AGE 5.99E-04 2.62E-04 0.0395 2.290 0.0221 AFTER_TWR*LOT 8.79E-07 2.91E-07 0.0272 3.018 0.0026 SQFT 3.88E-04 8.20E-06 1.2072 47.368 0.0000 SQFT' -3.02E-08 1.90E-09 -0.3779 -15.912 0.0000 SQFT-AGE 3.52E-07 1.78E-07 0.0429 1.982 0.0475 AGE -2.81E-03 5.17E-04 -0.1739 -5.429 0.0000 AGE' 7.12E-05 9.94E-06 0.1527 7.165 0.0000 XCOORD -1.14E-06 1.61E-07 -0.0432 -7.105 0.0000 YCOORD 3.05E-06 4.48E-07 0.0456 6.799 0.0000 Notes: n = 5783. Adjusted R' = 0.8219987. 22. Robert Halvorsen and Raymond Palmquist, `the Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations;' American Economic Review 70. no 3 (June 1980): 474-475. The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida. _ _ _ The Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 9 I 1 • 11 0 Table 3 Model 2 Results Notes: n = 5783. Adiasted R' = 0.8282641 Table 4 Summary of Model 2 Location Results Variable Estimated coefficient (% Impact on Price) DISTANCE 5.69E-05 (5.69-03%) DISTANCE' -1.49E-08 Note. ADS. R' - 0.8282641 Limitations This study analyzed residential property sales from different but neighboring suburbs as an entire data set, i.e., the suburbs were grouped together and analyzed as a whole. The absolute location was included in the model to take into account compos- ite externalities as well as to allow these and other independent variables in the model to vary spatially, and therefore preclude the need to analyse neighbor- hoods separately. However, it is possible that not all neighborhood differences were accounted for. For example, when comparing these results to those from the NZ study by Bond and Xue, it appears the results from both studies based on an analysis of the whole data set were similar. Towers have a statistically significant, but minimal, effect on the prices of proximate properties. However, what the NZ study showed by analyzing the suburbs sepa- rately was that substantive differences exist in the effect that towers have on property prices between suburbs, since the distribution of the property sale prices is quite different in each. It is possible that if the current study had analyzed suburbs separately that similar differences would have been found. Summary and Conclusions This article presents the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004. The study involved the analysis of market transaction data of single-family homes that sold in Orange County between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the effect on prices of property in close proximity to a tower. The results showed that while a tower has a statistically significant effect on prices of property located near a tower, this effect is minimal. Each geographical location is unique. Residents perceptions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of processes including psychologi- cal, social, institutional, and cultural. The results of this study may vary with the NZ results not only due to the differences in study design (for example, this study excluded an analysis at a neighborhood level), but also due to differences in the landscape. In New Zealand, there are fewer structures such as high voltage overhead transmission lines, cell phone towers, and billboards than there are in the United States. As a result, it is possible that U.S. residents simply have become accustomed to these features and so notice them less. The value effects from towers may vary over time as market participants' perceptions change due to in- creased public awareness regarding the potential (or lack of) adverse health and other effects of living near a towers. Further research into factors that impact on the degree of negative reaction from residents living near these structures could provide useful insights that 'The_Appralsal. JoumaL_EaI1_200I_ ___m.._The-E fentof-JXstance3¢-D-U_Pbnne-lowersnn_House Prices;in Florida LO Est. Std. Variable coefficient Std. Error coefficient t -Stat Significance Constant 3.097387 0.268028 11.556 0.0000 AFTER_TWR 0.012722 4.42E-03 0.0309 2.877 0.0040 AFTER_TWR*AGE AFTER_TWR*LOT 1.26E-06 2.86E-07 0.0389 4.400 0.0000 AFTER_TWR*DISTANCE' 2.72E-09 7.73E-10 0.0550 3.519 0.0004 SQFT 4.01E-04 8.45E-06 1.2464 47.460 0.0000 SQFT' -3.04E-08 1.93E-09 -0.3797 -15.726 0.0000 SQFT*AGE AGE -2.80E-03 3.95E-04 -0.1731 -7.077 0.0000 AGE' 6.72E-05 9.70E-06 0.1442 6.931 0.0000 XCOORD -1.61E-06 1.63E-07 -0.0610 -9.911 0.0000 YCOORD 4.70E-06 4.80E-07 0.0702 9.798 0.0000 DISTANCE 5.69E-05 5.29E-06 0.2548 10.751 0.0000 DISTANCE' -1.49E-08 1.22E-09 -0.2927 -12.258 0.0000 DISTANCE*AGE 6.20E-07 1.28E-07 0.0909 4.829 0.0000 DISTANCE*SQFT -5.43E-09 2.71E-09 -0.0568 -2.002 0.0453 Notes: n = 5783. Adiasted R' = 0.8282641 Table 4 Summary of Model 2 Location Results Variable Estimated coefficient (% Impact on Price) DISTANCE 5.69E-05 (5.69-03%) DISTANCE' -1.49E-08 Note. ADS. R' - 0.8282641 Limitations This study analyzed residential property sales from different but neighboring suburbs as an entire data set, i.e., the suburbs were grouped together and analyzed as a whole. The absolute location was included in the model to take into account compos- ite externalities as well as to allow these and other independent variables in the model to vary spatially, and therefore preclude the need to analyse neighbor- hoods separately. However, it is possible that not all neighborhood differences were accounted for. For example, when comparing these results to those from the NZ study by Bond and Xue, it appears the results from both studies based on an analysis of the whole data set were similar. Towers have a statistically significant, but minimal, effect on the prices of proximate properties. However, what the NZ study showed by analyzing the suburbs sepa- rately was that substantive differences exist in the effect that towers have on property prices between suburbs, since the distribution of the property sale prices is quite different in each. It is possible that if the current study had analyzed suburbs separately that similar differences would have been found. Summary and Conclusions This article presents the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004. The study involved the analysis of market transaction data of single-family homes that sold in Orange County between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the effect on prices of property in close proximity to a tower. The results showed that while a tower has a statistically significant effect on prices of property located near a tower, this effect is minimal. Each geographical location is unique. Residents perceptions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of processes including psychologi- cal, social, institutional, and cultural. The results of this study may vary with the NZ results not only due to the differences in study design (for example, this study excluded an analysis at a neighborhood level), but also due to differences in the landscape. In New Zealand, there are fewer structures such as high voltage overhead transmission lines, cell phone towers, and billboards than there are in the United States. As a result, it is possible that U.S. residents simply have become accustomed to these features and so notice them less. The value effects from towers may vary over time as market participants' perceptions change due to in- creased public awareness regarding the potential (or lack of) adverse health and other effects of living near a towers. Further research into factors that impact on the degree of negative reaction from residents living near these structures could provide useful insights that 'The_Appralsal. JoumaL_EaI1_200I_ ___m.._The-E fentof-JXstance3¢-D-U_Pbnne-lowersnn_House Prices;in Florida LO 0 L, • help explain the effects on property price. Such fac- tors might include, for example, the kinds of health and other risks residents associate with towers; the height, style, and appearance of the towers; how vis- ible the towers are to residents and how they perceive such views; and the distance from the towers resi- dents feel they have to be to be free of concerns. As the results reported here are from a case study conducted in 2004 in a specific geographic area (Orange County, Florida) the results should not be generally applied. As Wolverton and Bottemiller explain, The limits on generalizations are a universal problem for real property sale data because analysis is con- strained to properties that sell and sold properties are never a randomly drawn representative sample. Hence, generalizations must rely on the weight of evidence from numerous studies, samples, and locations.21 Thus, many similar studies in different geo- graphic locations would need to be conducted to determine if the results are consistent across time and space. Such studies would need to be of similar design, however, to allow valid comparison between them. As suggested by Bond and Wang, the sharing of results from similar studies would aid in the de- velopment of a global database to assist appraisers Additional Reading in determining the perceived level of risk associated with towers and other similar structures from geo- graphically and socioeconomically diverse areas. Sandy bond, PhD, MbS, DipbusAdmin, SPINZ, is a senior member of the Property Institute of New Zealand (PINZ) and a past president of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES). She was awarded the PRRES Achievement Award in 2002 and the New Zealand Institute of Valuers' Presidential Citation in 1997. Before commencing her academic career in 1991 she worked as an appraiser in both New Zea- land and the United Kingdom. Bond is currently a senior lecturer at Curtin University of Technology. Her doctoral research was on the assess- ment of stigma relating to remediated contaminated property. Her current areas of research interest include the valuation of contaminated land, the impact of cell phone towers and high voltage transmission lines on residential property values, and public sector asset valu- ation. She has published numerous articles in journals in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, the United King- dom, and the United States, and was responsible for drafting the NZPI Practice Standard on the Valuation of Contaminated Sites. contact: dr sandybond@yahoo.00m Christchurch City Council Web site at http://www.ccc.govt.nz/index.asp Cretin, J. R. O. Davis, and J. E. Jackson. "Urban Property Markets: Some Empirical Results and Their Implications for Municipal Zoning." Journal of Lacs and Economics 10 (1967): 79-99. Crone, Theodore M. "Elements of an Economic Justification for Municipal Zoning" Journal of Urban Eco- nomics 14 (September 1983): 168-183. Fisher, Walter D. "Econometric Estimation with Spatial Dependence" Regional and Urban Economics 1, no. 1 (1971): 19-40. Gillen, K., T. C. Thibodeau, and S. Wachter. `Anisotropic Autocorrelation in House Prices." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 23, no. 1 (2001): 5-30. Kohlase, J. E. "The Impact of Toxic Waste Sites on Housing Values." Journal of Urban Economics 30, no. 1 (1991): 1-26. Li, M. M., and H. J. Brown. "Micro -Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices." Land Eco- nomics 56, no. 2 (1980): 125-141. The Effect of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on. House Prices in Florida. __ _ _ The. Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007 M 45 9 :3. • Appendix Location Map.. Orange County. Florida Marvin L. Wolverton and Steven C. Sottemiller, 'Further Analysts of Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values' The Appraisal Journal (July 2003): 252. �Y The Appraisat De4u?reatpawa009House Prices in Florida Ibe_Effe cI.oYDistancz.Sl6�lAFitweds;�.dvuml�bafs511�r. • Dee Dee Jacobson 23811 Millford Court Valencia, CA 91354 700 feet from proposed cell tower April 21, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009 Dear Members of the Santa Clarita City Council, My name is Dee Dee Jacobson and I have been a resident of Valencia for 22 years. I was also a member of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission from June 2008 through June 2012. My letter to you concerns the proposed AT&T cell tower that is to be installed in the Northbridge development This cell tower will be located approximately 700 feet from my front door. The city of Santa Clarita continues to pride itself on protecting natural landscape, open spaces, and ridding our city of blight. However, erecting a cell tower disguised as a 'tree` in a neighborhood goes against everything this city has worked so adamantly to achieve. I can honestly say that during the 4 years I served on the Planning Commission a "tree" cell tower was NEVER approved due to Its unsightliness and severe lack of aesthetics. To say that I'm shocked this one has been approved is an understatement And, in a neighborhood no less. This "tree" will be what I see everyday as 1 walk out my front door. I have many other concerns as well. I've been told that if 1 sell my home 1 would need to disclose this cell tower and the possibility of a diminished value of property is very real. Cm also extremely concerned about the upkeep of this "tree" and the obvious addition of other mobile cell networks. Who will have the ultimate responsibility to maintain this "tree" when other companies add on? AT&T? Or Verizon? Or T Mobile? Please do not misunderstand and think I am anti cell phone, I'd be lost without mine. But to think as a city we've lowered our standards to allow a fake "tree" cell tower in a neighborhood is just a shame. And, as we all know, once one "tree" is approved there's no stopping this train. LJ I urge you to reject the application of this by AT&T that would allow them to erect neighborhood. Sinnccerely, Dee Dee Jacobson \J Master Case and Conditional Use Permit a fake "tree" cell tower in a residential • Michael Piccirllo 27366 Cheshire Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91354 900 feet from proposed cell tower April 19, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23970 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Bear Mayor Weste and City Council Members: I am currently a junior at Loyola Marymount university studying Political Science and Urban Studies. I am fascinated by local government and am about to begin an internship for the city of Culver City I am leanung more and more about how cities • operate and I have always believed that Santa Ciarita is a very well run city I am writing to you today to tell you that I believe the Santa Clanta Planning Commission got it wrong when it voted by a margin of 3-2 to allow AT&T to build a cell phone tower in the middle of a residential area. I believe it's now up to the city council to right that wrong. More and more, all across the country, cities are rejecting the permits needed for telecommunication companies to litter their landscapes with cell phone towers. These companies throw around terms like "gap in coverage" and think they have free reign to do what they want, always citing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. When that act was issued the PCC also recommended that cell towers be installed in commercial or industrial areas. That's why all across the country, residents are saying, "Not in my backyard!' Literally. We all recognize the need for cell phone coverage as technology moves forward at a rapid pace. But there is also a need to be responsible and that's where I believe it is your duty to deny this permit. There are numerous grounds to do so, such as aesthetics, noise complaints that will no doubt be generated by the equipment and the trucks and manpower needed to maintain the tower, decline in value of the homes located in close proximity, etc. Pick one or two, but more importantly, stand up with the people who • put you in office and say no to AT&T. Send them back to the draining board and tell them to solve the problem outside a residential area. I respectfully ask you to deny the permit needed to construct a cell phone tower in this neighborhood or any other neighborhood. That, in my opinion, is good Urban Policy. Thank you for your time and consideration, Miel Piccirillo 0 G aX . Brent Downs 23615 Ashland Ct Valencia, CA 91354 418 feet from proposed cell tower April 24, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members: We purchased our home last fall on Ashland Court primarily because there are were not cell towers, power lines or obstructions of view. Valencia Northbridge is one of the more desirable locations because of the natural beauty and high aesthetic value that has • been preserved. Littering the natural beauty of the neighborhood with a fake tree, coupled with noisy utility sheds significantly changes the landscape to an unsightly nuisance. Having appraised residential property as a profession in the past, there is no question that cell towers are considered external obsolescence and negatively effect property values. Further, there doesn't seem to be a justifiable need to litter our neighborhood with a cell tower and noisy utility shed. They haven't demonstrated that there is a significant gap in coverage nor have they given justifiable reasons to place the tower in other locations. Blease reject AT&T's application to build this cell tower so we can preserve property values and maintain the natural beauty of Valencia Northbridge. Sin rely e-- Brent Dow Valencia Northbridge Resident 0 From: GreawyLaxgwd Gtegory Lamperigcph.com B . $L a: tetter Dateta: &x%25.2014 all-.44 PM To: Brenda PicdMto brendaptoOearthtink.net Gregory S. Lampert 27345 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 41354 800 feet from proposed cell tower April 25, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23420 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 41355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members: • 1 write today to express my opposition against the installation of the above referenced AT&T cell tower near my home. I have been a resident in my current home for over 18 years and believe a cell tower in such close proximity to my home is problematic for a number of reasons. First it will lower my property value as well as the property values of my neighborhood. It will decrease the amount I can sell • my house for should I decide to sell at some point in the future. Besides lower property values, a cell tower will be an eye sore even if it is made to look like a tree. Cell towers create noise pollution and other environmental problems for wildlife. As with the existing water tower, a cell tower will invite vandalism. A cell tower in a residential area so close to my home will negatively impact the quality of life detracting from my ability to enjoy my home and outdoor living space. • In the closing, I suggest that City Counsel reject the application from AT&T to build a cell tower in our residential community. Sincerely, 0 Charles and Kathleen Gill 71080 Littlefield Drive wValencia, CA 91352 Within 500 feet from vroposed cell tower April 21, 2014 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL c/o Mike Marshall CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 2392.0 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CR 91355 AE: Master Case 13-214, Conditional Use Permit 13-049 Dear Citv Council Members: We have made our home in the Santa Clarita Valley for over 20 years. We have been blessed with the opportunity to observe the growth of the valley, as well as being active participants in promoting it as a family centric destination for living, working and lifestyle. Unfortunately, our home, as well as many others of our neighbor's homes, is located within direct proximity of a cell tower purported to be in the best interests of enhanced and accelerated communication for our valley. Given that we are in a valley begs the question of why would we place an obtrusive, less than aesthetically desirable monolithic tower within a residentW community? • There are many other places of elevation that night be tapped other than the commercial owners that have already negated their desire for this. Placing this tower in a residential community sets a precedent for communications companies to place towers in other residential locations within our valley which in this case overlooks a school, compromises the aesthetics which we work diligently to maintain, as well as impacting property values and generating ambient noise. We are also concerned and bothered by the lack of respect that the Planning Commission provided many of us who attended the Communion's meetings where this proposal was approved, Their approval took on the air that "as long as it Jocks good tyre is no reason not to approm it." Three of the Commission members gave residents absolutely no consideration to concerns of property values, aesthetics and the lack of AT&T's exploration of other sites located in commercial areas, In fact, an the pictures of existing installations provided by AT&T and considered by City staff and Commission members were in commercial areas' Approving this tower is counterintuitive to the legacy of community in this valley. We would respectfully request that you please reject the application from AT&T to build a cell phone tower in our residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Kathleen & Charles Gill • Corey Fredrickson 27153 Sanford Way Valencia, CA, 91354 approx. 200 feet from proposed cell tower 04-21-2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91.355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Bear City Council Members: • Our two-story home is located adjacent to the private main access road leading to the proposed cell tower site. Due to the close proximity of our home there will be an increase of traffic noise from company vehicles at all hours of operation. • Our bedroom window is a few feet below this paved road and currently is being driven on by the city's landscape division daily at 6:30 in the morning. Building at this tower site would increase the traffic passing by our home monitoring the transmissions at this site. • vandalism already occurs at this location and would be an attraction if this tower were to be built here. I've called the Sheriff many times over the years of illegal activities occurring at this site. But of course the overburdened and understaffed police department shows up long after the culprits have done their damage and left. You can check with authorities about this. • There is another site identical to this proposed area that would service a larger community for increase of signal. It's located close to a mile North of this location but with fewer residential homes in proximity of this tower. It even has the same type of concrete structure that could be used. • In closing I strongly suggest that you reject the application from AT&T to build the cell tower so close in our residential community. Thank you. Corey Fredrickson - 661.247.4841 0 r/1s1'-1 • y� Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall, fRo4�w Gaffe. 13 -/16 Loll LAX lbw 1 / 3 - Do 1 am opposing the placement of and AT&T tower just 418 from where my family and I live. I have spent years creating a backyard that is peaceful with a view of the hill upon which the proposed tower is to be built. I do not want to have a tower, however it may be disguised to the satisfaction of AT&T, within our view. • I am also concerned about any additional noise generated which we will be able to hear when we are in our backyard or in our home with our windows or sliding glass doors open. Please reject the application from AT&T to build a cell tower practically in our backyards! Since rely, MarMD 23801 Lanesboro PI Valencia, CA 91354 LI I G /} . (qxeVI P ruo) 0 q d Com' w P Sy(vie L. Griffith 0 April 23, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23420 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110. Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members: The proposed AT&T tower site adjacent to the water tower off of Fairview Avenue located in the Valencia Northbridge residential community is within a thousand feet of my family's home. Charles Helmets Elementary School, Northbridge Park, throe community pools and over one thousand private residences are within the radius of this proposed tower site. Due to public perceptions of hazards, local realtors indicate the tower will bring property values down. Since my family has been here eighteen years, the impact of our proximity to the proposed cell phone tower concerns us. In addition to decreasing property values, we are especially concerned at the effects the tower will have on the medical equipment my husband uses and will use in the future to sustain his life. is According to the National Institute of Health. "electromagnetic emissions from technologies that surround us can produce interference with implanted and externally worn medical devices". As our population ages, and due to the 2008 financial crisis in this country, many of us expect to remain in our homes indefinitely. The knowledge that a cell phone tower will affect our properties and the equipment we use to sustain our lives is disconcerting. City Council members should give serious consideration to the fate of our Northbridge community real estate. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council reject the application from AT&T to build a cell phone tower in our residential neighborhood. Wireless facilities are commercial facilities and should be placed on commercial and industrial sites where the city can benefit from their revenue. Our parks, paseos, and schools belong where they are; around the corner, up the street, and down the hill from where we live, raise our children, and plan to stay. That is how our property taxes contribute to Awesometown? Sincerely, USYffith and Family • z7361 Cheshire Ln. Valencia, CA 91354 66-.386.61007 slgsigl@aol.com 5l0 Brandee Bock 275-18 Wellington Court Valencia, CA 41354 1/s mile from proposed cell tower 04/21/14 c/ o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clanta, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-004 Dear City Council Members: My name is Brandee Bock and I live less than a quarter mile from where AT&T has • proposed to build a cell phone tower. I walk my dog there every day and love the tranquility and sense of neighborhood provided by the paseos and the trees. What I am sure I won't like is a huge cell phone tower disguised as a fake tree. Really? A city concerned with the blight of billboards is going to allow this? I honestly don't understand why. I think the city has, in the past, done a very good job of attending to the landscape. Fake trees simply do not belong anywhere in Santa Clarita's landscape. Furthermore, and perhaps even more disturbing, it is beyond my comprehension that this will be located a few hundred feet from an elementary school. My two children attended that school. We all still use the community pool that sits right below where the huge tree/cell tower will be located. That is not what I want to look at from my lounge chair and I'm pretty sure most residents agree. I urge you to deny AT&T the permit and send them back to work to find a solution that doesn't upset the balance of a residential community. Thank you for your consideration. e) uv 61 • Lisa Soltes 27352 Cheshire Lane Valencia CA 91354 800 feet from proposed cell tower April 21, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members: In choosing our lot some 18 years ago, we knew that a backyard backing out to a street was considered undesirable, yet of all the options available to us, we chose it anyway. • We chose it due to the fact that we had no houses behind us, only a view of the grassy hills leading to the elementary school and the majestic mountain leading up to the water tower. We knew there would be no further building. That view would always be ours. Now, we are concerned about what we will see from our backyard, and how it will affect the value of our home. With home values so hard hit these last 6-7 years, everything counts. For this reason alone, the decision to put a cell tower in a residential neighborhood seems counter intuitive. I suggest you reject the application from AT&T to build the cell tower in a residential community. Kind regards, Lisa Soltes LI Jim Picciriilo 27366 Cheshire Lane Valencia, Ca. 91354 900 feet from proposed cell tower April 19, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarity 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-409 Dear City Council Members: We have lived on Cheshire Lane in Valencia for the last eighteen years. We have raised our children here, made lifetime friends, and created some very special memories with our neighbors through the years. Our entire street sits under the hill where the pro- posed AT+T cell tower is slated to go. We take immense pride in our neighborhood and are concerned that this tower will have nothing but negative impact on our cluster of homes both from the unwanted aesthetic of the fake eucalyptus tree used to disguise this monstrosity and the possible decrease in our home values. Most of us have lived on this street for close to twenty years and are at that point in our lives where we are hopefully enjoying the fruits of many years of home ownership. That in itself should be enough to persuade you to vote to have this thing moved to a more suitable environment, but the fact that is sits just several hundred feet from Helmers' Elementary school should make this a no brainez Your responsibility as an elected official is to protect and serve the interests of the residents of this city and their concerns, and not to side with a giant corporations whim to pepper our city with hun- dreds of cell phone towers. There are many more suitable locations for these towers and AT+T certainly has the money and resources to put these towers wherever the city de- cides is the best place for them. The plaint, simple fact is that hundreds of residents have come together to voice to you that we do not want this in our neighborhood. Certainly you will think about those sev- eral hundred residents next election, especially when the most recent one had available council seats determined by just a handful of voters. 0 0 0 0 We are tired of the status quo and the fate of all being determined by just a few. Please take into consideration all of this when you cast your opinion on this very important issue. Take a moment to listen to what the people are saying and asking of vou. Jim 2734 Val( Katie Piccirillo 27366 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91954 900 feet from proposed cell tower April 19, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clanta 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 92355 RE: Master Case 13-11o, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear Mayor Weste and City Council Members: I am 18 -years old and attend college in San Diego. I recently voted by mail in my first City Council election. That's why I feel compelled to write to you today to tell you that installing a cell phone tower so close to where I have grown up and where I attended • elementary school is wrong. It's bad politics and bad for the people whom you represent. Santa Clarita should not be known for cell phone towers disguised as fake trees. It is a city that is known as a good mixture of urban and rural. Giant fake trees popping up in the middle of residential neighborhoods should not part of our landscape. I respectfully request that you deny the permit that would allow- this cell phone tower to be built in the middle of our neighborhood. I believe it is your job to stand up to AT&T and preserve our community. Sincerely, Katie Piccirillo 4) • David Soltes 27331 Cheshire Lane Valencia CA 91354 800 feet from proposed cell tower April 21, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa CLuita, CA 91355 RE. Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-449 Dear City Council Members: Please allow me to reinforce what my wife has already made abundantly clear: the idea of 1) "planting" a cell tower behind our home that would forever change our easterly view and 2) having to risk the passible decrease in home value when • declaring our new "feature" to potential buyers is just plain wrong. Especially in a market that's only now making a comeback. Further, our AT&T service is fine in our home and around the Santa Clarita Valley. Please make the right call and consider the neighborhood and the elementary school first. I strongly suggest you reject the application from AT&T to build the cell tower in our residential community. Kind regards, David Soltes 0 Lynn Oppier 23812 Millford Ct Valencia, CA 91354 418 feet from proposed cell tower April 20, 2014 cl o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members: I am a homeowner who enjoys the hill leading up to the water tower. I walk all around it everyday with my dog as I enjoy the outdoors. The proposed cell tower would be ugly and impact the natural environment (sans water tower that is necessary) that we all enjoy, including the school children and the residents utilizing the pool. Who knows what noise it would bring and how our quality of life will be impacted. What I do know is that my home value will immediately be reduced since I will have to disclose its existence. If it is built, AT&T should be required to add a percentage to our sales price to subsidize for our loss. Please reject the application by AT&T and consider non-residential areas. The impact would not be felt in industrial areas as it would be felt in our residential area. Thank vou, L p SCI J Stephen Oppler 23812 Millford Ct Valencia, CA 91354 418 feet from proposed cell tower April 20, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear Citv Council Members: The proposed cell tower, while being an obvious blight to the community, would impact the environment/ ecosystem that currently exists on the hill leading to the water tower area. This proposed tower is directly above our elementary school and our community pool where there would be many concerns; noise, vandalism and general quality of life issues. I would suggest the application by AT&T be rejected as it would negatively impact my residential area (lower home values due to disclosure) and would be better suited to an industrial or commercial area. Sincere Stephen Oppler 6� Laura Teter 27355 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91354 418 feet from proposed cell tower April 22, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-900 Dear City Council Members: I have lived in my home backing to Grandview Drive for over 18 years. As I work in my kitchen or look out my family room window I enjoy the view of the park across the street. The hillside covered with green growth is part of my view from every room at the back of my home. The proposed cell phone tower will have a direct impact on that view. Now each time t look out my window what will I see? An unaesthetic cell phone tower that does not belong in a residential area. As a senior citizen I am also concerned about the lowering of my property value. A home is the major investment for most people and this proposed cell phone tower could have an impact on my investment. Many buyers would think twice before purchasing a home with a cell phone tower so close by. I have lived in the Santa Clarita Valley for over 40 years. This city was formed so we could have an influence on what was happening locally rather than let the county supervisors make decisions for us. I ask you as the representatives of the citizens of Santa Clarita to help us reject this proposal from AT & T A cell tower does not belong in the middle of a residential community. Please reject this proposed cell tower. Thank you for your consideration, Laura Teter �f m Bernard Kash 27352 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91354 500 feet from proposed cell tower April 20, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council. Members: My family lives about 500 feet from the proposed cell phone tower. Actually, we'll see it every time we walk out our front door. Ifs also right above our children's school, Charles Helmers Elementary, and the park, community pools and residential homes are all just a few feet away from the proposed cell phone tower. The possibility that a cell phone tower may be built right in the middle of our neighborhood is shocking. I am a licensed Realtor with ReMax of Valencia and have been selling homes in the Santa Clarita Valley for 25 years. If this cell phone tower goes up in our neighborhood, it will definitely bring our property values down. In all real estate transactions, ifs all about DISCLOSURE. Having to disclose the cell tower will bring a negative stigma to our neighborhood, which will directly affect our property values. In addition to the issue of disclosure, no matter how they try to disguise it, any structure extending above the water tank will not be aesthetically pleasing. Aside from 0 lowering property values, this also affects my quality of life because it limits my ability to enjoy my home and my view when I'm sitting in my front yard. I respectfully request that the City Council reject the application from AT&T to build the cell phone tower in our residential community. Wireless facilities are commercial facilities and have no business in residential areas, parks and schools. They should be placed in less obtrusive and commercial locations. Thank you for your time. i �6 Bernard Kash M Lisa Kash 27352 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91354 500 feet from proposed cell tower April 19, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall Citv of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 Dear City Council Mem hers: Our family lives about 500 feet from the proposed cell phone tower. As a matter of fact, we'll have a perfect view of it the minute we walk out our front door. Our children's school, Charles Helmers Elementary, Northbridge Park, three community pools and residential homes are all just a few feet away from the proposed cell phone tower. The possibility that a cell phone tower may be built right in the middle of our neighborhood, close to our home and feet from our children's school, our community park and pools, is alarming. Cell phone towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. The tower will definitely bring property values down. My husband and I have been realtors and in the real estate business in the Santa Clarita Valley for 25 years. Being maltors, we had extremely specific criteria as to what was important to us when we bought our home, and we searched diligently to find it! The top priority on our list was the area surrounding our home, including the view, both in the front and the back yard. Our reason for this wasn't only due to our personal preference, it was also because of our knowledge and experience as realtors regarding the future resale value of our home. This cell phone tower will absolutely affect the value of our home and everyone's home in this neighborhood. Not only is it an eyesore, any homeowner wanting to sell their home will have to disclose the cell phone tower to all prospective buyers, which creates a negative stigma in the neighborhood. Cry I respectfully request that the City Council reject the application from AT&T to build the cell phone tower in our residential community. Wireless facilities are commercial facilities and have no business in residential areas. They should be placed in less obtrusive and commercial locations. Thank you for your time. Since W/�7 Kash W Apf I Z3, ZG ly GD Mike Marshafl City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 To Whom it May Concern, 1 would appreciate you not building a cell tower behind my house. My Instagram and Twitter load much minutes! As you can see, there is no problem with AT&T faster than my parents like. My cep phone coverage is just awesome and I am already over my monthly coverage at my housel i Do not occupy our beautiful hill with a fake and noisy tree. The view of the hill from my bedroom is already perfect, There is plenty of unoccupied open land in Valencia. Please find another spot for your cell tower. Sincerely, Nicole Siefani 23802:anesboro Place Valencia, CA 91354 418 Feet from proposed cell tower April 24, 2014 C/O Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia, Ca 91355 RE; Master Case I3-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members, 1 am writing to inform you of my opposition to installation of a cell phone tower at the comer of Fairview and Grandview Drive. l live at that intersection. I would think there would be other places for this tower except right in the middle of a residential neighbor. I do not want the noise, I think it would be out of place from an environmental standpoint. My family, and I hike that mountain frequently for view and to enjoy the wildlife. I urge you to reject the application from AT&T. I can't believe placing a microwave cell tower in the middle of a residential was even considered. Paige Seymour 23813 Lanesboro PI Valencia, CA 91355 April 24, 2014 C/O Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia, Ca 91355 RE; Master Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to inform you of my opposition to installation of a cell phone tower at the comer of Fairview and Grandview Drive. I live at that intersection. I would think there would be other places for this tower except right in the middle of a residential neighbor. I do not want the noise, I think it would be out of place from an environmental standpoint. My family• and I hike that mountain frequently for view and to enjoy the wildlife. I urge you to reject the application from AT&T. 1 can't believe placing a microwave cell tower in the middle of a residential was even considcred. Dan Seymour 23813 Lannesbom PI April 24, 2014 C.'O Mile Marshall Cih of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Ce 91355 RE; Master Cast 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to inform you of my opposition to installation of a cell phone tower at the corner of Fairview and Grandview Drive. I live at that intersection with my pa encs and I year old daughter. I would think their would be other places for this tower except right in the middle of a residential neighbor. I do not want the noise, l think it would be out of place from an environmental standpoint My family and I hike that mountain frequently for view and to enjoy the wildlife. I urge you to reject the application from AT&T. I can't believe placing a microwave cell tower in the middle of a residential was even considered- Sarah onsideredSarah Flick 23913 LAnesboro PI SCL ValeCA 91355 t1 I1 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13.009 Dear City Council Members, Please consider another location for the proposed cell tower. Our home is in exceptionally close proximity both visually and audible range. The quality and enjoyment of our home and backyard will be compromised. I have many environment concerns for our local wildlife. We are longtime residents of this beautiful community and this cell tower will lower the property values of our homes. As a homeowner in Northbridge, we agree to pay a substantial yearly metlo roos tax I find it completely appalling to have to support the AT&T cell tower as well. Sincerely th, /t Kathryn Stefani 23802 Lanesboro Place Valencia, CA 91354 400 feet from proposed cell tower c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13.009 Dear City Council Members, Please consider another location for the proposed cell tower, Our home is in exceptionally close proximity both visually and audible range. The quality and enjoyment of our home and backyard will be compromised. I have many environment concerns for our local wildlife. We are longtime residents of this beautiful community and this cell tower will lower the property values of our homes. As a homeowner in Northbridge, we agree to pay a substantial yearly mello rods tax i find it completely appalling to have to support the AT&T cell tower as welt. Sincerely, Stuart Stefani 23802 Lanesboro Place Valencia, CA 91354 400 feet from proposed cell tower af, Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall, L0.?dz: idyP'j 13-067 I am opposed to the building of an AT&T cell tower across the street from my home because I have not been properly informed as to how it will affect my property value nor how it will look from my back yard i L wrence Bernstein 23801 Lanesboro PI Valencia, CA 91354 art -P�f r-KVA J" *-4(-, 1� A�01 � 3, 901 r,/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall, LA u jetrm tt 13-00,:J Please do not build a cell tower next to our house. My iPhone works just fine. My Twitter and Facetime are working perfectly. Built it in the industrial center. sirnurd y, Hannah Bernstein 23801 Lanesboro PI Valencia, CA 91354 �Il r ',r� �-rm April 23, 2014 c/o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clete 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 140 Santa Ciarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-009 City Council Members: As a homeowner and resident of the Northbridge community, I abject W the I I 1 11,ln of the AT&T cell tower at 23521 Fairview Lane, Valencia, CA 91354. A oaN taowx, poorly disguised as a tree, would be aornpielely out of character with the charm and beauty of this neighboftod. I am also concerned with the additional noise this tower will generate. As studies have shown, it will also negatively affect our property values. it should not be for us to bear the financial and visual burden for AT&Ta commercial gain. 1 urge you to reject the application from AT&T to build a cell tower in our residential neighborhood. Siros►ety, Z 3 X014. Aa=t4L. A* -4P c -T VA,t.. s=4Ht LA, I c-,& April 23, 2014 c!o Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarity 23820 Valencia Blvd Suits 140 Santa Ciarita, CA 81355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13-008 City Council Members: As a homeowner and resident of the Northbridge community, I objaed to the Installation of the AT&T cell tower at 23621 Fairview Lane, Valencia, CA 81354. A cell tower, poorly disguised as a tree, would be completely out of character with the charn and beauty of this neighborhood. I am also concerned with the additional noise this tower will generate. As studies have shorn, it will also negatively affact our property values. it should not be for us to bear the financial and visual burden for AT&Ts commercial gain. I urge you to reject the application from AT&T to build a call tower in our residential neighborhood. Sincerely, To whom it may concern: We are writing to you as concerned teachers. We are currently teaching kindergarten and our classrooms are on the south side of the campus, closest to the proposed cell tower. We have a huge concern in regards to the unknown environment that will be created where our students play and we work. The fact that the kindergarten classrooms and play area are directly below where the proposed towers will be placed, is very alarming to us. Due to the fact that there is little or no research done on the impact of radio frequency emissions, we are concerned for the health of ourselves and our students. The federal government has not established a safe level of exposure of non -ionizing radiation. History has shown us that we often go forward with such decisions to use cutting edge technology; to later find out there are long term effects that were unknown. Many school districts have made several proposals to keep these towers with their unknown effects, a safe distance from schools and residential areas until health and environmental effects are better known. In closing, consider yourself, your children andfor your grandchildren playing and learning directly beneath the triangle where the strongest emissions would be released without knowing, for certain, what the long-term health effects may be. A school should be a safe environment for all. Would this be creating that safe environment? Please reconsider the placement of these cell towers to a more appropriate location. Sincerely, Charity Wood and Michele Collins Appeal to Reject AT&T Application for Cell Tower Construction n. Valencia Northbridge Subdivision Prepared by: Residents of Valencia Northbridge Subdivision Valencia. CA 91354 April 28, 2014 82 Packet Summary Letter April 28, 2014 City of Santa Clarita C/O City Council 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Dear City Council Members, The following packet contains quick reference information that should be reviewed prior to the Appeal date of Master Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009. After reviewing this packet along with the presentation we've prepared for the appeal date, it should be clear that AT&T has not met the burden of proof to justify constructing a cell tower with utility shed facilities in our neighborhood. AT&T persistently tries to bully City Councils by citing the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996. After consulting with Real Estate Attorneys, performing extensive research and reviewing current case law, a growing number of local California Cities and Nationwide Municipalities are legally rejecting applications for wireless communication towers and facilities to preserve aesthetics of the community and property values. We hope you find this packet a useful reference and welcome any suggestions of information that you may need to reject the application of AT&T to construct a cell tower in the Valencia Northbridge neighborhood. Sincerely, Brent Q. Downs, II Appellant, Valencia Northbridge Subdivision 23615 Ashland Ct Valencia, CA 91354 (661) 360-9917 Home (630) 667-7502 Direct Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 2 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities M TABLE OF CONTENTS Packet Summary Letter---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Challenges to AT&T's Application------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 AestheticBlight-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Cities & Municipalities Rejecting Cell Towers for Blight -------------------------------------------------------4 Case Law Upholding Aesthetic Blight-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5 SiteAlternatives----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Noise Analysis Study Is Misleading--------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Adding Equal Sound or Noise Power Sources-----------------------------------------------------------------6 No "Significant Gaps" In Coverage--------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Examples of AT&T Customers Showing Service Coverage -------------------------------------------------9 Case Law Upholding Insignificant Gaps------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Insignificant Gap Solutions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Property Values Negatively Affected----------------------------------------------------------------------------12 The Appraisal Institute Standard---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Cell Towers as External Obsolescence------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 FCC's Wireless 911 Emergency Coverage Rules ------------------------------------------------------------12 Los Angeles Unified School District Resolution -----------------------------------------------------13 Valencia Northbridge HOA Letter of Objection -------------------------------------------------------15 Real Estate Professionals Letters-------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Valencia Northbridge Residents Letters Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 3 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities P Challenges to AT&T's Application AT&T Conditional Use Permit has not met the Burden of Proof based on their submitted application. Below are specific examples: Aesthetic Blight • The proposed cell tower and utility sheds will be situated in clear view of Northbridge Park and surrounding houses and will be visually and physically obtrusive. • The cell tower and utility sheds will have a negative impact on the natural beauty and physical character of the surrounding neighborhood. • AT&T's presentations did not provide simulations to the Planning Commission revealing the unsightly utility sheds that would accompany the cell tower. • Resolution P13-13 (Section 3, D, 1) claims that trees "up to 40 feet in height" will act as a natural buffer. However, AT&T stated that planting trees surrounding the tower would disrupt the effectiveness of the towers, so there will not be a "natural buffer". • The proposed location for the cell tower and utility sheds does not support the Citv of Santa Clarita's Open Space initiatives established by the City of Santa Clarita Cities & Municipalities Rejecting Cell Towers for Blight • La Crescenta, CA • Burbank, CA • San Francisco, CA • Glendale, CA • Tucson, AZ • Sonoma, CA • Palo Alto, CA • North Hollywood, CA • Irvine, CA La Jolla, CA • Palos Verdes Estates, CA • San Diego County • La Canada Flintridge, CA • Echo Park, CA • Baldwin Hills, CA More city and municipalities examples available if needed. Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 4 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities Case Law Upholding Aesthetic Blight Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit upheld denial of Cell Tower application. • Court ruled that the City's decision was "authorized by local law" and supported by The California Constitution • Sprint PCS did not show a significant gap in coverage • City's consideration of aesthetics in denying Sprint's permit applications "comports with PUC § 7901" • Link to view case: http://cdn.ca9.uscourt.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/1.3/06_ 56106.pdf • Los Angeles Times article about this case: http://articies.latimes. com/2009/oct/26/ioca I/me-ugly-telecoms26 T -Mobile v. Fairfax County US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit upheld denial of Cell Tower application due to visual impact. • Denied application upheld because of visual impact • T -Mobile failed to show that it explored other feasible options • T -Mobile failed to show "effective absence of coverage" • T -Mobile failed to show there are no "reasonable alternative sites" to fill gap Site Alternatives Other than citing "not feasible because of vegetation, height and topographical issues" AT&T has failed to supply and/or specifically state those vegetation, height and topographical issues. • Questions for AT&T: o Specifically, what is not feasible and/or why would the alternate site locations not work? o Are there financial reasons for not choosing those locations? If so, why are we trying to save AT&T money? • There is no provision in the Telecommunications Act or any other law to make financial accommodations for proposed cell tower sites. o Why not use the power line towers that are in clear view and in line of site to our area? Power line towers are already being used on McBean Pkwy. Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 5 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities MO R Noise Analysis Study Is Misleading The noise analysis study is misleading for the following reasons: • Aspectus, Inc. states in the Introduction that the `purpose of this analysis is to compare the noise levels of the new equipment to the existing ambient noise conditions" • Comparing noise does not account for the total, cumulative effect. • Table 1 in their analysis, under the "Combined Noise Level dBA" shows no Combined Noise Level Increase and shows no Net Increase, which is misleading and mathematically false in showing the total increase in noise. • Below are examples pulled from an engineering website to demonstrate how adding the cell tower facilities will increase the total noise: Adding Equal Sound or Noise Power Sources The resulting sound power when adding equal sound power sources can be expressed as: Lm= 10 log(n N / Np) = 10 log(N / No) + 10 log(n) = Lws + 10log(n) (1) where Lw = the total sound power leve! (diBJ Lws= sound power level from each single source (dB) N = sound power (W) No = 10-12 - reference sound power (W) n = number of sources Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/adding-decibel-d_63.htm/ Adding of equal sound power sources can be expressed graphically: —10 Number of Sources - N 10 Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities isl an The following is the proper way to express adding sound power from sources with different sound powers: Lw c 10 log((N1 + NZ ... + Nn) / No) (3) I.E., when you add a noise source, the combined noise decibels increase. Adding two sources at different levels can be expressed graphically as: 3,5 3 92,5 40 0,5 +l i s i i a f enginee riyoo Tx. co M © 1 2 3 d 5 6 7 8 9 Difference between two Levels (dB) Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities T 7 Here are the data points for the previous graph on page 6: Sound Power Level Difference between Added Decibel to the Highest two Sound Sources Sound Power Level (dB) (dB) 0 3 1 2.5 2 2 3 2 4 1.5 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 0.5 9 0.5 10 0.5 >10 0 Again, when you add a noise source, the combined noise decibels increase. There is also no accounting for noise generated day and night by trucks, equipment and workers needed to maintain the tower, equipment and "tree". Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13.009 8 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities No "Significant Gaps" In Coverage • Coverage Map graphic provided in AT&T presentation was stretched and distorted to appear to be a larger than actual area. • US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit ruled that holes or dead spots are "insignificant gaps" • Valencia Northbridge Residents have provided several examples of customers showing good coverage in proposed vicinity. Examples of AT&T Customers Showing Service Coverage Screenshot taken with Phone 4S 27358 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91354 Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 13.009 9 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities C V Examples of AT&T Customers Showing Service Coverage Continued: Picture taken in front of sign at Northbridge Park next to Helmers Elementary School showing AT&T service coverage. Picture taken at N. Blakely and Dunsmore Ln in Northbridge showing AT&T service coverage. Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 10 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities \k Case Law Upholding Insignificant Gaps Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit upheld denial of Cell Tower application. • Court ruled that the City's decision was "authorized by local law" and supported by The California Constitution • Sprint PCS did not show a significant gap in coverage • City's consideration of aesthetics in denying Sprint's permit applications "comports with PUC § 7901" • Link to view case: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/13/05- 56106.pdf • Los Angeles Times article about this case: http://articles.l ati mes. com/2009/oct/26/loca I/me-ug Iy-telecoms26 Sprint Spectrum v. Town of Ontario Planning Board US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld denial of Sprint's application • Court ruled that holes or dead spots are "insignificant gaps" • If area is sufficiently serviced by a wireless provider, state and local governments may deny a carrier trying to extend its "coverage" without violating subsection B(i)(II) Insignificant Gap Solutions AT&T Microcell Option Available as Solution The 3G Microcell option is available for customers in the 91354 zip code if you'd like to boost signal coverage. Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13.009 11 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities �2 Property Values Negatively Affected The Appraisal Institute Standard • The Appraisal Institute is the largest, global, professional membership organizations for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world. • Appraisal professionals use The Appraisal Institute as a standard for professional education and guidance on matters such as depreciated home values resulting from cell towers. • The Appraisal Institute has spotlighted the issue of cell towers causing lower fair market values for homes. • Based on definitive research and analysis by Sandy G. Bond, Ph.D. (25 yrs Valuation experience in USA, UK, Australia), cell towers cause a decrease in home value. • Home values may decrease up to 20% or more depending on the proximity to the cell tower and facilities. Cell Towers as External Obsolescence • External Obsolescence defined by The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal Fourth Edition: o "An element of depreciation; a defect, usually incurable, caused by negative influences outside a site and generally incurable on the part of the owner, landlord, or tenant." *** See Attached Case Studies regarding the Negative Effect on Home Values *** FCC's Wireless 911 Emergency Coverage Rules • The FCC's Wireless 911 Rules require all wireless service providers to transmit all 911 calls to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP), regardless of whether the caller subscribes to the provider's service or not. • The FCC Wireless 911 Rules required wireless service providers to be in compliance in 2011 • As a result of these rules, Emergency Responders will not be negatively affected by the absence of AT&T's proposed cell tower. • Source: http://www.fcc.goy/guides/wireless-911-services Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 12 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities 93 Los Angeles Unified School District Resolution MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE LOS ANGELES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR CONSIDERATION SUBJECT: Wireless Telecommunication Installations DATE NOTICED: 512-09 PRESENTED FOR ACTION: 52609 PRESENTED BY: bls Korenstein MOVED/SECONDED BY: Ms. Sorenstein AIS. LaMotte MOTION: RESOLUTION: k Whmas. The health and safety of our students and employees are fundamental concerns of the Los Angeles Unified School District: Whereas. On Jane 27, 2000, the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a resolution opposing the siting of cellular facilities on or in close proximity to schools to ensure individuals, especially childrea, are protected from the potential health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation; Whereas. The District has been successful in restricting the placement of wireless communication installations on its school facilities, it has had limited success in preventing wireless servim facilities from sting near its schools due to apparent restrictions placed upon zoning authorities to consider the health and environmental effects of radio-frequency radiation: Whereas. The desire of the wireless companies to market new wireless services has since led to a proliferation of cellular facilities targeting residential areas and areas near schools: Whereas, Wireless infrastructure is being deployed at an unprecedented speed and cellular facilities have been approved without proper justification and proof that the placement is to serve existing demand or provide public safety benefits; Whereas, Serious concems exist regarding wireless permits approved new schools without proper notification to school officials and nearby property owners or proper review and oversight of the wireless applications; Whereas. Cities, counties, "it local municipalities have relied upon Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications .Act of 1996 to preempt local communities and school districts from opposing the placement. construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the bass of environmental effects of mdio-frequency emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emissions: Rlereas. Cities. counties, and local municipalities have not had to demonstrate that these telecommunication facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning radio-frequency emissions as they relate to multiple -transmitter sites and complex environments whereby all significant contributions to environmental exposures are cumulatively considered; Whereas. Based upon new and emerging scientific evidence them continues to be considerable debate as to the adequacy of existing public exposure standards including those promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission: Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 13 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities 0�� SUBJECT: Wireless Telecommunication Installations Whereas. The full Parliament of the European Union has raised concerns about the exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields and continuing uncertainties about possible health risks: and therefore, adopted on April 2, 2009 a resolution encouragine 1) the establishment of setback criteria for wireless antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices to be set within a specific distance form schools and health institutions, 2) stricter regulations and protections for residents and consumers and 3) more reliable information be made available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields to citizens in an effort to prevent a "proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters:" Whereas, The Federal Communications Commission is obliged to conduct periodic reviews of current research and analysis of the health implications associated with radio-frequency exposures in cooperation with industry, agency, and organizations responsible for community health and safety to ensure exposure guidelines are appropriate and scientifically valid; therefore, be it Resolved. That the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District directs the Office of Environmental Health and Safety to request local jurisdictions to provide timely notification when new cellular permit applications are filed and provide comment on the health risks from the proposed facility as it relates to compliance with existing Federal Communications Commission regulations associated with cumulative exposures; Resolved further, That the Board supports responsible deployment of fiber optic broadband technology, which is superior to wireless technology in speed., reliability. security, durability and protections it affords people and the environment from the potential hazards of exposure to radio-frequency radiation: and be it finally Resolved That the Board requests the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles City Council and all local jurisdictions that the District serves to join them in passing a resolution in favor of revising Section 764 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996's preemption of consideration of the health and environmental effects of radio-frequency radiation at levels below current Federal Communication Commission standards in decisions involving the placement, construction and modification of wireless facilities. and in favor of amending the California Public Utilities Code to grant local governments authority to regulate wireless facilities in public rights of way pursuant to local planning and zoning ordinances, to be sent to Sacramento and Washington, D.C. 9 a>1111=111 !11 i:illllllllo��.,33 Ms. Canter x Ms 6orenstein x %IS LTMOtte x Dr. Vladovie x Ms. Galatzan z Ms. Flores Aguilar x Ms Garcia x T03 ALL 6 1 ACTION: ADOPTED Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 14 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities Valencia Northbridge HOA Letter of Objection 'kVa ROSS MORGAN 23300 aneDrive, Suite 280 Valencia, CA 91355 & COMPANY, INC., AAMC" (881)286-10" Fax (661) 286-1080 ��- 'An Aceretlttetl Association Management Company" Seeman. quos G+a;asas ve 'e l+anmta'e SvoA,a April 25, 2014 To whom it Map Concent; 1 am writing on behalf of the Valencia Northbridge Homeowners Association. Please be advised that many members of the Association have expressed concerns regarding the proposed installation of a cell tower. The location would be less thim 300 feet from the homes and just over 600 feet from the elementary school. The homeowners have sited concerns that the look of a fake cell tower tree in the middle of their association will not be in line with the aesthetic values we aim to achieve, therefore, negatively impacting their property values. Additionally. please be advised that pursuant to the recorded governing documents of the Homeowners Association owners are entitled to an 90% view. The cc]] tower will be a view issue for the homeowners living in close proximity to it. Please consider the concerns of the homeowners and residents of the Valencia Northbridge Homeowners Association prior to making a determination regarding the installation of the cell tower Thank you for giving this important matter your consideration. Sinc'ly, rjhe Boardeii'y3#ec ori s mac-� " "Luckerman; CMC�A, AMS General Mar, Valencia cc: Board of Directors elm Proudly serving our clients since 1982 Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities 15 1� Real Estate Professionals Letters Re/Max of Valencia 27720 Diekason DI valerva. CA 91355 office: (661( 253-2112 voacemell: (661) 702-4670 HelenQkHOmeeSentaClaMi .con: w .HomesSantaClantaco. Date: 4,2512014 To Whom it May Concern, v Helen LaPrairie. Broker -Associate SCV'I Cno�.-s m Real EMMI, s:we 19R' Uafl + M73656 I am writing this letter to state my opinion. as a Broker -Realtor, on the matter of the Cell Tower installation going on in the neighborhood of Valencia known as Northbridge. In my professional opinion., the installation of a cell tower could, depending on the location and direction.. negatively affect the sale price of neighboring homes within it's radius. Many times, the buyer purchasing a home with the tower close by has a perception that cannot be overcome. whether true or not, in which the tower n07. only could be unsightly. but could emit some unknown health hazard. The homeowner, must. as required by law. disclose the location of the cell tower if it's known, and that a is in close proximity to the homeowner. Re ,gardS, Helen-_?rairie Re/Max of Valencia 27'20 Dickason Drive Valencia. CA 91354 661-253-2112 Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities 16 ot� 4 t a7. 11 r n. ., s--. ..r •,i .• • ri.- 1 • RR Master Can 13110, CanditkxW use permit 13 -OM � -: v rY : • � t -r • o . 7 •. • iY '• \tom .\ .\ A _ _ .,{ i. rr 1 dir" �.. • - - o\• • .• the issue of - s Matter howto n. abovet-.wfU not be amdefically pleasm& Aside from Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 17 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities lowering property values, thffi also affects my quality of ide because it hmhs my A Uity to enjoy my home and my view when rm sitting in my pont yard. I respectfully request that the City council reject the appumstion iiam AT&T to build the cell phone tower m our residential comnrumity. Whiles fadlitles are commercial fadhties and have no business in r sidenthil areas, parks and schools. They should be placed in less obtrusive and commercial locations. Thank you for your tip. Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 18 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities Dan Andrizzi 23301 Preston Wav Valencia, CA 91354 April 22, 2014 C/O Mike Marshall City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. #140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Master Case 13-110, Conditional use permit 13.009 Dear City Council Members: As a resident and full time practicing real estate agent, I am deeply concerned about the proposed ATT cell tower. Part of my job involves talking with local homeowners daily about buying and selling real estate. In the past 2-3 months, l have not spoken with one person living in Northbridge who wants this tower installed. On the other hand, I have spoken to several who believe this tower is a significant item which will affect the value and desirability of their property. The stigma this will create on nearby properties, many in the "Countrygate" tract of which 1 am also an owner, will negatively affect property values. Furthermore, homeowners are required to disclose whether "anything has stigmatized' the subject property" on the California Department of Real Estate required disclosure titled, Addendum to the Transfer Disclosure Statement, and are instructed that "something they may not feel is material or significant may be perceived differently by a buyer." This is a high degree of liability to place onto homeowners. I strongly suggest the Council not approve this tower for installation at this residential site. Sincerely, Dan Andrizzi, CA BRE#01440387 Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 19 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities Lisa Rrsh z=ChaddW Lae vaiwcw CA 91311 500 fst boa per laiala cdi ioal, Apr& 19, 2D14 RL iiaillr l::as 13-110, candmonal ere permit 19.009 Our fumay Mss almat no hat 60a *e psapased w6 pilore 9sw�r ,Ar a adrdotbrk WVT MM& p wbd siaw d it dw &Aa k we walkout our fssatAW ourdtidss $ adodLI kadslidsmmslsIlis*Mddlrp+u#.meecatMNWpsafoaed loddwlM bomm s*&B jet a iew hk&way fres *e propard go owe taxerll* pwrbil dM & Mg Phree tower My bo bultrllgitin tie aidit dam nri%Yodlai, dwe taaas Mase and fat Eras oarcMldreoCs rc�d, am fy pltdraed P"k it aimeb4g- Cliiti}iorstawlaedsellftbdwljiaraaldaaldaioodr. ileieraew� �!`�!iPul+dYssiusAsva itylw�adsadiYnlswr�rsailrsaapdit9e sri elk* balitasot is fie Sao Gaift Valley for z ymm 1ftanMwlb we bW esaaeMJ flaulft aftmbs to wiolt was haporkat 10 W wbswa boolil ow bene, and see11 1 y to find iS Zlce %p ptisMy n our lbt win Mtllet +W b rax. tam ** sieve, both iR the front ow iha hrdyanL our raaew fWfAb waMet Orly dW tDase Monnet peeirws i M wOa ciao iacana of as ballawlai,teOaldaeWmdm"ssedlwsrNwilabtheA awiesOWcstow iaao. 716 as pbw town will abeOlrldar affect** Value, dour hsasaid arlaeyaads hone in item eylialialp IWriawlei .efNot amby ddby lratiplwietawaioslpeeap; pe aprelas an cseotaf * Ill Ill d igm in the adobawbood Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 20 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities I WW@M*ar1Irri tiot"CAY Cel +l file eppkMbk%aR ATALT b Did swam Pbomk+resinO+vdraM 'Commwnity- YkdrslrJ "Necwnumew iealtilNrud'Wft m GlodOle1 itr aam They dndd t0 pt■od in ba aboa "rd comil iad loam r. TbA*Ym#4ryeW vW- Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 21 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities ii C,)'2- Valencia Northbridge Residents Letters Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities 22 Alternative Solutions for AT&T Cell Tower & Utility Sheds Alternatives to consider that would be located on top of transmission/power line towers: Site A: • Locate at the top of transmission/power line tower. Examples on page 2. • >500 feet from residential homes exceeding 500 ft. setback requirements. • Complies with the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 17.69. • No vegetation, height or topographical limitations. Site B, C and D are similar to A, but closer to residential homes. What are the specific reasons that the other AT&T alternative sites cannot be used? Specific engineering reasons? Specific height requirements? Vegetation? Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 1 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities �01 Alternative Solutions for AT&T Cell Tower & Utility Sheds Examples showing feasibility of Cell Phone/Wireless Communications located on top of power line/transmission towers: 15, ... x W- 010 , Appeal of MASTER CASE 13.110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 2 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities ')b Aerial view of proposed project site View from project site facing northwest / I • I ; ` ,.. M,:.. - View om project site facing west Surrounding Mope Visual Simulations From SE corner of Mc Bean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road EXISTING CONDITION d J PROPOSED CONDITION Visual Simulations From parking lot of Helmers Elementary School EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION Visual Simulations Frnm immv�lu�:� j' SO��h of "rXIMV1S TL,.Lamvrtu y� CCli^^1 EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION Mason Lane Irvine, CA University AvenueI Azuaga Street San Diego, CA San Diego, CA TE ALTERNATIVES N Csc4 or O{ S .4c � 0 Summer Lane ? $2 NORTHRMC.F POINT 3 t� 'k 0 Smyth Drive Dickason Drive.5 $ 3si 4 a tU V r a� :.1FAkncls, :,Hariiac 9ryr S Subj004 Site Mi g t 4 r..rvfew D. 41 ea Gucstpgti t C 0 m� �'�lirnona: L CT �^ VAUNCIA o da %tORTHRg1OGS e i ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED BY AT&T 1. Smyth Drive- North of Newhall Ranch Road 2. Summerhill Lane- North of Decoro Drive 3. Dickason Drive- North of Newhall Ranch Road 4. SUBJECT SITE- 23621 Fairview Drive NOISE ASSESSMENT REPORT AT&T Site LA8190 (BU839461) Santa Clarita Water Tank 23621 Fairview Drive Santa Clarita, CA 93304 Los Angeles County Prepared for: Crown Castle USA 4301 Hacienda Dr., Suite 410 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Prepared by: Aspectus,Inc. Edward L. Pack Associates 33672 Holtz Hill Road Dana Point, CA 92629 November 8, 2013 M Aspectus, Inc. 949.542.77,' - 714.608.5052 - mobile 4949-258-5631 - fax a•xi'w.;oaspet'lus,com November 8, 2013 Crown Castle USA 4301 Hacienda Dr., Suite 410 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: Noise Assessment Report AT&T Site LA8190 Santa Clarita Water Tank 23621 Fairview Drive Santa Clarita, CA 93304 Los Angeles County At your request, Aspectus, Inc. and Edward Pack Associates have completed a revised noise assessment study for AT&T Mobility, LLC. (AT&T) wireless facility LA8190/Santa Clarita Water Tank located at 23621 Fairview Drive in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. This revised study was requested due to changes in site design and as shown on Zoning Drawings dated 11/4/2013. The purpose of this assessment is to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and to demonstrate that this wireless and all associated equipment will have no -net increase in ambient noise levels. This noise evaluation concluded that the cell site equipment will not add to the existing noise environment and will be inaudible. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions regarding this material. Please let us know if we may be of additional assistance. Sincerely, Lena Hoffineyer Project Manager Aspectus, Inc. 33672 Holtz Hill Road Dana Point, CA 92629 (949) 542-2772 - office (714) 608-5052 — mobile (949)429-2173 - fax Ily November 8, 2013 Crown Castle 4301 Hacienda Drive Suite 410 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: Revised Acoustical Analysis of the Planned Cell Site Equipment, AT&T Cell Site LA8190 (Santa Clarita Water Tank), Fairview Drive, Santa Clarita This report presents the results of a revised acoustical analysis of the planned cell site equipment at the proposed AT&T cell site LA8190 at the Santa Clarita Water Tank along Fairview Drive in Santa Clarita, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a). The purpose of this analysis is to include a vinyl fence at the end of the equipment yard in the comparison of the noise levels of the new equipment to the existing ambient noise conditions at the nearest or most impacted residences to determine if the cell site equipment will be audible and if there will be any increase in the ambient noise levels. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Department requested this type of analysis, Ref. (b). The results of the analysis reveal that the planned equipment will not be audible at the residences in the vicinity of the cell site and the cell site equipment will not add to the existing ambient noise levels. Noise mitigation measures will not be required. Sections I and lI of this report contain a summary of our findings and descriptions of the analytical methodologies, respectively. Appendix A, attached, contain the list of references. I. Findings The City of Santa Clarita requested that the cell site equipment be inaudible at the homes near the cell site. In order for a noise source to be inaudible, it must be much lower than the quiet background sound level. Background sound levels can be described in various ways. As environmental sound levels fluctuate greatly over any given time period, time averaging is often incorporated to describe the noise environment. Averages can be calculated or reported over any given time period. �s EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES. INC. Aspectus, Inc. ��"1275 E �,.v �...,w �; .0�,_;ro November 8, 2013 Crown Castle 4301 Hacienda Drive Suite 410 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: Revised Acoustical Analysis of the Planned Cell Site Equipment, AT&T Cell Site LA8190 (Santa Clarita Water Tank), Fairview Drive, Santa Clarita This report presents the results of a revised acoustical analysis of the planned cell site equipment at the proposed AT&T cell site LA8190 at the Santa Clarita Water Tank along Fairview Drive in Santa Clarita, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (a). The purpose of this analysis is to include a vinyl fence at the end of the equipment yard in the comparison of the noise levels of the new equipment to the existing ambient noise conditions at the nearest or most impacted residences to determine if the cell site equipment will be audible and if there will be any increase in the ambient noise levels. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Department requested this type of analysis, Ref. (b). The results of the analysis reveal that the planned equipment will not be audible at the residences in the vicinity of the cell site and the cell site equipment will not add to the existing ambient noise levels. Noise mitigation measures will not be required. Sections I and lI of this report contain a summary of our findings and descriptions of the analytical methodologies, respectively. Appendix A, attached, contain the list of references. I. Findings The City of Santa Clarita requested that the cell site equipment be inaudible at the homes near the cell site. In order for a noise source to be inaudible, it must be much lower than the quiet background sound level. Background sound levels can be described in various ways. As environmental sound levels fluctuate greatly over any given time period, time averaging is often incorporated to describe the noise environment. Averages can be calculated or reported over any given time period. -2 - The Leq noise descriptor is that level of a steady state noise that has the same sound energy as a given time -varying noise. Therefore, it is an integration of sound energy over a given time period. It is also considered the average level. When averaged over a 1 -hour period, the Leq is termed the Leq(h). Other statistical descriptors are also used. The L50 noise level is the level of noise exceeded 50% of the time. This is the "mean" level. The L90 noise level is the level of noise exceeded 90% of the time. This is considered the "quiet background" level. The L90 is used herein as the basis for the equipment noise evaluation. Therefore, the equipment noise levels must be at least 10 decibels below the lowest L90 value in order for the equipment to be inaudible at all times and not add to the existing noise levels. Decibel addition and subtraction is not simple arithmetic. The addition of sound levels is performed using the formula: SLot,i = 1010.10(] 0ILino+losLzno+...+i oSUVio) For example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB and 60 dB + 50 dB = 60 dB. Table I, below, provides the lowest existing ambient noise levels, cell site equipment noise levels and the combined noise levels at each of four residential receptor locations that are either closest to or most noise impacted by the cell site equipment. TABLE Cell Site Equipment Noise Level Analysis Location Existing Ambient dBA L90 Cell Equipment Noise Level, dBA Combined Noise Level dBA 23719 Cheshire Ln. 33.4 10.6 33.4 23729 Cameron Ct. 38.3 5.6 38.3 23618 Dunsmore Ln. 28.3 132 28.3 23621 Dunmore Ln. 31.9 8.0 31.9 -3 - As the cell site equipment will be more than 10 decibels below the quiet background sound level during the quietest period of the night, the cell site equipment will be inaudible at the residences. Noise mitigation measures will not be required. II. Analytical Methodologies To determine the noise levels at the closest or most impacted residences in the vicinity of the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at four locations. Location 1 was along Cheshire Drive at the sides of the homes at 23825 Lanesboro Place and 23802 Milford Court. This location was chosen as it better represents the background noise environment in the rear yards and house setback of the homes along Cheshire Drive that back to Grandview Drive. Location 2 was along Fairview Drive adjacent to the rear property line of the home at 23729 Cameron Court. Location 3 at the rear property line of home at 23618 Dunsmore Lane and Location 4 was at the rear property line of the home at 23621 Dunsmore Lane. The noise level measurement locations are shown on Figure 1, below. The noise levels were recorded on August 3-5, 2013 using Larson Davis 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. The meters conform to ANSI SlA for Type I instruments and were calibrated before and after the tests to assure accuracy. The noise level measurements were made for a continuous 37 hour period from Saturday 6:00 PM to Monday 7:00 AM. which included the most noise sensitive hours (lowest ambient) of the week. fl -4 - FIGURE 1 The graphs on pages 7-10 provide the measured ambient Lay's, L50's and L90's for the 24-hour period from midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday, which includes the lowest noise levels measured over the weekend period (4:00 — 5:00 AM). Also shown on the graphs are the calculated cell equipment noise levels and the noise level needed to be produced by the equipment in order to add to the existing noise levels. To determine the noise levels generated by the cell site equipment, manufacturer's noise data were provided, Ref s. (c, d), which yielded operational sound levels of 65 dBA at 5 ft. for each item of equipment. The cell site is planned to house one Purcell FlexSure FLXI2WS power enclosure and one Argus Te45 power enclosure. As both items will produce worst-case sound levels of 65 dBA each, the total sound level will be 68 dBA at a distance of 5 ft. IM -5 - The cell site equipment will be located on the westerly outside end of a concrete enclosure with a concrete panel roof. A 9 ft. high vinyl screen fence will surround the HVAC equipment at the end of the enclosure. The concrete equipment enclosure will provide 8 decibels of sound reduction for the residence at 23618 Dunsmore Lane and 12 dB of sound reduction for the residence at 23621 Dunsmore Lane due to acoustical shielding (sound bending around the corner of the structure) and off -axis sound source orientation. In addition, the vinyl fencing that has a surface weight similar to 3/8" plywood will provide an additional 1.5, 2.0, 2.0 and 1.6 dB of sound reduction for the 23719 Chesire Lane, 23729 Cameron Court, 23618 Dunsmore Lane and 23621 Dunsmore Lane, respectively. These additional noise reduction values include a 6 dB increase due to sound reflections within the vinyl fence "yard". The vinyl fencing will provide a net noise reduction of approximately 2 dB lower for each receptor location than what the original noise study reported for the condition without the fencing. Table 11 on page 6 provides the lateral distance, height differential between the cell site elevation and the receptor location elevations, the angled distances, the noise reduction due to distance, the noise barrier effect of the shoulder of the hillside slope, the noise reduction provided by the equipment enclosure and vinyl fence, the total amount of noise reduction from the source to the receiver and the resultant noise level. The sound attenuation rate from a source at the top of the hill to receptors at the base of the hill was calculated using the formula: 23logio(ri/r2) where r = distance. As shown in Table II, the cell equipment noise levels at the nearest and most impacted residential receptor locations will be very low. Note that noise levels below 20 decibels are rare outdoors and noise levels below 15 decibels are rare even in indoor locations. �M M TABLE 11 Cell Site Equipment Noise Analysis Source Level = 68 dBA @ 5 ft. Distance Battier Enclosure & Fence Total Resulta,rtNoise Location Lateral Height pn led Distance g Reduction Effect Reduction Reduction Level Distance Differential 23719 Cheshire Ln. 572 ft. 129 ft. 586 ft. -48 dB -7 dB -2 dB -57 dB 11 dBA 23729 Cameron Ct. 620 ft. 160 ft. 640 R. 48 dB -12 dB -2.0 dB -62 dB 6 dBA (Fairview Dr.) 23618 Dunsmore 255 ft. 35 ft. 274 ft. -40 dB -5 dB -IOdB -55 dB 13 dBA Ln. 23621 Dunsmore 300 ft. 35 ft. 302 ft. 41 dB -5 dB -14 dB -60 dB 8 dBA Ln. N 0 -7 - AT&T CELL SITE LA8190 SANTA CLARITA SUNDAY NOISE LEVELS AT 23719 CHESHIRE LN. 70.0 65.0 - 60.0 - - - - 55.0 - - - - - 50.0 - 45.0 - a 40.0 m - v 35.0 m 30.0 - - - - 25.0 - - -- - - - - - 00 20.0 - - - — - - 15.0 - -- - - - - -- 10.0 - - - -0 M M- 5.0 - -- - - - - - - 0.0 q\11P� P� P� P� P� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Oo Oo 00 Oo Oo 00 00 po po 00 00 00 po po Time -0-Leq -4b-L50 -dp-L90 -4W-Cell Equipment @ 23719 Cheshire Ln. -**-Sound Level Needed to Add to Ambient N -R- - - I AT&T CELL SITE LA8190 SANTA CLARITA SUNDAY NOISE LEVELS ALONG FAIRVIEW DRIVE AT 23729 CAMERON CT. 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Q� Q� Q� 00 00 00 .00 op 00 00 00 00 .00 00 Op Op Op 00 p0 pp p0 pp p0 po pp po p0 Time —s—Leq —1—L50 —1—L90 -4W-Cell Equipment @ 23729 Cameron Ct. —*O—Sound Level Needed to Add to Ambient - r - 9 - AT&T CELL SITE LA8190 SANTA CLARITA SUNDAY NOISE LEVELS AT 23618 DUNSMORE LANE 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 v m 35.0 Mg 30.0 — J 25.0 o 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Q� Q� KP o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o°o° o° o° Time -0-Leq -0-1-50 -t-L90 -40-Cell Equipment @ 23618 Dunsmore Ln. --w-Sound Level Needed to Add to Ambient --+-• 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Pkx, P4 . 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 .00 Time AT&T CELL SITE LA8190 SANTA CLARITA SUNDAY NOISE LEVELS AT 23621 DUNSMORE LN. -0-Leq -W-L50 - h -L90 -4B-Cell Equipment @ 23621 Dunsmore Ln. -*4-Sound Level Needed to Add to Ambient — -11 - The data provided in the graph reveal that the cell site equipment total sound levels will be more than 10 dB below the L90 (quiet ambient) sound level during the most noise sensitive hour of 4:00 — 5:00 AM on Sunday morning. Thus, the cell site equipment will not add to the existing noise environment and will be inaudible. Noise mitigation measures will not be required. This report presents the results of an acoustical analysis of the planned cell site equipment at the AT&T cell site LA8190 at the Santa Clarita Water Tank along Fairview Drive in Santa Clarita. The noise levels presented herein were from on-site noise measurements and data provided by the equipment manufacturers and are correct to the best of our knowledge. However, changes in equipment, locations, site conditions or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates. If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack Attachments: - Appendix A - Site Drawings l� APPENDIX A References (a) Site Plan (Revised), LA8190 (BU839461) Santa Clarita Water Tank, by DCI Pacific Architecture, Engineering, Consulting, November 4, 2013 (b) Information on the City of Santa Clarita Noise Requirements Provided by Mr. David Koontz, City of Santa Clarita Planning Department by Telephone to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., July 31, 2013 (c) Alpha Technologies, Argus Te45 72" Single Compartment Power Enclosure, Specification #0480031-00 Rev A, October 2011 (d) Information on Purcell Systems FlexSure FLXI2WS Sound Levels Provided by Mr. Bravo Retenovic, Purcell Systems Engineering Department by Telephone to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., June 11, 2013 Mo SITE DRAWINGS �2� at&t SITE NUMBER: LA8190 (BU839461) SITE NAME: SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK DRAWING INDEX (ZONING) REV. DIRECTIONS PROJECT INFORMATION loI ml} am I DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T WIRELESS CERRITOS sroP[ ar MMx, srel PNaasEs m rtmuullGl v try ulluwlm mlmu rNum. XESI M G -}I •. [ SLGE Xl LCN]RI C! ME rHLN.IK'. 1@ RII(MM SP[G1G1XN 1 E0.PIEM11/HE] I I M£ OIIP I-605 N IOYNq ILRgY HM, m M"N �' KIR° MI WE tr PMIYL dIN11{p yl[ qµ9 ] YEF4 MI01-] X IOYN° lUi MXXIFS. (p) °I. P.W[L MItNN[ °I rg0.E0Gl,pIVS `I6) FEY02 RYM IMI15 µ1dNX LML p} E°P4..YP.p A NOE}pY IAlry} pINR 1. NEEP OIWI LO 1µE-] N IOWMp $MMKxPO/SWII. NdMA 5 N[EP IEII 10 IME -5 x I.. G -II x. I. OR vxfxy HM ER. OP In. e .11 IS) 0.' 9M{ SIWFESAXR N µlex. L. I' -5'W -tl [°rPyX! 9f1I[P R Opll° IML M] EIEg1NNE IOR6 RGIr grt0 YNM.M HM. (x) W] NIIEMMS M L°IPYCII 9ELiR c -I IC /fleC 4XMi 5 6. NIM IFP MIII IT .,1 rYCEFNI PX I. 9. IUM FP 1. 6P. NRR mco x° ne[x wra c -z mPmwrc mmEr ] lY Exo Al x56z, rNmlEx ex. sR Nnms rxxl rxR.eM oW.E nxR QMIA G Y]]N OnFR. H[gy SOn .KUyIIH6 a LLC H OLPIIM P/q ]UI[ ]IO CCMeLI: WF MNIIp VICINITY MAP IN.A.OW//LM: Eiil11 G511E 4T W1Wµ} LLC Y (RCIIIM PIA( 9JIIF ]IO ANc a $eel. ElN1ILf: nL1xM5 plRi �a Vn)vw-Aue FRUJEET tr wL[All: AVNs A°P.E Fy ® cGII1M. G wMl 4� 3w� uMIME: LRGREE'. y }r mA,. x IH ]]' 01.1 M '• Iq2 Nl NVM II° WIHW] HWl E FFAG11{D Nb MSINIEO IX CODE COMPLIANCE cmEz uIAAR nq: `61R5RLM1` : ll•° u SVIIN qMA. I. x01a Gleq(Nu .VxIMSIPAIM QVE (fK) S zalo VIFOIEM p61N.Y GqE x rola vurwlu Rnuc moE 1®c7. snnlcs I. No z Esu" uVwM oLvbr mnsmn (xPx FAnAI ME6W.IKWI °104 Cq[ 1111X Hilo cxurmxu MEuouwrsl ll p11{GII E Anm xl I -WI -MI tr Rx ] mla uuruolu ElfmRul moE F m (%cp, 6 rola cNUEmrvN RR sH IcIL) \! Ixbm Enlwn wI.MN CIFCIRP [ac °nl mlo cvsca" (zoos Eg10.x1 w MlEelm°w ree wrc wnx zolo vurwac xnMlE1l15) �!Yc ; 140 a aaaM z°ac. o / p' � � � �'. S-zpuzarnw'trnlw IIwIVI I. xo vulrmxu rnVHrx cooE ICNCI 6 wlo Glnaaw RA}rtx2s nnmxms [Allp 5WY0 OrerLg4 NEP WML CCIX MIH ml0 ttCE / �� — i wwaN xlFNppls Z IPM PACIFIC AiElc ScoRxs (/l1iCROWN' 1U`! 1A atet � SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK w�ox I°x+nw.m 230¢1 FMWEW oNrvE . M/SAI, ®m m"An Ps mI 11711 SHEET T01 x . 5µG CV M& C.5 0501 c[w�m uslm N '\ � Iq 12"P�MI' IIIE r \ \ •\ '\ •\ \� fifmY fMllrc. 9FF 9XFFl � \ rtx 1]Y.MFxf wu AYIWu Mn �'� '.\ �= ; •\ \ lq T{ yyyq',p '1Al IL Iv//I ® `I I`"///L�\V�11 \ ® �•\ �+�nral lElrmu Fa .. sc MMI �� !xiw twwcm slE wr t,i/ ` •'\ — ----- _--- FAHVEW DFU4E 1q Ass 'a ---• PARTIAL ENLARGED SITE PLAN PTIrqT!n% 2 SITE PLANOcl , 7 PACIFIC /1;E(C WpftNSj /gyp: (.. f LASM(BUB39461)t i�mm .m. maw..w m.u,. •m,°• •n...mi Y I � SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK zsszl ruMxw oxn[ wnaioI�M SITE! PARRAL A01 ENLARGED SITE PLANS .:e .�. , SNIIA MPrtA U 9]Mf ¢vm asm N gN / QX MM' PJCR QU MI.ER I!O lila YClffl '1' S'd - PAL. MIML EiM YfIEfl IM/Elw, ' axr \� mar - Ix IPEFY5ECI0A.PYi 'µ,ENIVS. fEl caaxErt seri `\ � ' fib. y 33MM44 iF1NS Px4GSK l \ L(x) Alp MxFAVNJxE �- IAEYREIa cowls. .Y1T011. IEX4Ix ]0' ;' I AT&T ;aa Ip ems• cAxceli '\\ � vxax9 Aw srzv � 914L19x xa6Y a�x 1x1 Ani mYPAro rxn (xra), a /-- RM YCICP. IB IOiN jSpAtEp) 16 �` / -- ' sxl neer a wuc swrncsso9. k rarw JI as Avmaw E nam �.IT. k sEwuax � � M P�9[ 9aa2 rat . � �-4 � iAew Aro a awls - 1x1 YoxonrnrPna �.'� � y M) Iwxoorumla as E/ Am w. araE9v. xo. Q� {M. AYNiD SIUF GR LIP) "7 I L,EI ANTENNA LAYOUT PLAN . ® 2 EQUIPMENT AREA PLAN `:;> {" t DCI 11ACIFIC 0 1111 CRO LA8190 „mi o . E° w.en. wte:c mc,arcs �y/ V SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK TA WATER attt ,m, a'u' �'°""'° ^'°" I1d^'v MA A02 MUIc1Y1w omv9 wnw' �f° �QOa� UASS ANTENNA LAYWT PLANS • , sANu lAfl"93101 ITY.ECA rcl MRN r,,. RM IM RAUVC.I9M 0.'I awMRa d1 .V.i ll. FML AMNxf, IEI M1FA i411f RIF19 NU AREf RI�OfR E L1Q 63 MpW xITN �Y �� € MI fC1AO11 94RR b a ® O ` UI cooarR swR 4 � � Q 1 aaoE E wnE e NORTHEAST ELEVATION cEI Raid r«.R wEro L�LLe'-'L+Tnn (N oLvmx (Mry)I MO 9� (E) Mrd rM MI19R U Ll U � p { MI ws MId1\ x mw � �1 MI duowvrr saLRR � b h S € € a MI ex sMuvd smr. roa R a (E) VIAm root awrR @WSlg1YFP Mp RLCO POC. 10 mxonE mE §� q85 8 Q)QNIE QI OVIE NORTHWEST ELEVATION ® 2 CBCT PACIFIC � jJj�CROWNro LA8190 (BU839/61) e&t AJEJC waaex uu Y SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK ELEVATIONS A03 xeexi ru W CMOE AI u • ° MMA CWAra CA 93 N rswn m.�mm• Al . rwawx", sANFOHowAr .i{ ,,m3 ",m -- ,—,",. / \ r LANE A9MNA COUflf _ _) I r`oLaeL�oRe ..o` -a- A- I Arx an- 2 I g }( DrIll°' LOT O) Arx 41 _ g;, Arx aenoson APH xs I aoo-w i �o msmi r TRACT N9. 4F480 Arm aer `-�"-" LAr.lad rR . NVT IB. it10 d _oo aurae LOT Dl w,-oea .� coo.s.IwQO Rrmx lawm Rrsmla: uwa vr4csmax: war w slurs..: 'vm we'roi'Mt POR RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO PATENTS i / 621-822 w� 'i LOT 2 \ TRACT NO. AA'{S6 M.B. itl6 / 50-66 II 7 3 -- _a- POR L0%'L a_wrz0 APH Dk-09YOCI ` r 4 APH aYmfvo rop oerlx -- IF, wn �a �.., ».'eoo-� suRI».ras xorr: .n,_..e«v..� o+. IA,,Z xefO,FA.:eai: .mnww...,,_...i:`»,.'wex'.,.iwo.","`m'm a. _ w All. Yww,- ,Y«.,.am:s „A 11-11 ® ... .. srrrs a srwxs: TRE .. ... .... r..,... w..s w.a .Y:. svnr A IFFTOO FIG'_O.A..,�.-' Imow mxn a m,[ w°Y1 w .o: ,rmn.:r.,, « w«::.. » vu,c wxrs sllsEnl: or ,osis <w,w FFF_ IF we ortee OF .:,e Ate.»] LFI.TG.,YJIk rAmxR w,rs, LMW _ 1./-1 ua 0'n[+c rtttv, OF I'l .11 A rt.rrtrc. „w sago :u: a —1 ux ttw wF$ IRA Al . rwawx", sANFOHowAr .i{ ,,m3 ",m -- ,—,",. / \ r LANE A9MNA COUflf _ _) I r`oLaeL�oRe ..o` -a- A- I Arx an- 2 I g }( DrIll°' LOT O) Arx 41 _ g;, Arx aenoson APH xs I aoo-w i �o msmi r TRACT N9. 4F480 Arm aer `-�"-" LAr.lad rR . NVT IB. it10 d _oo aurae LOT Dl w,-oea .� SHEET C-2 FOR SIZE OETAL9 DCI PACIFIC Nacw„r N LAN .A� Y w"Yn1.aw:"a .m LA8190 CLARITA WATER TANK illR` r 23521 rAlAMEw CRIME 0=17.r SANTA CLMRA CA 9]SIN Ln'1' A Arm. Sep -oto -am r� w ORANDVLV/DFYVE .a TOPOGRAPHIC I C -1 SURVEY l I i 'vm we'roi'Mt POR RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO PATENTS i / 621-822 w� 'i LOT 2 \ TRACT NO. AA'{S6 M.B. itl6 / 50-66 II 7 3 -- _a- POR L0%'L a_wrz0 APH Dk-09YOCI ` r 4 APH aYmfvo rop oerlx -- SHEET C-2 FOR SIZE OETAL9 DCI PACIFIC Nacw„r N LAN .A� Y w"Yn1.aw:"a .m LA8190 CLARITA WATER TANK illR` r 23521 rAlAMEw CRIME 0=17.r SANTA CLMRA CA 9]SIN Ln'1' A Arm. Sep -oto -am r� w ORANDVLV/DFYVE .a TOPOGRAPHIC I C -1 SURVEY l vvae9 ANN -0% 1 By �[r[r`ioe �x iPp snr� yq�wy r I ,g �n,9z I a� wax+ r= - �m,z,•w. � ,.r �n�.�. uuMce zti ® y s= 00 .• DCNI PAC ir�si LA8190 a ''IFIC A" L NO waWMG a unaaw6 SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK l ®+ 23990 ruWRw 093 SLHIR C4RIlP. C4 93301 ��w•� SEE SFEET C-1 FOR BOUNDARY AND TIRE WID un.em. —1.1.nu TOPOGRAPHIC ri„ao.w� — a' r:3u-R SURVEY. C_`L at&t May 5, 2014 Via E-mail Santa Clarita City Council City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility Master Case 13-110, Conditional Use Permit 13-009 23621 Fairview Drive Michael van Eckhardt General Attorney AT&T Mobility P.O. Sox 97061 Redmond, WA 98073 michael.vaneckhardtf rm com Dear Mayor Weste, Mayor Pro Tem McLean, and Councilmembers Boydston, Acosta, and Kellar: T: 425.580.7033 F: 425 580-7825 I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) to respond to the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of AT&T's Conditional Use Permit Application ("Apphcation'D. AT&T seeks to install a stealth wireless communications facility adjacent to the water tank at 23621 Fairview Drive ("Proposed Facility"). This site is necessary to dose a significant service coverage gap in AT&T's wireless network within the City of Santa Clarity The purpose of this letter is to provide the City Council with an overview of the Proposed Facility, to apply the city's wireless code and key requirements of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332, and to address specific issues raised in the appeal. AT&T's Proposed Facility AT&T's Application complies with the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("Code's, and it is consistent with federal law. AT&T has identified a significant service coverage gap in the city in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T's gap is depicted in Exhibit 1 to the attached Radio Frequency Statements This coverage gap affects a large, predominantly residential area, including several hundred homes, a school, a park, and commercial districts in the city. To close this gap, AT&T proposes to install a 47 -foot tall faux eucalyptus tree next to the existing 52 -foot tall water tank amid several other mature trees and set back from the nearby residential neighborhoods as much as possible. AT&T's Proposed Facility consists of eight panel antennas (two sets of four antennas) to be mounted with an antenna center height of 38 feet above ground. The antennas will be camouflaged by the branches and foliage of the faux eucalyptus tree, including branches and foliage extending approximately five feet taller than the top of the antennas in order to fully screen them. The associated equipment for AT&T's Proposed Facility will be enclosed and fully screened within an equipment shelter placed away from Fairview Drive and finished to blend with the existing water tank The Proposed Facility will not be readily visible from a distance, from nearby it will appear as one of the hilltop trees in the area, and it will provide screening of the water tank. The proposed coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in Exhibit 2 to the attached Radio Frequency Statement - AT&T investigated numerous alternative sites on which to install the Proposed Facility in the area of its service coverage gap. As described in the attached Alternative Sites Analysis, AT&T identified the s Ser Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A). 2 Id 1314 aw Proposed Facility as the best available and least intrusive means to dose its significant service coverage gap.3 Many of the alternative sites are not feasible to close AT&T's service coverage gap, and some of the properties are not available. Area residents requested that AT&T investigate opportunities to collocate on high-tension electric towers to the south of South Fork Trail, approximately one mile to the south of the Proposed Facility. Although these towers are well outside of AT&T's service coverage objective, AT&T investigated possibilities there in an effort to identify an alternative site. However, as explained in the Alternative Sites Analysis, a facility on these towers will not dose AT&T's significant service coverage gap. Applicable Federal Law — Telecommunications Act of 1996 The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 ("Act's 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. This important law was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline proliferation of wireless technologies on a national basis. The United States Supreme Court has explained: 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. To this end, the TCA amended the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, to include § 332(c)(7), which imposes specific limitations on the traditional authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modification of such facilities, 110 Stat 151, codified at 47 U. S. C. § 332(c)(7)? Thus, the Act limits local regulation of wireless communications facilities in pursuit of increasing deployment of the necessary wireless infrastructure. Rapid deployment of wireless communications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eluninating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC' tracks `wireless substitution" rates as part of its National Health Interview Survey, and the CDC publishes the statistics every six months in its Wireless Substitution reports. The most recent report, issued on December 20, 2013, which covers the period from January to June 2013, finds that 39.4% of American homes have only wireless telephones, and another 15.7% receive all or almost all calls on wireless telephones despite also having a landline -5 In addition to increasing reliance on wireless telephone services, mobile data traffic in the U.S. grew by 75,000% over the six-year period from 2001 to 2006. And in the seven years that followed, from 2007 through 2013, mobile data traffic on AT&T's national wireless network increased more than 50,000%. The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city's overall review of AT&T's Application. Importantly, the Act prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless communications s See Alternative Sites Analysis (Attachment B). " City of Rancho Palos Verdes P. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005). 'The CDC's December 2013 fireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the Notional Health Interview Sump, January- June,2013isavailableathttn://w .cdc.gQv/nchs /data /naris/earlyr leas / 'r 1 se'Ol±l 2,pdf. w1e 1—,wa 0.1.IxTV%1m1 \35 at&t facility where doing so would "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."6 Courts have found an "effective prohibition" exists where a wireless carrier 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.t If 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 8 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 altemanve exists. In order to meet this burden (and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption), the local government must show that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technologically feasible, and that it is `less intrusive" than the proposed facility. Here, AT&T has met both of these standards. AT&T has a significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility,10 and AT&T's Application is the least intrusive means to dose the gap.l l AT&T demonstrated its significant service coverage gap and the Proposed Facility is a stealth design that is well -integrated on the proposed site. Thus, federal law requires the city to approve AT&T's Application. The Act also precludes local governments from unreasonably discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent services. See 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)n(I). The City cannot discriminate against AT&T by denying its application where the City has previously allowed other wireless providers to install wireless communications facilities. Additionally, a local government may not discriminate among choices of technology and may not prefer or require a wireless provider to deploy a different technology. Through the Act and its regulations, the FCC has exclusive authority over technical and operational matters concerning wireless communications. Thus, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained, state and local governments are preempted from exercising authority over decisions about the technologies and operation of personal wireless facilities: * * * While section 332(c)(7) "preserves the authority of State and local governments over zoning and land use matters," H.KRep. No. 104-458, at 207-08 (1996), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N, at 222, this authority does not extend to technical and operational matters, over which the FCC and the federal government have exclusive authority, id. at 209. Indeed, in Freeman [v. Bm inprr Broadeastea, 204 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2000)] we held that "[i]n light of the FCC's pervasive regulation of broadcasting technology, [section 332(c)(7)(A)] is most reasonably understood as permitting localities to exercise zoning power based on matters not directly regulated by the FCC." 204 F.3d at 323.12 6 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(h)(II). See eg, Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and CotenPy of San Francisco, 400 F3d 715, 734-35 (9th Cir. 2005); Sprint PCS Assets, LLC P. City ofPalor Vader Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cit. 2009). 'See T -Mobile USA, Inc a City ofAaarortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 'Id, 572 F.3d at 998-999. 10 See Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A), and network capacity information in the record. See Altemative Sites Analysis (Attachment B). Z New York SMSA LP. v. Town of Clarkrtomn, 612 F.3d 97,106 (2d Cir. 2010). at&t In this case, the court held that a local government was preempted from requiring, or legislating a preference, that wireless providers build new sites using alternate technologies. The court explained that local governments "are also preempted because they interfere with the federal government's regulation of technical and operational aspects of wireless telecommunications technology, a field that is occupied by federal law."13 Therefore, the city may not require AT&T to choose a different technology to dose its significant service coverage gap. Issues Raised By Appeal The appellant raises a few issues in support of his appeal. But, as described above, whether or not the Council fords a code -based reason to disfavor AT&T's Proposed Facility, the Council is preempted by the Act from taking action that would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting AT&T from providing personal wireless services. Nevertheless, AT&T offers the following responses to the appeal. View Impact The appellant claims that the Proposed Facility will impair views from nearby homes. However, AT&T's proposed faux tree is appropriately located near a water tank, consistent with the city's codified preference, and it will blend nicely with the surrounding vegetation and terrain. As the simulated photographs illustrate, the Proposed Facility will not detract from views and it offers an aesthetically pleasing solution to dose AT&T's coverage gap.74 One opponent who also is concerned about aesthetics claims that the Proposed Facility will extend above the water tank. This is incorrect. As shown in drawings submitted to the city, and summari ed on page one of the December 3, 2013 Staff Report, the water tank is 52 feet tall and AT&T's Proposed Facility will have a top height of 47 feet (including top branches). Consistent with Section 17.69.030.B.4 of the Code, the Proposed Facility is camouflaged to integrate into the environment In order to identify the most appropriate solution for its significant service coverage gap, AT&T investigated several properties in the area, including commercial sites, nearby schools, and parks.15 Other candidate sites in the area were either not feasible or not available to AT&T. Some of these alternative candidates are not feasible from a radio frequency perspective in that a facility located there would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. This is in part due to the sloping terrain and significant changes in elevation that make it difficult or impossible to propagate signals throughout the gap area Other candidates were not available because property owners were not willing to lease space to AT&T. Moreover, many of the alternative candidates would be more intrusive than the Proposed Facility, which is a stealth facility in a preferred location under the Code. Thus, the Proposed Facility at the proposed site is the least intrusive means to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. The appellant is concerned with the health effects of wireless telecommunications facilities as well as the public perception of the dangers of such facilities. In fact, several residents have voiced their opposition to the Proposed Facility primarily on the basis of perceived health effects. Their concern about health effects is not supported by evidence, and the claim that others might be wary of health effects is undermined by the importance that more and more Americans are placing on wireless telecommunications and wireless " Id., at 105. 14 See simulated photographs (Attachment C). 15 See Alternative Sites Analysis (Attachment B). -w aw connectivity. With nearly 40% of American households eliminating landlines in favor of "wireless -only" home telephone service, adequate wireless services are critical and wireless communications facilities are perceived as positive community amenities. Moreover, it is important to note that evidence about RF emissions is not substantial evidence that can support a denial. Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged health or environmental effects of RF emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless communications facilities that will comply with FCC regulations concerning radio frequency emissions: (iv) 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 such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.."16 Here, the proposed equipment will operate well within applicable FCC limits. Indeed, pursuant to FCC regulations, the Proposed Facility is categorically exempt from the requirement of obtaining an exposure assessment because the bottom of the proposed antennas will be more than ten meters above ground (ten meters is approximately 32.8 feet and the bottom of the proposed antennas will be 34 feet above ground).17 In order to alleviate any lingering concerns about health effects, and even though the Proposed Facility is exempt from any assessment requirement because it is tall enough to be deemed safe, AT&T has commissioned a study to demonstrate the impact of radio frequency emissions from the Proposed facility. AT&T plans to offer testimony at the Council hearing on May 27, 2014 about this assessment. Given the compliance with the FCC standards, the Application cannot be rejected based on health concerns of RF emissions. Furthermore, the Application cannot be rejected whether health concerns are raised explicitly or indirectly through some proxy such as property values or even, in some instances, aesthetics. The appellant and some residents oppose AT&T's Application based on concerns that misperceptions of health effects from cell towers could impact property values. These concerns also cannot support a denial A federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption of RF 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."ls Thus, these complaints cannot be a proxy for preempted concerns about RF emissions. To the extent that the appeal is animated by concerns over RF frequency radiation, the Commission cannot consider them. Property Values The appellant claims that the camouflaged and fully screened Proposed Facility will have a negative effect on property values. Especially given that the Proposed Facility is a very good-looking camouflaged design, it is dear that this issue is a pretext for complaints about RF emissions. Indeed, the appellant and other opponents who raise this issue do so in the context of the Proposed Facility's proximity to a school, a park, and residences. As explained above, the Council is specifically precluded from considering any alleged health or 16 See47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(tv). "See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b)(1); see also id., at Table 1. 18 ATOT li1ml—See ms ofCakfor=LL.CH 0,0 ofC;v*bad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting H.R. Conference Report No. 104458, 201 (1996)). at&t environmental effects of RF emissions, including where, as here, those concerns are raised through the proxy of property values and aesthetics. The appellant supports his speculation about property values by generalizations, including broad statement by some local realtors about property values and disclosures. Unfortunately, even the realtors get this issue wrong. There is no evidence that wireless communications facilities in Santa Clarita negatively impact property values. These generalized statements that are not supported by empirical data or analysis about local property values cannot support overturning the Commission's approvals of AT&T's Application. Contrary to the appellant's allegation, reliable wireless coverage can have a positive impact on property values. Home buyers expect access to strong in -building wireless coverage. This expectation is consistent with the recent findings by the CDC and the tremendous growth in mobile data use in recent years. Also contrary to the concerns expressed by the appellant and some other residents, there is no requirement under California law that the seller of a home disclose the existence of a nearby wireless communications facility. The statutorily prescribed Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement, which contains an exhaustive list of the specific environmental and other issues that must be disclosed by home sellers in California, does not mention wireless communications facilities.19 Moreover, by law a wireless communications facility cannot be characterized as a nuisance. Section 3482 of the California Civil Code states that " [njothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance." Such express authority for the construction and operation of wireless communications facilities is found in the Act, which not only authorizes but encourages the proliferation of wireless facilities by placing stringent limitations on the ability of local governments to regulate them. In addition, at least one California appeals court has held that, even disregarding the issue of statutory authorization, a lawfully existing wireless communications facility next door to a residential property cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a nuisance simply because it does not constitute a substantial interference with the enjoyment of the latter.20 The assertion by one concerned resident that a wireless communications facility must be disclosed as something that has "stigmatized" the property is also mistaken. Never has a wireless communications facility been found by a California court to have been a "stigma" on a neighboring property. Rather, the term "stigmatized" in this context refers mainly to homes in which horrible crimes have occurred or to property that once harbored toxic waste.'' -1 Clearly, a nearby camouflaged wireless communications facility is not even in the same ballpark as these types of property issues. In any event, however, given the strong trend toward wireless -only homes and the perception of wireless connectivity as an important community amenity, sellers very well may desire to let prospective buyers know they will have adequate wireless coverage. The appellant and some opponents claim that AT&T does not have a gap in coverage and that the gap is not significant. This anecdotal information does not disprove the empirical data supporting the 19 See Cal. Civ. Code § 1102.6. 20 Oliver v. AT&T Winless Serwmx, 76 Cal. App. 4th 521, 525, 535 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1999). " See, e.g., Reed P. King, 145 Cal. App. 3d 261, 263-64 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1983) (referring to a home as carrying a "stigma" where a woman and her four children had been murdered there 10 years earlier); Santa Fe Partnerrbiy v. Am Produets Co., 46 CaL App. 4th 967, 984 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1996) (noting that land may continue to suffer from "stigrna" due to its history of chemical contamination). 22// 1 11-11 aw coverage issues that AT&T is experiencing and it does not minimize the significance of the gap. In their effort to refute the existence of AT&T's coverage gap, some opponents have offered images of cell phones purporting to show adequate signal strength in the gap area. Putting aside that it is not clear whether these images were taken indoors, in vehicles or outdoors, or whether these images were captured during high demand periods on AT&T's network, these images are fully consistent with AT&T's coverage gap. 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 bars of signal strength, but that customer can still, at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions. It is also important to note that the signal losses and service problems described above can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may be able to initiate and complete calls on AT&T's network (or other networks) on their wireless phones. These problems also can and do occur even when certain customers' wireless phones indicate bars of signal strength. In contrast to conjecture by lay persons, when determining where new or upgraded communications facilities need to be located for the provision of reliable service in any area, AT&T's radio frequency engineers rely on far more complete tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T creates maps incorporating signal strength that depict existing service coverage and service coverage gaps in a given area. The appellant alternatively contends that AT&T's coverage gap is not significant Appellant is right to look to the federal case law on point to understand this issue. In 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that the significance of a coverage gap is determined based on a fact -specific inquiry of the characteristics of the area to be served.- According to the federal court, some of the factors considered include the nature and character of the area, the number of potential users in the area, and traffic on roads in the area.23 Here, as explained in the Alternative Sites Analysis, the Proposed Facility will improve coverage to the surrounding residential neighborhoods with more than 700 houses, at least one school with more than 800 students enrolled, a park, places of worship, commercial areas, and various other points of interest in the inminediate vicinity. The gap area is a well -trafficked part of the city. The most recent traffic data available from Google Earth Pro for this area indicate that the average traffic along McBean Parkway just northeast of Newhall Ranch Road was approximately 36,217 vehicles per day in 2012; and the average traffic along Newhall Ranch Road just northwest of McBean Parkway was approximately 30,131 vehicles per day in 2012. By logic and by law, this gap is significant Noise The appellant and several residents have voiced concerns about noise from the Proposed Facility and related to maintenance. However, the August 14, 2013 Noise Assessment Report by Aspecros, Inc. demonstrates that the Proposed Facility will comply with the city's noise limits under Chapter 11.44 of the Code. In order to ensure compliance, this acoustic study is based on conservative measurements and analysis of noise from four locations surrounding the project, including from the closest residence just a few hundred feet away. The study identified very low noise levels from the proposed equipment, and concluded that the combined noise level would result in no increase above the existing ambient noise level The highest predicted noise level in the study was 38.3 decibels (which was no increase above existing ambient noise levels). To put 38.3 decibels in context, 40 decibels is about the sound of a whisper or a library. In contrast, the nighttime residential noise limit under Section 11.44.040.A of the Code is 55 decibels. z Sprint PCS Aired, LLCv. Paks Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 727 (9th Cir. 2009). zs Id. aw The appellant seeks to manipulate the data to argue that the Proposed Facility may make excessive noise. This lay analysis of a technical matter is flawed, and it is not substantial evidence to contradict the expert technical assessment and report that demonstrates compliance. AT&T has demonstrated that its equipment will comply with the city's noise limits. As to noise associated with maintenance, which other residents question, it is typical for a technician to visit a site approximately once a month. This routine maintenance of facilities on an existing utility property will not amount to a disturbance, and, in fact, will likely go unnoticed. In any event, with respect to noise, AT&T intends to be a good neighbor and will accept a condition of approval related to ongoing compliance with the city's noise limits, such as Condition of Approval PLO imposed by the Planning Commission's approval of AT&T's Application. The appellant and several residents are concerned about the potential for vandalism. Certainly AT&T is motivated to safeguard its Proposed Facility, and welcomes efforts and suggestions for minimizing potential vandalism. To this end, AT&T will accept a condition of approval related to securing its Proposed Facility and to prevent unauthorized climbing, such as Condition of Approval PLl l imposed by the Planning Commission's approval of AT&T's Application. Conclusion AT&T is diligently trying to upgrade its network to meet the growing wireless communications demand within Santa Clarity It is doing so in a manner that takes prudent and careful consideration of the aesthetic impacts of its facilities and the values the city seeks to promote. AT&T's proposed design is fully consistent with the city's land use regulations and its General Plan, and the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can fill the significant service coverage gap in the area. I urge the Council to deny the appeal and uphold approval of AT&T's Application. Very truly yours, f l i Michael van Eckhardt General Attorney AT&T Attachment A: Radio Frequency Statement Attachment B: Alternative Sites Analysis Attachment C: Simulated photographs urnm L"" i, l" -m . mm AA Alternative Sites Analysis dt&t AT&T Mobility Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 23621 Fairview Drive Santa Clarita, CA Site ID: LA8190 Iqz- Introduction New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") has identified a significant gap in its service coverage in Santa Clarita. AT&T proposes to install a wireless communications facility ("WCF") camouflaged as a 47 -foot tall faux tree adjacent to this 52 -foot tall Metropolitan Water District water tank ("Proposed Facility") as a means to fill this gap in coverage in this portion of Santa Clarita. This water tank is situated near Northbridge Park and atop a hill that is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The Proposed Facility consists of eight panel antennas (two sets of four antennas) completely camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree adjacent to the water tank. The related equipment also will be enclosed in a 240 square foot shelter within a 444 square foot lease area. 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 Santa Clarita, in an area roughly bordered by Rosemont Lane to the east, Decoro Drive to the north, De La Guerra Way to the west, and Newhall Ranch Road to the south. The Proposed Facility will improve coverage to the surrounding residential neighborhoods with several hundred houses, schools, parks, places of worship, commercial areas, and various other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The service coverage in this portion of Santa Clarita is described in the accompanying Radio Frequency Engineering Statement. The most recent traffic data available from Google Earth Pro for this area indicate that the average traffic along McBean Parkway just northeast of Newhall Ranch Road was approximately 36,217 vehicles per day in 2012; and the average traffic along Newhall Ranch Road just northwest of McBean Parkway was approximately 30,131 vehicles per day in 2012. Methodology and Zoning Criteria The location of a WCF to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, 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 Santa Clarita Unified Development Code ("Code"). Thus, AT&T is guided by Chapter 17.69 (Wireless Communications Facilities and Satellite Dish Antennas), and in particular the development standards under Section 17.69.030 of the Code. Specifically, the Code encourages ground -mounted WCFs to be located in close proximity to water tanks (Section 17.69.030.E.7) and requires WCFs to "be located where the existing topography, vegetation, building, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening (Section 17.69.030.B.2). In addition, the Code requires WCFs to be "painted, textured, landscaped or otherwise camouflaged as much as possible to integrate the structure into the environment" (Section 17.69.030.B.4). 1113 Churcno 7 JesusCnns�'Latter�Dc, - op g' t r 44i roe ' tYbrth,P�rVtllagSnoypin g4'Center Atli `� s�tirf - `: iyroyoSecc c o = Vaienu3 A� I He] Etem entary SchoolXX ^ ��,'� t C� �+--Y •rte '1�,• � ti. � � _ ayalencia+Hent'agejPft ,+ " • � � 'di N . \ T + la i • Ywf �. �i oppmCs4, g enter �4 r mow+•..\ter... ... ��-1d �+�t .av� vim_• "' Proposed Facility— Metropolitan Water District Tank, 23621 Fairview Drive Views of existing property Corresponding simulated photographs of Proposed Facility: 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. This water tank is situated on a hill overlooking large residential areas where AT&T has a significant service coverage gap. There are no nearby collocation opportunities. The terrain in the area generally slopes downward from this property with significant elevation loss towards McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road. AT&T proposes to install 8 panels antennas (two sector of four antennas each) on a ground -mounted WCF camouflaged as a 47 -foot tall faux eucalyptus tree adjacent to this 52 -foot tall Metropolitan Water District water tank. Consistent with Section 17.69.030.E.7 of the Code, the Proposed Facility will be located in direct proximity to the existing water tank, which is five feet taller than the Proposed Facility. Consistent with Section 17.69.030.B.2 of the Code, the Proposed Facility will be placed where the existing topography, vegetation, and structures provide the greatest amount of screening. As shown in simulated photographs, above and previously submitted to the city, the Proposed Facility will blend with the environment and it will appear as a tree amid a backdrop of other trees. In fact, the Proposed Facility will help screen views of the water tank. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of Santa Clarita. El IIqh Alternative 1 — Valencia Self Storage, 27815 Smyth Drive, Valencia Conclusion: Not feasible This storage facility is located almost a mile to the west of the Proposed Facility and outside of the coverage objective. A site here would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 196 Alternative 2 — Shopping Center, 23910 Summerhill Lane, Valencia Conclusion: Not available This shopping center is located near the coverage objective and may present a feasible option to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. However, the property owner is not willing to lease space to AT&T for the Proposed Facility. AXI Alternative 3 — RE/MAX, 27720 Dickason Drive, Valencia Conclusion: Notfeasible This commercial property is about three-quarters of a mile to the west of the Proposed Facility and outside of the coverage objective. A site here would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. H Alternative 4 — Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 27827 Skycrest Circle Drive, Valencia Conckision: Not available This church is located almost a mile to the north of the Proposed Facility and outside of the coverage objective. The church was not willing to lease space to AT&T. Alternative 5 — Arroyo Seco Junior High School Conclusion: Notfeasible This school is located about three-quarters of a mile to the northeast of the Proposed Facility and outside of the coverage objective. This property is on the east side of a ridge from the coverage objective, which would impede signal to the west towards the coverage objective. A site here would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 0 150 Alternative 6 — Charles Helmers Elementary School Conclusion: Not feasible This school is located within the coverage objective within two-tenths of a mile from the Proposed Facility. The school is situated approximately 140 feet lower in elevation than the Proposed Facility. A site here would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap, particularly in the residential areas to near the Proposed Facility. 10 ►y� Alternative 7 — North Park Village Shopping Center, NE corner of McBean Parkway and Decoro Drive Conclusion: Not available This shopping center is located near the coverage objective and may present a feasible option to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. However, the property owner is not willing to lease space to AT&T for the Proposed Facility. '5Z Alternative 8 — Shopping Center, Along Newhall Ranch Road SE of McBean Parkway M_ n4 Conclusion: Not feasible This shopping center is located along Newhall Ranch Road, to the east of McBean Parkway. I1 is located about 0.4 mile to the southwest of the Proposed Facility and sits more than 220 feet lower in elevation than the Proposed Facility. Further, AT&T is considering this location for a different WCF to achieve a different coverage objective in that part of Santa Clarita. 12 153 Alternative 9 — Real Life Church, 23841 Newhall Ranch Road, Valencia Conclusion: Notfeasible This church sits back a few hundred feet from Newhall Ranch Road and along Grandview Drive. It is located about 0.3 mile to the southwest of the Proposed Facility and outside of the coverage objective. This property is situated more than 210 feet lower in elevation than the Proposed Facility. Further, AT&T is considering the adjacent shopping center (Alternative 8) for a different WCF to achieve a different coverage objective in that part of Santa Clarita, which would include service to this church. 13 15H Alternative 10 - Oak Park Conclusion: Notfeasible This park is on the southwest side of Newhall Ranch Road, to the west of McBean Parkway. It is well outside of the coverage objective approximately six -tenths of a mile to the southwest of the Proposed Facility. This park is situated more than 220 feet lower in elevation than the Proposed Facility. Further, AT&T is considering the nearby shopping center (Alternative 8) for a different WCF to achieve a different coverage objective in that part of Santa Clarita, which would include service to this park. 14 155 Alternative 11 — Valencia Heritage Park Conclusion: Notfeasible This park is on the northeast side of Newhall Ranch Road, to the west of McBean Parkway. It is well outside of the coverage objective approximately half a mile to the southwest of the Proposed Facility. This park is situated more than 210 feet lower in elevation than the Proposed Facility. Further, AT&T is considering the nearby shopping center (Alternative 8) for a different WCF to achieve a different coverage objective in that part of Santa Clarita, which would include service to this park. 15 15b Alternative 12 — Water tank off of Harwick Place and Briarcliff Place Conclusion: Notfeasible This water tank is located near Briarcliff Place, with access off of Harwick Place, well to the north of Decoro Drive. This water tank is about three-quarters of a mile to the northeast of AT&T's coverage objective, and more than a mile to the northeast of the Proposed Facility. A site here would not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 16 15e Alternative 13 — High -Tension Power Lines Conclusion: Not feasible These high-tension electric power lines are located approximately one mile to the south and southwest of the Proposed Facility, and they are approximately one and a half miles to the south of the coverage objective at the intersection of McBean Parkway and Decoro Drive. A site at this location will not close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. Conclusion: The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of Santa Clarita. 17 AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement LA 8190 — 23621 Fairview Dr., Santa Clarita, CA STATEMENT OF SANDEEP MANGAT I am the AT&T radio frequency engineer assigned to the proposed wireless communications facility at 23621 Fairview Dr., Santa Clarita, CA (the "Property"). Based on my personal 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 concluded that the work associated with this permit request is needed to close a significant service coverage gap surrounding the Property. The service coverage gap area is roughly bordered by Rosemont Lane to the east; Decoro Drive to the north; De La Guerra Way to the west; and Newhall Ranch Road to the south. The service coverage gap is caused by the lack of infrastructure in the immediate area. AT&T currently has one cell site north of the gap area, one site to the east, one site to the south, and one site to the southwest. These existing sites do not provide sufficient in -building service in the gap area. The purpose of the proposed site is to close this service coverage gap and provide sufficient in -building service coverage for AT&T's customers in the affected area. The site will not only close the gap, but it will also help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage by offloading surrounding existing sites during current and future high demand periods. Further, the proposed site will also include 4G LTE service coverage. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable in -building 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. In - building service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (approximately 40% of American households are now wireless only) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc.). Exhibit 1 is a map of the existing UMTS 3G service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes service coverage provided by existing AT&T sites. The green shading depicts areas within a signal strength range that provides acceptable in -building service coverage. In -building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shading depicts areas within a signal strength range that provides acceptable in - vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or '61 receive a call within a vehicle. The lavender shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. Any white shading represents areas where the signal strength does not meet the outdoor signal level threshold. 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, lavender, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap. Exhibit 2 to this Statement is a map that predicts service coverage based on signal strength in the vicinity of the Property if antennas are placed as proposed in the application. As shown by this map, placement of the equipment at the Property closes the significant UMTS 3G service coverage gap. Also attached as Exhibit 3 is the standalone UMTS 3G coverage provided by the proposed site. In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues, AT&T is in the process of deploying its 4G LTE service in the city with the goal of providing the most advanced personal wireless experience available to residents of the city. 4G LTE is capable of delivering speeds up to 10 times faster than industry -average 3G speeds. 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. This is particularly important in the vicinity of the proposed site because of the likely high usage of 4G LTE tablets, LTE smartphones, and other LTE devices. Moreover, it is important to note that as existing customers migrate to 4G LTE, the LTE technology will provide the added benefit of reducing 3G data traffic, which can contribute to the significant service coverage gap on the UMTS (3G) network during peak usage periods. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar, Punjab, INDIA and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry for 18 years. 2 '1 U) Exhibit 1 UMTS Coverage -- prior to NSB Site CLU3126 (Santa Clarita Water Tank) Proposed Macro Site Q Existing Macro Sites n a _0 iiiXXX 6t L, j � �� off � `t � w•� t; .r �� �. „� • v f n CUJ3 176 Santa Ciarit:; -' (Cm Cl agE lial) ig ?V,zo 75lillm hldooi V'imwl -981113,111 Uutdom 4tLnul UMTS Coverage r•i and Neighboring r • Sites (Santa r YWater y t"r,F X �v �an �w444. •{b p�A q �f`Yn r G Y.� a.t! L. Exhibit 2 Proposed Macro Site o 0 Existing Macro Sites � CARL( er i bl t �a%sitf�j tM1. .eSa .. t x {za'F t k aar �r iSr a* a pa ;� ` I I GI lh(c"�5#-ciag Sinal) f �r*asa?•cz „.� �,�. `� +YAM -75(111111 Iml"Oj!�i ual ±� f,.�.I ,n 5 Exhibit 3 lia-Mv Iry or , KR6 O:j rw�w W..v A aid "Ar a - Ix Omw 9 . ''!7s T I AERIAL MAP PROPOSED (NORMAL VIEW) EXISTING DCI PACIFIC AIEIC WORI(S �/ r '^/ S(RPffp LA8190(BUS39461) SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK VIEW SHEET xr�xe /�Lx L 23621 FAIRVIEW DRIVE C4 / 11 ���� SANTA CLARITA. CA 93304 NOFMAL viF AERIAL MAP EXISTING CIFIC DC71�C ORKS A //11�A 4/18790 (BU839461) SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK VIEW SHEET }O} 11111111 /VVV/ 111 ll.. 23621 FAIRVIEW DRIVE E 6/11 l&t SANTA CWRITA, CA 93304 Noxmnt vltly �n n AERIAL MAP EXISTING DCI PACIFIC A I E I C WORKS �A LAS 190 (RU839461( SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK VIEW SHEET WWW lll... 23621 FAIRVIEW DRNE O U " 8/ C�lO[� l SANTA C UA. CA 93304 2p MED NES AERIAL MAP EXISTING DCI PACIFIC LA8190 (BU8394611 VIEW SHEET AI E I C WORI(S SANTA CLARITA WATER TANK }G} YY VV 23621 FAIRVIEW DRIVE E / alOtl SANTA CURITA, CA 93304 ioom[o viEw Mike Marshall To: Kaylee Cox Subject: RE: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand From: Raj Barman fmailto:rai.barman@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:10 AM To:Laurene Weste Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Raj Barman 29206 Las Palmas Ct Valencia, CA 91354 015 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:16 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: We Want Better Wireless! —Original Message -- From: Nancy Gomes fmailto•user votervoice.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:49 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: We Want Better Wireless Dear Councilmember Kellar, I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. It seems ridiculous in 2014 that we even discuss the need for upgrading the communication method everyone depends on .... improvement is how we are where we are today with phones and internet and EVERYONE DEPENDS ON GOOD SIGNALS. As a council you approved TOTALLY AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE you white elephant billboards... why not approve something that the people are FOR too.. Sincerely, Nancy Gomes 23985 Oakland Ct Valencia, CA 91355 P0 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:15 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand --Original Message -- From: Dick Harris Imailto•dickharris44Caatt.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:03 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Santa Clarita needs better.wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Councilmember Kellar, I am a Uverse customer and have all my personal and business phone and internet services with AT&T for past 7-8 years. I can tell you that I am about ready to switch only because I cannot use my cell phone at home for b=calls as the disconnects are a major issue. I still get only a bar or two seven with a MicroCell, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Dick & Paulette Harris 24522 McBean Pkwy Apt 12 Valencia, CA 91355 VII Mike Marshall To: Julie Skinner Subject: RE: Wireless emails From: Mr. & Mrs. William Hinze Imailto:billhinze@mac.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:57 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Councilmember Kellar, I am writing in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. I use my AT&T cellular phone of my business and need more reliable and faster service throughout Santa Clarita. Cellular improvements will help me better support my family and the community. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Bill and Libby Hinze Sincerely, William Hinze 24422 Hampton Dr Unit B Valencia, CA 91355 06 Carol French From: Julie Skinner Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:42 AM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall Cc: Carol French; Kaylee Cox Subject: FW: We Want Better Wireless! -----Original Message ----- From: carol kaericher [mailto•userna votervoice.netl Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:01 PM To: Bob Kellar Subject: We Want Better WirelessT Dear Councilmember Kellar, I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, carol kaericher 27402 Weathersfield Dr Valencia, CA 91354 09 Carol French From: Julie Skinner Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:36 AM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall Cc: Carol French; Kaylee Cox Subject: FW: Santa Clarity needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand _--Original Message ----- From: Sanghyun Kim (mailto:ttangbee(@_=ail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:01 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Councilmember Kellar, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Sanghyun Kim 24362 El Molina Ave Valencia, CA 91355 t� Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:19 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc Benny Ives Subject: FW: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita ---Original Message ---- From: Beth Keesler [mailto•mbkeeslerpgmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:22 PM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Councilmember Kellar, I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Beth Keesler 27952 AgapanthusLn Valencia, CA 91354 MA Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:17 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita -----Original Message— From: Joon Lee fma1lto:M1236612gmail.c0ml Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:30 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Councilmember Kellar, It had been very frustrating to move around the town, having brunch at Eggs n' Things or shopping at Costco, and not having good data network connection. If I have any business at other cities with better data connection, such as city of LA, I go and take care of my business there instead of doing it at Santa Clarita. I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Joon Lee 24475 Montevista Cir Valencia, CA 91354 IF2 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:17 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: We Want Better Wireless! --Original Message— From: Donald E Medaris, lr imailto•medarisir((Dsbcalobal.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:31 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Councilmember Kellar, I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Donald E Medaris Jr 23550 Via Eliso Valencia, CA 91355 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:18 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: We Want Better Wireless! ---Original Message --- From: Violet Rein Imailt=ser(avotervoice.netl Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:39 PM To: Bob Kellar Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Councilmember Kellar, I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area 1 frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Violet Rein 27007 San Ysidro Ave Valencia, CA 91355 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:18 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives FW: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Subject: --Original Message— From: Jocely Anne Roque Imailto•iocelyannerogue@gmail coml Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:30 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Councilmember Kellar, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Please approve of this upgrade. Sincerely, Jocely Anne P. Roque 29154 Mission Trail Ln Valencia, CA 91354 �g� Mike Marshall From: Kaylee Cox Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:40 AM To: Mike Marshall Subject: FW: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand =--Original Message -- From: Edgar Ruiz fmailto•userCcDvotervoice.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:31 AM To: Laurene Weste Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Please Please consider this, I am a Dialysis patient and my calls get dropped from time to time. It is very important that my kids know that i am fine after treatment. Resident: 23839 Arroyo Park Dr, 907, Valencia, 91355 Thank you Edgar Ruiz Sincerely, Edgar Ruiz . 23839 Arroyo Park Dr Apt 907 Valencia, CA 91355 Re Mike Marshall From: Kaylee Cox Sent Monday, May 19, 2014 11:39 AM To: Mike Marshall Subject: FW: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita ----Original Message ----- From: Ingrid Ruiz Imailto•user(avotervoice. netl Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:31 AM To: Laurene Weste Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Waste, I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Ingrid.Ruiz 23839 Arroyo Park Dr Apt 907 Valencia, CA 91355 E Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:17 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: We Want Better Wireless! ---Original Message-- . From: Robin Sherlockfmailto:robinsherlock4@email.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:30 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Councilmember Kellar, I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Robin Sherlock 28504 Calex Dr Valencia, CA 91354 186 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:16 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita ---Original Message ---- From: Doug Spicher Imailto•douesoicher(o)comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:09 AM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Councilmember Kellar, I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell. phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. best, Doug Spicher 23257 Sherwood Place Valencia, CA 91354 Sincerely, Doug Spicher 23257 Sherwood PI Valencia, CA 91354 Mike Marshall From: Julie Skinner Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:19 PM To: Jeff Hogan; Mike Marshall; Carol French Cc: Benny Ives Subject: FW: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand --Original Message ---- From: Nicholas Turner Imailto•n428it2gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:51 PM To: Bob Kellar Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Councilmember Kellar, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Nicholas J. Turner 23921 Del Monte Dr Unit 39 Valencia, CA 91355 I90 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, David Leisure 26807 Fairlain Dr Valencia, CA 91355 l[ Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may. have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Jeff- Valencia 27650 Rutherford P1 Valencia, CA 91354 ,n Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Pradeep Nambiar 29028 Ridgecrest Ct Valencia, CA 91354 �a3 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurent Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Michael Kostanian 27351 Landon PI Valencia, CA 91354 IGy Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Fred Gruber 25432 Via Gracioso Valencia, CA 91355 Jq5 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Michael Vos 24307 Magic Mountain Pkwy Apt 237 Valencia, CA 91355 ftp Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: As a long time resident of Santa Clarita, I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Jon Martino 25972 Via Catalina Valencia, CA 91355 `—I Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Leno Santos 24595 Town Center Dr Valencia, CA 91355 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: rm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Jeff Doran 24415 Zermatt Ln Valencia, CA 91355 M Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Gregory A. Martin 29339 Las Terreno Ln Valencia, CA 91354 in Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Giancarlo Ricci 23316 Montecito PI Valencia, CA 91354 al Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Robert Sterling 27459 Briars PI Valencia, CA 91354 ZOZ Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Matt Begley 29343 Madeira Ln Valencia, CA 91354 ZQ i Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, James W Ritter 25430 Via Novia Valencia, CA 91355 Wy Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Rick Benveniste 23520 Estrella PI Valencia, CA 91355 a" Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Scott Wallace 27224 Waterford Dr Valencia, CA 91354 ME Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Gary Haselbusch 26287 Bungalow Court Dr Valencia, CA 91355 10 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Kim Orszag . 23919 Via Onda Valencia, CA 91355 NA Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything especially for my business as a local realtor. am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarity My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Thank you, Pat Turner Sincerely, Patricia Turner 29290 Mission Trail Ln Valencia, CA 91354 F620 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Si 27392 Dearborn Dr Valencia, CA 91354 12' Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: AT&T Wireless Dear Mayor Weste: Pm a resident of Santa Clarita. Please support bringing an improved network to the area. Sincerely, Dan Petkunas 23950 Brescia Dr Valencia, CA 91354 211 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarity My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Warlene Garibaldi 24117 Del Monte Dr Unit 84 Valencia, CA 91355 212 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Ravi Thiagarajan 28389 Vista del Rio Dr Valencia, CA 91354 2t3 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Priya Thangaraju 28389 Vista del Rio Dr Valencia, CA 91354 ?)q Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Wireless Infrastructure Optimization/Upgrades Dear Mayor Weste: As a Santa Clarita homeowner, I work from home when not on client sites and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. My corporate mobile iPhone is my designated business line. There's no dedicated landline in our home and we're dependent on a reliable cellular network. When we purchased and relocated to Santa Clarita in 2011, I was dismayed to find that I had to add a microcell (femtocell) device to my LAN at my expense to address the deficiencies of the cellular network. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, its impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Calls aren't always successful at peak periods and frequently drop due to network capacity issues. Web browsing and apps experience long or failed load times. Fortunately, there's a solution and a business partner ready to make investments in our community. As the 3rd largest city in L.A. County, it's inexplicable that reliable high speed 4G LTE coverage doesn't blanket our city. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade to serve the business and personal needs of residents. As a customer since 2004, I support AT&T's efforts to do so. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Respectfully, Sincerely, Ron Bischof 28228 Matador PI Santa Clarita, CA 91390 215 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Ben Staley 26503 Tahoe Dr Valencia, CA 91354 2-4(O Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. As a runner, Im concerned that cellular service may not be available should an emergency arise Sincerely, Rick Stiles 22808 Garzota Dr Valencia, CA 91354 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including myself, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. My whole family has been continually frustrated by the lack in cell coverage in and around our home. I have three children attending college so they are constantly using their smartphones for not only communicating with their peers but for research. It is imperative that cell coverage be expanded in the Valencia/Santa Clarita area! Thank you for supporting this effort Sincerely, Brenda Tiemann 23328 Barfield Dr Valencia, CA 91354 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarity needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Philip Cramer 26056 Berault Ct Valencia, CA 91355 VCA Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Susan Riley 26024 Manzano Ct Valencia, CA 91355 2-0 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Simon Howell 27817 Amberwood Ln Valencia, CA 91354 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Lauren Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Suzanne Stratton 26309 Marsala Dr Valencia, CA 91355 12—Z Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarita. My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Thank you! 23278 Cuestport Dr Valencia, CA 91354 223 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarity Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Lee Doddridge 23947 Del Monte Dr Unit 10 Valencia, CA 91355 `Z2A Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Santa Clarita needs better wireless coverage to keep up with demand Dear Mayor Weste: I depend on wireless all day everyday to do just about everything. I am a constituent and pay my taxes and deserve much better wireless coverage in an area as vastly populated as Santa Clarity My service definitely needs to improve since many times I am not able to complete a conversation due to lack of coverage or a bad signal. Most people in the Santa Clarita area, that I know, must go outside rather than inside their home for their cell phone calls. Watching and hearing people walking up and down the sidewalk or open space such as a carport is disconcerting. No Privacy. Please consider that many people like me are relying on you to work with the wireless providers to bring us better wireless service as soon as possible. I hope you'll invest in a stronger wireless network for the constituents you serve. Sincerely, Patricia Boog 26750 Whispering Leaves Dr Unit B Newhall, CA 91321 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Hernando Gonzalez 27358 Brighton Ln Valencia, CA 91354 2'Z� Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Nancy Jones 27434 Briars Pl Valencia, CA 91354 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Victor Lindenheim 23781 Hickory Ct Valencia, CA 91354 71 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Dean Rigdon 25690 Leticia Dr Valencia, CA 91355 2Zq Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita_ Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improveduo cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Joe L Ceballos 20514 Cheryl Ln Santa Clarita, CA 91350 23� Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Randy Rein 26026 Bates PI Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 2�i Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Dane Ruffell 28731 Calle Plata Valencia, CA 91354 132 Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please 'support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. It seems ridiculous in 2014 that we even discuss the need for upgrading the communication method everyone depends on .... improvement is how we are where we are today with phones and internet and EVERYONE DEPENDS ON GOOD SIGNALS. As a council you approved TOTALLY AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE you white elephant billboards... why not approve something that the people are FOR too.. Sincerely, Nancy Gomes 23985 Oakland Ct Valencia, CA 91355 233 Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dew Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Jo Lasky 23128 Conde Dr Valencia, CA 91354 234 Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: Vote to Improve Wireless Reliability in Santa Clarita Dear Mayor Weste: I write in support of improving wireless networks throughout Santa Clarita. Residents and businesses throughout the city, including me, need to have a stronger, more reliable wireless network with fewer dropped calls. Improved cell phone connectivity is absolutely essential to keep us connected, whether we are commuters, businesses, parents, emergency response workers or students. Please support and adopt a wireless ordinance that helps the providers improve their networks so that we may have reliable wireless coverage. Sincerely, J Butler 23422 Riversbridge Way Valencia, CA 91354 MEMMM ME Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarita and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, it's impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&Ts efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, Kevin Doetzl 27759 Summer Grove PI Valencia, CA 91354 2.3(P Wednesday, May 14, 2014 Laurene Weste Mayor Santa Clarita Subject: We Want Better Wireless! Dear Mayor Weste: I'm a resident of Santa Clarity and like many others in the area I frequently work from home and would welcome better wireless service from both a business and personal perspective. Each day I rely on the speed and dependability of my wireless network to send emails and keep me connected to important calls throughout the day. We've reached capacity on our overcrowded networks in Santa Clarita and as a result, its impossible to enjoy the technology and devices we have at our disposal. Santa Clarita is long overdue for a network upgrade and I for one wholeheartedly support AT&T's efforts. Please support bringing an improved network to the area and do what you can to benefit the businesses and families that rely on dependable wireless coverage. Sincerely, K. Hovore 27750 Coldsprings PI Valencia, CA 91354 23� CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 13-110 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 DATE: December 3, 2013 TO: Chairperson Eichman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner 11 APPLICANT:. AT&T Mobility LOCATION: 23621 Fairview Drive (APN 2811-001-279,281; 2811-037-061,062) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility adjacent to an existing water rejection tower owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District. BACKGROUND On October 5, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Master Case 99-027 to allow for the installation of 12 whip antennas on top of an existing water rejection tower, nine communication panels on the side of the tower and a 200 square foot equipment shelter. The approved project was activated with the construction of concrete equipment pads but was never fully constructed due to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) decision to restrict the installation of wireless antennas upon existing water towers. On August 1, 2013, AT&T Mobility (applicant) submitted an application for a conditional use permit to install a wireless telecommunications facility on the same property as the water rejection tower owned and operated by the MWD. The submittal consisted of a 47 -foot tall mono -eucalyptus located adjacent to the existing 52 -foot tower and included a 240 square foot equipment shelter within a proposed 444 square foot lease area. Subsequent to initial review, staff worked with the applicant to develop alternative designs that would be consistent with the Planning Commission's direction regarding stealth cell site design. If approved, the proposed wireless facility would be in addition to the facility approved and activated under Master Case 99-027. However, due to MWD restrictions on water tower installations it is highly unlikely that the project is completed. Master Case 13-110 December 3, 2013 Page 2 of 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Design Alternatives Staff worked with the applicant to derive project alternatives that would meet the service area needs of the applicant while adhering to the development standards for wireless telecommunication facilities as detailed within Section 17.69 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). In response to staffs request, the applicant developed two project alternatives including a monopole design and a "popsicle" stick design. Both the proposed project and the two project alternatives are detailed below. Proposed Monoeucalyptus The applicant originally submitted an application to install a monoeucalyptus similar to the one depicted in this photo. The monoeucalyptus would consist of eight panel antennas placed on two sectors. The total height of the structure would be 47' and located adjacent to the existing 52' tall water rejection tower. Photo Simulation Alternative 1, Monopole This alternative consists of a monopole similar to the one depicted in this photo. The monopole would accommodate eight panel antennas placed on two sectors. The total height of the monopole would be 47' and located adjacent to the existing 52' tall water rejection tower. Photo Simulation Sample Monopole Design Master Case 13-110 December 3, 1013 Page 3 of 6 Alternative 2, Popsicle Stick The final alternative proposed by the applicant consists of one panel antenna each on eight individual "popsicle" style poles similar to those depicted in this photo. The total height of each of the eight popsicle sticks would be 47' and would be located adjacent to the existing 52' tall water Location Alternatives Staff worked with the applicant to identify alternative locations for the proposed wireless facility that would reduce perceived impacts of the subject site while facilitating the coverage area needs of residents and emergency service personnel. However, it was determined that due to height requirements, distance to nearest residential structures, consistency with surrounding structures and vegetation in terms of colors and materials and the topographic nature of the subject property, that the proposed location was the most suitable site. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The UDC requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for wireless communications facilities proposed to be erected or installed above 35 feet in height in an Urban Residential I (URI) zone. The proposed antennas would be installed in the URI zone at a maximum height of 47 feet. The subject property is bound to the north by Northbridge Park, to the west by Helmets Elementary School, to the south by an MWD utility corridor and to the east by single-family residences. General Plan Zoning Land Use Project UR1 URI MWD Water Rejection Tower North OS OS Northbridge Park South UR3 UR3 MWD Utility Corridor West PI PI Helmets Elementary School Fast URI URI Single Family Residential Master Case 13-110 December 3, 2013 Page 4 of 6 NOISE ANALYSIS Subsequent to original submittal, the applicant provided staff with a noise analysis prepared by Aspectus, Inc., dated August 14, 2013. The noise analysis contemplated all noise generated by the equipment located within an equipment shelter and two HVAC units surrounded by a simulated stone wall and obscured from public view by surrounding topography and natural vegetation. Table 1 indicates that there would be no net increase in ambient noise levels as measured from four locations surrounding the project site including the closest single family residences approximately 270 feet from the equipment as shown in Figure 1. TABLE 1 Cell Site Equipment Noise Level Analysis dB Measurement Location Existing Cell Equipment Combined Noise Net Increase Site Ambient Noise Level Level 1 23719 33.4 12.1 33.4 0.0 Cheshire Ln. 2 23729 38.3 7.6 38.3 0.0 Cameron Court 3 23618 28.3 15.2 28.3 0.0 Dunsmore Ln. 4 23621 31.9 9.6 31.9 0.0 Dunsmore Ln. Master Case 13-110 December 3, 2013 Page 5 of 6 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATIONS The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions for telecommunication facilities. Local jurisdictions are preempted by the Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio frequency emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would operate in compliance with these regulations. Therefore, no potential hazard to the public's health or safety would result from radio frequency emissions relative to the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The proposed wireless facility is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or Master Case /3-//0 December 3, 10/3 Page 6 of structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the information and materials that constitute Master Case 13-110 (CUP 13-009) and adopt Resolution P13-13 approving one of the proposed design alternatives for a proposed wireless facility adjacent to an existing water rejection tower at 23621 Fairview Drive, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). ATTACHMENTS Resolution Conditions of Approval Aerial Map Site Plan Visual Simulations — Monoeucalyptus, Monopole, "Popsicle Sticks" Noise Analysis Coverage Maps SACMCURRENV2013\I3-110 (CUP 13-009 Fairview Cell Site)\13-110 Staff ReooR.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 13-110 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: Chairperson Heffernan and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Planning Manager CASE PLANNER: Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility LOCATION: 23621 Fairview Drive (APN 2811-001-279,281;2811-037-061,062) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility adjacent to an existing water rejection tower owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District. BACKGROUND On October 5, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Master Case 99-027 to allow for the installation of 12 whip antennas on top of an existing water rejection tower, nine communication panels on the side of the tower and a 200 square foot equipment shelter. The approved project was activated with the construction of concrete equipment pads but was never fully constructed due to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) decision to restrict the installation of wireless antennas upon existing water towers. On August 1, 2013, AT&T Mobility (applicant) submitted an application for a conditional use permit to install a wireless telecommunications facility on the same property as the water rejection tower owned and operated by the MWD. The submittal consisted of a 47 -foot tall monoeucalyptus located adjacent to the existing 52 -foot tower and included a 240 square foot equipment shelter within a proposed 444 square foot lease area. Subsequent to initial review, staff worked with the applicant to develop alternative designs that would be consistent with the Planning Commission's direction regarding stealth cell site design. If approved, the proposed wireless facility would be in addition to the facility approved and activated under Master Case 99-027. However, due to MWD restrictions on water tower installations it is highly unlikely that the project would be completed. On December 3, 2013, the Planning Commission received staff's presentation and public testimony regarding the proposed monoeucalyptus wireless facility. Included in the applicant's proposal were two design alternatives that included a monopole and "popsicle stick" designs. Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 2 of 10 Due to a lack of sufficient information to allow the Planning Commission to support either design alternative, the project was continued to a date uncertain. Further, the Planning Commission instructed staff to continue to work with the applicant to derive a project design that may be supported by the Planning Commission. Based upon direction received by the Planning Commission, the applicant has since removed the monopole and "popsicle stick" design alternatives and has instead opted to provide additional materials to support the monoeucalyptus design. SITE DESCRIPTION The project is proposed on a graded pad that also contains an existing 52' tall water rejection tower. The site is surrounded by natural vegetation consisting of small shrubs and trees approximately 25'-35' in height, several of which are eucalyptus. The photos below depict the proposed project site as it currently exists. Approximate location of proposed monoeucalyptus Aerial view of proposed project site View from project site facing northwest Master Case 13-110 February 18. 2014 Page 3 of 10 View from project site facing west Approximate location of _ proposed monoeucalyptus - I Surrounding slope Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 4 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed monoeucalyptus would consist of eight panel antennas placed on two sectors. The total height of the structure would be 47' and would be located adjacent to the existing 52' tall water rejection tower. The proposed project also includes a 240 square foot equipment shelter within a proposed 444 square foot lease area as demonstrated on the attached site plan. The visual simulations below depict the existing and proposed condition as viewed from multiple locations surrounding the general project vicinity. Staff has also attached the following eight visual simulations to the staff report in a larger format for ease of viewing. Existing condition from SE corner of McBean Proposed condition from SE corner of Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road I Existing condition from Newhall Ranch Road Proposed Condition from Newhall Ranch near Grandview Drive Road near Grandview Drive Master Case 13-110 February 18. 2014 Page 5 of 10 Existing condition from parking lot of Helmets Proposed condition from parking lot of Elementary School Helmers Elementary School s .t Existing condition from base of slope Proposed condition from base of slope immediately south of Helmets Elementary immediately south of Helmets Elementary School School �e_. M Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 6 of /0 SAMPLE MONOEUCALYPTUS DESIGNS The proposed monoeucalyptus structure would be 47' tall and located adjacent to an existing 52' water rejection tower. The photos below show existing monoeucalyptus installations in Southern California that contain similar design characteristics as the proposed facility. Mason Lane Irvine, CA University Avenue San Diego, CA r r Azuaga Street San Diego, CA j ,i Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 7 of 10 SITE ALTERNATIVES Staff worked with the applicant to identify alternative locations for the proposed wireless facility that would reduce perceived impacts of the subject site while facilitating the coverage area needs of residents and emergency service personnel. While the applicant explored three alternative sites, the proposed locations were not feasible because of vegetation, height and topographical issues. The following is a map identifying the location of the alternative locations considered by the applicant in the coordination of the proposed project. The applicant will be available for further discussion on this matter at the public hearing. Alternative Sites Considered by AT&T 1. Smyth Drive — North of Newhall Ranch Road 2. Summerhill Lane — North of Decoro Drive 3. Dickason Drive —North of Newhall Ranch Road 4. SUBJECT SITE — 23621 Fairview Drive GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The UDC requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for wireless communications facilities proposed to be erected or installed above 35 feet in height in an Urban Residential 1 (URI) zone. The proposed antennas would be installed in the URI zone at a maximum height of 47 feet. C 6 6 Miry e� Summery, Lane ; "� S� h c hlpfir HR1OG6 PtltNi Decoro Dr 3 ep. x r CuntpoM1 a N Smyth Drive r 0 Dickason Driver 6 r s �2 6 7 V.tlt q, 4 ORID NORTH NDu! q u Sub Site RT .Pd MCrf dqe 7l/! 'Mask y ° E'Jt3k Alternative Sites Considered by AT&T 1. Smyth Drive — North of Newhall Ranch Road 2. Summerhill Lane — North of Decoro Drive 3. Dickason Drive —North of Newhall Ranch Road 4. SUBJECT SITE — 23621 Fairview Drive GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The UDC requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for wireless communications facilities proposed to be erected or installed above 35 feet in height in an Urban Residential 1 (URI) zone. The proposed antennas would be installed in the URI zone at a maximum height of 47 feet. Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 8 of 10 The subject property is bound to the north by Northbridge Park, to the west by Helmers Elementary School, to the south by an MWD utility corridor and to the east by single-family residences. NOISE ANALYSIS Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant provided staff with a noise analysis prepared by Aspectus, Inc., dated August 14, 2013. The noise analysis contemplated all noise generated by the equipment located within an equipment shelter and two HVAC units surrounded by a simulated stone wall and obscured from public view by surrounding topography and natural vegetation. Table I indicates that there would be no net increase in ambient noise levels as measured from four locations surrounding the project site including the closest single family residences approximately 270 feet from the equipment as shown in Figure 1. TABLE 1 General Plan Zoning Land Use Project URI URI MWD Water Rejection Tower North OS OS Northbridge Park South UR3 UR3 MWD Utility Corridor West PI PI Helmers Elementary School East URI URI Single Family Residential NOISE ANALYSIS Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant provided staff with a noise analysis prepared by Aspectus, Inc., dated August 14, 2013. The noise analysis contemplated all noise generated by the equipment located within an equipment shelter and two HVAC units surrounded by a simulated stone wall and obscured from public view by surrounding topography and natural vegetation. Table I indicates that there would be no net increase in ambient noise levels as measured from four locations surrounding the project site including the closest single family residences approximately 270 feet from the equipment as shown in Figure 1. TABLE 1 Cell Site Equipment Noise Level Analysis dB Measurement Location Existing Cell Equipment Combined Noise Net Increase Site Ambient Noise Level Level 1 23719 33.4 12.1 33.4 0.0 Cheshire Ln. 2 23729 38.3 7.6 38.3 0.0 Cameron Court 3 23618 28.3 15.2 28.3 0.0 Dunsmore Ln. 4 23621 31.9 9.6 31.9 0.0 Dunsmore Ln. Master Case 13-110 February 18, 2014 Page 9 of 10 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions for telecommunication facilities. Local jurisdictions are preempted by the Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio frequency emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would operate in compliance with these regulations. Therefore, no potential hazard to the public's health or safety would result from radio frequency emissions relative to the proposed wireless telecommunication facility. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The proposed wireless facility is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or Master Case 13-110 February 18. 1014 Page 10 of 10 structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the information and materials that constitute Master Case 13-110 (CUP 13-009) and adopt Resolution P13-13 to allow for construction and operation of a monoeucalyptus wireless telecommunications facility located at 23621 Fairview Drive (APN(s) 2811-001-279, 281; 2811-037-061, 062), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). ATTACHMENTS Resolution Conditions of Approval Noise Analysis Aerial Map Site Plan Coverage Maps Visual Simulations Correspondence S,\CD\CURREN1�12013\13-110 (CUP 13-009 FAIRVIEW CELL SITE)\13-110 STAFF REPORT(2).DOC