Appeal to Reject AT&T Application for Cell Tower

Construction

In

Valencia Northbridge Subdivision

Prepared by:

Residents of Valencia Northbridge Subdivision Valencia, CA 91354

April 28, 2014

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

2

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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Packet Summary Letter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Challenges to AT&T’s Application ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Aesthetic Blight ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Cities & Municipalities Rejecting Cell Towers for Blight ------------------------------------------------------- 4 Case Law Upholding Aesthetic Blight ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Site Alternatives ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

4

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 City

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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

5

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.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/13/05-

56106.pdf • Los Angeles Times article about this case:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/26/local/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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

6

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: Lwt = 10 log(n N / N0)

= 10 log(N / N0) + 10 log(n)

= Lws + 10 log(n) (1) where Lwt = the total sound power level (dB) Lws= sound power level from each single source (dB) N = sound power (W) N0 = 10-12 - reference sound power (W) n = number of sources Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/adding-decibel-d_63.html Adding of equal sound power sources can be expressed graphically:

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

7

The following is the proper way to express adding sound power from sources with different sound powers:

Lwt = 10 log( (N1 + N2 ... + 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:

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

8

Here are the data points for the previous graph on page 6:

Sound Power Level Difference between

two Sound Sources (dB)

Added Decibel to the Highest Sound Power Level

(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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

9

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 iPhone 4S 27358 Cheshire Lane Valencia, CA 91354

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

10

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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

11

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.latimes.com/2009/oct/26/local/me-ugly-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 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

12

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.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

13

Los Angeles Unified School District Resolution

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

14

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

Valencia Northbridge HOA Letter of Objection

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

Real Estate Professionals 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

17

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

18

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

19

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

20

Appeal of MASTER CASE 13-110, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-009 Reject Application for AT&T to construct Cell Tower and Utility Shed Facilities

21

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

Valencia Northbridge Residents Letters