Appeal 9 [e ?dal?ge? Submit 3 copies of this application, along with the required fee, to: Permit Services Center (PSC), 633 East Broadway, Rm. 101, Glendale, California, 91206 (Monday thru Friday, 7:00 am to 12:00 pm]; Or to: Community Development Department (C00), 633 East Broadway, Rm 103, Glendale, California, 91206 (Monday thru Friday, 12:00 pm to 5 For more information please call the PSC at 818.548.3200, or the Planning Division at 818.548.2115. Please complete or TYPE) the following information: PART 1 NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully) A. This form must be prepared, and 3 copies filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. B. Every question must be answered. C. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith. E. Attach additional pages for long answers. F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal PART 2 APPELLANT INFORMATION A. Jerry Ambrose. Eukon Group, for Mobility loambrose?lvahoocom First Name Last Name Email Address B. 3905 State St. Ste Santa Barbara CA 93105 (805] 637?7407 Street Address City State Zip Code Area Code - Phone Number PART 3 APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. State the name or title of the board. commission or officer from which this appeal is taken Planning Commission B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes No write the date you received it here ceipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination. Date Time Location Manner C. State generally what kind of permit, variance. rulino. determination or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken Wireless Telecom Facilitv Permit for new wireless facilitv. July 27. 2016 D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer Wireless Telecom Facility Permit Approval E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes No ruling, determination, or other action referred to above? F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes 5 No al property affected Dunsmore Park - 4700 Dunsmore Avenue cpl.) I 03:: 1 UI City of Glendale Community Development Dept., Planning Divisi0n 633 E. Broadway. Rm. 103 Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 PART 4 STATEMENT OF ERROR A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? ovision of law that you contend was violated: See enclosed. B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions state specifically each act that was in excess of authority: See enclosed C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise: See enclosed D. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before ate each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination or ruling: E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific findino in support thereof? LYes _No lacking: See enclosed. F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or previously presented to the board, commission or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant: Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: See enclosed The foregoing statements, contained in PARTS 2, 3 and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. JERRY Please Print 3 L/h t, 0 Date Signed FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Stamp Date received in Permit Services Center Received by Fee paid Receipt No. 952312013 Page 2 of 2 City of Glendale Community Development Dept, Planning Division 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103 - Giendale, CA 91206 - 818.548.2140 Appeal Supplement at 4700 Dunsmore Avenue Statement of Error A. Yes. Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, California Permit Streamlining Act, California Government Code 65964.1, Chapter 30.48 ofthe Glendale Municipal Code. B. Yes. Delays and denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, California Permit Streamlining Act, California Government Code 65964.1, Chapter 30.48 of the Glendale Municipal Code. C. Yes. Failure to act within a reasonable period of time under California Permit Streamlining Act, California Government Code 65964.1, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and applicable FCC rules; failure to decide application based on substantial evidence under Chapter 30.48 of the Glendale Municipal Code and Telecommunications Act of 1996; effectively prohibited from providing personal wireless services in violation of Telecommunications Act of 1996; unreasonably discriminated against in violation of Telecommunications Act of 1996. D. No. 17? Yes. Planning Commission lacked substantial evidence to deny application under Chapter 30.48 of the Glendale Municipal Code, and in violation of Telecommunications Act of 1996. F. Yes. may supplement evidence as necessary, and reserves the right to do so. Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: has a significant service coverage gap in this portion of Glendale and identified the least intrusive means to close that gap. Glendale?s Wireless Administrator for Information Services acknowledged the existence of signi?cant service coverage gap. The Planning Commission Staff Report explains that there is no less intrusive design and no less intrusive site for proposed facility. The Planning Commission did not identify a less intrusive design or site. Glendale has previously allowed other wireless carriers to construct similar facilities in other City parks. The evidence showed that the portion of the park seeks to use is not well-used by the public, and the pr0posed facility is compatible with the community. The evidence also showed that proposed facility will comply with the City?s code and other applicable laws. reserves the right to supplement these statements of error. Nelsonya Causby T: 415.268.9493 - Executive Director F: 415.543.0418 Senior Legal Counsel nelsonye.causby@alt.com Hut 430 Bush Street. 3rd Floor .1 San Francisco. CA 94108 October 13, 2016 Via Email Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall 613 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91206 Re: Wireless Telecommunication Facility (PWTF) Case No. 1523946 Dunsmore Park Monopine Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers Friedman, Gharpetian, Najarian, and Sinanyan: I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to support appeal ofthe Planning Commission?s denial of permit application PWTF 1523946 (?Application?), seeking to install a stealth wireless telecommunications facility camou?aged as a faux pine tree (monopine) in Dunsmore Park. This site is necessary to close signi?cant service coverage gap in this portion of Glendale, and it will provide the City with a revenue source. After years of searching for the most appropriate available location and with the input and support from City Staff, identi?ed this stealth design at this park as the least intrusive means to close this coverage gap. The purpose of this letter is to provide the Glendale City Council with an overview of the Proposed Facility, the appeal issues, and to discuss applicable federal law that requires approval of the Application. Proposed Facility has been pursuing installation of a wireless telecommunication facility in this portion of the City for several years. During that time, has worked to identify the best available and least intrusive means to close its coverage gap. first sought permission to place a new wireless telecommunications facility on the Cloud Avenue water tank in La Crescenta. withdrew that application following public opposition, and then pursued available alternatives. In all, analyzed eight alternative sites and, with input from City Staff and the City Community Services Parks Department, identi?ed Dunsmore Park as an appropriate location. Alternative Site Analysis was submitted as part of the Application. Speci?cally, and the Parks Department identi?ed the southeast corner of this park as the best location for a stealth wireless telecommunications facility. proposes to camou?age the facility as a monopine (?Proposed Facility?). This location and design have been supported by City Staff and the Community Services Parks Department. The Community Services Parks Department is willing to sign a lease for this location, and Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 2 City Staff recommended approval of Application in its June 15, 2016 Flaming Commission Staff Report. Application complies with the Glendale Municipal Code (?Code?) and is consistent with state and federal law. has identi?ed a signi?cant service coverage gap in Glendale in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. gap is depicted in Exhibit 2 (3G UMTS coverage) and exhibit 4 (4G LTE coverage) to the Propagation Maps attached as exhibits to its Radio Frequency Statement (see Attachment A). As explained in the Radio Frequency Statement, this residential Glendale neighborhood consists of dozens of single- family homes, schools, churches, and a commercial area along Foothill Boulevard. To close this gap, proposes to construct a 60-foot tall monopine with 12 panel antennas (three sectors of four antennas each) disguised as a pine tree. equipment will be housed in an 1 equipment shelter within the approximate 600 square-foot, fenced space. As explained in the Application, the Proposed Facility will be screened by a number of nearby trees. The proposed coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in Exhibit 3 (3G UMTS coverage) and Exhibit 5 (4G LTE coverage) to the Radio Frequency Statement (see Attachment A). Applicable Federal Law Telecommunications Act of 1996 The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332 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 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), 10 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to ?encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.? Ibr'd. 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 speci?c limitations on the traditional authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modi?cation of such facilities, 1 10 Stat. 151, codified at 47 U. S. C. Thus, the Act limits local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities in pursuit of increasing deployment of the necessary wireless infrastructure. City of?Ranc-Iio Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 US. 113, 1 15-16 (2005). Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 3 Rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities is important, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention 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 May 1 1, 2016, ?nds that 48.3% of American homes have only wireless telephones, and another 14.5% receive all or almost all calls on wireless telephones despite also having a landline.2 The Planning Commission Locked Substantial Evidence to Deny A T?s Application. The Act de?nes the scope and parameters of the city?s overall review of Application. Under the Act, a city?s decision to deny an application for a wireless facility must be supported by ?supported by substantial evidence in the context of applicable state and local law.?3 If the decision is not supported by state or local law, it is invalid.4 Moreover, speculation cannot serve as substantial evidence.5 Here, the applicable local law is Section 30.48.040 of the Code, which requires eight ?ndings to be made for approval of the Proposed Facility. Despite the analysis in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission determined that three of these required ?ndings could not be met. Speci?cally, Section requires ?nding that the maximum extent reasonably feasible, the proposed wireless telecommunications facility has been designed to achieve compatibility with the community?? Section requires ?nding that ?[a]lternative con?gurations will not increase community compatibility or are not reasonably feasible,? and Section requires ?nding that ?[a]lternative locations on the site will not increase community compatibility or are not reasonably feasible.? Working with the Glendale Community Services Parks Department, selected a site that is in a corner of a large city park, away from more active portions of the park. City Staff favors this location, and in its Staff Report highlighted the compatibility of the Proposed Facility: 2 CDC ?5 May 2016 Wirefess Substitution: Early Release of Emir-notes From the National Health Interview Survey, Juiy-December 2 015 is available at Vt vs 605ml!) 3 Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 723?24 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T?Mobiie South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 808 (2015). 4 Id. 5 See T?Mobile USA, Inc. v. City ofAnacorreS, 2008 US. Dist. LEXIS 1 16764, *14 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2008) (speculation that alternatives may work without technical analysis ?certainly does not meet the substantial evidence standard?), a?rmed, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 4 The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is designed to achieve compatibility with the community, and alternative design con?gurations will not increase community compatibility. The proposed antenna structure will be disguised as a pine tree (monopine), which is the most compatible design with existing pine trees (of equal or taller height) at the park. The proposed site location of the facility is designed to be compatible with the community. The proposed facility will be setback more than 400 feet from the nearest public street, with setbacks of about 700 feet from the primary streets of Dunsmore Avenue and New York Avenue. These signi?cant setbacks, coupled with the proposed design and tree line surrounding the park, provide the most compatible solution for the park. Other locations would interfere with park activities and/or be more visible to the public. City Staff also explained, ?[t]he location of the facility on alternative sites is not reasonably feasible." In addition, the ity?s Wireless Administrator agreed that the Proposed Facility ?is necessary to ?ll a signi?cant gap in coverage.? The Proposed Facility, therefore, meets Section 30.48.040 of the Code because it ?has been designed to achieve compatibility with the community" the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and there are no reasonably feasible alternative con?gurations or locations at the site.? The Staff Report concluded that the Proposed Facility complies with all applicable laws and Staff recommended its approval. The Planning Commission, however, accepted the characterizations by some who attended the Planning Commission hearing that this portion of the park is used for recreation. Based on those assertions, the Planning Commission also concluded that the Proposed Facility is incompatible with Policy 2 of the Open Space and Conservation Element to provide a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. But, as the Staff Report explains, the Proposed Facility will leave intact the many recreational uses of this large park. Without identifying any speci?c alternative con?guration or location at the park, the Flaming Commission simply rejected the Staff" 5 conclusion that and the Glendale Community Services Parks Department has indeed identi?ed the most appropriate site for the Proposed Facility. In addition, the Planning Commission resorted to speculating that there might be an issue with nearby protected Sycamore trees and construction might impact the roots. But this guesswork which was entirely unsupported does not render the Proposed Facility incompatible. If there are protected trees in the vicinity which is not shown by the evidence will accept a condition of approval to minimize any potential impact on protected trees. Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 5 Denial Effectively Prohibits A From Providing Service Coverage. Whether or not there exists substantial evidence to support a denial, the Act prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would ?prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.?6 Courts have found an ?effective prohibition? exists where a wireless carrier demonstrates (1) a ?signi?cant 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 ?ll that gap? If a wireless can'ier satis?es both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be suf?cient 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 signi?cant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption, the local government must show that another alternative is available that ?lls the signi?cant gap in coverage, that it is technologically feasible, and that it is ?less intrusive? than the proposed facility.9 Here, has met both prongs of the test by demonstrating that it has a signi?cant service coverage gap and that the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close the gap. In approving the Application, the Planning Commission concluded that Proposed Facility is indeed necessary to close a signi?cant gap in coverage. As the Staff describes, examined several alternative sites in the area to identify the best available and least intrusive means to close its signi?cant service coverage gap, including analysis of nearby water tanks, schools, and churches in this predominantly residential area. The Staff Report notes that ?[t]he location ofthe facility on alternative sites is not reasonably feasible.? Once Dunsmore Park was identi?ed as a possible candidate site, and the Glendale Community Services Parks Department worked to identify the most appropriate design and location in the park for the Proposed Facility. The Staff Report explains that the Proposed Facility is designed to be most compatible with the community. The monopine design was identi?ed as most compatible with the community because it is camouflaged and will blend with the existing pine trees in the park. Staff also highlighted the low visibility of the Proposed Facility, concluding that the ?signi?cant setbacks, coupled with the proposed design and tree line surrounding the park, provide the most compatible solution for the park.? Because the Proposed Facility is least intrusive to close l? 47 U.S.C. See Metro PCS. Inc, 400 F.3d at 734-35; Sprint PCS Assets. LLC v. City afPalos Verdes Estates; 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009). 3 See T?Mobr'le USA, Inc. v. ity of 'Ar-iacorr?es, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 151., 572 F.3d at 998-999. Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 6 signi?cant service coverage gap, federal law requires the city to approve Application. Moreover, the Flaming Commission did not meet its burden to identify a technologically feasible, available and less intrusive alternative. The Planning Commission?s denial, at Required Finding 4, speci?cally found that alternative sites to increase compatibility are not feasible. Furthermore, the Flaming Commission ignored the Staff Report ?ndings and the hard work invested by and the Glendale Community Services Parks Department to identify the best design and location within the park, instead simply asserting that other con?gurations and alternative sites in the park ?should be explored.? Not only does this speculation fall well short of substantial evidence, it fails to satisfy the city?s burden under federal law. The Proposed Facility remains the best available and least intrusive means identi?ed by which can close its signi?cant service coverage gap in this portion of Glendale. To comply with federal law, therefore, city must approve Application. Denial Unreasonably Discriminates Against A T. The Act prohibits a local government from ?unreasonably discri1ninat[ing] among providers of functionally equivalent services.?10 A city unlawfully discriminates against a wireless telecommunications provider when it treats it differently with respect to other providers? facilities that are ?similarly situated in terms of structure, placement or cumulative impact.?11 In addition, the lack of substantial evidence to support denial con?rms unreasonable discrimination where other wireless providers have been approved in similar circumstances.12 Proposed Facility is a monopine in a city park. The City of Glendale has approved many similar wireless telecommunications facilities. By email from Ms. Duarte, City Planner, to Mr. Ambrose, site acquisition agent for the City has identi?ed several cell towers that have been approved in parks and open space districts throughout Glendale.l3 According to the City, these facilities are operated by MetroPC S, Nextel, STC One, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The City has also advised that Verizon was recently approved to construct a wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a monopine in Fremont Park. '4 According to the City of Glendale?s website, Fremont Park is a 7.9 acre park that includes tennis courts, a basketball court, picnic areas, a children?s play area, a wading pool and other amenities.15 The Staff Report describes Dunsmore Park very '0 47 U.S.C. '1 See Metro PCS, Inc, 400 F.3d at 727-29. 12 See Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Mansion County, 425 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1195 (W.D. Wash. 2006); City quarabad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1166,1162 (so. Cal. 2003). 13 See August 3, 2016 email thread (Attachment B). 14 Id. 15 See Glendale City Council Glendale City Hall October 13, 2016 Page 7 similarly as a 9.8 acre park that includes tennis courts, a ball ?eld, a picnic area, a children?s play area, a wading pool and other amenities. and Verizon are ?providers of functionally equivalent services? within the meaning ofthe Act. Not only will Proposed Facility be situated in a similar location as Verizon?s approved facility, they will both be monopine designs. Without any basis for this discrimination, the City approved Verizon?s application and denied Such actions constitute unreasonable discrimination that Congress intended to eradicate and violate the Act. Beyond Verizon?s site, there are numerous wireless telecommunications facilities in parks and open space districts throughout the City of Glendale, some of which are not even stealth. These facilities that the City has approved are operated by other wireless telecommunications providers. It is unreasonable to deny stealth construction that is more compatible with the community than similarly situated non-stealth facilities approved by the City. The Planning Commission?s speculation and lack of substantial evidence to support its denial further demonstrate that the City will unreasonably discriminate against in violation of the Act if the denial is af?rmed. Conclusion is diligently upgrading its network to meet the growing wireless communications demand within Glendale. 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. proposed design is fully consistent with the City?s land use regulations, and the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means by which can ?ll the signi?cant service coverage gap in the area. I urge the City Council to approve the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission?s denial of Application. Very truly yours, Nelsonya Causby cc: Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney Attachment A: Radio Frequency Statement Attachment B: August 3, 2016 emails ATTACHMENT A Mobility Radio Frequency Statement Dunsmorc Park, 4700 Dunsrnore Ave, Glendale, CA STATEMENT OF SANDEEP MANGAT am the radio ?'equency engineer assigned to the proposed wireless communications facility at Dunsmore Park, 4700 Dunsmore Avenue, Glendale, CA (the ?Property?). Based on my personal knowledge of the Property and with wireless network, as well as my review of records with respect to the Property and its wireless communications facilities in the surrounding area, 1 have concluded that the work associated with this permit request is needed to close a signi?cant service coverage gap in an area roughly bordered by Brookhill Street to the north, Avenue to the east, Fairchild Street to the south, and Boston Avenue to the west. This portion of Glendale includes dozens ofsingle?family homes, schools, churches, and a commercial area along Foothill Boulevard. To remedy this service coverage gap, needs to construct a new wireless communications facility. The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the area. As explained further in Exhibit 1, existing facilities cannot adequately serve its customers in the desired area of coverage, let alone address rapidly increasing data usage. The site will not only close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage, but it will also include 46 LTE service coverage. This site is part of an effort to hilly deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. 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. ATSLT designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable service quality. in- building service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (more than 48% of American households are now wireless only) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc). Exhibit 2 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 sites. The green shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable invbuilding service coverage. [ii-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. in these areas, an customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The lavender shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have dif?culty receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the yellow or lavender category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap. Exhibit 3 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 signi?cant UMTS 36 service coverage gap. In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues, is in the process of deploying its 46 LTE service in Glendale with the goal of providing the most advanced personal wireless experience available to residents of the county. 48 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 ?le once you?ve. sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services. What?s more, LTE uses spectrum more ef?ciently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traf?c and services and to deliver a better overall network experience. Attached Exhibits 4 and are LTE maps that illustrate how the proposed site closes the signi?cant service coverage gap in LTE service c0verage. Moreover, it is important to note that as existing customers migrate to 4G LTE, the LTE technology will provide the added bene?t of reducing SG data traf?c, which can contribute to the signi?cant service coverage gap on the UMTS (3G) network during peak usage periods. I have a Bachelor?s Degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the Dr. BR. Ambedkar Regional Engineering College, alandhar, Punjab, India, and have worked as an engineering yon Sandeep Mangat Mobility Services, LLC Network, Planning Engineering RAN Design RF Engineering August 2016 expert in the wireless communications industry for over 20 years. Prepared by A Mobility digital wireless technology converts voice or data signals into a stream of digits to allow a single radio channel to carry multiple simultaneous signal transmissions. This technology allows to offer services such as secured transmissions and enhanced voice, high-speed data, texting, video conferencing, paging and imaging capabilities, as well as voicemail, visual voicemail, call forwarding and call waiting that are unavailable in analog-based systems. With consumers? strong adoption of smartphones, customers now have access to wireless broadband applications, which consumers utilize at a growing number. Mobile data traffic in the United States grew by 75,000 percent over a six-year span, from 2001-2006. And in the eight years that followed, mobile data traf?c on national wireless network increased 100,000 percent (from 2007-2014). The FCC noted that US. mobile data traffic grew almost 300% in 201 1, and driven by 46 LTE smartphones and tablets, traffic is projected to grow an additional 16-fold by 2016. Mobile devices using technology transmit a radio signal to antennas mounted on a tower, pole, building, or other structure. The antenna feeds the signal to electronic devices housed in a small equipment cabinet, or base station. The base station is connected by microwave, fiber optic cable, or ordinary copper telephone wire to the Radio Network Controller, subsequently routing the calls and data throughout the world. The operation of wireless network depends upon a network of wireless communications facilities. The range between wireless facilities varies based on a number of factors. The range between mobile telephones and the antennas in and nearby Glendale, for example, is particularly limited as a result of topographical challenges, blockage from buildings, trees, and other obstructions as well as the limited capacity of existing facilities. To provide effective, reliable, and uninterrupted service to customers in their cars, public transportation, home, and office, without interruption or lack of access, coverage must overlap in a grid pattern resembling a honeycomb. In the event that is unable to construct or upgrade a wireless communications facility within a speci?c geographic area, so that each site?s coverage reliably overlaps with at least one adjacent facility, will not be able to provide adequate personal wireless service to its customers within that area. Some consumers will experience an abrupt loss of service. Others will be unable to obtain reliable service, particularly if they are placing a call inside a building. Service problems occur for customers even in locations where the coverage maps on ?Coverage Viewer? website appear to indicate that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps depict a high-level approximation of coverage, which may not show gaps in coverage; actual coverage in an area may differ substantially from map graphics, and may be affected by such things as terrain, foliage, buildings and other construction, motion, customer equipment, and network traffic. The legend states that does not guarantee coverage and its coverage maps are not intended to Show actual customer performance on the network, nor are they intended to show future network needs or build requirements inside or outside of existing coverage areas. 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 network (or other networks) on their wireless phones. These problems also can and do occur even when certain customers? wireless phones indicate ?all bars? of signal strength on the handset. The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a customer?s wireless phone can show ?four 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. To determine where new or upgraded telecommunications facilities need to be located for the provision of reliable service in any area, radio frequency engineers rely on far more complete tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. creates maps incorporating signal strength that depict existing service coverage and service coverage gaps in a given area. To rectify this significant gap in its service coverage, needs to locate a wireless facility in the immediate vicinity ofthe Property. From: Panossian, Koko Date: ?Ted: Aug 3: 2016 9:28 AM To: Duane, Kathy; Cc: ioambrose?vahoocom; Subject:Re: 4?00 Dunsmore Decision Letter Appeal Form The only mono pine is the Verizon one currently in construction at Fremont Pa?c. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 3, 2 016, at 9:3 5 AM, Duane, Kathy more: Jerry, Here is a list of cell towers in the park/open space properties: :11 on N. Fern Lane, adjacent to the Sports Complex {open space} :11 Metro PCS {TowerCo} - at Pelanconi Park Nextel at Stengel Ballfield in Verdugo Park in STC One, LLC {Crown Castle} on N. Fern Lane, adjacent to the Sports Complex (open space) 21] T-Mobile on N. Fern Lane, adjacent to the Sports Complex (open space) 21] T-Mobile at Scholl Canyon Ballfields 211 Verizon Wireless - at Babe Herman Little League Field across from Verdugo Park :11 Verizon Wireless on N. Fern Lane, adjacent to the Sports Complex (open space) :11 Verizon Wireless (under construction] at Fremont Park :11 Verizon Wireless (under construction] at Scholl Canyon Ball?elds Koko, please let Jerry know about the design type. Thank you, Kathy Duane, Planner i, City of Glendale 3' Community Development Department, Planning Division 633 9120C: {318: 9378163 1' tdaarre@gie-1aol ATTACHMENT UMTS LB Coverage - Prior to NSB Site CLU2732 9:01:1st 0 Q4 - Proposed Macro Site Existing Macro Sit-s Ct CLU273 WW amipmgo ?.59 was <9 2014 Intellectuai Praperty. All reserved. and the logo are trademarks of Irrteilecmal Pmperty. of 1? a? 03* AW Exhibit 2 August 10, 2016 931mm Ave a?V Joan LI i I2 5.. .m't-ragt Signal) - Illdum ?l?llal 0 -- E?d?m In L-Im-lr Sh'lul -WIim Slgnal at&t Exhibit 3 CLU2732 and Neighboring Sites UMTS LB Coverage - with I wsei??e w? I I ?ha" Amigo I 533513;; "Av pummel 0c? 4 ?to. .m?t-mgc ?ignal) - ?d?m Hum! 3?de L'I'Ilcll: Si?lul Amd?m t?lutduur Slgnal a I Proposed Macro Site I Existing Macro Sites (C) 2014 Inteliectual Property. All reserved. ATQT and the logo am trademarks ofATaT lnbeliectuai Property. - August 10, 2016 a at&t Exhibit 4 LTE LB Coverage - Prior to NSB Site CLU2732 - II 2 - ab 1? Padnm 2 8 ?l I, Q: r? V50 nu-pspnum CLU2732 I 5 ?5on . any 110A MN pm a. .?imw lit Signal] - F'iLle lmlum Signal -tl5dl?Il?n Ill- Hh'lul Mama: (Jutdmr >1ng 0 - 0 Proposod Macro Site 0 Existing Macro Sit-s 6+1; .3, 2014 Intelkectual Property. All ?ghts reserved. and the logo are u-ademarks of ATM IntelPeMal Proputy. August 10 20.16 .I at&t LTE LB Coverage - with CLU2732 and Neighboring Sites I outrage Signal) - 0 Proposed Macro Site - min-m indnm Signal 0 Eli i Sit ~?'5diiu'l lu \t?im'ir S'w'lul at us acre 0: -9?diimt.1utdmr Signal August 10, 2016