City Council/Public Financing Authority
July 18, 2023

From: Fikes, Cathy
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: FW: AT&T Letter re. Appeal of Approval of CUP 2023-006, 8101 Slater Avenue Date: Friday, July 14, 2023 1:23:37 PM
Attachments: Letter to Huntington Beach City Council 7.14.2023.pdf From: Shank, Aaron M. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 11:59 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) < [email protected]> Cc: Beckman, Hayden <[email protected]>; 'John Silverman' <[email protected]>
Subject: AT&T Letter re. Appeal of Approval of CUP 2023-006, 8101 Slater Avenue Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council Members Burns, McKeon, Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton: Please accept this letter on behalf of my client AT&T in response to the appeal of the approval of AT&T's CUP application to construct the referenced stealth wireless communication facility. AT&T urges the City Council to uphold approval, which comports with applicable federal law, and deny the appeal. Please consider this letter and attachments in connection with your hearing of this matter next week. Thank you.

Aaron M. Shank
Outside Legal Counsel for AT&T
AARON M. SHANK
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
Bio / [email protected]
D: 614.227.2110 / M: 614.578.5036 / F: 614.227.2100
41 South High Street, Suites 2800 - 3200 / Columbus, OH 43215 / MANSFIELD CERTIFIED PLUS
We are moving the needle on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Learn more NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP:

This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.

END OF NOTICE

SUPPLEMENTAL

COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 7/18/23
Agendaltem No.: 17(23-585)
July 14, 2023
City of Huntington Beach City Council
(City. [email protected])
orter Wrig Community Development Department
orris & Arthur L 2000 Main Street
1 South High Stree Huntington Beach, CA 92648
our us 00 4320
DES: 614272100 RE: AT&T's Response to Appeal from Approval of Conditional Main: 614.227.2000 Use Permit 2023-006, 8101 Slater Avenue AT&T Site ID CLL01310
Dear Mayor Strickland, Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark, and Council www.porterwright.com Members Burns, McKeon, Kalmick, Moser, and Bolton:
porterwright I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a CINCINNATI AT&T Mobility (AT&T), to respectfully request the City Council CLEVELAND uphold the approval of AT&T's application to install a stealth wireless COLUMBUS telecommunications facility ("Proposed Facility") that will appear as a broadleaf tree adjacent to the existing church building on the referenced NAPLES property. In addition to providing more robust and competitive personal PITTSBURGH wireless services, including significant improvements to 4G LTE TAMPA
service, the Proposed Facility will provide FirstNet services to support

WASHINGTON, DC
first responder communications.

This carefully sited and well-designed facility will minimize visual impacts and it is the best available and least intrusive means to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this area. The appeal is based on project opponents' general concerns and fears that are not supported by substantial evidence and cannot support denial. In fact, the appeal is based primarily on environmental concerns, including tears o adio frequency emissions (which the city is preempted fron considering) and AT&T's ongoing federal law reviews (which City Staff aptly describes as separate and apart from this appeal.

The City Council should affirm approval of AT&T's
application. As discussed in greater detail below, the city's approval of AT&T's application also comports with federal law. Thus, AT&T requests the Council deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T's application for the Proposed Facility.

AT&T's Proposed Facility
Consistent with Section 230.96(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, which expresses a preference for siting wireless communication facilities in commercial or industrial zoning districts, City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

AT&T proposes to construct the Proposed Facility in a commercial zoning district. AT&T seeks to construct the stealth Proposed Facility with a top height of 60 feet above ground. The antennas for AT&T's Proposed Facility will be mounted at a top height of 55 feet and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage. The related equipment will be housed in a 16- foot by 25-foot, four-inch lease space enclosed by an 8-foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color. The Proposed Facility has been designed to best blend into the surrounding environment.

The Planning Commission Staff Report explained how the Proposed Facility complies with the city's General Plan, and explained, "The proposed project complies with development requirements of the Commercial Office district, the development requirements contained in Section 230.96 Wireless Communications Facilities of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and federal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996)." At the Planning Commission hearing on June 13, 2023, City Staff again explained that the Proposed Facility meets all applicable zoning requirements.

AT&T Needs the Proposed Facility to Provide and Improve Wireless Services AT&T's radio frequency engineers have identified a significant gap in service coverage in this large area that is roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south, and Sampson Lane to the west. (See Attachment A - AT&T Radio Frequency Statement.) This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools, parks, churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity.

The Proposed Facility will improve critical wireless services to the area, which are desperately needed especially as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. In fact, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention studies the extent of mobile phone use, and recently found that more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.' Additionally, customers rely on their mobile phones to do much more than just voice communication, including E911 service, video streaming, GPS, Internet access, and texting.

In fact, the Federal Communications Commission conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones. In addition, the Proposed Facility is a part of AT&T's commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. ' See Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Wireless_state_202108-508.pdf. 2 See, e.g., Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 31, 2021), at 12, available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-fee- report-2021.pdf.

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

AT&T's Analysis of Alternative Sites
AT&T has taken care to select a location to reduce impacts to the community while maintaining a clear line-of-sight for signals to provide adequate service coverage to the gap area.

This was a fairly difficult area to search for candidate sites as many other commercial sites in the area declined to lease space to AT&T or did not respond to AT&T's contacts seeking interest.

AT&T thoroughly investigated alternative sites, evaluating numerous properties in the gap area, to make sure the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. AT&T's Alternative Sites Analysis (see Attachment B), includes review of several commercial, industrial, and park properties in the gap area. In all, AT&T examined eleven properties in addition to the proposed site and determined that each of those eleven locations was either unavailable or infeasible as an alternative to the Proposed Facility.

Approval of AT&T's Proposal Comports with Federal Law
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 ("Act") provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis. Indeed, rapid deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, like the Proposed Facility, is an important national issue, especially given the trend of Americans eliminating traditional landline telephone service in favor of wireless communications.

The Act defines the scope and parameters of the city's review of AT&T's Application.

Under the Act, the city's review of AT&T's applications must be based on substantial evidence.4 The "substantial evidence" requirement means that a local government's decision must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence." In other words, a local government must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit. Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged effects of RF emissions in making decisions as to the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities "to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions."6 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) ("Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to 'encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.' Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers."). 4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
s Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808(2015). 6 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

The Act also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." Courts have found an "effective prohibition" exists where a wireless provider demonstrates (1) a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the "least intrusive means," in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that gap.? Under this test, when a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the nunicipality must approve the wireless facility.? When a wireless provider presents evidence of a significant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden (and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption), the local government must prove that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technically feasible, and that it is "less intrusive" than the proposed facility. 1° More recently, the FCC has confirmed its rulings that an effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services," and this material inhibition standard was again upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The FCC explained that the "effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public."13 Thus, a local government "could materially inhibit service in numerous ways - not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services."|4 Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility. AT&T's radio frequency propagation maps submitted in connection with its application, which are also exhibits to the Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A), depict the service coverage gap that AT&T is experiencing here. These maps show that AT&T lacks " 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
8 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F.3d at 734-35; Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009).
9 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999.
"See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) ("Infrastructure Order") at 9 35; see also, In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rod 14191 (July 17, 1997).
12 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 Infrastructure Order at n. 95.
14 Id. at 9|37.

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

adequate wireless service in this significant area. The proposed service coverage from the Proposed Facility is depicted in the coverage maps. As you can see, placing the Proposed Facility in this location will close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this area.

AT&T has also demonstrated that no less intrusive locations are available and feasible to close the gap (see Attachment B). The Proposed Facility is not only the best available and least intrusive means to do so, it is the only way for AT&T bring critical wireless services to the area, including FirstNet services. The Zoning Administrator's approval thus comports with federal law, and the Planning Commission should likewise approve AT&T's application and deny the appeal.

Response to Appellant's Criticisms
The appeal's objections to the Proposed Facility are predominated by concerns about environmental effects and unsupported speculation about the facility's impact. As described above, even if the Commission could identify a code-based reason to disfavor AT&T's Proposed Facility, the city is preempted by the Act from taking action that would prohibit or have the effective of prohibiting AT&T from providing and improving wireless services. Nevertheless, AT&T offers the following responses to the issues raised by the appeal filed on June 23, 2023:

Radio Frequency Emissions. The central thrust of the appeal and opposition to AT&T's Proposed Facility are concerns about the environmental effects of RF emissions. Project opponents, including the appellant's attorney, testified about the effects of RF emissions on humans, animals, and trees. Even Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about the health effects of RF emissions. But the Act expressly precludes and broadly preempts the city from regulating effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the Proposed Facility complies with the FCC's applicable regulations:

No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC]'s regulations concerning such emissions.
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).

Here, it is beyond dispute that the Proposed Facility will operate well below applicable FCC limits. An engineering analysis was performed and a Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report was provided by EBI Consulting (Attachment C). The report confirms that the Proposed Facility will operate well within all applicable FCC exposure limits. Given the compliance with the FCC regulations concerning RF emissions, AT&T's application cannot be rejected based on concerns about RF emissions.

Process Issues. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission's action on June 13, 2023 was insufficient because it resulted in a tie vote. As the City Attorney explained at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, a tie vote sustains the decision by the lower body. In this City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

matter, that means the Planning Commission's vote sustained the Zoning Administrator's approval of AT&T's application. In any event, the appellant's process concerns are moot as she will be heard again before City Council.

Application Completeness. AT&T filed a comprehensive application for the Proposed Facility, which City Staff determined to be complete. While there may be other processes in the city that require different application components, AT&T complied with the relevant process here. And AT&T worked cooperatively with the city by providing even more information to address various specifics about the Proposed Facility. Moreover, on the basis of the submitted application, City Staff was able to conclude that the Proposed Facility will comply with the General Plan and all applicable zoning requirements. On the basis of the application, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed project and the Planning Commission heard the appeal.

There is, therefore, no question that the city has the appropriate information and materials to consider the application.

Property Values. The appellant speculates that property values in the area will be adversely affected by installation of the Proposed Facility, even though it is a stealth facility that will appear as a tree next to the church. In fact, the photo simulations show it will not even be the tallest tree in the area. There is no substantial evidence to support this conjecture that the Proposed Facility will adversely affect property values.

Importantly, AT&T's application cannot be rejected whether health concerns are raised explicitly or indirectly through some proxy such as property values. A federal district court in California has held that in light of the federal preemption over radio frequency emissions, "concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions. "IS Thus, these types of complaints cannot be a proxy for preempted concerns about RF emissions. As the appeal's property values claim is premised on concerns over RF emissions, the Council cannot consider it.

Moreover, this claim that property values would decrease by installing a facility that will look like a tree next to a church cannot form the basis of denial. Courts within the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have long agreed that "generalized expressions of concern regarding aesthetics or the effect on property values" fail to meet the substantial evidence threshold under the Act. 6 The appellant recycles a set of years-old letters from realtors who claimed that a cell tower on a campground in rural Santa Cruz County might reduce property values there by blocking ocean views. And she offers an analysis of property values for that same cell tower I5 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting H.R. Conference Report No. 104-458, 201 (1996)). 16 California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1308-09 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2nd Cir. 1999); Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 1999); Telespectrum v. Public Service Com'n. of Kentucky, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000); Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 2002)).

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

proposal more than 300 miles away in a completely different setting. ' This information has no bearing on how property values in this commercial district in Huntington Beach might or might not be affected by installation of a faux tree of similar height to other nearby trees surrounding the subject property. This information is not substantial evidence supporting appellant's RF- driven concerns about property values.

The appellant also points to other far-flung studies about property values based on proximity to cell towers. But these studies explain that health concerns drive perceptions about property values, and, in fact, they show mixed results about impacts to property values. The studies by Sandy Bond and her colleagues were conducted in New Zealand in the 1990s, and then followed up in the Eastern U.S. in the 2000s. In those studies, she found some instances when property values decreased near new cell towers and she found other instances when property values increased by up to 12% after a nearby cell tower was constructed.! Moreover, the authors specifically explained that their results were based largely on survey respondents' perceptions of health effects from cell towers. ' These studies also carefully noted that their results are location specific and should not be generalized to other locations.?° In other words, even the authors do not endorse applying them here.

In contrast, a data-driven property valuation study of home values conducted by two California realtor associations found no impact on values due to proximity to even non-stealth wireless telecommunications facilities based on market data for more than 1,600 single-family home sale in California?' Indeed, more and more homebuyers are placing a premium on wireless connectivity. Because the Council must make its decision based on substantial evidence, not based on conjecture and fear, you should not rely on speculation that property values might decrease following installation of the Proposed Facility. Instead, you should rely on the stealth design for the Proposed Facility, which complies with the city's regulations and will minimize impacts to the area.

Compliance with Federal Laws. The appellant and her counsel have raised questions about the effects of RF emissions from the Proposed Facility on birds. In particular, the concern raised was whether AT&T had considered the effects of RF emissions on Cooper's hawks, who may have been seen in or around the project site. And the appellant's attorney asked whether AT&T had 1 In fact, Santa Cruz County ultimately approved the proposed cell tower disguised as a pine tree. 18 Bond & Wang, The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods, The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005, at 269 explaining the increase in property values was likely due to the lack of concern over possible health effects). In the same report, the authors also found another instance where there was an increase, albeit statistically insignificant (0.4%) increase, in property values after construction of a cell tower. See id. at 270. 19 See id.
20 See id. at 271 ("caution must be used in making generalizations from this study or applying the results directly to other similar studies or valuation assignments").
21 See Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, Wireless Communications Initiative Study: Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values (Nov. 2012) (study analyzed property values for over 1,600 single-family homes over a 9-month period, and concluded "It is quite clear from the data that the distance from a wireless facility has no apparent impact on the value or sale price of a home").

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

conducted requisite studies under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). As explained to the attorney, AT&T's analyses under NEPA are well under way and are expected to be completed soon. In fact, the analysis of impacts to species has already been completed. As the attached Findings of Biological Evaluation (Attachment D) explains, this analysis included an extensive review of biological resources at or near the project site, and no adverse effect was found with respect to the Cooper's hawk or other birds or their eggs. Specifically, the report found:
• The project site does not contain sensitive biological resources, including suitable habitat for listed threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species. • The site is not located in a designated critical habitat, wilderness area, or wildlife preserve.
• The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed, No wetlands or riparian areas occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project will not result in any impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters.

Further, in order to address concerns raised about the Cooper's hawk, AT&T will agree to conduct a nesting study before construction commences to ensure that any state or federally- protected birds, including the Cooper's hawk, are not identified as actively nesting in and around the project site. AT&T will certainly accept a reasonable condition of approval to this effect.

The appellant and her attorney have more recently suggested that the City should deny AT&T's application based on the timing of its federal-law analysis. But that would not be appropriate - the city's decision needs to be based on the city's regulations. As City Staff noted during the Planning Commission hearing, federal-law processes that are still playing out are "separate and apart from" the city's zoning decision now before you on appeal.

Coverage Gap. The appellant takes issue with AT&T's demonstration of its coverage gap. As you can see from the coverage maps submitted in connection with AT&T's application, which were submitted as part of a document dated January 27, 2023, and which are also appended as exhibits to AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement (Attachment A), AT&T has a significant gap in its 4G LTE service coverage across a large portion of the city. As the Radio Frequency Statement explains, areas shaded in yellow and pink are areas where signal strengths are too weak to provide adequate and reliable in-building level of service. AT&T (like its competitors) builds its wireless network to provide adequate and reliable in-building service, which the Proposed Facility will provide to close the gap.

The appellant points instead to AT&T's online coverage viewer website that shows some coverage in the area. Importantly, as the legend and "learn more" link on that online map explain, those maps only a high-level approximation of outdoor service coverage. The appellant also points to the FCC's broadband maps to try to make the same point that AT&T has some service coverage in the area. But the FCC maps also do not depict in-building service coverage.

In other words, this is not evidence of a lack of a gap.

City of Huntington Beach City Council
July 14, 2023

Federal courts have made clear that online tools like these websites are not substantial evidence of the lack of a gap. Instead, as AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement explains, AT&T's network design engineers use much more sophisticated computer models to depict and predict actual coverage scenarios based on a host of variables that take into account AT&T's network, the built environment, and the natural environment. AT&T's evidence of its significant service coverage gap is precisely what federal courts rely on in the context of considering effective prohibition claims under the Act. AT&T's evidence here shows a very clear and significant gap.

Noise. The appellant contends the Proposed Facility will violate the noise ordinance, but offers no study showing so, nor any basis for that belief. There is no indication the Proposed Facility will not comply fully with the city's rules. The generator - which AT&I would have a state-law right to install in any event (see Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75) - will operate only when maintained and in emergencies. As is typical for such facilities, AT&T will certainly accept a reasonable condition of approval to comply with the city's noise regulations.

Conclusion
AT&T is working diligently to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services in this area. AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed, requires) approval, and there has been no substantial evidence proffered on which the county could deny AT&T's application. AT&T urges the City Council to deny the appeal and affirm approval of AT&T's application.

Aaron M. Shank
Attachment A: AT&T Radio Frequency Statement
Attachment B: AT&T Alternative Sites Analysis
Attachment C: EBI Consulting Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report Attachment D: Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. Findings of Biological Evaluation Cc: Hayden Beckman, Senior Planner ([email protected]) 22820061v1

ATTACHMENT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
AT&T has experienced an unprecedented increase in mobile data use on its network since the release of the iPhone in 2007. AT&T estimates that since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has increased 470,000% on its network. AT&T forecasts its customers' growing demand for mobile data services to continue. The increased volume of data travels to and from customers' wireless devices and AT&T's wireless infrastructure over limited airwaves — radio frequency spectrum that AT&T licenses from the Federal Communications Commission.

Spectrum is a finite resource and there are a limited number of airwaves capable and available for commercial use. Wireless carriers license those airwaves from the FCC. To ensure that service quality, AT&T must knit together its spectrum assets to address customers' existing usage and forecasted demand for wireless services, and it must use its limited spectrum in an efficient manner.

AT&T uses high-band (i.e., 6 GHz and higher), mid-band (i.e., C-band, 2300 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 1900 MHz) and low-band (i.e., 850 MHz and 700 MHz) spectrum to provide wireless service. Each spectrum band has different propagation characteristics and signal quality may vary due to noise or interference based on network characteristics at a given location. To address this dynamic environment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its licensed spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. The proposed wireless communications facility at 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach (the "Property") is needed to close coverage gap in 4G LTE service in an area roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south, and Sampson Lane to the west. This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools, parks churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity.

The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate infrastructure in the area. AT&T currently has existing sites in the broader geographical area surrounding the Property but, as Exhibit 1 illustrates, these existing sites do not provide sufficient 4G LTE service in the gap area.

To meet its coverage objectives, AT&T needs to construct a new wireless communications facility.

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 Wireless telecommunications is a line-of-sight technology, and AT&T's antennas need to be high enough propagate an effective signal throughout the gap area. To meet its coverage objectives for this gap area, AT&T proposes a new stealth wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a 60-foot tall faux broadleaf tree. Denial of this proposed facility or a reduction in height would materially inhibit AT&T's ability to provide and improve wireless services in this portion of the city.

The facility at the Property will help close the gap in coverage and help address rapidly increasing data usage driven by smart phone and tablet usage. This site is part of an effort to fully deploy 4G LTE technology in the area. Specifically, the proposed facility will close this service coverage gap and provide reliable 4G LTE service for AT&T customers in the affected area. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file once you've sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services. What's more, LTE uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience.

It is important to understand that service problems can and do occur for customers even in locations where the coverage maps on AT&T's "Coverage Viewer" website appear to indicate that coverage is available. As the legend to the Coverage Viewer maps indicates, these maps display approximate coverage. Actual coverage in an area may differ from the website map graphics, and it may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, network changes, foliage, buildings, construction, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors.

It is also important to note that the signal losses, slow data rates, and other service problems can and do occur for customers even at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may not experience any problems on AT&T's network. These problems can and do occur even when certain customers' wireless phones indicate coverage bars of signal strength on the handset.

The bars of signal strength that individual customers can see on their wireless phones are an imprecise and slow-to-update estimate of service quality. In other words, a customer's wireless phone can show coverage bars of signal strength, but that customer will still, at times, be unable to initiate voice calls, complete calls, or download data reliably and without service interruptions due to service quality issues.

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 To determine where equipment needs to be located for the provisioning of reliable service in any area, AT&T's radio frequency engineers rely on far more complex tools and data sources than just signal strength from individual phones. AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable service quality. This information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which simulate the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers receive reliable in-building service quality. This level of service is critical as customers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 81% of California adults, and more than 98% of Californians under age 18, rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes. And California households rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, video streaming, GPS, web access, text, etc.). In fact, the FCC conservatively estimates that 74% of 911 calls are placed by people using wireless phones.

The proposed facility at the Property is also a part of AT&T's commitment to supporting public safety through its partnership with FirstNet, the federal First Responder Network Authority.

Conceived by the 9/11 Commission Report as necessary for first responder communications, Congress created the federal First Responder Network Authority, which selected AT&T to build and manage FirstNet, the first-ever nationwide first-responder wireless network. The proposed facility will provide new service on Band 14, which is the nationwide high-quality spectrum set aside by the U.S. government for public safety. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by putting advanced wireless technologies into the hands of public safety agencies and first responders.

Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of the existing 4G LTE service coverage (without the proposed installation at the Property) in the area at issue. It includes 4G LTE service coverage provided by other existing AT&T sites. The green shaded areas of the map depict acceptable in- building coverage. In-building coverage means customers are able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-vehicle service coverage. In these areas, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a vehicle. The pink and white shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer might have difficulty receiving a consistently 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: BD1C9731-12A3-41DD-9C0B-478863182E83 acceptable level of service. The quality of service experienced by any individual customer can differ greatly depending on whether that customer is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit.

Any area in the yellow, pink, or white category is considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap.

Exhibit 2 is a map that predicts 4G LTE service coverage based on signal strength in the vicinity of the Property if the proposed facility is constructed as proposed in the application. As shown by this map, constructing the proposed facility at the Property closes this significant service coverage gap.

My conclusions are based on my knowledge of the Property and with AT&T's wireless network, as well as my review of AT&T's records with respect to the Property and its wireless telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from Mapua Institute of Technology in Manila, Philippines, and have worked as an engineering expert in the wireless communications industry - DocuSigned by:
for more than 30 years.

Allankar
- AE22A131A79477...

Albert Landicho
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Vetwork, Planning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
May 2023
22481802v1
Existing 4G LTE Coverage Before Site CLL01310
EXHIBIT 1
Starter or Pleasapt Lily Ave LEGEND (Coverage Signal)
5 View
Ross SchooCLL03424 75dBm Indone Signal
Murdy Park: 85 Ban In-Vehicie Signal
Lamazer Dr
EDENWEST - y8clm Outdoor Signal
Christian Rancho send De. 15A
High School Eic mentar:

School School
Warner Ave Wintersburg
Occart View San Diego Svy S
Haqua
Ocean View High Scho@CLL03736 ypress D. = palomat
sailie Do Rotter
Oal idalusia Ave La Capilla Ave
Elemendo View
Betty Er Frimlend Dr * Estrella Ave & Portal Circle
School
Guilders Dr Santy Si San Diego Fwy
impita fac
Ford Dr
Elmi
Nirnrod Dr CEL01310 D LatE Ls Colonia Ave
School Slater Ave
Slater acl Sister Nowlend St Valley ©CLL03425
Elementary El Vaile Ave
School Vista
Cont
Micheel Dr El Capit High
School
Liberty Park
Huntington Central Park •E FabEr El Comino Ave
15 Fountain Valley
Middic
High School
Hantington
Beach
Bon de la tospital
La Amupala Ave
Sio chich Ave
Good Shepherd Cemetery ab
Catholic Cometries Dincese pi Orange Salmon ar
Talbert Asc Talbert Ave Talben ave Fait Talbert
Crest View
Elementary
School
©CLL03433 Sterling Dr ine Piver Are
Proposed Macro Site
Rague Pier Pis
©CLL03435 Taylor Dr Existing Macro Sites
4G LTE Coverage After Site CLL01310
EXHIBIT 2
Pleasant Lily Ave LEGEND (Coverage Signal)
View
SchooCLL03424 75l1m Indone Signal
Murdy Park
85/Em In Vehick Signal
DENWEST -98 Em Outdoor Signal
Liber Rogue LA
Christia bond Dr I5A Pravan
High Eic-mentar:

School School
Warner Ave Wintersburg San Diego Say
Ocean View
Ln
Blaylock Dr cominen Ln Rania
Ocean View High Scho@CLL03736 Cypress Dr Rotterdam
Marseille Or
oak Valencis Dr Le CastE ndalusia Ave La Capilla Ave.

Betty Dr Elementary Friesland Dr La Estrella Ave 4) Porlal Circle School
Gurders Dr
In 0bJION Santa Isabet St San Diego Fuy N
Ford Or
Queen: Li. Blvel • La Latina isa Elm
Nirnrod Dr
CEL01310 D Loke" a Colonia Ave
Slater Ave Slater View awland St Slater Ave
Elementary Valley ®CLL03425
El Valle Ave
Schoal ViSTe
Morgan Ln Conn
Michael Dr Hinh
Speer Dr School
Liberty Park
Liberty Or
Runtington Central Park ¿ Fulter *El Comino Ave
Newman Ave Middle Fountain Valigy
school High School
Huntington
Ronald Di Ronald Ad. Beach
Haspital
ard La Anupola Ave
Sio cash Ave
Good Shepherd Cemetery bust
Catholic Cornetties Diocese of Crange (almor ArD.

Talbert Av Talbert Ave Talbert Ave
Crest View Pullin Ave
Elementary imst
School cove
©CLL03433 Sterling Dr Rhine River Ase
Gothard St Proposed Macro Site
©CLL03435 Fogue Pier Are
Taylot Dr Existing Macro Sites

ATTACHMENT B
Alternative Sites Analysis
at&t

PROPOSED MONOEROADLEAF

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
ATOL

PROPOSED PARKING BOLLARDS
AT&T Mobility
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
at
8101 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Site ID: CLL01310
Introduction
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T"') has a significant gap in its service coverage in the City of Huntington Beach and, therefore, needs to deploy a new wireless communications facility ("WCF"). AT&T proposes to construct a stealth facility designed to appear as a 60-foot tall broadleaf tree ("mono-broadleaf") ("Proposed Facility") located in this commercial zoning district. The Proposed Facility consists of 20 panel antennas (four sets of five antennas) with a tip height of 55 feet above ground, and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage. The related equipment will be housed in a 16-foot by 25-foot, four- inch lease space enclosed by an 8-foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color as a means to fill this gap in coverage. The Proposed Facility is designed to minimize visual impacts, blend with the predominant visual backdrop and the existing environment, and the antennas will be obscured by the faux tree branches and foliage. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap of the alternatives investigated by AT&T as explained below.

Objective
AT&T Mobility has identified a significant gap in its service coverage in the City of Huntington Beach, in an area roughly bordered by Lowe's Garden Center along Warner Avenue to the north, Magnolia Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the south, and Sampson Lane to the west. This portion of Huntington Beach includes many hundreds of homes in several neighborhoods, commercial areas along and near Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Morgan Lane, commercial and light industrial areas between Sampson Lane and Morgan Lane, a hospital and health care facilities, schools, parks churches, and other points of interest in the immediate vicinity. The service coverage in this portion of the City is described in the accompanying Radio Frequency Statement.

Methodology and Zoning Criteria
The location of a WCF to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, changes in elevation, zoning, existing structures, collocation opportunities, available utilities, access and a willing landlord. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires WCFs to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be served.

AT&T seeks to fill a significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under the values expressed in the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code, including Section 230.96 of the City Zoning Code, regarding Wireless Communication Facilities. In particular, under Code Section 230.96(A), the City prefers sites in commercial and industrial zoning districts, and discourages sites in residential zoning districts.
2 Analysis
AT&T developed a search area to identify where a new wireless telecommunications facility needs to be located to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap in this portion of Huntington Beach. AT&T searched for, but did not identify viable collocation opportunities in the gap area. Because most of the area is residential in character, and sites in residential locations are less preferred, AT&T searched for sites in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Thus, AT&T identified the Proposed Facility as the best available and least intrusive means to close the gap. The following map shows the locations of the search ring center (blue pin), the Proposed Facility (green pin), and the alternative sites that AT&T investigated (yellow pins).

Location of Candidate Sites

THEA PRIS
ington Beach Hospita
Proposed Facility - Faux Broadleaf Tree, 8101 Slater Avenue

PROPOSED MONOBROADLEAF
AOL

PROPOSED PARKING BOLLARDS
Conclusion: Based upon location, a willing landlord and the superior coverage as shown in the proposed coverage map included in AT&T's Radio Frequency Statement, the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means for AT&T to meet its service coverage objective.

The project location is in a commercial zoning district along Slater Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. AT&T' Proposed Facility will be a stealth design as a 60-foot tall faux broadleaf tree consisting of 20 panel antennas (four sets of five antennas) with a tip height of 55 feet above ground, and topped with an additional five feet of faux branches and foliage. The related equipment will be housed in a 16-foot by 25-foot, four-inch lease space enclosed by an 8- foot tall CMU wall painted sandstone in color. The Proposed Facility is designed to minimize visual impacts, blend with the predominant visual backdrop and the existing environment, and the antennas will be obscured by the faux tree branches and foliage. The Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means to fill AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 4 Alternative Site 1 - Huntington Beach Assistance League, 8071 Slater Avenue Conclusion: Unavailable.

This building is in a Commercial General (CG) zoning district located close to the Proposed Facility. There is not enough space for a new WCF here without taking up parking spaces.

Consequently, the property owner declined to lease space.

Alternative Site 2 - Ocean Plaza, 17011 Beach Boulevard

OCBAN MEDLA
Cunnie Bank
Conclusion: Unavailable.

This property is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately 0.4 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. The property owner were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF.
6 Alternative Site 3 - Lowe's Parking Lot, 8175 Warner Avenue CI
100 3
Conclusion: Unavailable
This business is in a Commercial General (CG) zoning district approximately 0.5 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. A freestanding WCF could be placed in the parking lot of this business, but the property owner were not interested in leasing space to AT&T for a WCF. 7 Alternative Site 4 - SCE Substation, Corner of Warner Avenue and B Lane Conclusion: Infeasible.

This utility substation is located near Lowe's (Alternative 3) and is approximately 0.5 mile to the north from the Proposed Facility. There is insufficient space on this property to place a WCF.

Alternative Site 5 - Empty Car Lot, 17262 Beach Boulevard Conclusion: Unavailable.

This vacant lot is in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately 0.2 mile to the west from the Proposed Facility. The property owner did not show any interest in response to inquiries regarding siting a WCF here.

Alternative Site 6 - A 1st Impression Full-Service Sign Shop, 17191 Beach Boulevard Conclusion: Unavailable.

This business is in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately 0.3 mile to the northwest from the Proposed Facility. The property owner did not show any interest in response to inquiries regarding siting a WCF here.
10 Alternative 7 - Security Public Storage, 7676 Slater Avenue Conclusion: Infeasible.

This business is located in an Industrial General (IG) zoning district approximately 0.4 mile to the west from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the west to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 11 Alternative 8 - Walgreens, 17522 Beach Boulevard
24 MR
Conclusion: Infeasible.

This business is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately 0.1 mile to the southwest from the Proposed Facility. There is not sufficient ground space to place a freestanding WCF, and the building is too short for a rooftop WCF to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap.
12 Alternative 9 - Lake View Park, Along Slater Avenue & Zeider Lane Conclusion: Infeasible; more intrusive than Proposed Facility.

This park is located approximately one quarter of a mile to the northeast from the Proposed Facility. A new WCF in this park would interfere with park uses, including taking up a soccer field.
13 Alternative 10 - Huntington Beach Hospital, 17772 Beach Boulevard Conclusion: Infeasible; more intrusive than Proposed Facility.

This hospital is located in a Specific Plan (SP-14) zoning district approximately one-third of a mile to the south from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the south to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap. 14 Alternative 11 - Westmont Park, Fountain Valley
Westmont Pa
Slater Ave Slater Ave
Conclusion: Infeasible.

This park is located more than 0.5 mile to the east from the Proposed Facility. This location is outside of AT&T's engineering search area and is too far to the east to close AT&T's significant service coverage gap.

Overall Conclusion
The Proposed Facility, as redesigned, is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap. Denial of the site or a reduction in height will materially inhibit AT&T from providing and improving wireless service in this portion of the City. 15 ATTACHMENT C
Radio Frequency - Electromagnetic Energy
(RF-EME) Compliance Report
Site Number: CLL01310
RFDS ID: 5704878
Pace Number: MRLOS07753|
HBCC
8101 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92647
Orange County

33.70892500; - | 17.98740600 NAD83
Monotree
The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage.

EBI Project No. 6223001835
May 18, 2023
RaSa
Prepared for:

AT&T Mobility, LLC
c/o Smartlink, LLC
3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 300
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared by:
sEnsulting
environmental | engineering | due diligence
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBl Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...

1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS 3

2.0 AT&T RF ExPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .. .. 5
WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING.. 5
RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN. 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS…... .. 8

6.0 LIMItATIONs.. .. 8

APPENDICES
Appendix A Personnel Certifications
Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan
EBI Consulting + 2l B Street + Burlington, MA 0|803 • 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBl Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) modeling for AT&T Site CLL01310 located at 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1.0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF-EME fields.

This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
• Site Plan with antenna locations
• Graphical representation of theoretical ME fields based on modeling • Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers This document addresses the compliance of AT&T's transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site.

Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards.

As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.

As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers.

AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan
AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that:

I. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;

2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and

3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.

Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBl's understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 20 | 4.

EBI Consulting • 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLLO1310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California The following signage is recommended at this site:
• Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder.

The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report.

EBI Consulting • 2l B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California

1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP.

The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public.

Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.

General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area.

Table | and Figure | (below), which are included within the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are "time-averaged" limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures.

The FCC's MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm?) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC's occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm? and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm?. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC's occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm?. These limits are considered protective of these populations.

Table I: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Range Electric Field Magnetic Field Averaging Time (MHz) Strength (E) Power Density (S)
Strength (H) (mW/cm?) [E]', [H]', or S
(V/m) (A/m) (minutes)

0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6

3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/P)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1,500 - -- f/300 6
1,500-100,000 -- 5 6
EBI Consulting * 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 + 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLLO1310 EBl Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California (B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency Range Electric Field Magnetic Field Averaging Time Power Density (S) [ET, [H], or S
(MHz) Strength (E) Strength (H) (mW/cm?)
(V/m) (A/m) (minutes)

0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/P)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1,500 - f/1,500 30
1,500-100,000 - 1.0 30
f = Frequency in (MHz)
* Plane-wave equivalent power density
Figure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density
1,000 г T T T T -
• Occupational/Controlled Exposure
-- General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
100-
10 Power Density (mW/cm?)
1-

0.2+

0.1L 300 30,000

0.03 3 13,000 1 300,000

1.34 1,500 100,000
Frequency (MHZ)
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below:

Approximate Occupational Public MPE
Personal Wireless Service MPE
Frequency
Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm? 1.00 mW/cm? Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/ст? 1.00 mW/cm? Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm? 1.00 mW/cm? Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm? 1.00 mW/cm? Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm? 1.00 mW/cm? Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm? 0.58 mW/cm?
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm? 0.57 mW/cm? Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm? 0.47 mW/cm? [Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm? 0.20 mW/cm? MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health.

EBI Consulting • 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 4 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables.

Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.

This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas.

2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS
AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, requires that:

I. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;

2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and

3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.

Pursuant to this guidance, worst-case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBl has produced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0.

3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING
In accordance with AT&T's RF Exposure policy, EBl performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster TM software to estimate the worst-case power density at the site rooftop and ground-level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster™ is a widely-used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" (OET-65), RoofMaster ™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster ™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers.

For this report, EBl utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst-case MPE levels to the FCC's occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65.

The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site.

EBI Consulting • 2l B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 5 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBl Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.

At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the adjacent roof level, the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 76.01 percent of the FCC's general public limit (15.20 percent of the FCC's occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 76.01 percent of the FCC's general public limit (15.20 percent of the FCC's occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. Based on worst- case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 17.86 percent of the FCC's general public limit (3.572 percent of the FCC's occupational limit).

A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B.

Microwave dish antennas are designed for point-to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. All microwaves on site are considered compliant with AT&T's guidance and were not included in the modeling analysis.

EBI Consulting • 2l B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 + 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLLO1310 EBI Project No. 622300|835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California

4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN
Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must:
• Be posted at a conspicuous point;
• Be posted at the appropriate locations;
Be readily visible; and
Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area.

The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations.

CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs
NOTICE
NOTICE ((g)) ((g))
F energy emitted by this antenna may exceed the FCC NOTICE posure limits for the general populatio A36T eperates asteross at his see.

Stay at least 1 feet away from the antenna. DECAL
tell Ceral Pog. he fine el
Call AT&T at 800-638-2822, option 9 then 3, for help if you need access within STONTHOUSE FOOTA

TRILINGUAL
NOTICE NOTICE 2
NOTICE A CAUTION® A CAUTION
AT&T operates antennas at this structure.
this point you are entering an
area whero radio frequency (RF) fields
may exceed the FCC General Population
exposure limits.
allow safety guidelines for working in: NOTICE Beat Tin Post you are estedag an area F environmei
la The Striped Area you are enterisg as area
Intenas?. away from the fronts of the SIGN
Costet AIST a B30 618-2812, oştion9 and 3. Fellow safety goldenes forwardisg in an if intact AT&T at 800-638-2822, opt. S and foretter instraties priccis perfoning eminesment, 1 follow their instructions pr to mactesasce orregats beyond this point. Centact A/BT at 800-535-2811, eyn 9 and 3, performing any maintenance or repairs
CAUTION 2 -
This is AT&T Site USID.

MOHOM
ROOFTOP CAUTION 2A
'A CAUTION A CAUTION®

A CAUTION A
Onthis tower:

F energy emitted by this antenna may exceed the FCC CAUTION Berned Tan Post you are enteriog as arra :cupational exposure limit:

Stay at least 1 feet away from the antenna. DECAL retenanty tears a weigh se Call AT&T at 800-638-2822, option 9 then 3, for holp If you need access within 1 foot. STONE USE RE900
CAUTION 2B - CAUTION 2C -

TOWER PARAPETS

A CAUTION & A WARNING AWARNING
AT&T operates antennas at this structure.
s point you are entering
a where radio frequency (RF) fie
may exceed the FCC Occupational
exposure limits.
ollow safety guidelines for working in ai CAUTION
Fenvironment
Intenas. away from the fronts of the SIGN
Me to filla sifety quid lots for marl
or tat 40612. 0-61-2822 elangard:
performing any maintenance or repairs beyond is part sitesses ears chine midare above this point.

Cell Site USID_
WARNING IB WARNING 2A
EBl Consulting • 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 7 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Based upon protocols presented in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site:
• Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder.

No barriers are required for this site. Barriers should be constructed of weather-resistant plastic or wood fencing. Barriers may consist of railing, rope, chain, or weather-resistant plastic if no other types are permitted or are feasible. Painted stripes should only be used as a last resort and only in regions where there is little chance of snowfall. If painted stripes are selected as barriers, it is recommended that the stripes and signage be illuminated. The signage and any barriers are graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B.

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EBl has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 8101 Slater Avenue in Huntington Beach, California.

EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T's corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT's proposed antennas that exceed the FCC's occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.

To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBl recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B. Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T's corporate RF safety policies.

6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T's corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBl and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

EBI Consulting * 2l B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 8 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLLO1310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Appendix A
Personnel Certifications
EBI Consulting • 2l B Street • Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 9 --EME Compliance Repoi USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 3l Project No. 622300183 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Preparer Certification
I, Jos Schorr, state that:
• I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry.

I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards 'rom RF-EME and would be classified "occupational" under the FCC regulations • Comful tons of and on ac ith the Dupand guaran of abort the Federal. (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation.

I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T's RF Exposure: Responsibilitie:
rocedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF-EME modeling using RoofMaster ™ modeling software.
• I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

EBI Consulting * 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 10 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 622300|835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Appendix B
Compliance/Signage Plan
EBI Consulting • 21 B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 325207 Site No. CLL01310 EBI Project No. 6223001835 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Nearest Walking Surface Simulation
N
RESIDENCES=20'
GROUND LEVEL=0*

EQUIPMENT-S

SECTOR A

S'SECTOR D

SECTOR B

ACAUTION -
Proposed CAUTION
2B Sign at Base of
Monotree

SECTOR C
Percent MPE Legend
0% - 100%
GROUND LEVEL-O: | ADJACENT BUILDING=26' - 100% - 500%
• 500% - 5000%
• 5000% +
General Population Limits
Sula 09
FarField Overlay
Reflection (1.6)
10 foot grid size
(Avg: 26 to 32 Feet)
Carier Color Code
) Атт

SIGN IDENTIFICATION LEGEND
AT&T NOTICE 2 Sign AT&T CAUTION 2 - Rooftop Sign
Existing Sign ACAUTON"
AT&T WARNING IB and 2A Signs AT&T CAUTION 2B - Tower Sign Proposed Sign A camel
AT&T NOTICE Small Cell Signs AT&T CAUTION 2C - Parapet Sign Installed Sign
AT&T CAUTION Small Cell Signs AT&T TRILINGUAL NOTICE Sign EBI Consulting • 2l B Street + Burlington, MA 01803 • 1.800.786.2346 12

ATTACHMENT D
Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc.
€HD 71 San Marino Avenue Ventura, CA 93003
Office 805) 650-0949 Fax (805) 650-8054 www.easenv.com
June 02, 2023
AT&T Mobility, LLC
Subject: Findings of a Biological Evaluation
AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate CLL01310
8101 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, Orange County, California
Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. (EAS) is pleased to submit this letter report addressing the biological resources associated with the subject AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) facility located within the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California.

Telecommunication Site Description
The proposed project is generally located on the east side of State Route 39, south and west of Interstate 405, in Huntington Beach, CA. The proposed mono-broadleaf will be installed within an existing landscaped planter on the north side of an existing asphalt paved church parking lot. The associated equipment compound will be installed within an existing landscaped planter in the northwest corner of the church property. The church property is located on the north side of Slater Avenue, east of the Beach Boulevard intersection, in Huntington Beach, CA. The proposed project is in Section 25 of Township 05S, Range 11W as shown on the USGS, Newport Beach, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

AT&T proposes the installation of 20 antennas (5 per sector, 4 sectors) onto a new 60' tall mono- broadleaf. Additionally, 48 LTE RRU's (12 per sector, 4 sectors) will be stack mounted behind the proposed antennas. The associated telecommunications equipment cabinets and back-up generator will be installed within a new 25'-4" x 16 CMU wall lease area. Additional ground disturbance will be required for the installation of utilities to the proposed project. Two established palm trees will be removed for the installation of the proposed mono-broadleaf. Two eucalyptus trees will be removed for the installation of the CMU wall equipment compound.

Methods
A biologist has evaluated any biological resources present on, adjacent to, or near the project site.

The evaluation has been performed through a combination of research by EAS and a review of reference materials provided by AT&T. The evaluation's purpose is to determine whether the proposed action could potentially affect any biological resources. The biologist paid attention to the presence or potential occurrence of sensitive biological resources and the potential occurrence of wetlands.

Project Biologist Martyn Leaver conducted a literature review to determine the potential for occurrence, on and near the project site, of sensitive plant and animal species as defined by the following:
• The California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society 2023).
• Telecommunication site plans provided by AT&T.
• The National Wetlands Inventory On-line Wetlands Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2023). • The U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map (Wilderness.net). • The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Game 2023). • The National Wildlife Refuge System On-line Map (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2023). • The Environmental Conservation Online System FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Online Mapper (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2023).

Results/Impact Analysis
The proposed mono-broadleaf will be installed within an existing landscaped planter of an existing church parking lot, in Huntington Beach, CA. Ground disturbance will occur within existing landscaped planters within the asphalt paved parking lot of the church property. Trenching across the existing asphalt parking lot will be required to supply utilities from the mono-broadleaf to the equipment compound, then out to the utility POC within the Slater Avenue ROW. The site is subject to disturbance from frequent pedestrian use, vehicular traffic and routine maintenance activities associated with the church property.

Land use adjacent to the project site generally consists of commercial properties in all directions.

Established eucalyptus trees line the west side of the property. No undeveloped natural land occurs within the development footprint. Installation of the proposed facility will not result in any impacts to any native vegetation communities or suitable habitat for any sensitive plant or wildlife species.

Based on the information provided by AT&T and EAS' biological evaluation:
• The project site does not contain sensitive biological resources, including suitable habitat for listed threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species.

The site is not located in a designated critical habitat, wilderness area, or wildlife preserve.

The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed. No wetlands or riparian areas occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project will not result in any impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters.

Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB)
The project is located outside of the NLEB's range. Therefore, no further action with USFWS or FCC is needed.

Nesting Birds
The established trees to be removed and those adjacent to the proposed trenching route provide suitable nesting habitat for several avian species. Therefore, pursuant to the MBTA and CFG Code, removal of vegetation or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season.

The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 30.

If construction activity occurs during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting survey will be required to determine if nesting activity occurs on site. If during the survey no nesting activity is observed, no further action is required. If nesting activity is observed, construction activity can proceed after the We at EAS appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project.

Sincerely,
Martyn Leaver
Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc.

National votanos inventory
sertace waters and weta los
BASEMASS > - Measun
SATTES
HIERD
Seses dive

OPEN STERET MAP
USGS TOrO

MATEMAN

MAP LAYERS M
Netanas
• tonassa
O mare a
mas tea
tendim
• •
O C
esa
Wetlands / Street Map
8101 Slater Ave, Huntington Beach,
Add to Map Notes +
111
Topographical Map/ Critical Habitat
A review of the CNDDB and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants resulted in a list of 72 sensitive wildlife species, 04 sensitive plant community(s), and 29 sensitive plant species that occur within the Newport Beach, CA USGS topographic quadrangle.

Element Type Scientific Name Common Name
Animals - Birds Accipiter cooperii Coopers hawk
Animals - Birds Circus hudsonius northern harrier
Animals - Birds Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
Animals - Birds Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Animals - Birds Bucephala islandica Barrows goldeneye
Animals - Birds Ardea alba great egret
Animals - Birds Ardea herodias great blue heron
Animals - Birds Egretta thula snowy egret
Animals - Birds Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron Animals - Birds Charadrius montanus mountain plover
Animals - Birds Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover Animals - Birds Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo Animals - Birds Phoebastria albatrus short-tailed albatross Animals - Birds Falco columbarius merlin
Animals - Birds Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon Animals - Birds Gavia immer common loon
Animals - Birds Antigone canadensis canadensis lesser sandhill crane Animals - Birds Progne subis purple martin
Animals - Birds Riparia riparia bank swallow
Animals - Birds Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat
Animals - Birds Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike
Animals - Birds Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern
Animals - Birds Larus californicus California gull
Animals - Birds Sternula antillarum browni California least tern Animals - Birds Thalasseus elegans elegant tern
Animals - Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey
Animals - Birds Setophaga petechia yellow warbler
Animals - Birds Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Animals - Birds Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Beldings savannah sparrow Animals - Birds Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican Animals - Birds Nannopterum auritum double-crested cormorant Animals - Birds Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher Animals - Birds Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail
Animals - Birds Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Animals - Birds Rallus obsoletus levipes light-footed Ridgways rail Animals - Birds Numenius americanus long-billed curlew
Animals - Birds Asio flammeus short-eared owl
Animals - Birds Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
Animals - Birds Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis
Animals - Birds Calypte costac Costas hummingbird
Animals - Birds Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird
Animals - Birds Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus coastal cactus wren sandiegensis
Animals - Birds Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher Animals - Birds Vireo belli pusillus least Bell's vireo Animals - Crustaceans Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp Animals - Crustaceans Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp Animals - Fish Eucy clogobius newberryi tidewater goby
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 steelhead - southern California DPS Animals - Insects Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee
Animals - Insects Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee Animals - Insects Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle Animals - Insects Cicindela latesignata western beach tiger beetle Animals - Insects Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima greenest tiger beetle Animals - Insects Habroscelimorpha gabbii western tidal-flat tiger beetle Animals - Insects Panoquina errans wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper Animals - Insects Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population Animals - Insects Coelus globosus globose dune beetle
Animals - Mammals Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Animals - Mammals Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat Animals - Mammals Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat Animals - Mammals Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea ofter Animals - Mammals Taxidea taxus American badger
Animals - Mammals Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew Animals - Mammals Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
Animals - Mammals Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis
Animals - Mollusks Haliotis sorenseni white abalone
Animals - Mollusks Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Animals - Reptiles Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless lizard Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle
Animals - Reptiles Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard Animals - Reptiles Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail Community - Terrestrial Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
Community - Terrestrial Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Community - Terrestrial Southern Dune Scrub
Community - Terrestrial Southern Foredunes
Plants - Vascular Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery Plants - Vascular Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant Plants - Vascular Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii Los Angeles sunflower Plants - Vascular Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens decumbent goldenbush Plants - Vascular Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulters goldfields Plants - Vascular Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Plants - Vascular Nasturtium gambeli Gambel's water cress Plants - Vascular Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma
Plants - Vascular Atriplex coulteri Coulters saltbush
Plants - Vascular Atriplex pacifica south coast saltscale Plants - Vascular Atriplex serenana var, davidsonii Davidsons saltscale Plants - Vascular Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite
Plants - Vascular Suaeda taxifolia woolly seablite
Plants - Vascular Dudleya multicaulis
many-stemmed dudleya
Plants - Vascular Eleocharis parvula small spikerush
Plants - Vascular Astragalus hornii var. hornii Horns milk-vetch Plants - Vascular Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis south coast branching phacelia Plants - Vascular Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush Plants - Vascular Sidalcea neomexicana salt spring checkerbloom Plants - Vascular Nama stenocarpa mud nama
Plants - Vascular Abronia maritima red sand-verbena
Plants - Vascular Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena Plants - Vascular Camissoniopsis lewisii
Lewis evening-primrose
Plants - Vascular Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum salt marsh birds-beak Plants - Vascular Hordeum intercedens vernal barley
Plants - Vascular Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass Plants - Vascular Navarretic prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia Plants - Vascular Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata coast woolly-heads Plants - Vascular Lycium californicum California box-thorn

MARTYN LEAVER BIOLOGIST PROJECT MANAGER
Mr. Leaver is a Biologist, Graduated from University of Missouri, school PROFESSIONAL HISTORY of biological sciences. He has inventoried both plant and wildlife i Missouri, and consulted on Biological projects in California. Mr. Leave Environmental Assessment has performed and managed Environmental Assessments and Specialists Investigations for the past 21 years. Mr. Leaver has extensive knowledge of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Project Manager
Biologist

EDUCATION
B.A., Biological Sciences,
Miscui, ansas PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
City, School of
• Provided QA/QC review of environmental reports including Biological Sciences
arie tal Titoria screens, cultural else su, eye,
biological assessments.
• Managed environmental vendors for EAS West Region
(California) and Northwest Region (Washington).
• Participated in tracing source of E.coli contamination, in the Brush Creek Flood Control Project, Kansas City, Missouri. • Researched the effects of river bank construction on resident beaver populations along the Missouri River.
• Conducted fish population survey on Blue Springs Creek, Blue Springs, Missouri.
• Performed Biological resource investigations with Database searches using the California Natural Diversity Database, for light industrial, telecommunications, commercial facilities, residential developments and vacant parcels.