Z2021044 BOS REPORT.PDF

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date: August 4, 2021
Case #/Title: Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant/Owner: Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services / Superior L & L LLC
Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new wireless communication
facility (WCF) in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district
Site Location: Approx. 750 ft. southeast of the SEC of 7th Ave. and Desert Hills
Dr., in the New River area
Site Size: Approximately 1.7 acres
County Island Status: N/A
Additional
Comments: The requested WCF is proposed as an 80 ft. tall monopole
tower, 13 ft. diameter antenna array, within a 30 ft. x 35 ft.
compound screened by 10 ft. tall solid CMU walls. There is
significant opposition to the project due to the location,
height, and color of the WCF, among other concerns. The
Commission recommended denial of the request due mainly
to the number and substance of opposition comments. The
Commission was not satisfied with the Applicant’s responses
to the written and in-person opposition presented at hearing.
Seven (7) parties spoke in opposition at the hearing, citing
general concerns. As of the writing of this report, staff is aware
of 91 opponents to the request (comprising 71 opposition
petition signatories & 20 additional opposing parties). One
opposition comment, representing two parties, is from a
property within 300 ft. of the subject property. This level of
opposition has not triggered requirement for super-majority of
the Board for SUP approval. There are no outstanding
concerns from reviewing agencies.
Commission
Recommendation: On 7/8/21, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial
of Z2021044.
Staff
Recommendation: The staff report presented to the Commission included staff
recommendation for approval. In the event the Board
August 4, 2021
Z2021044
Page 1 of 3

motions for approval of Z2021044, staff suggests conditions
‘a’ – ‘i’:
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the combo
Site/Building Plan Set entitled “US-AZ-5068 HONDABOW”, consisting of 9 full-size
sheets, June 7, 2021, and stamped received June 11, 2021, except as modified by
the following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “US-AZ-5068 (HONDABOW)”, consisting of 17 pages, dated
May 18, 2021, and stamped received May 21, 2021, except as modified by the
following conditions.
c. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage
Plans are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must
go according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage
Policies and Standards and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
3. Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle
applicants to future designs that are not in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies
and Standards.
d. The following Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD)
condition shall apply:
1. It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced
project. Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff
report. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning
and Development Department procedures. Applicant may need to
submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the
Department. Review of any such application will be based on regulations
in force at the time of application.
e. The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 80’.
f. A Minor SUP Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the
Wireless Communication Facility.
August 4, 2021
Z2021044
Page 2 of 3

g. This special use permit is valid for a period of 20 years and shall expire on
August 4, 2041, or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days,
whichever occurs first. All site improvements associated with the special use permit
shall be removed within 90 days of such expiration or termination of use.
h. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
i. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on
the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply
with any condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the
property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is,
therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to
comply with any conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not
reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or
possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation
or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value
of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted
and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the
Special Use Permit had never been granted.
Presented by: Sean Watkins, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 7/8/21 P&Z Packet (99 pages)
7/8/21 P&Z Handout with opposition (6 pages)
7/8/21 P&Z Handout with opposition (4 pages)
Opposition received after P&Z (3 pages)
P&Z Appeal Form (1 page)
Note: 7/8/21 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can be
provided upon request later when available.
August 4, 2021
Z2021044
Page 3 of 3

Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Hearing Date: July 8, 2021
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant: Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services
Owner: Superior L & L LLC
Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new wireless communication facility in
the Rural-43 RUPD Zoning District
Site Location: Approx. 750 ft. southeast of the SEC of 7th Ave. and Desert Hills Dr., in
the New River area
Site Size: Approx. 1.7 acres
Density: N/A
County Island: No
County Plan: Daisy Mountain / New River - Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac)
Municipal Plan: N/A
Municipal Comments: None received to date
Opposition: 83 Opponents (71 opposition petition signatories & 12 additional
opposing parties).
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Z2021044
Page 1 of 11

Project Summary:
1. The Applicant, Gary Cassel, Clear Blue Services, on behalf of Vertical Bridge, T-Mobile
and the property owner, is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a new Wireless
Communication Facility (WFC) in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district. The subject property is
parcel 211-23-014F, located approximately 750 ft. southeast of the southeast corner of
the intersection of 7th Avenue and Desert Hills Drive, in the New River area (subject
property). The subject lot split property is rectangular, generally flat and comprises
approximately 1.7 acres. The subject property is bounded by a Rural-43 designated
property to the west and Rural-43 RUPD properties to the north, east and south. A vacant,
Arizona State Trust Land property bounds the subject property to the north and south, a
vacant, privately-owned property bounds to the west and a privately-owned property
with apparent accessory buildings bounds to the east.
2020 Aerial Photograph of
Subject Property (Outlined in Red)
2. The proposed 80 ft. tall WCF tower will be within a new 30 ft. x 35 ft. (1,050 sq. ft.) lease
area compound, located in the northern half of the subject property. The tower will be
painted brown to decrease its visual/aesthetic effects. The compound will include new
equipment cabinets and electrical service, and will be enclosed by a 10 ft. tall CMU wall.
The 10 ft. tall CMU wall is to minimize noise that may emanate from equipment cabinet
cooling fans (already limited because, according to the Applicant, the equipment
cabinets are designed to minimize noise) and to screen the lease area compound.
Z2021044
Page 2 of 11

3. The Applicant provided mapping of the current level of T-Mobile wireless service in the
area of the subject property and how the proposed WCF would improve that service
with an 80 ft. tall tower as opposed to a 65 ft. tall tower. Currently, the T-Mobile wireless
level of service in the area is characterized by full-strength signal for calls made outdoors,
with slightly less signal strength in cars, but inside residences most calls would be blocked
or dropped due to weak signal that cannot reliably penetrate buildings. This level of
service is shown by the yellow area, which extends approximately 1.5 miles to the west,
north and east, and approximately 1 mile south, of the subject property where signal
strength increases in areas shown in light blue. Signal strength is non-existent in the areas
shown in white, with increasing strength shown by brown, yellow, light blue and dark
green area, where the signal is strongest. According to the Applicant, signal strength is
improved with the 65 ft. tall tower; however, the coverage does not extend to other
T-Mobile 5G towers, which is significant because the 5G system depends on strong signals
between the towers to achieve optimal levels of service.
Existing Signal Strength
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Z2021044
Page 3 of 11

Signal Strength with 65 ft. Tall Tower
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Signal Strength with 80 ft. Tall Tower
(Subject Property Identified with Pink Circle)
Z2021044
Page 4 of 11

4. The applicant has requested several development standard modifications in
accordance with the SUP process, as follows (MCZO Sec. 304 and Art. 1202.2.8). The 80 ft.
tall tower complies with the 80 ft. height limitation for WCFs in Rural and Residential zones;
however, it does not meet the 2 ft. of setback per 1 ft. in height requirement
(MCZO Arts. 1202.3.1.1.a and 1202.3.1.1.g). Accordingly, a development standard
modification is requested to provide for the proposed 80 ft. setback from the west and
north subject property boundaries and 140 ft. setback from the east subject property
boundary, where 160 ft. setbacks are required (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g). The proposed
antenna array is 13 ft. in diameter where the maximum diameter is 8 ft.
(MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.h). Accordingly, a development standard modification is
requested to provide for the 13 ft. antenna array. A final development standard
modification is requested to eliminate the 25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) that would
typically be required for a WCF where the driveway meets the public street
(MCZO Art. 1111.4.3).
Excerpt of Proposed Site Plan
Z2021044
Page 5 of 11

5. According to the Assessor, the subject lot split property is 1 of 3 parcels created from 2
parent parcels, completed on January 13, 2021. According to Planning and
Development records, the subject property is in the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district
established under zone change with overlay request Z2005023, approved by the Board
of Supervisors on January 4, 2006. The intent of Z2005023 was to provide for Cielo Grande,
a subdivision planned for the area for which a Preliminary Plat (S2005012) and two
subsequent Preliminary Plat time extensions (S206067 and S2007057) were approved, but
no Final Plat was ever approved and the Cielo Grande subdivision was never built. Even
so, the development standards approved under Z2005023 apply to the current, subject
property as well as the Rural-43 RUPD designated properties to the north, east and south.
The differences between the development standards implemented under Z2005023
Rural-43 RUPD and the current Rural-43 development standards are 1) 20 ft. interior side
yard setback where 30 ft. is the current standard, 2) 30 ft. rear yard setback where 40 ft.
is the current standard, 3) minimum 120 ft. lot width where 145 ft. is the current minimum,
and 4) minimum 35,000 sq. ft. lot area where 43,560 sq. ft. is the current minimum
(Z2005023 and MCZO Sec. 503). At approximately 220 ft. in width and 72,828 sq. ft., the
subject property exceeds the lot width and area requirements of the Rural-43 RUPD zone.
The other development standards of the Rural-43 RUPD zone do not affect the current
WCF proposal differently from the current Rural-43 zone standards.
Zoning Map
(Subject Property Outlined in Red)
Z2021044
Page 6 of 11

Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
6. On-site: Rural-43 RUPD / Residential
North: Rural-43 RUPD / Vacant
South: Rural-43 RUPD / Vacant
East: Rural-43 RUPD / Residential
West: Rural-43 / Vacant
Utilities and Services:
7. Water: N/A for proposed WCF
Wastewater: N/A for proposed WCF
School District: Deer Valley Unified School District #97
Fire: Daisy Mountain Fire District
Police: MCSO
Right-of-Way:
8. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
Major Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name Half-width Existing R/W Half-width Proposed R/W Future Classification
Desert Hills Dr. 40-ft 65-ft Minor Arterial
3rd Ave. 0-ft 0-ft Local
Adopted Plan:
9. Daisy Mountain/New River Area Plan (adopted November 20, 2019): Subject property
identified for single-family rural densities (0-1 d.u./ac.). Land Use Policy 3 (page 36) is to
“encourage utility and communication companies to provide visually and auditorily
sensitive solutions for equipment within the Planning Area.” Staff finds the current proposal
satisfies this policy by proposing to paint the cell tower brown and building a 10 ft. tall
CMU wall around the 30 ft. x 35 ft. lease area. The paint color is to minimize the visual
effect of the tower and the 10 ft. tall screen wall is to minimize equipment cabinet cooling
fan noise, which is already limited because, according to the Applicant, the equipment
cabinets are designed to minimize cooling fan noise.
Public Participation Summary:
10. The applicant complied with the Maricopa County Citizen Review Process with the
required posting of the site and notification by first class mail to adjacent property owners
within 300’ of the subject parcel, and to other interested parties. To date, Staff is aware
of 83 opposing parties 71 of whom are signatories to an objection/protest petition, dated
May 17, 2021, with opposition comments submitted by 12 additional parties. None of the
opposition comments are from owners of properties within 300 ft. of the subject property.
11. The Applicant held a public meeting on June 1, 2021, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the
Crossroads Church, 42425 New River Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85086. Staff did not attend this
meeting and was not involved in the notification / invitation process for it. According to
Z2021044
Page 7 of 11

the Applicant, there were 19 attendees, including 7 same-household couples, who
responded to meeting announcements the applicant sent to 65 addresses, including the
owners of all properties within 300 ft. of the subject property. An additional 200 notification
letters were apparently sent by Mr. Alan Muller to members of the New River/Desert Hills
Community Association (NRDHCA). According to the Applicant, the meeting attendees
included owners of properties located close to the subject property, and several of the
parties who signed the opposition petition of May 17, 2021. A copy of the public meeting
sign-in sheet is attached to this report. The Applicant felt that this meeting was productive
with cordial discussion of several issues as summarized in the Citizen Participation Results
Report; however, according to Mr. Muller, several meeting attendees felt that their
questions were not addressed. Thus, Mr. Muller requested that the Applicant hold a
second public meeting. Accordingly, the Applicant worked with Ed Taylor, President of
the NRDHCA to determine if the second public meeting was necessary. Mr. Taylor stated
that he emailed notification of the current request to more than 540 parties associated
with the NRDHCA on June 23, 2021 to invite questions to the Applicant (who’s contact
information was included) about the project. Mr. Taylor also stated that the current
request was discussed at the NRDHCA Board meeting of June 24, 2021 where no
objections were stated and it was determined that no more public meetings would be
necessary. Furthermore, the Applicant confirmed with Staff, in a June 27, 2021 email, that
he received no calls or emails in response to the NRDHCA notification of June 23, 2021.
12. The issues cited by the opposition comments include: 1) The proposed WCF location,
2) the proposed tower height of more than 65 ft., 3) the tower proposed to be painted
brown rather than treated to create a Corten (i.e. rusted) finish, 4) noise, 5) radiation,
6) tower setbacks, 7) impacts to adjacent property values, and 8) outdoor lighting.
13. Responding to each of those issues: 1) The proposed location of the WCF is allowed
by-right in all zones if the WCF meets the applicable development standards
(MCZO Sec. 1202). If the WCF does not meet the applicable development standards,
then the Board of Supervisors may allow it as a Special Use (MCZO Art. 1202.2.8). The
Applicant states that the proposed location is necessary to provide cell coverage in the
area. The current WCF is subject to a Special Use Permit because it is setback less than
160 ft. from 3 property lines, the array is greater than 13 ft. in diameter, and no SVTs are
to be provided. 2) The proposed 80 ft. tower height meets the height limit of
MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.a and Staff has no authority to require a lower maximum height. The
Applicant states that the proposed height is also necessary to provide cell coverage in
this area, which is essential for communications, including emergency communications.
3) The Applicant proposed to paint the tower brown to be similar to the existing APS
power poles, which have a Corten (rusted) finish. This color appears to comply with
MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.d. 4) The 10 ft. tall CMU wall proposed to surround the WCF
compound is intended to minimize any off-site noise. The only apparent source of noise
would be from equipment cooling fans, which are housed in cabinets the Applicant has
stated are designed to minimize fan noise. That sound dampening along with the 10 ft.
tall CMU wall and the distance of at least 300 ft. to the closest off-site residence combine
to minimize off-site noise impacts. 5) Radiation is an issue regulated by the FCC and,
therefore, not subject to review or approval by local jurisdictions like Maricopa County.
6) As noted above, the proposed tower setbacks do not meet the 2 ft. setback for each
foot in tower height required by MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g; however, the tower is setback at
least 1 ft. for each foot in height; therefore, it does not create a fall hazard for neighboring
properties and the SUP process provides for modification of applicable development
Z2021044
Page 8 of 11

standards with approval by the Board of Supervisors. 7) Property values are not a basis
for project evaluation, rather, projects are evaluated on the basis of their compliance
with the Code, which is to achieve a balance of benefits and costs for the community as
a whole. 8) Outdoor lighting is subject to the provisions of MCZO Art. 1112 Outdoor Light
Control Provisions, which require outdoor light fixtures to be shielded to minimize off-site
glare. The proposed 10 ft. tall CMU wall around the WCF compound is also to minimize
off-site glare.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
14. N/A.
Staff Analysis:
15. Staff believes the current SUP request is reasonable and necessary to maintain and
expand cell phone service in this area. The subject WCF would be located approximately
100 ft. from the closest residence, which is on the subject property, and more than 300 ft.
from the next closest residence (on parcel 211-23-014E) with all other nearby residences
being at least 500 ft. from the subject property. The nearest public roadways are
Desert Hills Dr., which is approximately 300 ft. north of the subject property, and 7th Ave.,
which is approximately 650 ft. west of the subject property. The request to reduce the
160 ft. setback required by MCZO Art. 1202.1.1.3.g from the west, north and east subject
property boundaries is reasonable because the proposed, minimum 80 ft. setbacks
eliminate the possibility of the 80 ft. tall tower falling on neighboring properties and the
request is necessary because the area the tower serves is affected by its height and the
220 ft. width of the subject property cannot accommodate 160 ft. of setback from both
the east and west property boundaries. The 13 ft. diameter antenna array is necessary to
avoid radio signal interference, or “cross-talk,” between the signal receiving and sending
functions that would result if the antenna array diameter was less than approximately
13 ft. The request to eliminate the SVTs typically required for WFCs is reasonable because
the SVTs would be required at the east boundary of the subject property, where the
on-site access easement/driveway meets the ingress/egress easement that extends
further east, to 3rd Ave. The subject WCF and neighboring residential uses would generate
very few trips, which eliminates the purpose and need for the SVTs, and providing the
SVTs would require removal of significant amounts of existing vegetation, which would
only increase the visibility of the new WCF facility and would be counter to the intent of
the Code, which requires avoidance of removal of mature trees and cacti whenever
possible (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.e). While Staff understands the objections stated by the
project opponents, as stated in the opposition comments, the project complies with the
requirements for WCFs in the Rural zone, except for the development standard
modification requests discussed above, which are potentially approvable by the Board
of Supervisors under the standard SUP review and approval process (MCZO Sec. 304 and
Arts. 1202.2.8 and 1301.1.19). Furthermore, local jurisdictions like Maricopa County
cannot, by statute, regulate aspects of WCFs that are already regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Having said that, there is significant neighborhood
opposition to the proposed WCF. The level of opposition alone can be considered
grounds for legislative denial of the SUP.
Z2021044
Page 9 of 11

Recommendation:
16. For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for
Approval, subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’.
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the combo
Site/Building Plan Set entitled “US-AZ-5068 HONDABOW”, consisting of 9 full-size
sheets, June 7, 2021, and stamped received June 11, 2021, except as modified by
the following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled “US-AZ-5068 (HONDABOW)”, consisting of 17 pages, dated
May 18, 2021, and stamped received May 21, 2021, except as modified by the
following conditions.
c. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage
Plans are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must
go according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage
Policies and Standards and current engineering policies, standards and
best practices at the time of application for construction.
3. Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design
only and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle
applicants to future designs that are not in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies
and Standards.
d. The following Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD)
condition shall apply:
1. It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced
project. Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff
report. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning
and Development Department procedures. Applicant may need to
submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the
Department. Review of any such application will be based on regulations
in force at the time of application.
e. The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 80’.
Z2021044
Page 10 of 11

f. A Minor SUP Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the
Wireless Communication Facility.
g. This special use permit is valid for a period of 20 years and shall expire on
August 4, 2041, or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days,
whichever occurs first. All site improvements associated with the special use permit
shall be removed within 90 days of such expiration or termination of use.
h. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
i. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on
the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply
with any condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the
property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is,
therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to
comply with any conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not
reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or
possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation
or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value
of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted
and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the
Special Use Permit had never been granted.
Presented by: Sean Watkins, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Services Manager
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Combo Site/Building Plan (9 pages)
Narrative Report (17 pages)
MCENG comments (1 page)
MCESD comments (1 page)
6/1/21 Public Meeting Sign-in Sheet (1 page)
Opposition/Protest Petition (14 Pages)
Opposition Comments (28 pages)
NRDHCA Notification & Email Chain (13 pages)
Opposition Maps (3 pages)
Z2021044
Page 11 of 11

MARICOPA COUNTY
Application Name: Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068 EDR
Legal Description
T06N R03E 029,
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
Gary R CASSEL for Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile / Clearblue Services 602.426.9500 garycassel@clearblueserv ices.com Z2021044
Case Address Parcel Primary: 211-23-014F
Generated June 9, 2021 10:33 AM Gross Acres: 0.02410468 approx. Map scale 1:821
Supervisor District No. 3
VERTICAL BRIDGE / T-MOBILE TO BUILD A NEW (COLLOCATABLE) 80' MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT
INCLUDED WITHIN A 30' X 35' CMU WALLED IN COMPOUND (PAINTED TO MATCH DESERT AREA)
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ /




THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FO THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1323.39 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29; QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES, 07 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34 NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 330.34
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29; THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 601.44 NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 441.25
FEET; FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 67.04 FEET TO THE THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET; QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 220.60 FEET TO THE
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 330.23 FEET TO THE
AN AREA CONTAINING 1050 SQ FT MORE OR LESS. NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 220.48
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PROJECT INFORMATION
s
e
Blue 602-426-9500
AVE.
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r
3530
Clear
e PHOENIX,
S
Drawn: Date:
PROJECT DIRECTORY
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
LEGEND
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
17
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number

s
e
Blue AVE. 602-426-9500
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r 3530
Clear e PHOENIX,
S
LEGEND
Drawn: Date:
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number

s
e
Blue AVE. 602-426-9500
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r 3530
Clear e PHOENIX,
S
Drawn: Date:
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number

s
e
Blue AVE. 602-426-9500
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r 3530
Clear e PHOENIX,
S
Drawn: Date:
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number

s
e
Blue AVE. 602-426-9500
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r 3530
Clear e PHOENIX,
S
Drawn: Date:
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number

s
e
Blue AVE. 602-426-9500
c
i ATLANTA
85040
v
E. AZ
r 3530
Clear e PHOENIX,
S
Drawn: Date:
Designed: Date:
Checked: Date:
Project Number
US-AZ-5068
Project Title
US-AZ-5068
HONDABOW
211-23-014F
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Engineer Stamp
PRELIMINARY UNLESS SIGNED
Drawing Title
Drawing Scale:
AS NOTED
Date:
06/08/21
Drawing Number


DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
VACINITY MAP
STATUS FROM PRE-APP MEETING COMMENTS ON 2/16/21
1. Comprehensive Planning: No CPA Required
2. Planning Engineering: Z2021044: Form 718 – Plan Submittal Requirements for Minor Accessory
Construction; Bob Fedorka, Engineering Plan Reviewer.
3. Engineer; Maricopa County Environmental Services Department. T-Mobile Zoning Submittal for a
Wireless Communications Facility approval on a New Wireless Communications Facility (as
specified in Ordinance Chapter 12 Development Regulations, subject to sections: 1202.0 thru
1202.2. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). The Application is for a new 80’ Monopole (co-locatable) site build
located in the Northwest Center of the existing APN# 211-23-014F. Water and sewer service will
not be needed. MCESD has no concerns. Souren Naradikian, P. E., Engineer; Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department.
2

4. Drainage Plan Review Comments: The proposed construction appears to meet the
requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 1205.7.7
5. Flood Control District Comments: Work within the subject parcel is not located in a regulated
floodplain. Flood Control has no comments.
6. MCDOT Comments: MCDOT has no comments or objections to the submittal.
COMPLIANCE: Z2021044
Standard WCF in Rural-43* Proposed
Maximum Building Height 80 ft. 80 ft.
2 ft. setback from property lines 80 ft. tower = 80 ft. Proposed
for each 1 ft. in height (not in 160 ft. Required Setbacks (North &
required Front Yard)1 Setback East) and
140 ft. Proposed
Setback (East)
Antenna Array Maximum Diamter2 8 ft. 13 ft.
Minimum Lot Width 145 ft. 145 ft.
Minimum Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. 43,560 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25%
25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles3 Required on both No SVTs
sides of driveway at
edge of public street
* MCZO Section 1202
1 MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.g
2 MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1.h
3 MCZO Art. 1111.4
Towers and support structures shall have a maximum diameter of 30 inches
(2.5 feet):
The monopole will be a MAX 30” Per the County Ordinance Section:1202.3.1. ©. Please see attached
site plans, as part of the (SUP) zoning submittal there is a PDF of the antenna configuration showing the
monopole will be a MAX 30” (2’-6”).
The maximum diameter of antenna arrays
shall be 8 feet measured from circumference line to circumference line through
the center of the tower structure: (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1h)
ANTENNA COMPLIANCE: Per the TAC Meeting on 5/18/21 #8 & 14, PLEASE NOTE THE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED JUSTIFICATION.
3

The maximum width of the antennas is proposed to be MAX 13’ WIDE (the actual antennas distance
from one antenna to the other through the pole) Section: 1202.3.1.1.(h), As to the look of the attached
PHOTO SIMULATIONS as part of the zoning submittal at pre-app meeting. There is a required separation
of antennas due to potential diversity which causes another 1’-5” to the antenna configuration, which then
causes the extra distance from antennas one side to the other, and causes the extra distance exceeding
the 8’ regulation even though there is a narrowing on the pole as you get to the top of the pole, and any
distance less causes radio frequency interference between antennas and causes potential cross talk
between receiving and output frequencies. Please note and understand this cell site is a cell split for
capacity issues and the distance between antennas is necessary to achieve the capacity offloading
necessary to continue to provide T-Mobile Radio Frequency Engineers their required designed
requirements. The worst thing that happens with antennas placed to close together is (CROSS TALK) from
one antenna to the other, which actually spreads to the other T-Mobile sites in the immediate area which is
part of the 5G system build (different than 4G which are individual sites). These new antenna configurations
and distances are part of the new 5G network, and mandatory / required so the system build actually
functions and works. As part of the (SUP) zoning submittal there is a PDF of the antenna configuration
showing the 6 ft FASB antenna w/2 ft. standoff & COVP mounted on standoff arm which requires the
total antenna width of 6’-6” apart but intended to be visually minimized. Please see attached site plans &
diagram below.
4

Wireless communication facilities shall be setback 2 feet from all
property lines for each 1 foot in Height:
Per the TAC Meeting on 5/18/21 #7, PLEASE NOTE THE SPECICIALLY DESCRIBED
JUSTIFICATION; (MCZO Art. 1202.3.1.1g)
The SUP process selected shall approve this proposal as it is an eligible facility request for a new site
location of a wireless Monopole antenna site (collocatable) to be built in the Northwest Center of the existing
parcel which will include a base station compound which allows for the equipment and pole within an 10’
CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’ (painted and textured to match) the existing BROWN (APS POLE
COLOR) color poles so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding
community. As the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Radio Frequency Engineers required this immediate area and
this specific parcel is Zoned RU43, and like most of the parcels in the area are limited in their acreage as
all the parcels are for a 1/2-mile radius, and as most of the parcels are limited in their useful parcel acreage
due in most cases to existing WASHES. Vertical Bridge is requesting a Special Use Permit Approval for a
1:1 Setback to the parcel property lines, which is allowing for an SUP process due to the limited parcels
that fit the required T-Mobile location to comply with the propagations of the system build (see T-Mobil
Propagation Map). Also, refer to OTHER CANDIDATES: CANDIDATE SEARCH (Exhaustive) paragraph below;
Vertical Bridge met and worked with over 13 candidates and their ownerships all within or just outside of
the 1/2-mile SEARCH RING in the County. The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical
aesthetics of the surrounding area which is owned by Arizona State Land and has no known health hazards.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with the area that has many other like
electrical poles which are the same color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to reduce
visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
The fire station (tried the tower at the fire station and was DENIED due to no room for equipment space
and no room on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is environmentally off limits to any
building) with their own tower mast (which is way over 2400’ away West) from (VB) proposed site
location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB
request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile
mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are
many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area, (see the T-Mobile existing site
propagation map as part of the submittal package. The existing right of way power poles, light standards
and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which
are found does not work for the RF objectives. It was found that there is a greater radio frequency
requirement in this immediate area for a lot more radio frequency capability then a small cell antenna
configuration will allow including, after a thorough investigation the existing power poles as they do not
offer the height, or the antennas configuration demanded by the lack of radio frequency required for this
area to stop the block calls and even the 911 emergency cut offs.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their requirements due
to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities on those zoned like parcels, and
due to the limited space and washes within the parcels in the immediate area of Maricopa County would
allow Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this proposed location.
5

VERTICAL BRIDGE /T-MOBILE COVERAGE (ISSUE):The request of Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Zoning
Submittal for Maricopa County Zoning (SUP) Application for submittal process for a Wireless SUP for a
Wireless Communications Facility approval is required to supply residents and those traveling through the
area with the most advanced technology and reliability possible, along with the facility which will enhance
call quality and data usage, which is not present at this time which includes 5G. T-Mobile is realizing very
poor coverage in the area of the proposed tower. Please see the (T-Mobile existing tower propagation map)
as part of the zoning submission which shows the existing radio frequency hole in the T-Mobile system
specifically in this immediate area, which will be covered with this site and its location.
The nature of uses and Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile required location due to this specific location, and
the positive affect on adjacent and nearby premises – T-Mobile has a major problem with their coverage
in this immediate area and requires a telecom site within the radius of the Reid Ranch (see propagation
map) site as that is the location which allows T- Mobile radio frequency to meet up with the other existing
sites as seen in the attached T-Mobile radius map as part of the zoning submittal package. T-Mobile is
affected as to their much-needed location of the proposed telecom site location where the site location is
zoned RU-43.
All the T-Mobile existing sites in the area are now in overuse and causing this proposed site location to be
vital to fill the actual hole in the T-Mobile radio frequency where T-Mobile is missing radio frequency which
effects all persons who are trying to make phone call or using their T-Mobile instruments in any way
including E911 Emergencies.
The location of the zoning around the site of the existing parcel (Reid Ranch-RU-43); The location of the
zoning around the site is West RU-43 and existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-
43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-
3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. All the zoning in the immediate area over one-mile Radius of the proposed
site is zoned RU-43, which the County does allow for telecommunication facilities to be erected.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their requirements due
to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities on those zoned like parcels, and
with the limited space of the parcels in the immediate area Maricopa County would allow Vertical Bridge /
T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this proposed location.
T-Mobile is a major wireless carrier, and their license is federally mandated to provide Coverage to all
persons using their wireless instruments. The expectancy of the federal government in providing this license
is that each area T-Mobile is present that E911 is mandatory for all emergency services, which allows each
individual’s precise location in the case of an emergency services, which is sparse at best in this immediate
area. T-Mobile / Vertical Bridge is requesting the SUP process selected which shall approve this proposal
as it is an eligible facility request for a new site location of a wireless Monopole antenna site and base
station compound approval. The approval will allow T-Mobile on the Zoning use and building permit as the
site zoning is really for a T-Mobile Telecommunication site to allow for the required missing radio frequency
and 5G capability, which means NO E911 for the people who expect and think they are safe.
NOISE: The proposed WCF will not cause any significant increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic in
adjacent residential areas. It will not, after construction, cause any emission of odor, dust, gas, noise,
vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions, nor will it contribute in any
measurable way to the deterioration of this area of the County, or contribute to the lowering of property
values. The value of the surrounding residential properties should actually improve due to the better
coverage of the area. There is no generator planned on for this site and the equipment cabinets are made
to cool the radios within and have been manufactured to depress any noise. To add to the noise
consideration at the site Vertical Bridge has enlarged the height of the compound wall from the originally
proposed 8’ tall CMU wall to a 10’ CMU wall painted and textured to match) the existing BROWN (APS
6

POLE COLOR) color poles so as to reduce NOISE, visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
ASTHETICS: Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
A.Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish, or, subject to any applicable standards of
the FAA be painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness,
as being suggested by the surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible,
use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural
setting and surrounding buildings. The compound will be a 10’ CMU Wall proposed will be painted
and textured BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community.
c. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical
and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible
with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as
visually unobtrusive as possible. BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
SETBACKS-The minimum setbacks for the zoning district shall apply to all towers, equipment shelters,
and accessory buildings. The dimensions of the entire lot or parcel shall apply and not the dimensions of
the leased area. Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile proposes a 1:1 setback 1202.2.(a). The zoning of the subject
property is RU-43 (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the zoning around the site is West RU-43 and
existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert
Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. The
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile meets the County Ordinance SETBACKS for EQUIPMENT on the ground and
the TOWER in the existing parcel, as the antennas and tower are and complies with the County setbacks:
North 80’-0” South 250’-3” East 140’-6” & West 80’-0” (to the tower). The East & West, North & South
abutting properties are zoned appropriately for a zoning approval along with the setbacks. Access is off
3rd Ave, which is off W. Desert Hills Dr. North, which is where Vertical Bridge will have an easement and
owned by the same owner.
OTHER CANDIDATES: CANDIDATE SEARCH (Exhaustive).
Vertical Bridge has been working with this T-Mobile SEARCH RING for the last year and half to find the
right candidate and its location acceptable to both T-Mobile RF Engineering, Vertical Bridge, Maricopa
County Planning & Development, and the Landlords (owners of the property). Vertical Bridge met and
worked with over 13 candidates and their ownerships all within or just outside of the 1/2-mile SEARCH
RING in the County. All properties that had enough parcel size that would allow for a 2:1 setback and
found NO candidates that did not have an existing topography that; water washes, lower (fall off)
topography, access issues, or just no consideration.
7

A. Per the FCC, the County can require an SUP and other processes for their review and approval
process. However, the County cannot design a carriers’ network or how many sites the carrier
needs to build to provide design coverage. Please note and understand this cell site is a cell split
for capacity issues along with the new 5G system build, and the height is necessary / required to
achieve the capacity offloading necessary to continue to provide designed requirements. Please
refer to the FCC Sections accordingly: It is found that over 75% of 911 Emergency Use is wireless.
B. The proposed site is the only alternative to having NO site which means a multitude of new towers,
which could cover the Vertical Bridge (T-Mobile) (RF) coverage objectives where there is a major
hole in their coverage 5G system build where right now has blocked calls, emergency calls which
is causing terrible coverage, per the FCC Federal Communications Directives. (See Carrier
Propagation Map for coverage).
The FCC has interpreted TCA Section 332(c)(3)(A) to preempt local authority to dictate the design of a
provider’s network. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure
Inv., 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 9088 at N. 84 (F.C.C. 2018); see also Bastien v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 205 F.3d
983,
989 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, no local authority may determine the number, placement, or operation of
cell towers because that responsibility has been delegated exclusively to the FCC. Bastien, 205 F.3d at
989.
For the Counties consideration, please Refer to the 2018 FCC decision that the local jurisdictions cannot
“design” a carriers’ network. The height required was the minimum height by the carrier necessary to
achieve network parameters. The city does not have the authority to change the design parameters of the
carrier they have deemed necessary to achieve their (RF) coverage requirements. Please see the
Propagation T-Mobile Coverage Map.
1. ACCESS to the site location: The Vertical Bridge site location access will be from the existing
North 3rdAve. access off of Desert Hills Dr., where Vertical Bridge will build a road within the
existing 30’ Access & Utilities easement off 3rd Ave. West to the proposed site location on the
parcel and there will be a parking space allocated next to the site location, all per the County
Wireless Ordinance. The site location for the equipment Compound is proposed to be located in
the Northwest Center of the existing parcel, and the existing parcel which is the Reid Ranch is
completely fenced into the North, South, East & West, and with the distance to the next residential
ownership causing blocking the view of the compound from those sides, along with the distance
from the site.
8

2. 25 ft. Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) are required on both sides
of the proposed driveway (access easement); Per the TAC Meeting on
5/18/21 #9, PLEASE NOTE THE SPECICIALLY DESCRIBED JUSTIFICATION; (MCZO Art.
1111.4).
The SUP process allows for development standard modifications, upon request and with
justification for any/all such modifications, It would seem that the ACCESS ROAD is being made
where it is to accomplish the Access to the site from 3rd Ave, and the existing foliage & trees that
is to the North of the said Access road is purposely left existing (NOT CUT DOWN TO 2’) there as
to block the view from the ROW Desert Hills Dr., all the way to the new Wireless Communication
Facility (WCF) compound as to again block the view from anyone being able to view the compound
walls and the dirt like road proposed to the site. I do not believe the intentions of the county is to
tear down all the existing beautiful foliage and trees north of the access road, as there is no
concern of visual interference of any kind.?? Also, once built out the use will generate very little
traffic, as the unmanned site has a frequency of visiting the cell site is generally once a month by
the cellular technicians.
3. DESIGNATED SITE PARKING SPACE-The proposed compound will have a designate parking
space next to the proposed site.
4. PAINTING and LIGHTING. All facilities shall be painted or constructed of materials to minimize
visual impacts. All of the tower and compound walls shall be painted in non-reflective and
preferably BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community. The Vertical Bridge Monopole will incorporate a pole
that is colored to match a which matches the existing other electrical poles in the immediate area
which is BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community. Lighting will be limited to the facing of the compound
maintenance area and will be on a timer and only used when the cellular technician is there. The
lighting will be a new full cut-off LED lighting, inside compound mounted below the top of wall on
4-HR timer switch, (lighting to comply with Section 1112 of MCZO regarding outdoor lighting.
4. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING. The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge site
location including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave. East, where the
landscaping of the land in the immediate area is overall flat land with small to medium size
vegetation type bushes.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and / or the
road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility
Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be endangered cactus they will be
replace on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as part of the
road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the
dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
9

5. RF Emissions and Radio frequency limited exposure are within FCC limits for this proposed
Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile, and the Wireless carrier is submitting a report demonstrating
compliance with FCC regulation (see below). It is found that over 75% of 911 Emergency Use is
wireless.
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are registered with the Federal
Communication Commission and part of the EAS program. Each cell tower is mandated as part
of the EAS national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable television systems,
wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers, and direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the President to
address the American public during a national emergency. The system also may be used by state
and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER alerts and
weather information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction with Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and
personal communications service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination
of antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a "cellular or PCS cell site"
or "base station." Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high
Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to transmit
signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units.
At this cell site, the total radio frequency (RF) power that can be transmitted from each transmitting
antenna has been approved by the FCC on the number of radio channels (or transmitters) and that
have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission and the power of each
transmitter. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per
channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular or PCS cell sites in urban and
suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts
corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used. In
urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCS cell sites,
even lower ERPs are typical. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from
a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases.
Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than the exposure that might be
encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements
made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are
well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC,
(which makes them so safe) and in this case the T-Mobile antennas will be at the 76’ RAD CENTER
level, which will be well below the exposure limits recommended.
10

Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself
or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC
height restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away from potential exposure. To that
end, no communication facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power
densities that exceed the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure to RF fields.
Certification that a facility meets this standard is required. A copy of the certification from the FCC
shall be submitted to the city.
6. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY: The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined
as “Monopole” and will not cause any adverse impact on adjacent property or properties in the
area. As this is an un-manned facility and we only maintain the property around once a month, but
in the case of an emergency it would be sooner. There will be no increase in Vehicular or
pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas, emissions of any order, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; contribution in a measurable way
to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the lowering of property values, Per Sections
1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 & 1202.6.
7. REMOVAL AND DISCONTINUATION OF USE: All equipment associated with a
communication facility shall be removed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
discontinuation of the use and the site shall be restored to its original preconstruction condition.
The operators agreeing to such removal and allowing the County access across private property
to affect such removal shall be a condition of approval of each permit issued.
8. COUNTY Requested use(s):
BUSINESS OPERATIONS
(a) (business operations) is for Vertical Bridge to build a Collocatable Wireless
Telecommunication 80’ monopole including T-Mobile Equipment and antennas, hours/day of
operation, and number of employees.
The frequency of use as to hours/day of operation, and number of employees is
generally a visit for (1) man for maintenance once a month unless there is an
emergency and stays for a few hours.
(b). Identify the electrical service provider as APS
©. Police service is provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
11

DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
(a) (Timeframe for construction or phasing of the project for construction; description and location
of buildings.)
The Zoning Process is considered to be a 6 TO 9 Month process and a Building Permit
process to be 45 days, and a 30-day build cycle for the construction of the cell site in
total. The location of the Telecom site is the site location for the equipment Compound
is proposed to be located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel, and the
existing parcel which is a Reid Ranch.
(b) Address the utility providers for water, sewer, police and fire services.
1. NO WATER WILL BE USED FOR THIS SITE
2. NO SEWER WILL BE USED FOR THIS SITE
3. Police- Phoenix Police Department Black Mountain Precinct
33355 North Cave Creek Road, Phoenix (Maricopa County)
4. Fire-City of Phoenix-Fire Station –
Fire Department; Address 3210 W Canotia Pl, Anthem AZ·
5. Identify the electrical service provider.
6. Police service is provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
The following is supplemental information required to be submitted and addressed in the narrative
report for the Special Use Permit.
1. What is the height of the proposed WCF?
80’ including the proposed antennas.
2. Provide a map showing all the existing WCFs within a 1,000 feet radius for sites within Rural, Single-Family
Residential or Multiple-Family zoning districts (Regardless of provider).
The Daisy Mountain Fire Station #145 is 2400’ West of Vertical Bridge proposed site location.
12

3. Provide a list with locations and approximate height of all existing vertical structures (of a height approximately
equal or greater than the requested tower) within the WCF’s search area. This includes church spires and
steeples, light standards, water towers, transmission lines, buildings, or other similar structures.
There are no locations within the .5-mile radius (WCF’s search area).of the proposed Vertical
Bridge site which is a T-Mobile required location that has height approximately equal or
greater than the requested tower within the WCF’s search area.
4. Provide a map showing the service areas which the proposed facility will serve.
Provisions for future collocation. Vertical Bridge commercial communication facilities shall be encouraged
to promote future facility and site sharing so there will LESSOR need for more cell towers in this are for the
county to be concerned about. Technical evidence will be provided as to the infeasibility, either technically
and/or economically, of collocation or grouping prior to the issuance of a new use permit for a facility that
would not be considered to be co-located or grouped under this division. Proposals for the placement of
collocation facilities on existing Vertical Bridge wireless telecommunication collocation facilities are subject
to both the carrier and Vertical Bridge requirements, and our facility is collocatable.
VERTICAL BRIDGE / T-MOBILE ½-MILE SEARCH RING
13

5. Explain any attempts or possibilities that have been investigated relating to co-location with another provider
or existing facility.
There are no other towers in the 2400’ area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied
the VB request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due
to the T-Mobile mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve
the services as there are many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area,
(see the T-Mobile existing site propagation map as part of the submittal package. The
existing right of way power poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly
investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which are found does not work for
the RF objectives. It was found that there is a greater radio frequency requirement in this
immediate area for a lot more radio frequency capability then a small cell antenna
configuration will allow including, after a thorough investigation the existing power poles
as they do not offer the height, or the antennas configuration demanded by the lack of radio
frequency required for this area to stop the block calls and even emergency cut offs.
Vertical Bridge on behalf of T-Mobile is complying with the Counties Ordinance and their
requirements due to the RU-43 zoning on parcels which are allowing for commercial entities
on those zoned like parcels, and with the limited space of the parcels in the immediate area
of Maricopa County would allow Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile to be approved for an SUP at this
proposed location.
6. Explain how this request can facilitate co-location with other users.
The (SUP) Application is for a new 80’ Monopole (collocatable- to fit at least 2 more carriers
including equipment space) site build located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel
with the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile 6’ antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole at (80’
top of antennas) painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community, and equipment within
an 10’ CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’ painted and textured to match painted a BROWN
(APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.. Equipment compound behind the walled in compound will be on
cement slabs, which complies with the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance which
mandates the County Regulations and requirements
7. Will the request involve removal of mature trees or cacti? If so, discuss plans for relocation of such
vegetation.
EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING. The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge
proposed site location including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave.
East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and
/ or the road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated
Access & Utility Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be
endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as
part of the road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site
through the dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
14

8. Discuss the following compatibility issues:
a. Setbacks from residential uses.
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the
zoning around the site is West RU-43 and existing raw landowner is located in
Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South
is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills Dr., then the
residences on the other side North. South is RU-43 and Arizona State Land 250’-3”,
East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over 501’
West.
b. Setbacks from all property lines.
The Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile meets the County Ordinance SETBACKS for EQUIPMENT
on the ground and the TOWER in the existing parcel, as the antennas and tower are and
complies with the County setbacks: North 80’-0” South 250’-3” East 140’-6” & West 80’-
0” (to the tower). The East & West, North & South abutting properties are zoned
appropriately for a zoning approval along with the setbacks. Access is off 3rd Ave,
which is off W. Desert Hills Dr. North, which is where Vertical Bridge will have an
easement and owned by the same owner.
c. Setbacks from uses/structures on adjacent property.
Guest House is 140’-6” from site location East and house is on 3rd parcel East 523’ from
site location. There are no other structures on any of the parcels.
d. Setbacks from public and private streets or access easements.
East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is Arizona
State Land and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave 501’ West.
e. Future additional appurtenances or expansion plans.
Vertical Bridge has no expansion plans.
f. Color and type of tower, landscaping, and fence screening.
TYPE OF TOWER AND CMU WALL COMPOUND: The (SUP) Application is for a new 80’
Monopole (collocatable) site build located in the Northwest Center of the existing parcel
with the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile 6’ antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole
at (80’ top of antennas), and equipment within an 10’ CMU walled in compound 30’ x 35’
painted and textured to match the existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so
as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding
community. Equipment compound behind the walled in compound will be on cement
slabs, which complies with the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance which
mandates the County Regulations and requirements.
15

COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS: Towers and antennae shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA to be painted
a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being
suggested by the surrounding community..
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent
possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend
them into the natural setting and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS POLE
COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
c. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or
closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna
and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible painted a BROWN (APS
POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
LANDSCAPING: There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed
site location and / or the road that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing
30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there
are found to be endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
a. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and
as part of the road is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to
get to the site through the dedicated 30’ Access& Utility Easement.
g. Surrounding non-residential uses (if applicable).
NO Surrounding non-residential uses
9. If a stealth design is not being proposed, please explain why.
There are NO structures with any more height than a house or barn of any kind within a 1-
mile radius of the site or even the search ring. The whole area is not conducive to a stealth
like monopalm, monopine, monoeucalyptus tree which is 80’ in height other than a
monopole (even if you planted other real trees), and there is another monopole which can
be found at the Daisy Mountain Fire Station. There are no other towers in the 2400’ area;
Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB request and does not have space either
on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile mature system build they really
need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are many blocked calls
due to the weak signal in the surrounding area, (see the T-Mobile existing site propagation
map as part of the submittal package. The existing right of way power poles, light standards
and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency
Engineers which are found does not work for the RF objectives. It was found that there is a
greater radio frequency requirement in this immediate area for a lot more radio frequency
16

capability then a small cell antenna configuration will allow including, after a thorough
investigation the existing power poles as they do not offer the height, or the antennas
configuration demanded by the lack of radio frequency required for this area to stop the
block calls and even emergency cut offs.
The proposed scope of work is detailed in full in the attached information as part of the Zoning Pre-App
Submittal Package including Zoning Drawings, and a brief summary including a Zoning the Special Use
Permit Application, T-Mobile Informational Booklet on this property, along with a Parcel Map, Aerial Map,
Zoning Map, General Plan Map, Photo Simulations, required photos of the site (T-Mobile SCIP (information
sheets)), and Ownership Authorization.
T-Mobile and Vertical Bridge are requesting a Zoning Submittal for Maricopa County Zoning Special Use
Permit Application for the submittal process for a Wireless SUP for a Wireless Communications Facility
approval on a New Wireless Communications Facility (as specified in Ordinance Chapter 12 Development
Regulations, subject to sections: subject to the provisions and standards outlined in Section 1202, and
outlined in Article 1202.3 of the Ordinance with a Citizens Participation Plan shall be required to obtain a
Special Use Permit approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The proposed site build is to Apply for a new site build as an 80’ Monopole (collocatable) Per Section
1202.2.2 and Article 1202.3 including the Citizens Participation Plan for a site build located in the Northwest
Center of the existing parcel with the T-Mobile 8’ long antennas to be placed at the top of the Monopole
painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested
by the surrounding community. at (80’ top of antennas), and equipment within a 10’ CMU walled in
compound 30’ x 35’ painted and textured to match the existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles
so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community. The use of the
proposed telecommunication facility will be in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
the laws of Maricopa County. Z2021044
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
T-Mobile / Vertical Bridge LLC Contractor
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
17

Maricopa County
Planning & Development Department
Date: 06/07/2021
Jeri Loucks, P.E.C.F.M
Planning & Development
501 North 44th Street, Suite 200 Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director, Department of Planning &
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Development
Phone: (602) 506-6332
Fax: (602) 506-3282
Email www.maricopa.gov/planning address: Attn: Sean Watkins, Planner, Planning & Development Services
JeriLoucks@mail.maricopa.gov
From: Jeri Loucks, P.E.C.F.M., Plans Examiner Engineer (Drainage),
Planning & Development Services
cc: Michael Norris, P.E., Drainage Engineering Manager, Planning &
Development
Subject: Z2021044 – Special Use Permit (SUP) – TMobile/Vertical Bridge
(D2 Memo)
Job Site Address: 39212 N. 3rd Ave. Phoenix, Az 85086
APN(s): 211-23-014F
Engineering Review has reviewed the plans and report submittal date stamped
05/19/2021 for the subject application. Engineering Review has no objections to
this application provided any approval includes the following stipulations:
1. At the time of the Building Permit, Engineered Grading and Drainage Plans
are required. The Grading for the road and pad for lease area must go
according to the checklist:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3972/Combined-
Engineered-Plan-Submittal-Checklist-for-Commercial-PDF
(Open in Internet Explorer)
2. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Drainage Policies and
Standards and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the
time of application for construction.
3. Drainage review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only
and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle applicants to
future designs that are not in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies and Standards.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department
Water Division and Waste Management DATE: April 23, 2021
Subdivision Infrastructure &
Planning 1001 N. Central Program Avenue #150 TO : Sean Watkins, Planning & Development Dept.
Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Planner
Phone: (602) 506-1058
Fax: (602) 506-5813
TDD 602 506 6704 FROM: Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile. Z2021044
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project is a request for Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile Wireless Communications Facility at APN# 211-23-014F. Water
and Sewer is not required, MCESD has no concerns.
Based on the above, MCESD raise no concern for this project to the Planning &
Development Department in Accela Automation on April 23, 2021.
Stipulations: None
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be
made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of
application.


May 17, 2021
Maricopa County Supervisors
Planning and Development
Attn: Sean Watkins, Planner
The attached file serves as an Objection/Protest to the
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
#Z2021044
For parcel 211-23-014 F
39212 N 3rd Ave
Phoenix AZ 85086
Signatures represent 11 sheets of property owners who are located
nearby the referenced property. The Petition Guide will provide you with
each parcel #, property address and homeowner’s name.
Of considerable concern to petitioners is the arbitrary positioning of a commercial
facility within residential confines. The Citizen Participation Letter, which was
hand delivered to surrounding neighbors, indicates that T Mobile would be
erecting a new 80' pole.
The last sentence of the Citizen Participation Letter states that the facility would
not generate noise, fumes or other waste that would impact the surrounding
community. We petitioners ask then, how the proposed cooling fans, which are
scheduled to be installed on top of the commercial facility, will have their noise
contained within.
Finally, should we assume that some sort of new innovation (not described in the
Citizen Participation Letter) has been incorporated into this commercial facility
that will take care of the statement about no “other waste being generated”? We,
of course, are referring to any radiation that might be emitted from the antennas.
Please note that as of May 13, 2021 a notification sign was posted on Desert
Hills Dr. moved from 3rd Ave that was away from the property limits.
Alan Muller
Neighborhood contact: Alan Muller, 39307 N 9th Ave, Desert Hills AZ
85086 4DaisyMountain@gmail.com 623-465-8888














From: Herb Kwan
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: Cell Tower SUP 2021044
Date: Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:08:55 PM
Dear Mr. Watkins,
This is in response to the above referenced subject. I am a resident of Desert Hills area and in direct line to this
proposed cell tower. The reason we chose this area and our home is because of the rural ness and the quality of life
presented to us.
This proposed cell tower will be a blight on the landscape and a total eyesore. At 80 feet tall, this is too much, it is
more than double the height of existing power poles. The zoning of the area will be changed which will present a
precedence for any future developments.
I strongly oppose the development of this proposed project.
Herb and Barbara Kwan
121 W Fernwood Drive
Sent from my iPad

Alan & Candy Muller
39307 N 9th Ave
Desert Hills AZ 85086
211-50-034-R
Sean Watkins-Planner, P & Z Commissioners, Board of Supervisors,
When I was a P & Z Commissioner and assisted in updating the WCF’s,
there was no “by right”. Fortunately, Maricopa County maintains zoning, in
order to protect its unincorporated communities.
The array of the antenna limited to 8’
For every foot up, there must 2’ out to the property line
Lighting must be inside the compound and shielded to protect the dark
skies ordinance
It is important that we consider 1202.2.6 in the zoning ordinance “the
standards contained in this Section with regard to height,
diameter, and design are concealment elements to ensure
structures do not have an adverse visual impact or harm the public
welfare”
T-Mobile is attempting to erect their WCF in our area without consideration
of the community, by not complying with county zoning. Example: there is
only 1 of 4 property lines that is 160’ or more. We believe this is one of
many towers to be erected by T-Mobile in our area.
We presently have 2 of the 3 major carriers servicing Desert Hills. and the
5g Verizon tower down the street does NOT have a 15’ array.
We hereby request that the P & Z Commission and the Board of
Supervisors deny SUP Z2021044.
Respectfully,
The Mullers

From: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
To: "Gary Cassel"; Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: "Morris Michelson"; "Steven DeJonge"
Subject: RE: AZ-5068 HONDA BOW- Z2021044-INTRO TO COUNTY PLANNER SEAN WATKINS & ALAN MILLER
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:38:25 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Gary,
The material used on the electric poles is “CORTEN”. Nothing less
would be accepted. The height of the poles are 65’ hence why we have
been using 64’ for
WCF’s. I would suggest that if you cannot meet this criteria you look at
another site. Also, consider 2-10 year stipulations to possibly be
renewed.
PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL
Alan Muller
4DaisyMountain@gmail.com
(602) 432-2800
From: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:49 AM
To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Steven DeJonge
<stevendejonge@clearblueservices.com>; 4DAISYMOUNTAIN@GMAIL.COM
Subject: FW: AZ-5068 HONDA BOW- Z2021044-INTRO TO COUNTY PLANNER SEAN WATKINS & ALAN
MILLER
Hey Sean:
I have asked the VB Architect to revise the ZD’s to show the commitment VB made to Alan Miller and
the County as to :
1. REVISED SUP NUMBER Z2021044
2. showing the 10 ft. wall and updating notes
3. Note all lighting is full cut off on timer and mounted below the top of wall., See note on sheet
C-7 detail #1.
4. There is Still a question about the pole color and we are waiting for Alan Miller who the
County want make sure is part of the process GETS US A COLOR FOR THE POLE THAT IS
ACCEPTABLE BY VB?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW WAT YOU LIKE AS TO REVISING THE SUP APPLICATION, AS TO THE HIGHT OF
THE WALL & WHEN WE GET IT THE POTENTIAL COLOR OF THE POLE ?

Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040

From: Janet Mendenhall
To: Gary Cassel; Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: jtmpainls@aol.com
Subject: Re: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON 6/1/21
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 8:30:44 PM
Gary and Sean,
All of the attached information provided in your email was written by T- Mobile, a self-
serving source of this information. As a distant, third-ranked cell carrier trying to hold onto a
place in this business, T-Mobile doesn’t care about the negative impact to Desert Hills
homeowner property values caused by the cell tower installation. They care about their
business.
I don’t care about their business and the federal government push for 5G infrastructure doesn’t
require me to use this carrier or that all carriers must be equal. There are other stronger carriers
for me to choose from that will not result in an eyesore in our neighborhood and these same
carriers don’t appear to have had the same geographic circle limitations in their 5G network
build. I can call 911, or the police today without this tower.
Some of the written response you have provided in this email is difficult to understand and
does not really address the issues raised in the meeting. The owner of the land for the proposed
site does not live in Desert Hills or knows any of the property owners that are impacted. You
seem to question why we aren’t complaining about the cell tower located at the near-by fire
station. The fire station is not a residence but is a tastefully built facility, and the existing
tower is not a monolith that rises out of the desert in the middle of residential properties. The
Anthem tower isn’t in the middle of homes either-it is in a commercially zoned area. We are
asking for the tower to be moved to another location or T-Mobile will need to live with a gap
in coverage until their networking can facilitate more than a 1/2 mile circle for coverage.
John and I do not want this location used for the T-Mobile cell tower.
Janet &John Mendenhall
38860 N 7th Avenue
Phoenix AZ. 85086
Parcel # 211-50-005N
Sent from my iPhone
From: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Date: June 3, 2021 at 4:02:31 PM MST
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com, Renee Hunter
<renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>, alrakofsky@gmail.com, Jessica
Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>, Vivian Decker

<vrdecker3@gmail.com>, janetmendenhall@gmail.com,
mhuels@msn.com, rogerrayaz@protonnail.com, cj4fun51@aol.com,
marberry2014@outlook.com, charryzip@gmail.com,
bats_az@hotmail.com, marchelle-johnstone@gmail.com,
amordarakotsk@gmail.comy, cabrio1937@gmail.com,
fakbeye3@yahoo.com, azfirecop@gmail.com, Lisa Paffrath
<tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>, "Sean Watkins (PND)"
<Sean.Watkins@maricopa.gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -
UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON 6/1/21
TO
ALL THAT ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON 6/1/21
GOOD AFTERNOON
Thank you so much to all of you for your discussions and concerns as to
the proposed Vertical Bridge Telecommunication site at the community
meeting held on 6/1/21.
I wanted to write you directly if you don’t mind, as I really do care and
want all of you to be as much informed as possible especially as to
answer to your concerns directly that you brought up, and also in writing
so everyone is clear on what was asked and the answers that were given
at the meeting. , and I am also including the County Planner.
There is no update yet as to the dates for any of the hearings sorry to say.
I did not prioritize the concerns, but wanted to answer I believe every
concern we discussed at the community meeting.
1. NOISE
There is very little or No noise as the individual cabinets are
internally cooled within, and the cabinets holding the radios are
built to allow for no noise or the decibels of any noise would be
blocked by the compound walls height, as mitigated to 10’ and
not the initial 8’ that was applied for. As the walled in compound
walls are now proposed to be 10’ tall, and if there were any noise
it would be blocked by the 10’ wall.
2. LOCATION
I know you are concerned with the location of the site, and want
you to know that after considering over 13 different property
owners in a .5 mile radius of the proposed site, because of washes
and limited space along with ownership considerations, Vertical
Bridge thought the site needed to be as far away from the
residences as possible, and still stay within the T-Mobile required
search area. As there are no residences anywhere in the vicinity of

the site location , as the nearest home is over 400’+ to the East (2)
parcels East, and the WCF site build located in the Northwest
Center of the existing parcel where the setbacks to the nearest
ROW’s are over 350’+ to Desert Hills Rd. with residences even
further, and over 500’+ to 7th Ave, where the site is surrounded
by existing APS Electrical poles, the site location was the furthest
we could be away from the residences. The real challenge was to
find a parcel where the WASHES on the property did not conflict
with the location as the water rises and could wipe out the whole
site!!
3. SET BACKS
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43);
The location of the zoning where the site is proposed and around
the site which is allowed by the county is West RU-43 and existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ
State Land then ROW-Desert Hills Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ
State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills
Dr., then the residences on the other side North. South is RU-43
and Arizona State Land 250’-3”, East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from
site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing raw landowner
is located in Cornville AZ, and then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over
501’ West.
4. FIRE STATION & SURROUNDING PARCELS
The fire station (I tried to locate the site at the tower at the fire station
and was DENIED due to no room for equipment space and no room
on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is
environmentally off limits to any building) with their own tower mast
(which is way over 2400’ away West) from (VB) proposed site
location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ radius area; Per Section:
1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the VB request and does not have
space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-
Mobile mature system build they really need this proposed site
location to improve the services as there are many blocked calls due
to the weak signal in the surrounding area. The existing right of way
power poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly
investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio Frequency Engineers which are
found does not work for the RF objectives, as they are too close to
residences and not tall enough or strong enough to incorporate the
required antennas. Furthermore, there is already and has been a
Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station
just down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site
location less than 2400' away, and has been there for many years.
5. PROPERTY VALUES

I think you will find the attachment on PROPERTY VALUES and the
affect as to the proposed site and its location very informative as
to (Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021). You will note that the FCC
and all the carriers have researched and found that 75% of
phones used by the public are wireless phones, as they allow the
freedom to communicate where ever they are! When someone
wants to buy property these days they actually consider if their
phones will work so as to communicate with work and loved ones,
data transfer, streaming live and TV events. T-Mobile actually has
very poor and in some cases there is no coverage in the area
where the site is proposed.
6. HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER REQUIRED BY VERTICAL
BRIDGE, T-MOBILE AND THIER RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS.
Both Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile are requiring the height of the
proposed tower to be at 80’. The reason is to directly
communicate uninterrupted with the existing T-Mobile site
locations in the vicinity. This requirement is so as to accomplish a
system build or the 5G Network and not just a stand-alone towers
where the 4G network use to be. This height of 80’ (where the
antennas will be at) will allow T-Mobiles network to accomplish
the even flow of radio frequency, which will stop the poor
coverage, block calls, or capability of calls in or out, including the
911 Emergency calls, both in or out.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone
service, including cellular and personal communications service
(PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination of
antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as
a "cellular or PCS cell site" or "base station." Cellular or PCS cell site
towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high Antennas are
usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group
used to transmit signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas
used to receive signals from mobile units.
The Carrier considers the use of each telecom site to be
interconnected with the other existing carrier sites, as that is the
whole premise for the carriers system build, and now that there
are radios for all the carriers including T-Mobile to the 5G
Network it is imperative that each site coordinates and
interconnects as 5G is a system build, and not like what you are
used to from before, which allows the actual radio frequency to
be less than 4G as it blends with the existing towers.
7. 911-EMERGENCY CALLS
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are
registered with the Federal Communication Commission and part

of the EAS program. 911- EMERGENCY CALLS. Each cell tower is
mandated as part of the EAS national public warning system that
requires broadcasters, cable television systems, wireless cable
systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers,
and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the
communications capability to the President to address the
American public during a national emergency. The system also
may be used by state and local authorities to deliver important
emergency information, such as AMBER alerts and weather
information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction
with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
Every one of these Agencies require as part of the FCC Licensing
to each carrier that they MUST be able to broadcast their radio
frequencies incorporating these systems as part of their obligation
to have the license. So when there is very little coverage or in this
site location there is the potential of no coverage, where there is
the possibility of a 911-call not going through or a Federal
Emergency broadcast that is why Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile really
needs the site to bridge the gap of NO Coverage in this area
between the existing T-Mobile sites, which the T-Mobile RF
Engineers are requiring their antennas to be at 80’ to accomplish
the most important RF coverage objectives, which is to link up
with the existing sites.
8. FEDERAL GUIDELINES
From the FCC.
Decision May Not Be Based on or Regulate Radio Frequency
Emissions Cities may not regulate placement, construction
of modification of WCFs based on radio frequency (“RF”)
emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with
FCC RF emissions regulations.
Cities may also not attempt to regulate the operation of WCFs
based on these 8 City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 725;
City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 994, citing, Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 580
[stating that the zoning board may consider “other valid public
goals such as safety and aesthetics”]; T-Mobile Cent., LLC v.
Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County (10th Cir. 2008) 546 F.3d
1299, 1312 [noting that “aesthetics can be a valid ground for local
zoning decisions”]; Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay (2d Cir.
1999) 166 F.3d 490, 494 [recognizing that “aesthetic concerns can
be a valid basis for zoning decisions”]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v.
City of Hillsboro (D. Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1255.

The FCC and Local and State Advisory Committee of the FCC
published a guide for local officials to help determine whether a
facility complies with FCC standards. It can be found online at
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety.
<image002.png>
9. Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a
manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such
facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC
height restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away
from potential exposure. To that end, no communication facility or
combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities
that exceed the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure
to RF fields. Certification that a facility meets this standard is
required. A copy of the certification from the FCC shall be submitted
to the city.
10. LIGHTING
Please see the actual lighting specification on the actual site plans
the were submitted to the County. This will show that the lighting
for the site is going to be located below the top of the 10’ wall
and will be shaded to only light the lease space area inside the
compound where both the pole and the equipment will be
located to work on in the case of an emergency.
<image052.png>
11. COLOR OF THE POLE AND COMPOUND WALLS & ASTHETICS
The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical
aesthetics of the surrounding area which includes existing APS
poles, and also the raw land between the ROW’s which is owned by
Arizona State Land.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with
the area that has many other like electrical poles which are the same
color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to
reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS:
Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of
the FAA to be painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to

reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related
structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors,
textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the
natural setting and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS
POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as
being suggested by the surrounding community.
12. NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication
sites. (Please See attachment Cellsites_public_health_final-2021),
As we discussed at the community meeting, the radio frequency
waves have been researched since the 1950’s when TV
broadcasting off South Mountain was built, and the wireless
telephones for all the carriers have been existence since the late
1980’s, where everyone in the U.S. and your area has been living
and working within all of these wireless frequencies on a constant
basis. This includes the existing wireless carrier site locations that
are all around you now, including the fire station, the schools, and
churches in your immediate area!
13. NO INTERFEARANCE WITH EXISTING TELEPHONES, TV, OR
CABLE
There will be NO interference if a new cell phone tower is built with
any current cell phone service through any other carrier. There will
not be any interference with any Digital Television reception. The
FCC sells individual licenses for specific radio frequencies to each
carrier or wireless companies so there will not be any interference or
cross-talk.
14. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY
The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined as
“Monopole” and will not cause any adverse impact on adjacent
property or properties in the area. As this is an un-manned facility
and we only maintain the property around once a month, but in the
case of an emergency it would be sooner. There will be no increase
in Vehicular or pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas,
emissions of any order, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or
glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; contribution in a
measurable way to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the
lowering of property values, Per Sections 1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 &
1202.6.
15. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING.
The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge proposed site location
including compound and building the road to the site from N 3rd Ave.
East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the
proposed site location and / or the road that Vertical Bridge will need
to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility
Easement on all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be

endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed
site location and as part of the road is already existing there will be a
limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the dedicated 30’
Access& Utility Easement.
16. SEARCH RING AREA (Exhaustive Search)
So you can understand the limited space for setbacks
requirements, and parcels with all the washes, which would not
work as to flood out the site.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the
neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and
coordinates each site with the needs for both the neighborhoods, county
(jurisdictions), and the carriers.
<image003.png>
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the
neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and
coordinates each site with the needs for both the neighborhoods, county
(jurisdictions), and the carriers, which I explained in both the community
meeting and now in writing.
Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular
Telecommunications sites, but I really do appreciate your concerns, and
hope I have reiterated in writing now from the discussion we had at the
community meeting.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
<image001.png>
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040

<Cellsites_public_health_final-2021.pdf>
<Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021.pdf>
<Device Comparison.pdf>
<911Wireless2021.pdf>
<5G-The-Next-Generation-of-Wireless-Services-1.pdf>

From: Janet Mendenhall
To: Gary Cassel
Cc: Sean Watkins (PND); Morris Michelson
Subject: Re: AZ-5068- Z2021044 Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 7:52:22 PM
Gary,
Thanks for your response. I would recommend then that you place this tower at the Fire station and not at the
proposed location. The tower extends well above the 10 foot wall. The proposed site is on higher ground than the
elevation of my property. It is taller than the electrical poles that run along 7th Avenue. It is another visual
disruption I would prefer not to see.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:19 PM, Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ms. Mendenhall:
> GOOD AFTERNOON
> Thank you so much for writing the County on your concerns as to the proposed Vertical Bridge
Telecommunication site.
>
> I wanted to write you directly if you did not mind, as to answering your concerns directly, and also included the
County Planner.
>
> I would like to respond to your concerns as to the NOISE coming from the Vertical Bridge site and its location.
> There is no noise coming from the site itself, as the cabinetry built for the radio equipment is built to compensate
for any noise within the cabinets, and again the radios don't make noise. Also there is a 10' wall around all the
equipment including the pole, which if there were any noise it would be blocked from the walls around the
equipment cabinets.
>
> Furthermore, there is already and has been a Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station just
down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site location less than 2400' away, and has been there for
many years.
>
> Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular Telecommunications sites, but really do appreciate
your concerns.
>
> Gary Cassel
> Site Acquisition Specialist
> Clear Blue Services
> O: 602.762.8809
> E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
>
> Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
>
> www.clearblueservices.com
> 3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
> Phoenix, Arizona 85040
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:58 AM

> To: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
> Subject: FW: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> Good morning Gary,
> FYI...
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sean Watkins
> Planner
> Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
> 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> Desk: 602-506-8150
> sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
> P&D is now 100% digital.
> Find information on our new permit process here:
> https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Watkins (PND)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:57 AM
> To: Janet Mendenhall <janetmendenhall@gmail.com>
> Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> Hello Ms. Mendenhall,
> Your comment has been added to the project record for consideration by Staff, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sean Watkins
> Planner
> Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
> 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> Desk: 602-506-8150
> sean.watkins@maricopa.gov
> P&D is now 100% digital.
> Find information on our new permit process here:
> https://www.maricopa.gov/1629/Construction-Permit-Information
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet Mendenhall <janetmendenhall@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:37 AM
> To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
> Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
> Subject: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
>
> As property owners that would have to view and hear the noise generated by the proposed WCF, my husband and

I are against this installation. Desert Hills is located in an unincorporated area of Maricopa county—no water
service, no sewer, poor internet. We live here because we enjoy the natural surroundings of the area, horse
properties etc. We did not invest in a home here to coexist with a T-mobile cell tower that will serve to be an
eyesore to our neighborhood.
>
> We vote NO! Thank you.
>
> Janet Mendenhall
> 38860 N 7th Avenue
> Phoenix 85086
>
> Sent from my iPhone

From: Janet Mendenhall
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com
Subject: Proposed WCF at 3rd Ave in Desert Hills
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:37:07 AM
As property owners that would have to view and hear the noise generated by the proposed WCF, my husband and I
are against this installation. Desert Hills is located in an unincorporated area of Maricopa county—no water service,
no sewer, poor internet. We live here because we enjoy the natural surroundings of the area, horse properties etc.
We did not invest in a home here to coexist with a T-mobile cell tower that will serve to be an eyesore to our
neighborhood.
We vote NO! Thank you.
Janet Mendenhall
38860 N 7th Avenue
Phoenix 85086
Sent from my iPhone

From: Lisa Paffrath
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: FIRENSIC INVESTIGATIONS
Subject: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 2:08:47 PM
Sean,
My name is Lisa Paffrath and this email is to inform you that we are not in support of the
proposed T-Mobile site across from our home. We are asking that you deny the SUP
referenced in the subject line of this email. Our parcel number is : 211-73-135. Our address
is: 520 W Desert Hills Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85086.
Thank you,
Lisa Paffrath
602-418-6301

From: Jessica Johnson
To: Sean Watkins (PND); alrakofsky@gmail.com
Subject: [POSITIVE SPAM]5G tower in Desert Hills
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:33:28 AM
Sean, the meeting last night regarding the 5G tower proposed to go up near residents in Desert
Hills, was an absolute disaster. Our voices deserve to be heard. Gary beat around the bush on
every issue brought before him. Maybe we could get a meeting with someone who can, or will
address our concerns. There is a definite health risk to the public, not to mention property
values. This concerns us all. Not just the parties that stand to gain the most money. I will be
emailing Debbie Leskos office regarding this matter, as well as the rest of Legislative District
1. This matter will not be swept under the rug easily. I would Greatly appreciate a response on
this matter. In the meantime I will continue enlightening the residents of desert hills, and
emailing my representatives.
Sincerely, Jessica Johnson
Committeeman- Legislative District 1

From: Mary Huels
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: AZ-5068special use permit#Z2021044
Date: Saturday, June 5, 2021 6:11:01 PM
Hello,
We do not want the SUP in the location that was picked for the 80 foot tower for T-Mobile.
Regards:
Pat and Mary Huels
39306 N 7th Ave
Parcel #211-50-344
Sent from my iPhone

From: David Packman
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: Proposed Cell Tower - SUP 2021044
Date: Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:03:58 PM
Sean,
Although we attended the meeting held by Gary Cassel on June 1, 2021. Many of the
concerns the attendees had were not answered, specifically if this cell tower was going to be
placed on the property at North 3rd Ave and Desert Hills Drive.
Our major concerns regarding this proposed development are as follows:
1. Is this a done deal? What can be done to stop it?
2. Zoning changes to accommodate this tower, changing from R-43 to something else,
especially if it becomes a commercially zoned property, setting a precedence for other
towers to be put in a primarily residential area.
3. Esthetics - the proposed tower is planned to be 80 feet in height. The APS poles are
generally no more than 60 feet in height. The exterior of the pole is not planned to
match the APS poles should it be placed.
4. Is it safe? - what studies have been done to ensure there are no unseen damages to
human life, animals or plants based on the RF or other electrical emissions? None were
provided at the meeting. But it was said there was a 2-year study done and 'turned in'.
Gary did not know to whom the study was 'turned into to' or how to get a copy of this
study.
5. Light pollution from maintenance or security activities
6. Impact to Property values?
7. Why wouldn't this cell tower be put on State Land instead of residential land?
Above all, we are asking you to NOT TO APPROVE THIS SUP
Sincerely, concerned residents of Desert Hills
David & Pamela Packman

From: Monte Mlekush
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: New cell tower at Desert Hill and 3rd Ave
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 3:16:31 PM
Mr. Watkins,
This e-mail is to voice my concerns about having a new cell tower near me. I live at Desert Hills and
7th Ave. First of all, considering that we are surrounded by very high hills in every direction around
us, why does it need to be built this near the people who live here? And it doesn’t matter how pretty
the structure is made, the noise and light contamination will be considerable.
Thank you your consideration,
Monte Mlekush
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Vivian Decker
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: SUP - Z2021044
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:59:53 PM
My Husband and I are concerned neighbors living in the area of the proposed
wireless communication facility. We feel the need to voice our concerns over this
project.
We understand growth, we have seen lots of it here in beautiful Desert Hills in
the 12 years we have lived here.
The County has standards in place when it comes to zoning that protects existing
communities such as ours.
Standards such as, setback from property lines and array diameters.
If a special use permit is given for this project it can and may very well set a
new precedent for the next WCF in our community.
We are asking you to not approve this SUP.
If approve please implement items that have been suggested;
pole height
matching the existing APS poles in the area, for a uniform look
height of attenuation walls
shaded lighting within the compound
Respectfully,
Harry Decker
Vivian Decker

From: Renee Hunter
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Subject: Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:08:27 PM
6-2-2021
To: Sean Watkins, The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission, & The
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Cc. Gary Cassel
This letter is in regard to the Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the Proposed
T-Mobil Cell Phone Tower at the following address:
39212 N. 3rd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086 locations
Maricopa County
Accessors Parcel # 211-23-014F
I would like to oppose the Special Use Permit and oppose the cell phone tower
being built.
First, it will be an eyesore! I don’t want to look out my front window at an 80 foot cell
phone tower! I also do not want to have any excess lighting from the tower, nor do I
want to listen to any excess noise being made from the cell tower or things used to
run it. It is bad enough that I already have to listen to the water trucks go back and
forth down Desert Hills Road all day long and hear them engine break all too often! I
moved out here to get away from the lights and the noise of the city. I do not want
any additional lights or noise added! I do not want it built here!
Second, I am concerned that it is going to drastically reduce our resale value of our
home & the other homes in the surrounding area. No one is going to want purchase
a house across the street from and/or look right out the front window at an 80 foot cell
tower! For this reason, I do not want it built here!
Third, I am concerned for my health and the health of my neighbors. I do not believe
that there has been enough long term testing on the health risks of living so close to a
cell phone tower. I do believe that there will be increased health risks & issues from a
cell phone tower being so close, therefore, I do not want it built here!

Fourth, I am concerned that there will be interference if a new cell phone tower is built
with my current cell phone service through Verizon. I am also concerned it will
interfere with my Digital Television reception. I do not want it built here!
In closing, I would just like to say again that I oppose the special use permit and I
oppose the cell phone tower being built!
Please keep me informed of the dates to any upcoming dates, times and the locations
of meetings regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Renee Hunter

From: ina Mlekush
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: New Proposed Cell Tower in Desert Hills
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 3:21:11 PM
Sean Watkins,
I am a resident at Desert Hills Drive and 7th Ave. The proposed Tower is to be constructed near 3rd
Ave and Desert Hills Drive.
It is not acceptable to put a tower in a residential neighborhood when there are hills that are above
and away from housing.
An 80’ cell tower, 15’ higher then any of the APS poles with a broad reaching impact of many miles
to penetrate the air space we live in.
I purposely chose to live in Desert Hills, with no street lights, minimal contamination of electrical
energy and no 5g in the area.
Your proposed WCF requires cooling, using A/C units which generate a constant noise factor. Put this
noise pollution on a local mountain top. Not where it will infiltrate into our brain thru the waves
that penetrate thru all matter, meaning our homes and cellular structure.
I Angry my land and home is being infiltrated with this technology which has been proven to be
harmful.
Ina
Ina Mlekush “ Speaks Simply” MFCC
Marriage, Relationship Counselor- Traditional & Alternative
Sex Counselor ASSECT Member
623 465-9151
Ina@TalktoIna.com
Ina@SpiritualSexuality.com

From: Rick Kreutzberger
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: objection to cellular T mobile cell tower
Date: Saturday, June 5, 2021 12:09:03 PM
Az-5068-special use permit case# Z2021044
We live across the road from the proposed location.
This is not only ugly but adds unnecessary lights besides not being good for our health and the
value of our property..
My wife has Multiple Sclerosis and the idea of having this tower so close to where we live is
devastating!!
Deny SUP
Choose a non residential location!!!!!
Our parcel # is 211-73-058-D
Fredrick Kreutzberger
Alice Felice
39426 N 4th Ave Phoenix Arizona
85086

From: Susie Marsman
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: deny SUP. Cell Tower
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:38:51 PM
To whom it may concern. My name is Susan Marsman. I live and own 39512 N. 4th
Ave. Parcel #211-73-058B. I’m opposed to the structure that is supposed to go in on
Desert Hills Dr
it will not only put all around it in danger, it will signicanty dropt the value of our
properties! not to mention the eyesore of this monstrosity. Thank you for your time.
Susan Marsman

From: NRDHCA & DMAAA
To: Gary Cassel
Subject: Your Input is Welcome
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:06:44 PM
Gary, here is the email I sent to over 540 names. I had 34% open and no phone calls. The Board had no
objection to the SUP.
Public Comment
Gary Cassel of Clear Blue Services has asked the Dept. of Planning and Development
for additional public comment on the proposed cell site to be located on the south side
of Desert Hills on 3rd Ave (SUP Z2021044). Mr. Cassel has requested additional public
comment over and above the P&Z requirements. If you would like to ask questions
please contact Mr. Cassel.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
New River/Desert Hills Community Association | PO Box 75068, New River, AZ 85087-1000
Unsubscribe {recipient's email}

Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by etaylor855@gmail.com
THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY.
This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a draft message. If you believe you have received
the message in error, please contact the author by replying to this message. Constant Contact takes reports of
abuse very seriously. If you wish to report abuse, please forward this message to abuse@constantcontact.com.

From: Gary Cassel
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Cc: "Morris Michelson"
Subject: FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY MEETING-NRDHCA
Date: Sunday, June 27, 2021 12:03:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Your Input is Welcome.msg
Hey Sean:
Please see the NRDHCA & DMAAA PUBLIC NOTICE sent out to all the New River Community to Invite them
to call me if there any concerns!
NO ONE CALLED
As you can see the NRDHCA & DMAAA BOARD had no objection to the SUP.
I THINK THIS TELLS THE STORY
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 4:05 PM
To: estentinc ent <etaylor@estentinc.com>; etaylor855@gmail.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>; Steven
DeJonge <stevendejonge@clearblueservices.com>
Subject: FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Hey Ed:
Thank you so much for your EXTRA effort in sending out to the 540 addresses in the New River Community,
and Thank the NRDHCA BOARD for their consideration and their vote of NO OBJECTION to the Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile Telecommunication Project;
AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044!
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services

O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: estentinc ent <etaylor@estentinc.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:14 PM
To: Gary Cassel <garycassel@clearblueservices.com>
Subject: Emails Sent
I sent you a copy of the notice I sent out Wednesday to over 540 addresses. It has a 34% open rate
and I have had no phone calls. We discussed the SUP at the Board meeting and there were no
objections. Thank you for the extra effort but I see no need for any more meetings. Continued
success with your project and let me know if you need any other assistance.
Thank you for the opportunity
Ed Taylor, President
NRDHCA
602-739-1235 cell
..."You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040

From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 6:49 PM
To: etaylor855@gmail.com; etaylor855@gmail.com; behomes@q.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Hey Ed:
As per our Great conversation about 2 weeks ago you were going to send out as the Board President for
NRDHCA the invitation for the Board meeting t be held on 6/24/21, and I believe you were going to mention
if there were any concern Association Members as to the Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile Telecom site off of
Desert Hill Dr and 3rd Ave.
I believe from our conversation, you were going to see what if there were concerns and if you found enough
response to your asking the question, that there maybe a reason for another New River Community
Meeting as we already had one on 6/1/21 at the Choice Church. The attendees were from a list provided by
Alan Muller.
The reason why I am asking is if you feel that the same people attending your Board Meeting or writing with
their concerns from what you can tell are some of the same people as attended the first meeting, which
means they are from the same list provided by Alan Muller, who we know also is a member of the NRDHCA,
then there may not be a reason to have a 2nd Community Meeting??
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IMPORTANT TO ME
We also discussed that you were going to ask the New River Board for their consideration on the Vertical
Bridge / T-Mobile project.
Please confirm if the Board did meet on 6/24/21, and their consideration for this project??
Please note there is a real need for a T-Mobile presents in the New River Community as there is only one
carrier right now that has any kind of presents, and you and I both know that the FCC, FAA and all the
carriers from the Federal Law stand point are required to have a presents everywhere in the US including
New River!
Please let me know that there was a Board Meeting and the consideration they are giving to Vertical Bridge
/ T-Mobile Telecom site, and also if you feel like there is a need for a 2nd New River Community Meeting?
PLEASE ADVISE, as the County has a deadline for me to let them what the Board status is on both a 2nd
meeting potential and consideration from the Board.
Thank you and the NRDHCA Board for consideration in this matter!
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist

Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:27 AM
To: behomes@gmail.com; behomes@g.com; etaylor855@gmail.com
Cc: 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>; Julie McKibben (CBS)
<juliemckibben@clearblueservices.com>; Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: FW: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -VERTICAL BRIDGE REQUESTING A COMMUNITY
MEETING-NRDHCA
Dear Ed:
I am writing the NRDHCA to see if there is a way to have a Community Meeting with the Community as per
the request of Maricopa County on the Special Use Permit that Vertical Bridge is has submitted for an 80’
monopole (Brown in Color) within an 30’ x 35’ walled in compound which is 10’ in height painted and
textured BROWN located at the APN 211-23-014F, (Reid Ranch), off 3rd Ave & Desert Hills Dr. about 450’
away from the residential community in that area.
As to the history of the County Submittal, there has already been a Community Meeting held on 6/1/21, at
the Crossroads Church in New River, and was provided a list of the Community in opposition from Alan
Muller.
At that meeting you will see below in this email what was discussed and the answers that were given,
except for the question “How do we stop this from going forward”?, which I told all of the attendees that it
is not up to one person it is the County and the Federal Communications System (FCC).
Vertical Bridge is requesting another Community Meeting requested by the County to make sure VB has
communicated to as much of the Community as to what is being submitted to the County by Vertical Bridge.
The only area of concern is that Vertical Bridge (as they have no obligation by the county for a Community
Meeting) wants to 1. To make sure VB does the best they can to inform the parcel owners around the site
and its location, 2. That VB is speaking to the community members, BUT now that there has been one
Community Meeting with over 65 parcel owners sent out invitations from the list provided by Alan Muller,
that there is a reason for another meeting with new attendees present? If that makes sense?
If the NRDHCA is interested in allowing Vertical Bridge to have another Community Meeting, and you think
the list that you could provide would be a different list than what was provided by Alan Muller with address
and maybe even email address (does not have to have emails), I can try to coordinate another Community
Meeting. Please understand the Community I speak of is the community that is directly affected and in the
vicinity of the submitted application.

I am looking forward to working with you, and if it is possible to have this meeting BEFORE the Planning and
Zoning Commission – Thursday, July 8, 2021, 9:30 a.m. THAT WOULD BE GREAT!
If your offices have room we can have it there, or I can ask again the Crossroads Church Pastor if he would
consider a 2nd meeting place?
The key to having this meeting is if the County, you, and I think we are all talking to the same group of
parcel ownership within the affected area of the location of the submitted VB application.
YOUR THOUGHTS
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 1:11 PM
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com; Renee Hunter <renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>; alrakofsky@gmail.com;
Jessica Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>; Vivian Decker <vrdecker3@gmail.com>;
janetmendenhall@gmail.com; mhuels@msn.com; rogerrayaz@protonnail.com; cj4fun51@aol.com;
marberry2014@outlook.com; charryzip@gmail.com; bats_az@hotmail.com; marchelle-
johnstone@gmail.com; amordarakotsk@gmail.comy; cabrio1937@gmail.com; fakbeye3@yahoo.com;
azfirecop@gmail.com; Lisa Paffrath <tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>; Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>; 'Morris Michelson' <mmickelson@verticalbridge.com>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON
6/1/21
Hey All:
As I promised I would do, and am sending you the hearing dates
Planning and Zoning Commission – Thursday, July 8, 2021, 9:30 a.m.

Board of Supervisors – Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
POSTING IS BEING UPDATED
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
From: Gary Cassel
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 4:02 PM
To: 4daisymountain@gmail.com
Cc: DesertHillsAZ@gmail.com; Renee Hunter <renee_hunter_2005@yahoo.com>; alrakofsky@gmail.com;
Jessica Johnson <jhnsmom1976@gmail.com>; Vivian Decker <vrdecker3@gmail.com>;
janetmendenhall@gmail.com; mhuels@msn.com; rogerrayaz@protonnail.com; cj4fun51@aol.com;
marberry2014@outlook.com; charryzip@gmail.com; bats_az@hotmail.com; marchelle-
johnstone@gmail.com; amordarakotsk@gmail.comy; cabrio1937@gmail.com; fakbeye3@yahoo.com;
azfirecop@gmail.com; Lisa Paffrath <tchrlyzajane@gmail.com>; Sean Watkins (PND)
<Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 -UPDATE TO COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON
6/1/21
TO ALL THAT ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON 6/1/21
GOOD AFTERNOON
Thank you so much to all of you for your discussions and concerns as to the proposed Vertical Bridge
Telecommunication site at the community meeting held on 6/1/21.
I wanted to write you directly if you don’t mind, as I really do care and want all of you to be as much
informed as possible especially as to answer to your concerns directly that you brought up, and also in
writing so everyone is clear on what was asked and the answers that were given at the meeting. , and I am
also including the County Planner.
There is no update yet as to the dates for any of the hearings sorry to say.
I did not prioritize the concerns, but wanted to answer I believe every concern we discussed at the
community meeting.
1. NOISE

There is very little or No noise as the individual cabinets are internally cooled within, and the
cabinets holding the radios are built to allow for no noise or the decibels of any noise would be
blocked by the compound walls height, as mitigated to 10’ and not the initial 8’ that was applied for.
As the walled in compound walls are now proposed to be 10’ tall, and if there were any noise it
would be blocked by the 10’ wall.
2. LOCATION
I know you are concerned with the location of the site, and want you to know that after considering
over 13 different property owners in a .5 mile radius of the proposed site, because of washes and
limited space along with ownership considerations, Vertical Bridge thought the site needed to be as
far away from the residences as possible, and still stay within the T-Mobile required search area. As
there are no residences anywhere in the vicinity of the site location , as the nearest home is over
400’+ to the East (2) parcels East, and the WCF site build located in the Northwest Center of the
existing parcel where the setbacks to the nearest ROW’s are over 350’+ to Desert Hills Rd. with
residences even further, and over 500’+ to 7th Ave, where the site is surrounded by existing APS
Electrical poles, the site location was the furthest we could be away from the residences. The real
challenge was to find a parcel where the WASHES on the property did not conflict with the location
as the water rises and could wipe out the whole site!!
3. SET BACKS
The zoning of the subject property is RU-43. (Reid Ranch RU-43); The location of the zoning where
the site is proposed and around the site which is allowed by the county is West RU-43 and existing
raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, North is RU-43 and AZ State Land then ROW-Desert Hills
Dr., and South is RU-43 and AZ State Land, East is ROW-3rd Ave. and beyond is RU-43. North
distance is 330’ from site parcel line, and then (ROW) Desert Hills Dr., then the residences on the
other side North. South is RU-43 and Arizona State Land 250’-3”, East is (ROW) 3rd Ave 523’ from
site location. and beyond is RU-43. West is existing raw landowner is located in Cornville AZ, and
then (ROW) and then 7th Ave over 501’ West.
4. FIRE STATION & SURROUNDING PARCELS
The fire station (I tried to locate the site at the tower at the fire station and was DENIED due to no room
for equipment space and no room on the existing pole, and the area behind the fire station is
environmentally off limits to any building) with their own tower mast (which is way over 2400’ away
West) from (VB) proposed site location, Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k).
There are no other towers in the 2400’ radius area; Per Section: 1202.3.1.(k)., (fire station denied the
VB request and does not have space either on the tower or the ground space) and due to the T-Mobile
mature system build they really need this proposed site location to improve the services as there are
many blocked calls due to the weak signal in the surrounding area. The existing right of way power
poles, light standards and stop light pole have been thoroughly investigated by T-Mobile’s Radio
Frequency Engineers which are found does not work for the RF objectives, as they are too close to
residences and not tall enough or strong enough to incorporate the required antennas. Furthermore,
there is already and has been a Verizon Telecommunication site Pole at the County Fire Station just
down off of Desert Hills Dr to the West of our proposed site location less than 2400' away, and has
been there for many years.
5. PROPERTY VALUES
I think you will find the attachment on PROPERTY VALUES and the affect as to the proposed site and
its location very informative as to (Property Values Fact Sheet_ 2021). You will note that the FCC
and all the carriers have researched and found that 75% of phones used by the public are wireless
phones, as they allow the freedom to communicate where ever they are! When someone wants to

buy property these days they actually consider if their phones will work so as to communicate with
work and loved ones, data transfer, streaming live and TV events. T-Mobile actually has very poor
and in some cases there is no coverage in the area where the site is proposed.
6. HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER REQUIRED BY VERTICAL BRIDGE, T-MOBILE AND THIER RADIO
FREQUENCY ENGINEERS.
Both Vertical Bridge and T-Mobile are requiring the height of the proposed tower to be at 80’. The
reason is to directly communicate uninterrupted with the existing T-Mobile site locations in the
vicinity. This requirement is so as to accomplish a system build or the 5G Network and not just a
stand-alone towers where the 4G network use to be. This height of 80’ (where the antennas will be
at) will allow T-Mobiles network to accomplish the even flow of radio frequency, which will stop the
poor coverage, block calls, or capability of calls in or out, including the 911 Emergency calls, both in
or out.
T-Mobile’s Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and personal
communications service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, the combination of antenna
towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a "cellular or PCS cell site" or "base
station." Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically and, in this case, will be 80’ high Antennas are
usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to transmit signals to mobile
units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units.
The Carrier considers the use of each telecom site to be interconnected with the other existing
carrier sites, as that is the whole premise for the carriers system build, and now that there are
radios for all the carriers including T-Mobile to the 5G Network it is imperative that each site
coordinates and interconnects as 5G is a system build, and not like what you are used to from
before, which allows the actual radio frequency to be less than 4G as it blends with the existing
towers.
7. 911-EMERGENCY CALLS
The cell towers including this cell tower within the County are registered with the Federal
Communication Commission and part of the EAS program. 911- EMERGENCY CALLS. Each cell tower
is mandated as part of the EAS national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable
television systems, wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SOARS) providers,
and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the
President to address the American public during a national emergency. The system also may be
used by state and local authorities to deliver important emergency information, such as AMBER
alerts and weather information targeted to specific areas. The FCC, in conjunction with Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level.
Every one of these Agencies require as part of the FCC Licensing to each carrier that they MUST be
able to broadcast their radio frequencies incorporating these systems as part of their obligation to
have the license. So when there is very little coverage or in this site location there is the potential of
no coverage, where there is the possibility of a 911-call not going through or a Federal Emergency
broadcast that is why Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile really needs the site to bridge the gap of NO
Coverage in this area between the existing T-Mobile sites, which the T-Mobile RF Engineers are
requiring their antennas to be at 80’ to accomplish the most important RF coverage objectives,
which is to link up with the existing sites.

8. FEDERAL GUIDELINES
From the FCC.
Decision May Not Be Based on or Regulate Radio Frequency Emissions Cities may not
regulate placement, construction of modification of WCFs based on radio frequency (“RF”)
emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with FCC RF emissions regulations.
Cities may also not attempt to regulate the operation of WCFs based on these 8 City of Palos Verdes
Estates, 583 F.3d at 725; City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 994, citing, Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 580 [stating
that the zoning board may consider “other valid public goals such as safety and aesthetics”]; T-
Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County (10th Cir. 2008) 546 F.3d 1299, 1312
[noting that “aesthetics can be a valid ground for local zoning decisions”]; Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town
of Oyster Bay (2d Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490, 494 [recognizing that “aesthetic concerns can be a valid
basis for zoning decisions”]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D. Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d
1251, 1255.
The FCC and Local and State Advisory Committee of the FCC published a guide for local officials to
help determine whether a facility complies with FCC standards. It can be found online at
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety.
9. Radio frequency exposure.
No communication facility shall be sited or operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself or in
combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. There are FAA & FCC height
restrictions to keep the radio frequencies above and away from potential exposure. To that end, no
communication facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities that exceed
the current FCC adopted standards for human exposure to RF fields. Certification that a facility meets
this standard is required. A copy of the certification from the FCC shall be submitted to the city.
10. LIGHTING
Please see the actual lighting specification on the actual site plans the were submitted to the
County. This will show that the lighting for the site is going to be located below the top of the 10’
wall and will be shaded to only light the lease space area inside the compound where both the pole
and the equipment will be located to work on in the case of an emergency.

11. COLOR OF THE POLE AND COMPOUND WALLS & ASTHETICS
The proposed VB site does not substantially change the physical aesthetics of the surrounding area
which includes existing APS poles, and also the raw land between the ROW’s which is owned by Arizona
State Land.
The physical aesthetics of the proposed pole is commensurate with the area that has many other like
electrical poles which are the same color existing BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color poles so as to
reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
COLOR OF POLE; ASTHETICS:
Towers and antennae shall meet the following requirements:
a. Towers shall maintain, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA to be painted a BROWN
(APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual obstructiveness, as being suggested by the
surrounding community.
b. At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible, use
materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting
and surrounding towers. painted a BROWN (APS POLE COLOR) color so as to reduce visual
obstructiveness, as being suggested by the surrounding community.
12. NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication sites. (Please See attachment
Cellsites_public_health_final-2021), As we discussed at the community meeting, the radio frequency
waves have been researched since the 1950’s when TV broadcasting off South Mountain was built, and
the wireless telephones for all the carriers have been existence since the late 1980’s, where everyone in
the U.S. and your area has been living and working within all of these wireless frequencies on a constant
basis. This includes the existing wireless carrier site locations that are all around you now, including the
fire station, the schools, and churches in your immediate area!
13. NO INTERFEARANCE WITH EXISTING TELEPHONES, TV, OR CABLE
There will be NO interference if a new cell phone tower is built with any current cell phone service
through any other carrier. There will not be any interference with any Digital Television reception. The
FCC sells individual licenses for specific radio frequencies to each carrier or wireless companies so there
will not be any interference or cross-talk.
14. TRAFFIC-UNMANNED FACILITY
The use is an un-manned telecommunications facility defined as “Monopole” and will not cause any
adverse impact on adjacent property or properties in the area. As this is an un-manned facility and we
only maintain the property around once a month, but in the case of an emergency it would be sooner.
There will be no increase in Vehicular or pedestrian traffic in adjacent residential areas, emissions of any

order, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions;
contribution in a measurable way to the deterioration of the area or contribution to the lowering of
property values, Per Sections 1202.1 & 1202.2, 1202.5 & 1202.6.
15. EXISTING AND REMOVING LANDSCAPING.
The location of the proposed Vertical Bridge proposed site location including compound and building the
road to the site from N 3rd Ave. East.
a. There is no existing endangered cactus within the area of the proposed site location and / or the road
that Vertical Bridge will need to build within the existing 30’ wide dedicated Access & Utility Easement on
all parcels East to N. 3rd Ave. If there are found to be endangered cactus, they will be replaced on the
parcel to save them.
b. There is only brush that will be removed to allow for the proposed site location and as part of the road
is already existing there will be a limited removal of bushes to get to the site through the dedicated 30’
Access& Utility Easement.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and coordinates each site with the needs for
both the neighborhoods, county (jurisdictions), and the carriers.
Vertical Bridge is working with your concerns of both you and the neighborhood and REALLY DO CARE!
Vertical Bridge has over 300,000 sites in the United States, and coordinates each site with the needs for
both the neighborhoods, county (jurisdictions), and the carriers, which I explained in both the community
meeting and now in writing.
Hope this helps in the understanding of the new age of Cellular Telecommunications sites, but I really do
appreciate your concerns, and hope I have reiterated in writing now from the discussion we had at the
community meeting.
Gary Cassel
Site Acquisition Specialist
Clear Blue Services
O: 602.762.8809
E: GaryCassel@clearblueservices.com
Site Acquisition*Architecture*Engineering*Construction
www.clearblueservices.com
3530 E. Atlanta Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85040

Z2021044
O pposition and Support
Desert Hills Dr 4th Ave
N
211
23
013
Ave
N3rd
211 211 211 211
23 23 23 23
012 014F 014D 014E
211
23
316
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Eligible parcels: 5 All area inside the 300' buffer -
Subject Parcel
Supporting parcels: 0 excluding subject parcel,
300' Buffer
Opposition parcels: 0 ROW and excluded parcels: 609,819.16
Supporting Parcel
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0 No-response parcels sq ft: 609,819.16
BusinessPND.GIS.casem ap
Opposition parcels sq ft: 0 Super M ajority opposed parcel acres:
Opposition Parcel
Subject parcels sq ft: 72,545.91 0%
All Opposition Parcels
All area inside the 300' buffer: Super M ajority opposed parcel num ber:
300' Buffer Selection
685,063.05 0%
300' Buffer Interior
80 40 0 80 Feet
301 W . Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

Z2021044
Local Responses
A ve
7th
Rd
r
A
NewRive
nthe
m
W
y
Desert Hills Dr
St
7th
Joy Ranch Rd
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
680 340 0 680 Feet
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

Z2021044
All Responses
Ne w Ri v e
rRd
C ir c leM ountainRd
P eak G a vi Honda
P la BowRd
k n
y w
eedom W y Ant h e m
F r W y
17 n sy inDr
o Dai a
ti a ount
T r M
Dedic M eridi anD r
Ave
Trail
19th
Joy Ranch Rd O livin C reek Head
Ave e a ve P k w y
Pio e C
n eer A v St
R d th St S t
7 7th d
2 Cloud Rd 24th 32n
16thSt
CarefreeHw y y
w
lack n P k
N B ntai
A 3 2 ort ou
v e n h M
d V Dove Valley R d
a
303 lley St
P k 40th
y w
Cam elback Rd y
oolPkw
Ave aSch
107th lm
A
W
estw
Pkw Jom ax Rd
y ing Jom ax Rd
83rd
Ave
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/29/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified 4,000 2,000 0 4,000 Feet
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

Planning and Development Department
DATE: July 8, 2021
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sean Watkins, Planner
SUBJECT: Z2021044 – Vertical Bridge/T-Mobile AZ-5068
Agenda Item: 7
Since the publishing of the staff report for the above case, staff received 2 statements of
opposition to the case from 3 area residents (1 email and 1 letter). The opposition
comments are attached to this handout.
The “Opposition and Support” Super Majority map (and 2 related maps) included in the
staff report have been revised to reflect both of the new opposition comments. One of
the new opposition comments is from a property within 300 ft. of the subject property.
The revised maps (3) are also attached to this handout.
Attachments: Two new statements of opposition (2 pages)
Revised opposition and support maps (3 pages)

From: Amanda Rakofsky
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date: Thursday, July 1, 2021 4:18:24 PM
Dear Sean -
This email represents Amanda and Michael Rakofsky at 39212 N 3rd Ave, Phoenix, AZ
85086 Parcel # 211-23-014E
We are formally submitting our request to DENY this SUP.
We live barely 300 feet from where this will be constructed and having an 80 pole (15 feet
taller than all the other utility poles) will create an eyesore. With the unknown risks of a 5G
tower this is very concerning; especially having the extra 15 feet will allow the lessee to agree
to put other carriers on the tower.
The owner of the parcel that is being put on does not even live in the area, he rents to two
tenants. The homes they rent of the property owner are within approximately 150 of said
tower.
Sincerely!
Amanda and Michael Rakofsky
6025107991

To: Rachel Applegate, The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission, & The Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors
This letter is regarding the Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044 for the Proposed T-Mobil Cell
Phone Tower at the following address:
39212 N. 3rd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086 locations
Maricopa County
Accessors Parcel # 211-23-014F
I would like to oppose the Special Use Permit and oppose the cell phone tower being built.
First, it will be an eyesore! I don’t want to look out my front window at an 80 foot cell phone
tower! I already have to look at the 65 foot tall APS poles out the window. I do not want to have
any excess lighting from the tower, nor do I want to listen to any excess noise being made from
the cell tower or things used to run it. I already have to listen to the water trucks go back and
forth down Desert Hills Road all day long and hear them engine break all too often! I moved out
here to get away from the lights, the noise and the sights of the city. I do not want any additional
lights, noise, or an even taller pole added! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell
phone tower!
Second, I am concerned that it is going to drastically reduce our resale value of our home & the
other homes in the surrounding area. No one is going to want purchase a house across the
street from and/or look right out the front window at an 80 foot cell tower! For this reason, I
do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell phone tower!
Third, I am concerned for my health and the health of my neighbors. I do not believe that there
has been enough long term testing on the health risks of living so close to a 5G cell phone
tower. I do believe that there will be increased health risks & issues from a cell phone tower
being so close, therefore, I do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the
cell phone tower!
Fourth, I am concerned that there will be interference if a new cell phone tower is built with my
current cell phone service through Verizon. I am also concerned it will interfere with my Digital
Television reception. I do not want it built here! I OPPOSE this Special Use Permit and the cell
phone tower!
In closing, I would just like to say again that I OPPOSE the special use permit and I OPPOSE
the cell phone tower being built!
Sincerely,
Renee Hunter
39504 N. 4th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Parcel number 211-73-058A

Z2021044
O pposition and Support
Desert Hills Dr 4th Ave
N
211
23
013
Ave
N3rd
211 211 211 211 211
23 23 23 23 23
012 014F 014D 014E 014E
211
23
316
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Eligible parcels: 5 All area inside the 300' buffer -
Subject Parcel
Supporting parcels: 0 excluding subject parcel,
300' Buffer
Opposition parcels: 1 ROW and excluded parcels: 609,819.16
Supporting Parcel
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0 No-response parcels sq ft: 583,503.73
BusinessPND.GIS.casem ap
Opposition parcels sq ft: 26315.43 Super M ajority opposed parcel acres:
Opposition Parcel
Subject parcels sq ft: 72,545.91 4%
All Opposition Parcels
All area inside the 300' buffer: Super M ajority opposed parcel num ber:
300' Buffer Selection
685,063.05 20%
300' Buffer Interior
80 40 0 80 Feet
301 W . Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

Z2021044
Local Responses
A ve
7th
Rd
r
A
NewRive
nthe
m
W
y
Desert Hills Dr
St
7th
Joy Ranch Rd
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified
680 340 0 680 Feet
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

Z2021044
All Responses
Ne w Ri v e
rRd
C ir c leM ountainRd
P eak G a vi Honda
P la BowRd
k n
y w
eedom W y Ant h e m
F r W y
17 n sy inDr
o Dai a
ti a ount
T r M
Dedic M eridi anD r
Ave
Trail
19th
Joy Ranch Rd O livin C reek Head
Ave e a ve P k w y
Pio e C
n eer A v St
R d th St S t
7 7th d
2 Cloud Rd 24th 32n
16thSt
CarefreeHw y y
w
lack n P k
N B ntai
A 3 2 ort ou
v e n h M
d V Dove Valley R d
a
303 lley St
P k 40th
y w
Cam elback Rd y
oolPkw
Ave aSch
107th lm
A
W
estw
Pkw Jom ax Rd
y ing Jom ax Rd
83rd
Ave
DISCLAIM ER: This m ap is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indem nify, defend and hold harm less M aricopa County, its officers, departm ents, em ployees and agents M aricopa County OET, GIS Division, 7/6/2021
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or adm inistrative proceedings, claim s, dem ands or dam ages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this m ap, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form .
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels - None Identified 4,000 2,000 0 4,000 Feet
501 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602) 506-3601 w w w .m aricopa.gov/planning
Docum ent Path: T:\JohnsonS\PlanningandDevelopm ent\O ppositionCases\Z2021044\Z2021044.aprx

From: Jessica Johnson
To: Sean Watkins (PND); COB Agenda Comments; Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 7:36:53 PM
To All Concerned,
It seems this case is being deliberately kept from the public. Making it an online meeting so
that most of the concerned residents won't take the time to figure out how to attend, is a tactic.
Hiding behind old illegal mandates is dispicable of you all. Gary Cassels extensive email was
a beat around the bush sham. It gives no real information and only infuriates the situation
further. Let start and end with #12 in the email.
#12 NO HEALTH HAZARDS
There are NO know known health hazards to the telecommunication towers.
My computer is even flagging this debacle! Nice try Gary. But the public is not as stupid as
you think. We can read.
So are you saying we should wait for ten years down the road when all surrounding neighbors
are diagnosed with strange cancers or birth defects? If the towers are so great, why does there
need to be so many? Why do they have to be right next to residents? What is wrong with just
updating the towers on the hill on 7th ave? Other than harming the hikers.
The neighborhood absolutely denies SUP and its unknown side effects. Not to mention
ruining the surrounding neighbors property values.
At the very least the truth needs to be told to all Desert Hills residents. Perhaps mailers?
With actual details, and a fair risk assessment which you clearly cannot provide. I will keep
moving forward with my efforts to inform as many as possible. I implore you all to do the
right thing!
Copying all of LD1, and Congresswoman Lesko.
Jessica Johnson LD1 committeeman

From: Aileen Godsey
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: AZ-5068-Special Use Permit Case #Z2021044
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:39:10 PM
Hi Sean,
I am writing to strongly oppose the special use permit request referenced above.
I believe the 80’ 5G tower will be an eyesore in our community. 7th Avenue is a main corridor
into Desert Hills and we don’t need more unattractive features spoiling our desert
neighborhood.
If the Special Use permit is approved, I ask that the height be limited to 65’ or less and the
contractor be required to use Corten steel for construction.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope you have a nice day.
Ali Godsey
1832 W. Tamar Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85086
480-363-6081

From: synergstx@aol.com
To: Sean Watkins (PND); synergstx@aol.com
Subject: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:44:55 PM
Jul 7 2021
from John H Williams, Carol A Williams at 39714 N 3rde Ave, Phoenix AZ 85086 nearby about 1500 feet
north of proposed T Mobile cell antenna tower location. We adamantly oppose this project for following
reasons:
1. other more3 open areas are nearby to the north.
2. we will ne near unknown radiation RF levels emitting from antennas.
3. Tower proposed to be 80 fees high which make3s it visible from our neighborhood.
4. finish is only painy instead of the cortex finish
5. cars on desert hills road will be blasted by RF emission from antennas day and night.
6. sound levels from equipment / housing will be heart by us, our neighbors.
7. We feel this project has been strung on us without much chance to have adequate time to review all
aspects of proposal (radiation, sound, etc.
8 We dont have time to take part the meeting Jul 8 in downtown PHX to intelligently deal with this. PS
looks like we are excluded anyway.
9. Added parts of the plan is to add more antennas, equipment with further impacts (RF, etc)
10 for this we soundly oppose this project as many of our neighbors do !!
John H. Williams, Carol A Williams July 7 2021 PM

From: Rachel Applegate (PND)
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: FW: T-Mobile Tower / Case # Z2021044/ Hearing 7/8/21
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2021 6:45:09 AM
From: kori zarinegar <kori@mountaincovecare.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 1:18 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: T-Mobile Tower / Case # Z2021044/ Hearing 7/8/21
Hello,
My name is Kori Zarinegar . I am a home owner in Desert Hills . My home is located within the 300
ft vicinity of the proposed 80 ft Tower project .
I never received any mail with notification of this project , nor did my 2 neighbors. This information
has not been properly brought to the communities attention.
I just found out about this , via word of mouth . I am livid that this is being considered. Please do
not allow this hideous 80 foot brown painted tower of metal to go up ! NO ONE in Desert Hills
would be ok with this. I saw the example email that Gary said he sent out to 540 people . It looked
like SPAM . No one would open that. If the subject line said “ 80 Foot Cell Tower going up close to
your home” I guarantee people would open that email and respond as OPPOSED .
I would like to see proof that he sent out paper mail to all the residents within 300 feet . ?
I am not comfortable with the health risks involved with a 5G tower so close to our homes. I would
like to see proof that it will not cause mental and physical health issues in the long term or short .
I read line #7. Regarding Property values are not a basis for project evaluation , rather projects are
evaluated on the basis of their compliance with the code ( which this project is NOT , given the
offset amendment they are requesting) Or the Code which is to achieve a balance of benefits and
costs for the community as a whole.
Property Values Do effect the community as a whole and it will cost our community greatly in health
and financially . NO ONE wants to live next to a high powered Frequency Tower .
PLEASE DO NOT DO APPROVE THIS
Name : Kori Zarinegar Desert Hills Resident
Address 37815 10th Ave
Phone: 480-258-7344
Position : OPPOSED !!
Case # Z2021044
Vertical Bridge / T MObile AZ -5068
Hearing Date : 7/8/2021
Kori Zarinegar
480-258-7344

From: paul buff
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: Cell tower installation at 7th ave and Desert Hills
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2021 12:17:01 PM
Hello Sean,
I hope you and yours are doing well. I have lived in Desert Hills since April of 2006. I oppose any new
cell tower installations in Desert Hills. Please have new providers use existing sites. Keep the visual
disturbance in those areas. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Buff

From: synergstx@aol.com
To: Sean Watkins (PND)
Subject: Re: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2021 8:55:51 AM
PS; The photo map is obsolete by many years, which tells me of misleading behaviour. our house built in
2001v wqsnt even on there.
John W.
-----Original Message-----
From: synergstx@ aol.com
To: synergstx@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 9:45 pm
Subject: Fwd: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
-----Original Message-----
From: synergstx@aol.com
To: sean.watkins@maricopa.gov <sean.watkins@maricopa.gov>; synergstx@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 9:44 pm
Subject: reference: AZ-5068-special use permit case Z2021044
Jul 7 2021
from John H Williams, Carol A Williams at 39714 N 3rde Ave, Phoenix AZ 85086 nearby about 1500 feet
north of proposed T Mobile cell antenna tower location. We adamantly oppose this project for following
reasons:
1. other more3 open areas are nearby to the north.
2. we will ne near unknown radiation RF levels emitting from antennas.
3. Tower proposed to be 80 fees high which make3s it visible from our neighborhood.
4. finish is only painy instead of the cortex finish
5. cars on desert hills road will be blasted by RF emission from antennas day and night.
6. sound levels from equipment / housing will be heart by us, our neighbors.
7. We feel this project has been strung on us without much chance to have adequate time to review all
aspects of proposal (radiation, sound, etc.
8 We dont have time to take part the meeting Jul 8 in downtown PHX to intelligently deal with this. PS
looks like we are excluded anyway.
9. Added parts of the plan is to add more antennas, equipment with further impacts (RF, etc)
10 for this we soundly oppose this project as many of our neighbors do !!
John H. Williams, Carol A Williams July 7 2021 PM

From: Garrett Frix
To: Sean Watkins (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: 7/8/21 Agenda for 5G Z2021044
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2021 10:34:02 AM
Hello Rachel and Sean,
I am in opposition to building the new wireless communication facility special use permit Z2021044 on parcel 211-
23-014F.
I live in Anthem at 40713 N Territory Trail and we do not want this 5G technology brought to this area in North
Phoenix.
We have serious concerns about the safety of this and do not want it here in Desert Hills.
Thank you,
Garrett Frix
Sent from my iPhone

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed
on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received
within 15 calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on
the regular agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
 Submit this form to the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department:
501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Fax Number: 602-506-3711
Hours of Operation: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
 This appeal can also be submitted via e-mail at the following e-mail address:
PZAppeal@mail.maricopa.gov
- Appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation
 The Appeal Form can also be submitted on the Maricopa County Planning & Development
website at the following web address:
http://www.maricopa.gov/799/Boards-and-Commissions
Please print clearly.
Case Number/ Project Name: Z2021044–Vertical Bridge / T-Mobile AZ-5068
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date: July 8, 2021
Appellant Name: Alan & Candy Muller
Mailing Address: 39307 N 9th Ave
City, State, Zip Code: Desert Hills, AZ 85086-0505
Telephone Number: (602) 432-2800 E-mail: 4DaisyMountain@gmail.com
Reason for the Appeal of the
subject case: This is a commercial property in the middle of a residential community.
if the tower was 65', and cortens rust was used (like the APS poles) it would blend into the community.
Also the safety protocol of 2' out for every foot up would be closer in distance to the lot line. The only
reason T-Mobile needs 80' is so they lease space below. The community would prefer no commercial
WCF in the middle of our residential community. Let's do the 65' and make this the example if need be!
Appellant Signature: Date: July 2, 2021