This was tabled due to concerns and questions that received very limited responses. Questions included:

- What study has been given to siting this facility on East Tech High School? Please provide additional analysis for sites near this area to determine feasibility or lack of it for an alternative location.

- Identify a site that is owned by a non-profit group or public entity to reap the monetary benefit of this transaction. Current property owner has not been responsible in maintaining property to a safe and aesthetic standard - has stored 2 inoperable tractor trailers on site, parcel is overgrown with weeds.

- Provide additional information (due diligence) for site selection.

- Although the application is for a 90' structure, there is the potential for the tower to reach 120'

- It is suggested to the applicant to have a publicv meeting with the community and neighboring residents/stakeholders for feedback. This will be required as the proposal will require a zoning variance. There should be concern for any precedence being set.

- There is concern for the homes across the street, those families invested in those homes in the hopes of making a good investment for their families and futures, as well as potential positive growth in that neighborhood.

- This was not discussed at the meeting but it would be helpful to provide information on health risks to living so close to these cell towers with all of the invisible wireless frequencies being concentrated in one small area.

We didn't get very deep into the design review on this project.  Comments on fencing, landscaping, any site lighting, existing trees, and the driveway placement all need to be reviewed.

Applicant expressed an interest in going to the Planning Commission on August 4th.

The committee disaproved this project as the applicant didn't provide information that was requested from the previous meeting on July 25th. The Committee requested documentation of comparing alternative sites for this project.

The Committee also requested the applicant provide due diligence for this particular site. None was provided.

The Committee asked whether there were a specific community benefit that would provide lower service rates for subscribers in the immediate area.

The only change in the submission is not significant. The site plan shows the fence surrounding the compound enclosure from wood to chain link with barbed wire. Applicant did not provide a landscape plan.

There was no gesture to propose concealment of the facility located directly across from market-rate homes on E 57th Street.

The response to the suggestion to study situating the facility on East Tech High School  included a letter from a T-Mobile Site Development Manager whose response was vague.  Kit Nickel stated "Our site development partners have approached the Cleveland Metropolitan School District in the past on our behalr, and the district does not lease space for either rooftop antennas or new monopoles.  For this reason, we are unable to consider a location on Cleveland School District property."